In depth analysis: Who else offered our kids?

BarrelORum

BarrelORum

Mediocre Poster
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
16,266
We're always talking about who else offered our kids. That to me tells you how good of a class you actually have. To me the rankings don't mean squat. Well I broke it down and here it is.
I have listed the colleges into 4 tiers with Tier 1 being great football programs. Tier 2 being good/solid football programs 3 being less than average and 4 being scrub/bush league football programs. I will list the school and the number of our kids they offered. Next to each Tier I will list the number of kids composed in that listing. For instance tier 1 schools offered only 8 of our signees.

Tier 1: 8 of our signees were offered by these schools. 4 of our signees only had offers from Tier 1 group.
Georgia: 3
Florida: 1
Colorado: 2
LSU: 2
Miami 2
ND: 3
FSU: 1
UCLA: 1
Tennessee: 1
Oklahoma: 1
Alabama: 1
Nebraska: 1
Arkansas: 1
Michigan St. 1

Tier2: 15 signees were offered by Tier 2 or better.
Maryland: 3
Stanford: 1
UVA 1
South Carolina:3
Clemson: 1
Utah: 1
Iowa State: 1
Missouri: 1
Ole Miss 1
UNC 1
Marshall 1
Oklahoma St. 1
Purdue: 2
Boston College: 1

Tier 3: 21 guys were offered my Tier 3 or better. 6 of the 21 did not have an offer better than Tier 3. 2 of them only had another offer from a Tier 3 school.
UCF: 2
Kentucky: 1
Duke: 4
Wake: 4
Air Force: 1
Northwestern: 1
Boise St. 1
Vandy: 2
Baylor: 1
Indiana: 1
Louisville: 1
South Fla: 1
MTSU: 1
Navy: 1

Tier 4: 5 guys got an offer from a tier 4 school. All 5 guys had offers better than Tier 4 and two of the five had offers from a tier 2 school as well.
Tulane: 1
Pennsylvania: 1
UCONN: 3
Furman: 1
Temple: 1

4 of our recruits did not have another offer. Jacob Lonowski, Kyle Manley, Jon Morrison, and Kyle Belcher. Belcher is a punter so that's understandable. Manley and Lonowski committed early enough where this isn't really an indicator.

So there it is, take it for what it is worth. But that's how this class stacks up as far as offers are concerned.

This is definately NOT the best overall class we've had at Tech. It is a good solid class that filled some needs. Personally I think we got some real studs in this class. I've never seen a defensive line bunch like this EVER. We also got some guys that look like diamonds in the rough in Gary Guyton, James Johnson, and Keiran Delaney to name a few. We also got some guys that look like projects but have potential, namely our offensive lineman recruits, and then we got some guys that hopefully will contribute in their time on the flats.

Anyway, that's my take. It's a good solid class and one that can help us immediately on the defensive line and at the WR position. Just remember that GT has only had 3 classes to my knowledge that have ever been ranked in the top 25 by any publication. Those classes were 2000, 1991, and 1988. 2001 and 1997 were two other classes that were highly regarded but not ranked by anyone, I think.

Anyway, comments are welcome...
 
MY bad... Correction...

I apparently had the following info wrong. Please allow me to correct it. Once again, thank Fathead, the guy is a stat machine.

1988 class - ranked #22 in US by Terranova, #20 by G&W recruiting

1991 - Top #25 by USAToday

1993 class - ranked #13 in US by SuperPreps

1996 class - ranked #11 in US by SuperPreps, #12 by by Athlon's, 11th Lindy's - of course Quincy Carter was the big recruit, and he never matriculated

1999 class - PrepStars #24 class in US (4th in ACC per SuperPreps)

2000 class - Prepstars #25 class in US

2001 class - Rivals #24 class in US, CbsSportsline.com #19 class in US
 
Interesting info and good research but

I believe I read, out of a midwestern paper, that Jacob was offered by Iowa St & Nebraska. However, not so worried about OLmen. They seem to develop as a rule. I think Andrew will be in the NFL. I am almost of the notion that DLmen are a skilled position anymore, what with the way OLmen can virtually hold every play and with the emphasis on speed rushes. In the DL area, I think we have done better than we have ever done in history, that means anytime in the history of GT football. Plus Newberry will be back, Wrotto, Brezina, and I think TRAVIS will become our Rusty Medaris. He is our next great team leader. Word.
 
