Let’s Get Creepy: Georgia’s Recruiting Needs

This is the second part of a two-week series on Recruiting entitled “Let’s Get Creepy.”


Now that we’ve looked at where Georgia is located on the recreating map so to speak, let’s look at how Richt and company got there.  More importantly, let’s take a look back at the past few years.

If we examine recruiting classes dating back to 2008 then we can get a picture at the last five years (which practically speaking coincides well with any talk of recruiting “classes” as a redshirt senior will stick around for five year) and analyze the team’s success.



Class Ranking

4 and 5-stars

Prized Recruit(s)




A.J. Green, Richard Samuel



Branden Smith, Aaron Murray



Alec Ogletree



Isaiah Crowell, Ray Drew



Josh Harvey-Clemonds, John Theus


For those out there who think Georgia has “ under-performed” relative to their recruiting classes, consider this: Georgia’s average recruiting class ranking over this time frame is ninth.  Georgia ranks 21st in the country in winning percentage over that time frame.  Four of the teams above Georgia in winning percentage (Cincinnati, Utah, Brigham Young and Northern Illinois) play in terrible conferences.  Georgia ranks 17th in the country among teams from the SEC, Pac-12, Big XII, Big Ten and Boise State.

Now consider that Alabama (average ranking of 1.8), Florida (average ranking of 6.2) and LSU (average ranking of 8.6) have put together better recruiting class rankings than Georgia over the past five years.  Those are the only three schools in the SEC with higher overall winning percentages than Georgia from 2008-2012.  Now consider that Georgia has gone 3-7 against those three teams over the past five seasons.  If you remove those games (losses and wins against conference teams with better talent per recruiting rankings) Georgia’s winning percentage moves to .754.  That means nothing in and of itself, but if you know that a winning percentage of .754 ranks 8th in the nation you get the picture that Georgia’s “under-performance” while frustrating has not been disastrous and that it may not even be  a real trend relative to talent.

Has every Georgia team played every game at the utmost level of effort and proficiency?  Certainly not.  But, as a whole, the Dawgs are keeping pace with their talent.


Help is on the way…? 

If we continue to use four and five-star players as the standard for elite talent, Georgia has pulled the following totals since 2008:

  • Quarterbacks: 3
  • Running Backs: 6
  • Wide Receivers: 6
  • Tight Ends: 3
  • Offensive Linemen: 7
  • Defensive Ends: 11
  • Defensive Tackles:8
  • Linebackers: 7
  • Athletes: 4


Keep in mind that this just involves (for the most part) players’ recruited positions.  Especially on the defensive side of the ball (where DEs and DBs often become LBs and DTs move to DE), there are some inaccuracies.  Also be mindful that “athletes” are players recruited with versatile skill sets.  Lastly, keep in mind that this list reflects signed Letters of Intent, not necessarily enrollments.


Offensive Needs: 

The most obvious way to look at “needs” as far as depth is concerned is to look at the number of players recruited over a time frame relative to the number of players who can realistically see the field at that particular position on a given play.  If we do this and remove the class of 2008 (those fifth year seniors will be on the way out), we can see how much depth is left.  And, since we’re using just four and five-star ratings, we’re talking about “good” depth, not simply bodies.  Again, keep in mind that this is based on players who were recruited.  Zach Mettenberger, for instance, is represented with the quarterbacks even though he is gone.  But again, we’re looking at recruiting depth here, not roster depth.  You have to fill recruiting boards before you can fill rosters.


  • QBs: Georgia has (in theory) three available QBs for one position, thus has a recruiting depth ratio of 3.0 at the QB position.
  • RBs: Georgia has four recruited RBs for a position that will never house more than two players on the field at once.  That yields a 2.0 rating.
  • WRs: Georgia has four WRs for as many as three spots (typically the fourth if there is one goes to TE) and a rating of 1.33.
  • TEs: Georgia has recruited three TEs for no more than two spots.  1.5 rating
  • OL: Georgia has five OL recruits for five spots.  This yields a 1.0 rating.


So if you wonder where a crowded backfield came from, it came from the large number or elite RBs that have been recruited to UGA.  If you’re wondering why the offensive line lacks depth, it comes from the limited number of great lineman that Georgia has recruited.

The lone exception here is the wide receiver position where a number of three-star pass catchers have made huge impacts (think Michael Bennett and Chris Conley).

Obviously, help is needed on the line and an elite tight end would be nice.


Defensive Needs: 

This is, again, more difficult to dissect as players are constantly swapping positions.  But, I think the most glaring need is the need for elite defensive backs.  Damian “Black” Swann has come on quite nicely, but he’s going to need some running-mates for the next few years.

Defensive ends and linebackers flock to Todd Grantham’s system for video-game type numbers.  Georgia needs playmakers further from the ball to replace the likes of Sanders Commings, Bacarri Rambo and Shawn Williams.


That’s all I got/



About dudeyoucrazy

College Football Writer

Posted on January 23, 2013, in Blog, Georgia Bulldogs, SEC and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: