Jordan Yates

johncu said:
Both of the last 2 Heisman winners are QBs shorter than Jordan Yates. One just went #1 overall in the NFL Draft, and the other will probably be top 10 in the next draft. I think he'll be fine at 6'1.
Click to expand...

He’s 5’11 according to a few sites.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. All I’m saying is the staff isn’t aiming for that in future QB recruits.
 
As Barry Manilow would say "Looks like we made it". Finally got us a Four star. Now we can feel completed.

Go Jackets!
 
Well damn, if Georgia Tech is looking for a 6-foot four pocket passer then maybe we should have hired The Whiz!
 
GTCrew said:
I dont know jack on the specifics for Yates, but I need to add a fact. The top QBs today are absolutely capable of playing at a D1 level including reading defenses on day 1. This is a big change from even a decade ago. The QB instruction at top high schools has made huge strides but more important is the QB academies and personal QB trainers that are being paid to develop these kids much earlier than previously.
Click to expand...

It’s been that way for at least 10 years.
 
Lots of autism spectrum in this thread...

1) This bump is their latest revision reflecting late season and playoff performance. He played his way to this bump, it's not anything related to coaching change on our end.
2) It's fine to target tall QBs going forward. They're typically more successful. How is that idea even remotely controversial? Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean we should base strategy off of that fact.
 
JacketForLife said:
It’s been that way for at least 10 years.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but not much more than that with occasional exceptions (most always coaches' kids or former pro QB's kids). It is a lot more prominant now. There are a lot more HS kids being heavily groomed and invested in.
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
2) It's fine to target tall QBs going forward. They're typically more successful. How is that idea even remotely controversial? Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean we should base strategy off of that fact.
Click to expand...
I think people are just being realistic, because tall spectacular QBs are extremely rare. With our new staff we are going to shoot for 'em. Crossing our fingers. Odds however are more toward us having 6 ft qbs.
 
JacketForLife said:
He’s 5’11 according to a few sites.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. All I’m saying is the staff isn’t aiming for that in future QB recruits.
Click to expand...
There's a 5'9" heisman trophy winner and future first round pick that demonstrates QB requirements are evolving. While under 6' will always be at a disadvantage compared to the 6'6 Trevor Lawrence specimens, they can still have a great college career and are no longer below a glass floor barrier into the NFL. Joe Ham had no chance in the league 20 years ago. Joe Ham in 2019 would at least be given a decent look.
 
TampaBayJacket said:
There's a 5'9" heisman trophy winner and future first round pick that demonstrates QB requirements are evolving. While under 6' will always be at a disadvantage compared to the 6'6 Trevor Lawrence specimens, they can still have a great college career and are no longer below a glass floor barrier into the NFL. Joe Ham had no chance in the league 20 years ago. Joe Ham in 2019 would at least be given a decent look.
Click to expand...
Let’s see if he performs or not before we go touting sub 6’ QBs in the NFL
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
Lots of autism spectrum in this thread...

1) This bump is their latest revision reflecting late season and playoff performance. He played his way to this bump, it's not anything related to coaching change on our end.
Click to expand...

The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
 
GoGATech said:
The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
Click to expand...
So do people seriously think that there are enough Tech fans to move the needle on recruiting site revenue? If it’s that important to you why not post a question on the recruiting board you are interested in?
 
GoGATech said:
The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
Click to expand...
They do groups of recruits in each revision. He wasn't included in the previous revisions. Can you provide any evidence that he was reevaluated between the playoffs and this revision?
 
I have no issue whatsoever with tall QBs, and I agree that height is an advantage. But so is mobility. I'd rather have a 5'10 QB that can run than a 6'5 QB that is a statue, if their arm strength and accuracy is the same. Look at our starting QBs since Joe Ham:

Marshall - 5'10
Thomas - 5'10
Lee - 6'1
Washington - 6'0
Nesbitt - 6'1
Bennett - 6'3
Ball - 5'11
Suggs - 6'4
Godsey - 6'2
Hamilton - 5'10

Arguably the 2 best QB's we've had in the modern era were both 5'10. We only had 2 QB's taller than 6'2, and they were the worst QB's we've had in at least 25 years. I just don't understand the fascination with a big QB, especially with our current personnel and our OC's expressed desire to run "multiple" systems. A QB that can't run dramatically reduces what you can do on offense in this day and age. I know tall =/= slow, but there's definitely a correlation.
 
MeatWrench said:
Let’s see if he performs or not before we go touting sub 6’ QBs in the NFL
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree. I'm actually not sold on him but I'm intrigued to see if a 5'9, slightly-built, QB can play in the NFL. Russell Wilson is not a good comparison because he is thickly built and has abnormally large hands for his size. Plus, RW was a 4-year starter with a lot of tape to verify he could play at a sustained level.
 
johncu said:
I have no issue whatsoever with tall QBs, and I agree that height is an advantage. But so is mobility. I'd rather have a 5'10 QB that can run than a 6'5 QB that is a statue, if their arm strength and accuracy is the same. Look at our starting QBs since Joe Ham:

Marshall - 5'10
Thomas - 5'10
Lee - 6'1
Washington - 6'0
Nesbitt - 6'1
Bennett - 6'3
Ball - 5'11
Suggs - 6'4
Godsey - 6'2
Hamilton - 5'10

Arguably the 2 best QB's we've had in the modern era were both 5'10. We only had 2 QB's taller than 6'2, and they were the worst QB's we've had in at least 25 years. I just don't understand the fascination with a big QB, especially with our current personnel and our OC's expressed desire to run "multiple" systems. A QB that can't run dramatically reduces what you can do on offense in this day and age. I know tall =/= slow, but there's definitely a correlation.
Click to expand...

Actually I doubt either Hamilton or Thomas was 5'10". We say height is an advantage, but the shorter, more athletic guys also have an advantage. They can run, and they don't have to be in an option oriented offense for this to matter (e.g., Russell Wilson).
 
GSOJacket said:
Let's wait a bit and see what develops. I remember seeing Fran Tarkenton in the Tech-Georgia freshman game many years ago. Tarkenton was basically a running QB at that point, barely adequate passer.
Click to expand...


Remember who GT frosh QB was by any chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top