Per the coaches today....

Brezina will be moved to OG. Travis will be a DE too.
 
Of course the information on offers available to

us is very weak. But I must protest if you consider Maryland to be tier 2. Their on the field performance under this head coach is outstanding. Maryland landed (another) EXCELLENT class and players like Williams and Delaney who Fridge wanted deserve a lot of respect.

I also have to protest Purdue as a tier two. They have been in the upper level of the Big 10 for a longer stretch than OSU, UM, or UW. They have a coaching staff that lands more diamonds than DeBoers. Of course this year Purdue is getting big props from Rivals for a top 20 class.

Assuming Lonowski was offered by Neb and counting Bennett as last year, Manley, Lewis, Smith, Gardner, Morrison, Jones, McManus, Gause and Belcher are the 'diamonds' based strictly on no known offers from 'tier 1' schools.

The mere fact that Gause is on this list makes it laughable to some extent. As already mentioned above, Belcher is a kicker, and doesn't rate the same. Does anybody really know if Belcher, Cismesia, or the kid from Westside-Augusta is the best? I do suspect part of the reason we offered Cismesia first is to force FSU to drop a scholly instead of making him walk on. It was a win-win for GT.

McManus, Gardner, and for all practical purposes Morrison (already 265 according to GT website) are OLmen. I personally have never trusted the gurus on OLmen. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way WRT OLmen rankings.

Smith comes from a program we are very familar with and has sent us some great players. He seems very excited about playing for us. Manley is another who our coaches should be very familiar with. My wild guess is both of these guys knew where they wanted to play and made it clear to the other schools. I would be shocked if we were not on both VERY early as well.

Finally Jones' and Lewis' offer sheets are slap full from the academic schools. I have no way of knowing if and what their other offers might have been, but I do know my mother would've hung up on FSU or Alabama. I could've had offers from every SEC school but my top 5 would still be GT, Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, UVA and the like. Anyway, both have all the tools (size, speed, strength). Jones in particular impressed everyone including dawg fans who saw him at the dome. Both of these guys were no brainers for GT IMHO, and probably for everyone else.

One other thing to keep in mind is UGA did not take 30 for the first time that I can remember. Jones is a perfect example of a player they normally take from us (oversized DB that simply looked like he was playing at a different level), but IMHO they were really limited in the positions they had to fill.
 
Also, UCONN should be tier 3 based on your

list. You pissed off at Edsall or something? They are coming off an 8-3 record, have a beautiful new stadium, I assume can still offer early PT, and are in a BCS conference (for now). Below MTSU? Navy?

I will also comment that this class is spectacular in a lot of ways, particularly how we landed superstars where we needed them, sleepers where we could afford to, and several tall, thin, and quick athletes to build up, (but it is not the best ever IMHO).
 
GT Crew, it\'s just my opinion...

It's not set in stone. I look at a program's overall success. UCONN is a fairly new program, hence their rating as a tier 4. Maryland and Purdue are great programs, but look at them 5 years ago. Purdue is a lot like us, great history, not a lot to show for it over the last 10 years. Like I said, just my opinion.
 
Purde has been good for nearly 10 years. I\'m sure

if you go back farther you might find some 1994 quality years but Joe Tiller is proving to be one of the best around. They have an impressive streak of being in the top few teams in the Big 10 and certainly know how to sell the 'we only need one or two guys to beat Michigan' angle.

Anyway, you have to consider recent success and current conditions a lot more than historical stuff. The Bear Bryant stuff only works in Alabama, and the H Walker/Dooley stuff only works in Georgia (it only works with the parents)

These kids were born in 86. When did bear die? HW was washed up by then! Anyway, how is MTSU or Boise St above UConn? At least UConn has a BB team that has kept them on TV!
 
I don't agree with Colorado, UCLA, Arkansas, and Michigan State being higher than Maryland, Clemson, or Purdue.

And, although I feel other offers is a better indicator than the star ranking system used by the recruiting services, I don't think it's the know-all to end-all (or whatever that expression is). As an example, I am listing the names of people from my hometown (Augusta) who signed with GT who had no other offers or very little interest from other schools but still became major contributors or solid division one players at the least. Keep in mind that this is from just one area.

John Callan, Herman Lam, Tony Daykin, Richard Daykin, Bo Thomas, Mike Kelly, Ken Whisenhunt, Sammy Lilly, Bug Isom,
Jason Dukes, Jerry Gilchrist, and Chris Brown.

At least half of these played at some point in professional football. These are off the top of my head, there may be more. The point is, the coaches obviously saw something in them for them to deserve a scholarship. Bo Thomas, in fact, was a walk-on who earned a scholarship before the first game of his freshman year. Ken Whisenhunt was a walk-on until after he qb'd us to a tie with Notre Dame. How many times have we heard about walk-ons who did well. That Miami newspaper stat about highly-recruited players making up only 14% of college All-Americans should tell us something. Recruiting is not unimportant but I believe it's blown way out of proportion. A coaching staff should recruit the type of players they believe they need for their system, can do the work required by their school, and can adapt to their coaching style.

All that being said, I think this is a great class! Congratulations to all the coaches. Take an extra thirty minutes at lunch today and then get back to work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif
 
Good post BOR, now do the same for

our top 2 or 3 direct competitors. I agree that this class is a good one and it fits a lot of our needs. It's also reflective of realistic improvement, that IF continued will eventually reap big rewards.

IMO, a level headed approach to this class is one of direct comparison to our rivals. It's NOT an effort to denigrate our class at all, but rather a look at how we are doing on a RELATIVE basis to who we play vs. a relative look at how we did per our own history. I used the Insiders data base which like most is probably not completely accurate, but for the most part is right on. Anyway, the same source was used for us and ugag. I simply listed ours and theirs side by side instead of the point system you used. The difference is staggering. It would be interesting to see your point system applied to this. Before anyone goes nuts as to how it doesn't mean squat etc., please slowly remove your gold colored glasses, that I too often wear, and remember that 0/12 & 3/13 speaks volumes and is not subjective. THWG
 
Re: Good post BOR, now do the same for

I actually like looking at the Rivals Ranking (RR) on recruits. Instead of a stars system, they give a ranking based on what they think the player's potential is. It's a pretty tight scale which makes sense. On that basis all of our players are considered solid D-1 players. A number are projected as having pro careers and only one, Morrison, is considered a project/sleeper.

That kind of goes along with my opinion on the services. The real question is can the kid play at that level. If he can, the rest will be determined based on the circumstances of his career: coaching, position changes, injuries, desire, etc.
 
Some good points NcJacket....Offers alone

can not be used to judge a class EITHER....There are many cases where that is decieving...Kids like the Johnson kid out of MO. We did NOT offer but he claimed we did. There was also a story from last year that I read that a certain BigTime school offered a kid because he told them someone else had offered and they found out that No other Big Schools had offered..He ended up signing and the Head Coach was hot about it..If anyone remembers that story and the school it was Remind me...It was i believe Lsu or Oklahoma? Also some kids are told by certain coaches they have a Sholly waiting for them But it is NOT reported...A lot of things/Offers go on behind the scenes Info.Us avg. fans are not Privy too. One other big factor as to not relying on offers alone IS as was the case For Darius Walker, He was not offered by Some schools like ugag as they DONT need RB's. (Now I know he was offered by some good schools..But there are some very good players that dont get offered (One poster just gave a great example of ones GT got from his area that have gone on to the NFL)A lot of times certain schools dont offer as it wouldnt be a good fit (i.e. Depth they already have or Style of play they play that would not fit a player that might fit our style of play i.e. a Running team as we are )Inside info. from Buford and his Dad also indicated that there was a good possibilty Walker would have signed with GT had it not been that we ARE loaded at RB. His Dad said, that Darius wanted early PT and that that eliminated GT..At Notre Dame he will get a shot at early PT..

I like your main point...The real question as Chan has stated, CAN this prospect play at this level and CAN he help us and DOES he fit our system...imho

can you imagine what everyone would have been saying Had Walker (whom many said and some last night on TV WAS the best player in this State and Not Miller) signed with GT...In a year where we were graduating some RB's it would have been likely...
 
More living on exceptions vs. rules.

BW, for sure the services and mags miss on a lot of info, but they get most of it right. If you use the same service to compare offers you at least get an equally correct/incorrect look at things. One of the things I believe most impressive about Coach Gailey is his position on what our goal is...to win championships. Who is winning the championships? Those teams that as a "rule" are signing kids who had other offers from major programs, not the teams who as an rule are signing the "overlooked" kids who did not get those offers. You can only go so far living on the "exceptions" or kids who didn't get the offers but who end up producing. We took a big step forward with this class and will need to do even better in the future to compete for "championships"(state,conference,national).

