if we get 23 is everyone going to be happy?

law_bee

law_bee

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
6,402
assuming we keep the ~16 we have now and rumors are we added 2 more this weekend that puts us at 18.

We are 5 off 23 which has been thrown out by our coaches.

I just hear the complaining and I am not convinced it has merrit. I do know we have been kept out of the loop but so what. If we get Scott than we may be sitting pretty good.

I think criticisms should be held until after signing day. IMO
 
I agree Lawbee... I am not sure how anyone could say they are "disappointed" yet... although I enjoy all the recruiting sites, I take them with a grain of salt... there have been many who were highly ranked coming out of high school only to be complete busts once they get into college...

I still hear people talking about the disappointment last year.. I wasnt disappointed last year... I think we got a great class last year.. thought it then and still do...

All of this makes for good conversation... but we are approximately a month away from signing day... lets see what the coaches do...
 
Since the top 4 or 5 signees from this class will likely make 80-90%(highly scientific) of the on the field impact of the class, I'm much more concerned about how good those few are. It would be troubling though to have 2 small classes back to back. Last year's quality in terms of who else OFFERED them was quite good, and if we can match that with our remaining ships then I think we will be ok. If a third of this class only gets offers from Temple,Vandy,& TCU...then we are in trouble and will go out of our way to talk ourselves into the: Maybe we can coach em up, and/or maybe they are all sleepers because the coaches know all, or so and so made it to the NFL and he was a 1 star, etc. etc. THWG
 
LawBee, I will be concerned if we finish up with less than our full allotment again. I know last year we gave out 2-3 less schollys than we had available. At least partially understandable due to the coaching change. But if we have two years in a row where we can not interest enough kids in coming to GT I will be worried. It would be a signal to me that we are not a "program" that can attract kids in and of itself.
 
cyclejacket I think you're missing part of the point. We certainly will miss on some kids we want. But we also aren't giving 'ships to kids just to fill out a class. There are a number of threads on this board about kids who supposedly want to come here that we haven't offered. If it was simply about getting 25 new players we wouldn't have any trouble doing that. But the staff is only interested in getting players they feel fit into what we are doing and will help us win. Certainly we will miss on some both ways, kids will be better than we think and others won't be as good. But our staff has been saying for a while that they expect to sign 23. If that's a problem for you, then you might as well go ahead an be upset.
 
I agree with the point that we shouldn't just give out ships to kids to help fill out a class. But the fact will remain that for at least two years in a row will we not have given out out full allotment of available scholarships. It also afects depth available for the coaches to use when you don't carry your full contingent of 85 players. I know in the past that we have tried to reserve some for walk-ons but that number can also come from the inevitable defections and other casualties over the spring and summer. I can also remember a couple of years when we had so many quality kids wanting to be a part of the program that we had to ask a couple to wait until January to enroll. BTW: Upset was not my word, I said concerned. I think I've explained why and you know that I am not a basher of the coaching staff.
 
cycle, no issues here, just a little different slant on your original post. Most teams don't have their full 85 I don't think, there is always some attrition or last minute changes of heart.
 
As has been stated i don't think quantity is the issue.We can get 23-25 players but WHO we get is paramount.The best example is that there are a lot of 300lb fatboys out there but do you want them just to say you have a 300 pounder.
Along that same line ,last year we didn't get much beef and I don't see much in the way of BIG LBs or really big linemen (except the DT from Fla).
It will be interesting to see how we finish after all the speculation.
 
I think everyone knows how I feel about Chan but honesty compels me to defend him here. What my take on his announcement that he would sign 23 and he went on to say if the right one's become available we could sign more. I know that Scott has said he wasn't going to commit until he had taken all his trips and he said on other occasions that it would be on signing day before he made an announcement as to his destination. If Chan didn't have a cut-off short of 25, he wouldn't be in a position to take him at the last moment. Also I suspect that we may have more than one that will take this route as well. I never thought that Chan would intentionally not use the
ships available to him. Also by holding a ship for these 4 star players we run a risk that they will go elsewhere and we are left with the 23 he said he would sign.
 
Cyclejacket. What is it about not giving out a full allotment of 'ships as you say it is fact that's so bad for our program. What information do you have that the coaches don't that tells you this is bad? How many scholarship athlets did we have on football last year on the team? How many walk ons were granted 'ships. Why has coach Gailey said 23 publicly as a number? Do you think there is reasoning behind that number, or is it the fact we can't fill out 'ships? Come on now. GRRRRR.
mad.gif
 
We should give out all available scholarships. Most years that means 25. Some years due to transfers and walkons being granted scholarships you have less to offer. The maximum number of scholarships possible for the entire team is 85.

If 23 is what is available, by all means we need to find 23 football players. Football is a game of attrition by it's nature of being as brutal a game as it is. At Tech academics compound the possiblity of losing players prior to their full 4 years of eligibility being used. Just the nature of recruiting being an educated guess means a large percentage of the players you give scholarships to will have limited impact on the program.

To not give out all scholarships would be a huge mistake and mismanagement of the recruiting process. If we have 23 to give then by all means let's find 23 potential student atheletes to give them to. Waiting to the last minute won't cut it. At some point prior to signing day you have to either secure the commitment from the kid or move on to your next man on the list. We don't need to be stuck looking for some overlooked stragglers to bring in after signing day. Rarely do these types work out.

Just my opinion!

Go Jackets!
 
Its not a bad thing to save 1 or 2 ships for walkons. The main thing is for Chan to get the kids he feels he can reach through coaching and also good players. I would much rather take a kid who has great character and coachable than a great athlete who might cause trouble one way or another. I think if you can't fill up with quality kids then you shouldn't sign just get the maximum number. Now also that doesn't mean good character kids can't have mean streak about them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top