NEW Commitment!

Originally posted by CrackerJacket:
.

And I cannot believe people are talking about
beeware in a thread that he has not even posted
in.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Cracker. There was a post in this thread by beeware. He either took it off or it was taken off by someone.
 
I always enjoy the Monday Night Football feature where the players introduce themselves and say where they played college ball. There are plenty of "Miami" and "FSU"s, but there are also lots of "New Hampshire", "Central Oklahoma", and "UConn"s. We'll know in a couple of years if Gailey can recruit talent to win the ACC and beat Georgia. That's what he says he's aiming for.
 
It's highly probable IMO that the coaches did a great job evaluating and landing us a great recruit in Kevin. Now as for the biz about it not meaning much in terms of who else offers a kid...get real...it's very important and a much better indicator than ratings. Some posters are claiming Max knows so much while at the same time supporting the lengthy post of data about Rivals not ranking AA's! Ok, which is it guys?

If we recruit a class with several kids not highly recruited it will be a very telling indicator of where we are headed. Last year's class although small was in fact highly recruited and will likely pan out just fine. A few diamonds in the rough is a wonderful thing...several is a death blow. With the current 85 limit, the majors just can't make many mistakes, so if 2 or 3 of them have offered a kid, he is much more likely to contribute than any of Max's/Rivals 5 star or 10 ratings kids. THWG
 
I agree that the rankings (& early offers) hold some value but you can't be consumed by it.

I believe the rankings are least valuable for the OL position where size & technique are the most important attributes. This kid has the size (and 5.1 speed is good for an OL) and good technique can be taught by the coaches.
 
Originally posted by GoldZ:
It's highly probable IMO that the coaches did a great job evaluating and landing us a great recruit in Kevin. Now as for the biz about it not meaning much in terms of who else offers a kid...get real...it's very important and a much better indicator than ratings. Some posters are claiming Max knows so much while at the same time supporting the lengthy post of data about Rivals not ranking AA's! Ok, which is it guys?

If we recruit a class with several kids not highly recruited it will be a very telling indicator of where we are headed. Last year's class although small was in fact highly recruited and will likely pan out just fine. A few diamonds in the rough is a wonderful thing...several is a death blow. With the current 85 limit, the majors just can't make many mistakes, so if 2 or 3 of them have offered a kid, he is much more likely to contribute than any of Max's/Rivals 5 star or 10 ratings kids. THWG
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Goldz, we don't know who offered the young man. We don't know the why either. It's not important what the recruiting service says in that regard because it's not always accurate. That's just my opinion.

I do agree that it can be a much better indicator who offers a young man compared to rankings. The truth is we don't know who has offered or why.
 
Originally posted by bellyseries:
I always enjoy the Monday Night Football feature where the players introduce themselves and say where they played college ball. There are plenty of "Miami" and "FSU"s, but there are also lots of "New Hampshire", "Central Oklahoma", and "UConn"s. We'll know in a couple of years if Gailey can recruit talent to win the ACC and beat Georgia. That's what he says he's aiming for.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">That is unbelievable to see where these starters in the NFL played college ball. Seems like around half are not from major college programs. The development of talent is just as important as recruiting good talent. Many players do not fully develop until they reach college, and only those who have personally seen the kid play can determine whether they have the potential to be good college players.
 
I don't post much on this board but I can't take much more of Techrod.

I just have to say this.....

Techrod, I have not seen one post from you that has NOT been negative.

NOT ONE!!!

Do you mind keeping it to yourself?

I think I'll enjoy my winning season (despite crucial injuries and a new staff) and my 4 star recruits.
 
First I NEVER said Curry was a great recruiter. Youj can read every post I ever wrote and you will NOT find a quote like that. I said I helped. Second I never said ratings mattered. Its the actual offers and if ALL your signees are of the Toledo and Vandy TYPE programs you will be VERY VERY DISAPOINTED in your future records. I can promise you that much. I also give and I had given you people credit that Kevin may turn out to be great. YOU JUST DON'T WANT A CLASS FULL OF EM. Two good examples of signees that were not recruited by the top programs areMarco Coleman and Brooking. These are the exceptions. These all americans and nfl players you people talk about that were not recruited by the top programs and played for these smaller schools; well there team they came from were not division 1 top 30. Furthermore some of these players might have been offered by a top 30 and one reason or another could not or didn't want to attend a top 30. You better hope you start seeing the Fl. FSU, Ga LsU Texas, penn st. and the like on most of our signees OFFERED list.
 
Those that want to bash our newest commit b/c he's not as highly touted as you'd like, go ahead you're free to do it, but I'd like to point out a few things first.

1) To correctly state who all has offered him, the list as I know it is: Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Toledo, Cincy, Louisville, & Northwestern. Granted those aren't all powerhouses but that indicates plenty of interest in a solid line prospect. He's certainly not a nobody.

2) Before Reilly was our center, walk-on David Schmidgal was. It is VERY hard to read OL talent and especially Centers, which appears to be where he's heading. He would be a huge center and we will likely groom him to compete for Reilly's spot in 2004. I don't mind taking a well built prospect that will be in position to join the fray in 2 years or so. We need numbers and he's as solid a prospect as any Center.

3) Just a brief story on Gailey and evaluating talent. Last year there was an OL who's brother played for GT as a walk-on defensive player. Everyone wondered why he didn't have an offer here but Auburn was willing to take him on despite the fact that he was 6'7", 300+ and wanted to go to GT. The fact is that our coaches had see him play several times and didn't feel like he'd be worth spending a ship on despite the fact that we weren't going to fill up all of our slots. My point is not to bash this player, but to reassure those that want to be that we won't just offer a player b/c he loves GT and has offers from other big southeastern programs. I can respect that they let him go to Auburn b/c they felt he couldn't help us. Because of that I feel that they (& Max Emfinger) saw something in Kevin Tuminello that some other major programs didn't.

I just thought I'd share that info and some of my opinions to add to the discussion. Carry on!
grin.gif
 
I am very glad to have Kevin on board for the jackets! I am not really concerned with recruiting rankings or who offered him. Seems to me that we took Tony Hargrove a couple of years ago with our last scholarship available and look how he's turned out! On the other hand, Hobie Holiday and Albert Poree would have been the crown jewels of any recruiting class, and look what happened there.

Interesting comments about who winds up in the pros. Everytime I watch the players introduced at a pro game, I'm amazed. Guys like Jesse Tuggle who played at Valdosta State, Ray Buchanan played at Louisville, Gerald McBurrows at Kansas, Marshall Faulk at San Diego St., Kurt Warner at Northern Iowa, Brett Favre at Southern Miss, Brian Urlacher at New Mexico-- there are innumerable players that played at insignificant D-1 programs and more than a few that even played 1-AA or D-II.
 
Hey, I don't care who is, or is not, recruiting a kid. It is the coaching staff's job to assess his talents. If they think he is good, we can only wait until he enrols at Tech and see how he progresses.

It would be sort of foolish to judge him before he ever plays a down at Tech.

I think we could use a ton of 6'5' 285lb linemen. Sounds pretty good to me. If he is rated 4star, he has to be considered a good prospect.

wink.gif
 
I don't know anything about Kevin, as this is the first time I have read about him.He seems to be a solid player and I welcome him to the Tech family.
But I understand what Techrod is saying. Regardless of how flippant we are about the ratings of players and the inexact science of predicting who will do well at the college level
only the foolish would deny that the teams that
consistently signs the BLUE CHIPPER or the 4 and 5 star players are the same ones that occupy the top ten and top 20 year after year. I am aware that many 2 and 3 star rated players excel as well, but the truth of the matter is that if a teams recruiting haul is predicated on the so call sleepers, that team will be in deep dodo on most game days. Having said that,I have been fairly well pleased with the kids we have committed to us, we just don't have enough of them.
 
When on earth has our recruiting been predicated on slow call sleepers? If you understand recruiting, offensive line is the hardest position to rate. There is not a hell of a difference in a one star and a four star. Skill positions there is a little validity in the rating system. Look again at the guys who are doing ratings for hundreds of players.........who do you think is a better judge of talent....the coaches or the guru's. Half the time they don't rate a guy until he commits anyhow. The moderators should change this board from "Stingtalk" to "The Sky is Falling" because somedays this board has the biggest collection of chicken littles on the internet
 
I for one last time telling you all that the single most important indication of a WHOLE class of signees is the offered list. I don't care what position they are recruited for, but they better be on at least one top 30 programs offer list. That is at least 18 out of 25. Sure there are other players that work out, but not a whole class together. I dare say if your whole class is made up of 25 sleepers your team will be hurting big time down the road.
 
Techrod.....you sound like a broken record..you must be hanging out with Beeware
 
83Jacket, just trying to make myself clear with respect. I am not against Kevin coming to Tech contrary to popular belief, however most of our signees need to be- well you know the record by heart now.
 
I am quite sure that we will not sign a class full of sleepers. There will be plenty of talent in the class when it is all said and done. I would not get hung up on the ratings of offensive lineman........skill positions you can agonize over but offensive lineman are built not born
 
83jacket a lot of truth in that,but I haven,t mentioned rankings as the criterior with which to judge players.Only the offer
 
Also 83 jacket I looked up Dorsey,phillips, robinson,Blake,reilly,and Bennett and they all had very impressive offer list. I now promise no more talk of this from me at least until we have several more commitments. Lets hope for the "best"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top