It's like ole Bobby Bowden says: "Signing a bunch of 5-star recruits does not insure you a championship, but not signing them WILL insure that you don't".
 
GoldZ As David Wilson and Chan said: WE ARE

bringing in guys that will help us win a Chammpionship...You are somewhat right in the fact that I would be concerned if a majority of our recruits only had offers from Duke,Vanderbilt and Ga.Southern I would be Worried..This is NOT the case and I will trust a Man like Chan that has evaluated some of the best players in the World while in the NFL...But, again to just base it on offers solely would be very decieving....There are MANY examples of a Keith Brooking out there that did not recieve a lot of offers and went on to be NFL stars....And as to the Magazines and services...As Ncjacket said: The reason they are in that business IS that those SO-CALLED experts could NOT be a coach.. Bottom line..You can choose to trust the Coaches and their evaluations or the Magazines and the Zillion Services and so-called experts out there...Dont get me wrong, I love to read the Magazines (But as Phillip Fulmer said..Just to get Info.) AND I will not lose ANY sleep tonight worrying about some guy (that isnt qualified to coach) that tells me GT had a 56th best class in the country...I believe that guy is not credible.Some of the same So-Called experts that said we would finish dead last in the ACC last year..
 
Re: GoldZ As David Wilson and Chan said: WE ARE

BW, agree for the most part about the mags etc. You may have missed the 0/12 & 3/13 part of my earlier post though. At some point, whether it's comfortable or not, we have to recognize that the totality of offers, stars, and rankings do matter and have meaning. Only when the lopsided series cease can we claim to be competitive via better "evaluations". How realistic is it that our staff is heads above others in evaluations? THWG
 
Re: GoldZ As David Wilson and Chan said: WE ARE

Good enough for me..To wait till 2006 and I will Judge Gailey and co..Once all his 5 classes are here and playing..I personally expect to see us competing for ACC Championships by then As to ugag that will take care of itself..if we compete for ACC championships we will fare well against the Dogs also....As you can tell I like a lot of others dont put much stock in the so-called Recruiting Experts and The final Judgement for me will be after Gailey has been here 5 years....Got to run...But it has been a whole lot of fun these past two days with recruiting...
 
you do not have all of the necessary information.

...you are going by recruiting analysts who do not list all offers...only who they were considering. If I have big academics I am typically not going to consider FSU, UGA, etc.

A good example....none of the recruiting analysts have picked up that Mike Cox was courted hard by Pittsburgh and Purdue this winter.

Once a kid commits...the analysts stop calling them....despite the fact other offers come in.
 
Fascinating point GoldZ.

Not.

UGA 'outrecruited' Fla for a long stretch (I think they still do) and had a similar record.

We have been very, very competitive with FSU but we can't catch a break. FSU blows away NCState recruiting but what is the recent series record? Oklahoma DID NOT have good recruiting classes before they won their championship, but they sure have since.
 
Re: you do not have all of the necessary information.

Hiver - that is the issue I have with this analysis as a stand alone. It is skewed to kids that play the recruiting game, wait and receive multiple offers versus the kids that commit early and stick with their commitments - thus not getting any additional offers (or at least no offers the experts find out about). The kid from Nebraska comes to mind in addition to Mike Cox as one whose ranking in this analysis is probably lower than it could have been.

The counter argument would be that all schools have the early commits and thus relative to each other they cancel out. I believe Tech got more early commits this year and IMO only (no hard data here) this class may be under ranked by this method (but the same early commit issue would affect the number of stars).

However, BORs analysis is roughly consistent with the review of other methods - number of stars, rivals solid D1 recruits, etc. So I agree with the conclusion that we have a very solid class - not the best we have ever had - but a very solid class that is probably slightly underranked. But a class that the majority of kids will take a year or 2 to fully pan out (or not). I am quite happy with that.
 
Re: you do not have all of the necessary information.

One thing I think is funny is the reliance on who offered kids as reported by the recruiting services. Do you really think that the top kids only got 5-6 offers as the services make it look? Those guys got offered, in one form or another, by every coach they talked to. Besides, just what constitutes and offer? The kid from MO said we offered, but we say we never did. Who really knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top