next year success a must for recruiting

dressedcheeseside said:
Sounds like to me that this offense requires all cylinders to be working in perfect harmony for it to be successful. If one person misses their assignment, the play is defeated.

If that's the case, it will take quite a while to get it right. Things might seem to click in spring and fall camp, but there's no substitute for live competition. I remember Tater looking like Tom Brady and our receiving corps actually catching passes before the real games began.

Hopefully there's a shorter learning curve than what I expect and we have a soft early slate.
Click to expand...
So what's different about this than any other offense? When someone misses an assignment in football, no matter what system you run, someone else has to make up for it. No difference here. What it does do though is put more emphasis on DEFENSIVE assignments. If the QB is reading things correctly, if a defensive player misses an assignment, they get burned.
 
hiveredtech said:
PJ's base formation is a spread alignment. There are big "spread's" between the OL's...and a lot of legal chop blocks.
Click to expand...

Technically, there are no legal "chop" blocks. There are cut blocks, the OL cuts the DLs legs. Chop block refers to a blocker attempting to cut an already engaged defender.
 
Yup. Modern defenses use speed to overcome lack of discipline, by swarming to the football and compensating for the first guy missing. In 3O, they swarm to the wrong place.
 
Nah

On-field results in a given year mean less to recruits than you think. What matters is what they think will be true in the out years, particularly about their ability to play and the team's projected success. No one cares if ND went 3-9 last year. When Mack Brown was recruiting the daylights out of UNC, no one cared that they could not beat a rug.

We are going to do well next year. It should be better than 2007 and certainly 2008. A lot of spade work has already gone into recruiting for 2009, with favorable receptions. There is a lot of Georgia talent available to us. We will always get national interest from kids who would benefit most from a specialized offense like Paul's.

We might not always maximize our "star" count, since CPJ will want some low-ranked players more than some high-ranked players, but that does not stop our recruiting from being exceptional.

The staff holdovers - Giff, BJ, Kelly, Liam, Derrick, and the S&C staff are crucial to us maintaining the momentum for 2009. Beyond that, it's up to everyone on staff. But 2008 and 2009 are primarily in the hands of the holdovers - as well as the candor and believability of the current HFC.
 
Yes, 2009 recruiting will be crucial to us but, it will
not depend totally on our success in the fall of 08.
Most of the recruits will be committed before we even
play our first game. At least half will be anyway.
With our final number this year only being 18 or 19,
we will not only have room for 25 next year, but also
4 or 5 that can come in Jan. & count toward this
year's class.

I hope about 10 of these are good linemen on both
sides of the ball cause we're getting thin on our
lines.
 
the Belichik quote

I like PJ. Don't get me wrong.

But that quote could've been an off the cuff remark that's been blown wildly out of proportion by the desperate for validation segment of our fan base.

The guy on the thread earlier nailed it. The recruits care less whether or not the offense works at div i-a level. They care more if they personally will be showcased in it.

Some of that will be results and performance related. Some of it will be story crafting / selling.

But to the gentleman's earlier point. If we don't look good in this offense this year, we are in big trouble from a momentum standpoint.

Luckily the poodles have a small class this year so we should have more kids to pick from in state.
 
As a brief follow-up to Techbert regarding a team's on field success in a given year being a deciding recruitment factor, below, you'll find a some meaningful stats quoted from former GT SID / Asst. AD Norman Arey's "Hometown Headlines Sports Roundtable" Rome GA column yesterday:

"(1/28) Three economists have devised a complicated formula to predict where top high school football recruits will choose to go to school. The formula has proven to be 72 percent effective. So what do recruits really want? They usually pick the BCS conference school nearest their hometown that has the biggest on-campus stadium and won the most games last season. Last season, mind you, giving legs to the argument that recruits may be a little short-sighted."

You may want to check his column out, it's pretty insightful and pre-retirement, his expansive body of AJC writings starting back over 35 years ago were always very good. http://www.hometownheadlines.com/normanarey.htm
 
Lee34102 said:
...former GT SID / Asst. AD Norman Arey's "Hometown Headlines Sports Roundtable"... it's pretty insightful and pre-retirement, his expansive body of AJC writings starting back over 35 years ago were always very good. http://www.hometownheadlines.com/normanarey.htm
Click to expand...

This may be the first time I've heard The Dead One Described as insightful, and hopefully the last. He was an awful awful beat writer, the worst we ever had. The only reference I've heard of his expansive body has been his waistline.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, Norm.

In this case he confused cause and effect. If you reduced his analysis you are left with Big State School/National Football Factory with a built-in fan base. Building a huge stadium does not create fans (ask GT); fan demands leads to huge stadiums.

Same with winning. The Big State Schools/National Football Factories have won last year because they have recruited well the prior 5 years... because of who they are. Do you (or Norm) really think athletes will stop going to Texas or USC or Michigan or ND if those schools have a down year? Well, we get to test that. How's Notre Dame recruiting going?

They went 3-9. They have the best class in the nation right now. Norm Arey needs to load that into his doobie.
 
With all due respect, Techbert, the figure indicated by the research @ 72% is a valid one, your indicated comment / example notwithstanding. The remaining reciprocal numbers would simply therefore constitute the outstanding 28% (+ -) and could well include the schools you mention due to their respective presence in the overall NCAA football numeric matrix.

There's absolutely no need to disparage the reporting of numerical significance and perhaps interest to many via a wholly subjective attack on the professional reputation of a respected writer and reporter.

I followed Arey's columns for many years in the AJC, and enjoyed them as, apparently, did enough others to keep him reporting and getting paid for it over several decades.

First of all, my comment was not a criticism, but a statement of documented fact.

Secondly, it was most certainly not concocted at all.

And finally, please realize that this is a discussion about sports and the facts, figures and opinions that go along with it. This isn't an attack on your opinion, your intelligence or your right to make absolutely any observation you care to in this or any forum.

Relax, the facts quoted aren't about you at all, and no personal animus exists whatsoever.
 
Duly Noted

But Norm is not a statistician, and that 28% is huge. A multivariate analysis should give results well above 95% explained to even be taken seriously, and this is not even a stepwise regression.

No animus towards you, either. And if Norm floated your boat, that's fine. It takes all kinds in this world.

My position is that Norm was lazy AND a fool, and no friend of Georgia Tech after he left employment.
 
Good, let's both agree to disagree about Norm Arey and agree wholeheartedly on what we'd like to see happening on the Flats!

Have a great day, it's a brisk 74 here in Naples, and I'm heading out for a 1:30 tee time and a probable afternoon of abject frustration.
 
With all due respect, Techbert, the figure indicated by the research @ 72% is a valid one, your indicated comment / example notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
What Techbert's saying, is that the best recruits go to the football factories, and the football factories have good years approximately 72% of the time. So Norm's analysis fails by any scientific measure, because it shows a correlation, not causality.
 
Lee34102 said:
There's absolutely no need to disparage the reporting of numerical significance and perhaps interest to many via a wholly subjective attack on the professional reputation of a respected writer and reporter.

I followed Arey's columns for many years in the AJC, and enjoyed them as, apparently, did enough others to keep him reporting and getting paid for it over several decades.
Click to expand...
Arey is an idiot. The simple fact that he believes something is irrefutable proof that it is not true.
 
beej67 said:
What Techbert's saying, is that the best recruits go to the football factories, and the football factories have good years approximately 72% of the time. So Norm's analysis fails by any scientific measure, because it shows a correlation, not causality.
Click to expand...

Correlation vs. causation has nothing to do with it. Two variables can show very high correlation if they're both caused by a third unrelated variable. For example, Ice Cream sales and murders are highly correlated because both happen more on nice, sunny days. The rate of correlation has nothing to do with whether a correlation is spacious or not.

I personally don't see how that study is bogus. Picking 1 out of 119 schools correctly 72 percent of the time is pretty good. The 95 percent number techbert gave is for confidence intervals, something completely different.
 
floridajacket said:
Correlation vs. causation has nothing to do with it. Two variables can show very high correlation if they're both caused by a third unrelated variable. For example, Ice Cream sales and murders are highly correlated because both happen more on nice, sunny days. The rate of correlation has nothing to do with whether a correlation is spacious or not.
Click to expand...

I think you can agree that a municipality should not fight crime by outlawing ice cream.

Likewise, we are not guaranteed better recruiting if we decide to double our stadium size.

Further, we have no reason to agonize over how our won/loss record next year affects our next recruiting class. Intuitively, it shouldn't hurt, but that's about it.

What affects recruiting the most are the school's football status, which is hard to affect in the short term, the school's recruiting methodology, and ours have improved immensely in the last 2-3 years, the personalities of the staff, the pros and cons of the school (non-football), and the whims of the kids.

Everyone remembers the recruiting bump we got in 1991 based on our national championship season, right? It was non-existant.

The staff will try to win every football game. But they know that winning is no substitute for recruiting spadework, when it comes to getting commitments.
 
at times, success on the field can hurt recruiting. if you have a bunch of R-FR and SO starting and doing well, why would an incoming FR get much PT? or so one might think
 
If we win, recruiting will be fine. While I'd love to have a larger stadium for many reasons, I challenge anyone to say our place isn't as loud as Neyland or Tiger Stadium. With the metal bleachers and our folks stomping -- man, you almost need ear plugs! We just need to string together a couple of nice seasons and we'll start getting the guys we want.
 
dodd, our stadium used to be big time loud under certain conditions. I find that since the Braine club seat folly, that our stadium is just not that loud anymore. It certainly isn't loud on the side you'd want it to be loud anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top