Your honest opinion/ regarding recruiting

Helluva Entrepreneur said:
You are also wasting your time if you want to argue about whether the 40th ranked class is better than GT's 68th ranked class. The margin of error is too great when you are talking about ranking 20-3 star players. Some will be stars and some will not. Only time will tell. One of the only objective methods they use is number of recruits, so with 18 we get ranked lower than most teams who took 20-25 players almost by default. They dont care how many players we had room for or wanted to take. To the rankings 25>18 when you are talking about classes made up of mostly 3 stars.
Click to expand...

Word up.

Also not addressed are meeting your roster's greatest positions of need (ours were WR & DL). Then there is how well a prospect projects into a given team's system, which is very important and somewhat different for our offense.

From what I see on film and measurables these last two classes are a step up prospect-wise from the bunch that just won an Orange Bowl championship. If they can work just as hard, be just as close, and play for each other just as much they can do great things.

By the same token it's highly probable that this class is not a top 25 class. Doesn't mean we can't win big with it.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
You are also wasting your time if you want to argue about whether the 40th ranked class is better than GT's 68th ranked class. The margin of error is too great when you are talking about ranking 20-3 star players.
Click to expand...

The recruiting rankings would have a particularly difficult time with GT's early commits. A GT early commit, as opposed to a UNC early commit, can't visit other schools and is essentially off the market.

Even if the recruit gets new offers, the recruit very likely won't tell recruiting services. The ONLY way the services know about an offer is from the recruit. It's against NCAA rules for coaches to talk about any recruit before receiving an LOI.

Many people have suggested that CPJ should take the "offer isn't really an offer" approach of other schools. It just feels wrong to offer a 4* and a 3* for the same slot, where a 3* can accept but then have the offer rescinded if the 4* accepts.
 
Excellent point FL. That makes all the sense in the world and it is something fairly unique to GT. Shaq Mason is a great example there.

It also begs the question if a school says if you come visit we will offer is that tantamount to an offer? This happens a ton in January with a lot of guys. Freddie Burden turned down a Florida offer of this nature. Of course it went unreported and even if it had been when was the last time you saw a GT commit get a star bump like Douglas did when he flipped to the dwags? How many times have you seen a Tech guy lose a star? Would Devine have lost a star if he'd been a dwag? We know the answer.

All we can really say is it's unlikely we got a top 25 class. Beyond that imo it's better to use your own judgement based on needs, measureables, and film to gauge the class. When I looked and thought about it I came away much happier than in every year under Johnson except last year.
 
I agree we are unlikely to sign top 25 classes. No one has really addressed why we can't get a top 40 class though Like Duke, Maryland, and Pitt did.

I also disagree that outside the top classes you are ranking 20 3 stars and the rankings are therefore meaningless. According to Rivals Duke signed 4 4 stars and 14 3 stars. We signed 1 4 star and 10 3 stars. Duke also got 6 4 and 3 stars from GA. We will never be a top recruiting program but we can and should do better than this.

I want to add that I am a huge Paul Johnson fan and think he's a hell of a coach. He's proven that he can win big with average talent. 3 out of the last 4 years we aren't getting average talent, at least on paper.
 
I agree, Goldmember, getting in that 25-40 range by notching a few more guys who have more obvious difference-maker potential is what we need to be doing.

I do still believe if star rankings didn't exist, and all we had to go on was hudl film, measurables, and the meeting of specific needs, this class and last year's represent a step up from the previous classes in Johnson's tenure.

By way of example, Mills is as good a B-back prospect as we've had come in, all three WR recruits are big, fast, strong, and productive on film, Gantt is clearly a quality recruit, and QB Johnson has height, numbers running & throwing, and shows a live arm on film. Recruiting hasn't always been like this during the Johnson tenure.

I can think of plenty of guys on years past teams and some current players who had very unimpressive film or measurables.

As to why we can't break into the 25-40 category I think it's doable. Certainly Tech has some academic hurdles like kids needing certain classes, grades, and scores to get in, and GT has a lack of majors to choose from. It also has a reputation of being tough to get through which a lot of other programs get negative with (I'd think our APR would counter that line of negative recruiting though).

