Wow, wait just a second Damarius!! First of all who I am has nothing to do with GT football. I am a Tech fan and have been probably before you were in diapers! Secondly, I am not saying that our recruiting classes under Chan have been that bad, I'm just saying that I think that Chan thinks that we really can't convince top athletes to come to Tech.
Recruiting Question..
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
Patriot - thanks for contributing your perspective on the board - it is always refreshing to see a HS coach in Ga who is a Tech supporter - it seems there are so many UGA, AU, etc influences out there.
I don't think you can really consider the 2001 class Chans first, since he came into the process so late, and as you know better than I recruiting is a year-round effort, with camps, evaluation, etc.
I know one can't judge a class before it even matriculates, but going on paper, last years class was a mixed bag. In my worthless opinion, the top 10 or so of our class were outstanding - kids that I would have been thrilled about even in O'leary's best years. Even a few that didn't get much ink in the SE, such as Nick Moore, look outstanding on film.
That having been said, clearly the "quality" of this class looks very thin on paper when you get to the final 6 or so. Throw in the fact that it seemed there was interest by several highly touted players with good academics, as well as us not signing the full allotment, and you are left wondering what "could have been" with last years class.
As I am sure you are aware, since you are in the biz, it seems GT has gotten out of the gate much better this year. We are listed with many blue chip prospects, as opposed to last year when the "silence was deafening" at the beginning of the summer.
Something in these posts does not make sense to me, however - at the beginning of the thread, you pose the question 'is GT not going after the better SA's?, and taking offers from kids who may not be able to contribute at this level'. This is a legitamte question.
However, when tommie lists a few of the top prospects who are mentioning GT, you wonder how many of those we will be able to close.
It seems to me we can't have it both ways - I'm not sure what it means to say 'these kids aren't good enough' and at the same time say 'we can't close the good ones'. I guess that means we don't field a football team.
That was tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.
As a long time follower of recruiting and GT, as you are aware the 'early commitments' are often kids that you require to committ early to keep the 'ship. I do think the staff is looking for some numbers in OL, and our FB needs are evident as well. I would be surprised to see us take early offers from secondary prospects right now, for example.
I don't think you can tell much about this years class from just the first 2 signees - both seem to be strong academically, and both seemed to be kids who have the size to certainly play at this level, but that is about it.
Personally, I am wary of going much into Pennsylvania - GT has a *horrible* record of success with the Pennsylvania recruits we have had over the last 15 years (we had many under Ross late and Lewis that just never contributed anything). The Penn kid had early offers from 2 Big 10 schools - but you always also like to see the in-state schools offering as well.
The OL from Nebraska - that is sort of an odd bird, so it's hard to judge, although he certainly seems to have the frame and intelligence.
All one idiots opinion, of course, but its sort of early to panic, I would say. You mention Grant and Scott - Grant was a late Dec committ, and Scott a Jan committ, so we have plenty of time. But with our existing numbers so low, I would think the staff will make sure we get at least 25 who they think can contribute.
I don't think you can really consider the 2001 class Chans first, since he came into the process so late, and as you know better than I recruiting is a year-round effort, with camps, evaluation, etc.
I know one can't judge a class before it even matriculates, but going on paper, last years class was a mixed bag. In my worthless opinion, the top 10 or so of our class were outstanding - kids that I would have been thrilled about even in O'leary's best years. Even a few that didn't get much ink in the SE, such as Nick Moore, look outstanding on film.
That having been said, clearly the "quality" of this class looks very thin on paper when you get to the final 6 or so. Throw in the fact that it seemed there was interest by several highly touted players with good academics, as well as us not signing the full allotment, and you are left wondering what "could have been" with last years class.
As I am sure you are aware, since you are in the biz, it seems GT has gotten out of the gate much better this year. We are listed with many blue chip prospects, as opposed to last year when the "silence was deafening" at the beginning of the summer.
Something in these posts does not make sense to me, however - at the beginning of the thread, you pose the question 'is GT not going after the better SA's?, and taking offers from kids who may not be able to contribute at this level'. This is a legitamte question.
However, when tommie lists a few of the top prospects who are mentioning GT, you wonder how many of those we will be able to close.
It seems to me we can't have it both ways - I'm not sure what it means to say 'these kids aren't good enough' and at the same time say 'we can't close the good ones'. I guess that means we don't field a football team.
That was tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.
As a long time follower of recruiting and GT, as you are aware the 'early commitments' are often kids that you require to committ early to keep the 'ship. I do think the staff is looking for some numbers in OL, and our FB needs are evident as well. I would be surprised to see us take early offers from secondary prospects right now, for example.
I don't think you can tell much about this years class from just the first 2 signees - both seem to be strong academically, and both seemed to be kids who have the size to certainly play at this level, but that is about it.
Personally, I am wary of going much into Pennsylvania - GT has a *horrible* record of success with the Pennsylvania recruits we have had over the last 15 years (we had many under Ross late and Lewis that just never contributed anything). The Penn kid had early offers from 2 Big 10 schools - but you always also like to see the in-state schools offering as well.
The OL from Nebraska - that is sort of an odd bird, so it's hard to judge, although he certainly seems to have the frame and intelligence.
All one idiots opinion, of course, but its sort of early to panic, I would say. You mention Grant and Scott - Grant was a late Dec committ, and Scott a Jan committ, so we have plenty of time. But with our existing numbers so low, I would think the staff will make sure we get at least 25 who they think can contribute.
BradJacket
Varsity Lurker
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Messages
- 75
Damarius: you might want to pull 4 of those players off of your list.
Tlar,B.......You make some very good points. First let me say that you hit the nail on the head about Chan's first recruiting class so I won't even go into that. I think that last year's class was a mixed bag. I think that we took a couple of kids like R. Ball for example ( I sure hate to call a kid out but maybe I'm wrong) who makes our class look better but when in reality he probably will never play a down at QB. Like I said I could be wrong but you'll see what I mean. OVERALL, I'm not saying that Chan and staff have done that bad of a recruiting job as much as I am saying TAKE it to the next level.
Here is an example: The two verbals that we have gotten could be solid( 1OL and either 1LB or FB whichever). Now, I know that we still have a lot of scholarships to give but these two men are set in stone unless THEY choose otherwise, because we would never go back on a kid's offer.(Hope your following me) So what if we have a chance to sign a fullback who is better than our commit, do we then move the commit to LB? Is he that good that he could play either side of the football for us (I hope that is the case but he just doesn't strike as being so good that he could play LB or FB for us) and is not not on other programs wish list?
Here is an example: The two verbals that we have gotten could be solid( 1OL and either 1LB or FB whichever). Now, I know that we still have a lot of scholarships to give but these two men are set in stone unless THEY choose otherwise, because we would never go back on a kid's offer.(Hope your following me) So what if we have a chance to sign a fullback who is better than our commit, do we then move the commit to LB? Is he that good that he could play either side of the football for us (I hope that is the case but he just doesn't strike as being so good that he could play LB or FB for us) and is not not on other programs wish list?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Tiar... you know that Nick Moore broke his verbal & went somewhere else.. right? As a long time follower of recruitintg I'm surprised you used him as an example... Were you interjecting some hidden meaning into your post, and if you were what is it?
Ive heard Reggie will get his shot at QB but really wants to play WR. I have also heard it said that he is working a lot with Carter this summer. Just what I hear, take it for what its worth.
(Also heard Ball's leadership is the best thing he has going. He obviously has athletic ability, but you cant teach leadership)
(Also heard Ball's leadership is the best thing he has going. He obviously has athletic ability, but you cant teach leadership)
i guess you have to look it in this way.
the coaches offer recruits (and we've been offering scholarships to plenty who we feel are qualified enough) as soon as they assure themselves that the recruit can succeed at tech (will he? nobody knows).
if we get early commitments .. it's good news because we offered to these commitments (and i assume that we did our homework before making a scholarship offer and gailey's staff seems to be thorough at this aspect) and they seemed to be as interested in us.
it can also be bad news because as you suggest, they may not have been adequately evaluated and just jumped at an offer from us.
now there's something that the coaches have seen that you have not patriot. you yourself state that you've not seen the PA kid play. yet you make statements like he doesn't seem to be the kind who can play either LB or FB. is that again attributed to the "weird" feeling you have?
this early on .. the PA kid had offers from 2 other programs. other programs would have definitely been interested in him as the recruiting season would have progressed .. don't you think?
this kid was a second team all state LB as a junior and he played for a very weak high school team. now tell me if i'm wrong but it must be highly unusual to stand out and get recognition in losing efforts. PA is not exactly FB mecca but it's no pushover as a football state either.
i don't know .. in the plane that we are residing on .. things can be spun either ways. you just have to be good at spinning it the way you want to.
the coaches offer recruits (and we've been offering scholarships to plenty who we feel are qualified enough) as soon as they assure themselves that the recruit can succeed at tech (will he? nobody knows).
if we get early commitments .. it's good news because we offered to these commitments (and i assume that we did our homework before making a scholarship offer and gailey's staff seems to be thorough at this aspect) and they seemed to be as interested in us.
it can also be bad news because as you suggest, they may not have been adequately evaluated and just jumped at an offer from us.
now there's something that the coaches have seen that you have not patriot. you yourself state that you've not seen the PA kid play. yet you make statements like he doesn't seem to be the kind who can play either LB or FB. is that again attributed to the "weird" feeling you have?
this early on .. the PA kid had offers from 2 other programs. other programs would have definitely been interested in him as the recruiting season would have progressed .. don't you think?
this kid was a second team all state LB as a junior and he played for a very weak high school team. now tell me if i'm wrong but it must be highly unusual to stand out and get recognition in losing efforts. PA is not exactly FB mecca but it's no pushover as a football state either.
i don't know .. in the plane that we are residing on .. things can be spun either ways. you just have to be good at spinning it the way you want to.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">WannaBee .. you know that Nick Moore is a yellow jacket and will most likely see playing time this coming season don't you?
am ..A .. zing
Link ---> Nick Moore: Yellow Jacket
for a winner tech fan, you don't keep up do ya?
Thanks ahsoisee! I've been quiet here for a long time but I got bored this summer so figured that I would start posting.
Reggie won't play QB but is a GREAT athlete. If anyone in that class plays QB it will be Carter. Expect us to go after a another QB this year because Carter is really raw and I would not be a bit suprised if both end up at WR.
Reggie won't play QB but is a GREAT athlete. If anyone in that class plays QB it will be Carter. Expect us to go after a another QB this year because Carter is really raw and I would not be a bit suprised if both end up at WR.
btw .. we seem to think highly of nick moore. looks like nick and justin have awfully similar profiles.
wannabee, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think that you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
to everybody, if you haven't figured it out, i'm a hopeless homer. no apologies extended, hopefully none were required. but i do need to tone my belligerence down. will try.
wannabee, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think that you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
to everybody, if you haven't figured it out, i'm a hopeless homer. no apologies extended, hopefully none were required. but i do need to tone my belligerence down. will try.
BeeBad - Of course Nick Moore verbally committed to GT, then switched to Iowa State, but he signed his LOI with GT on signing day.
Are you saying that since signing day, Nick Moore has decided not to matriculate to GT? This would be news to everyone, I think, and it would of course require Mssr Moore to sit out at least 1 year in his transfer.
Surely you are not referring to Nick Moore's original de-comitt to Iowa State during recruiting season, when he did in fact sign with GT?
Are you saying that since signing day, Nick Moore has decided not to matriculate to GT? This would be news to everyone, I think, and it would of course require Mssr Moore to sit out at least 1 year in his transfer.
Surely you are not referring to Nick Moore's original de-comitt to Iowa State during recruiting season, when he did in fact sign with GT?
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Glad to see I was wrong and Moore is indeed a Jacket.. Last memory of him was of his reneging on his verbal and saying he was going to I believe Iowa State...
As the saying goes, ylo.. "Every now & then every squirrel gets an acorn"... frame it, may be your last acorn for a long while...
As the saying goes, ylo.. "Every now & then every squirrel gets an acorn"... frame it, may be your last acorn for a long while...
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
BeeBad, do you know the expression, "BIOYA"?
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Patriot: Thanks for you insight and some good recruiting evals - being in the high school ranks, you bring a lot to the table.
Clito Jacket
Varsity Lurker
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 65
Patriot, I've never seen Ball or Carter play, but from what I read about him during the recruiting season he seemed to have the best chance of anyone on the team of being an option quarterback based on his combination of speed, quickness, and poise. We know that Chan likes the option. So what am I missing? Why do you think he has no chance to play qb at Tech?
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">our coaching staff is not high on the option. patrick nix said so unequivocally at a lunch bunch, which i was fortunate to attend.
i'm hoping for improved QB play in basic sets. i'm hoping that when we call for a pass, we can throw it to our guy.
Tlar,B
I can't give you a precise answer. I can only tell you that it is a variety of things that gives me this feeling.
Conversations with our staff members..yes
Things I read on the internet....yes
Watching other h.s players and our past recruits....yes
Talking to other h.s coaches....yes
I am just concerned!!
On the recruit from Penn- When coaches offer a kid and tell him "We can't decide if we'll play you at FB or LB then the kid is normally a STUD and I just don't get that feeling with this one. Therefore it makes me wonder. Does that help?
I can't give you a precise answer. I can only tell you that it is a variety of things that gives me this feeling.
Conversations with our staff members..yes
Things I read on the internet....yes
Watching other h.s players and our past recruits....yes
Talking to other h.s coaches....yes
I am just concerned!!
On the recruit from Penn- When coaches offer a kid and tell him "We can't decide if we'll play you at FB or LB then the kid is normally a STUD and I just don't get that feeling with this one. Therefore it makes me wonder. Does that help?