Maybe if we had followed the Orange Bowl Championship with another season ending in the top 25 it would have swung a few guys like Finley or Campbell our way. Part of the problem there is our previous classes have been inconsistent and we had a huge class of tr-fr.

Keep recruiting consistently at or better than the last two years and I bet we start more consistently putting up better records. Maybe then a few more guys will choose Tech who propel us into the 25-40 region consistently.

To add, one of Johnson's goals coming in was to build a good walk-on program. Dunno if it's a 1-year phenomena or not, but this year's PWO crop looks terrific. At GT every little bit helps, so it's good to see this goal apparently coming to fruition.
 
ElTechelero said:
I agree, Goldmember, getting in that 25-40 range by notching a few more guys who have more obvious difference-maker potential is what we need to be doing.

I do still believe if star rankings didn't exist, and all we had to go on was hudl film, measurables, and the meeting of specific needs, this class and last year's represent a step up from the previous classes in Johnson's tenure.

By way of example, Mills is as good a B-back prospect as we've had come in, all three WR recruits are big, fast, strong, and productive on film, Gantt is clearly a quality recruit, and QB Johnson has height, numbers running & throwing, and shows a live arm on film. Recruiting hasn't always been like this during the Johnson tenure.

I can think of plenty of guys on years past teams and some current players who had very unimpressive film or measurables.

As to why we can't break into the 25-40 category I think it's doable. Certainly Tech has some academic hurdles like kids needing certain classes, grades, and scores to get in, and GT has a lack of majors to choose from. It also has a reputation of being tough to get through which a lot of other programs get negative with (I'd think our APR would counter that line of negative recruiting though).

Maybe if we had followed the Orange Bowl Championship with another season ending in the top 25 it would have swung a few guys like Finley or Campbell our way. Part of the problem there is our previous classes have been inconsistent and we had a huge class of tr-fr.

Keep recruiting consistently at or better than the last two years and I bet we start more consistently putting up better records. Maybe then a few more guys will choose Tech who propel us into the 25-40 region consistently.

To add, one of Johnson's goals coming in was to build a good walk-on program. Dunno if it's a 1-year phenomena or not, but this year's PWO crop looks terrific. At GT every little bit helps, so it's good to see this goal apparently coming to fruition.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said. Last years class i know was coming off an Orange Bowl victory and top 10 finish but that type of class should be the expectation. Some years you exceed that and others you fall short but that should be around our average.

We've been recruiting below our weight class for some time now. A moderate improvement is both feasible and would over time IMO upgrade the overall talent, giving us more difference makers on both sides of the ball.

We've been to 2 Orange Bowls under Johnson, the team that won the OB was built entirely from these types of recruiting classes. I would love to see what we could do if we could get into that 25 - 40 range consistently.
 
goldmember said:
I also disagree that outside the top classes you are ranking 20 3 stars and the rankings are therefore meaningless. According to Rivals Duke signed 4 4 stars and 14 3 stars. We signed 1 4 star and 10 3 stars. Duke also got 6 4 and 3 stars from GA. We will never be a top recruiting program but we can and should do better than this.
Click to expand...

I still disagree.

Duke's average recruit was a 5.6. That's a 3 star.

Our average recruit was a 5.5. Also a 3 star.

When you are talking about middle graded players, I just dont see how that is too significant. Too many 2 and 3 stars end up being studs while low 4 stars can flop...we have had many examples of both. Duke did get one high 4 star that will likely be a difference maker.

Duke signed 3 more players than us, which gives them a big bump over us in rankings, but isnt necessarily "better" since it doesnt take into account scholarship space or each team's needs.

It would obviously be nice to start pulling in more consensus studs than we do, but our average player is right in line with classes all the way up to the top 25-30 for the most part, give or take a player or 2. We can do better, but no need to panic as long as we are filling our needs, which I think we are.
 
Bringing in 3-4 exceptions per class is reasonable and would and has made all the difference in the world. By exceptions, I don't mean cavemen who can't speak intelligibly and or pass Algebra I, but that are verifiable hard workers in the classroom yet fall short of our snobbish standards. I also don't mean only 4 and 5 stars, I mean whoever the coaches rate as difference makers. Speaking of difference makers, these kind of kids are why we have any legacy at all in football. Without them, we are Vandy/RICE/WF. Without them, no bowl record, no TIAR, and no MNC.

After 4 years of this, assuming we had 6 or 7 survivors, we are imo a legit top 25 team most years.
 
Diseqc said:
What kinda offense did Gailey run and how was his recruiting?
Click to expand...

Paul Johnson was 17-7 his first two years with Gailey's recruits.

Paul Johnson is 35-37 since then.

Both records based on FBS games only.

Now, answer your question.
 
jacketup said:
Paul Johnson was 17-7 his first two years with Gailey's recruits.

Paul Johnson is 35-37 since then.

Both records based on FBS games only.

Now, answer your question.
Click to expand...

I think it may have some to do with players and some to do with teams actually taking us seriously and prepping for us. More teams now request a week off before playing us and that request seems to get granted more often than not. More teams play the VT style of defense against us, pulling the safeties up - Duke especially has picked it up. Teams that we play that keep two deep safeties we usually shred.
 
jacketup said:
Paul Johnson was 17-7 his first two years with Gailey's recruits.

Paul Johnson is 35-37 since then.

Both records based on FBS games only.

Now, answer your question.
Click to expand...

Johnson should hire Gailey as a recruiting coordinator.
 
jacketup said:
Paul Johnson was 17-7 his first two years with Gailey's recruits.

Paul Johnson is 35-37 since then.

Both records based on FBS games only.

Now, answer your question.
Click to expand...

Jacket up...You are right.

It's pretty impressive Johnson could install a radically different system, go 17-7 in his first two years, beat Georgia and end "the streak", plus take GT to it's first Orange Bowl in 60 years.

To add to your post, Johnson then returned GT to the Orange Bowl with his own recruits and did with them what he could not with Gailey's recruits--win an Orange Bowl Championship.

Thanks also for pointing out the 54-44 FBS record. I did not know that. I was thinking Johnson might not be the guy.

However you have swayed me into thinking here is a coach that--despite GT's limitations--has shown that he can win big here....whether it's with the vaunted 2007 class or his own lowly recruits.

Here's hoping with just a little better recruiting he can win even bigger! I'm sure you want that, right?
 
gtphd said:
CPJ gets more exceptions than he uses.
Click to expand...
He has the ability to use as many as he wants but he has to be wise. If he starts taking alot of people and they flunk...then he will lose the privilege. I have heard him say that. Techs problem is they don't have a degree that doesn't require calculus. Football factories offer tough degrees that have greater opportunity but they also offer easy degrees for those who only wish to get to NFL. It is hard to compete with that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
Bowdon Rambler said:
He has the ability to use as many as he wants but he has to be wise. If he starts taking alot of people and they flunk...then he will lose the privilege. I have heard him say that. Techs problem is they don't have a degree that doesn't require calculus. Football factories offer tough degrees that have greater opportunity but they also offer easy degrees for those who only wish to get to NFL. It is hard to compete with that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Survey of calculus != Calculus.

99% of football players are in a degree where they only have to take the former.
 
gtphd said:
CPJ gets more exceptions than he uses.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying he doesn't have the opportunity to use them, just that we aren't and shame on us for not doing so. I was also saying, this board reads a lot like the WF and RICE boards without the historical use of exceptions.
 
GoldZ said:
I wasn't saying he doesn't have the opportunity to use them, just that we aren't and shame on us for not doing so. I was also saying, this board reads a lot like the WF and RICE boards without the historical use of exceptions.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should take anyone that is fast. It doesn't matter how smart or personality. That way we can get more players like Autry and Custis. [emoji13]

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
Recruiting might be a little (and I emphasize little) better with a more traditional offense, BUT I don't think our results on the field would be better.

I will keep saying this, but IF we can improve our D recruiting just a bit, with a few more division 1 DL's and LB's, I think we will be fine with what we have....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top