Recruiting Bias...247

[Techster]

It's fine for you and me to use all the resources available to make our minds up on kids, but the services are one of the so-called "experts" in the field. They are not supposed to do it. Period. Your analogy just fell to pieces.

Actually, the services probably do employ some competent evaluators. They probably get it right, for the most part, with the upper 10 to 15% of recruits. It's the other 85% where it's a total crap shoot. Also, they evaluate the quality of kid now, not how they project in the future. They also don't project them for specific styles of play, like ours, for instance.

Our coaches evaluate based on current factors, but also on how they project 3+ years down the road. That's why you see coaches excited about lanky guys with "big frames" with room to grow. Our coaches also evaluate based on how they fit the specific roles they'll play at GT. Justin Thomas is a huge example of this. He did not fit qb at Bama but he does fit qb here. If everybody in the nation ran our offense, he would have been a 5* qb prospect and we never would have sniffed him.

Right...recruiting evaluators should live in a bubble and not talk to college coaches or see demand from major colleges as a sign of a kid's potental. Get real, you are making it very apparent you don't understand how scouting and evaluating work. The analogy doesn't work for you because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Listen, our coaches have a long track record now. I would take your 3rd paragraph more seriously if GT wasn't barely over 0.500 with the kids they recruited. Sorry, man, just how I feel.

BTW...your Justin Thomas example, the guy you hold as someone who typifies the BS recruiting services...well, he was a 4 star. You just made your own analogy fall to pieces. And let's pretend he's actually played enough to even make the judgement on how badly the recruiting raters "missed" on his 4 stars...

 

[33jacket]

His name was actually Immaculate Perfection Harris but he made it shorter by just have I.

His brothers name is even better..Supreme Justice Harris.

and his parents are both idiots

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Right...recruiting evaluators should live in a bubble and not talk to college coaches or see demand from major colleges as a sign of a kid's potental. Get real, you are making it very apparent you don't understand how scouting and evaluating work. The analogy doesn't work for you because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Listen, our coaches have a long track record now. I would take your 3rd paragraph more seriously if GT wasn't barely over 0.500 with the kids they recruited. Sorry, man, just how I feel.

BTW...your Justin Thomas example, the guy you hold as someone who typifies the BS recruiting services...well, he was a 4 star. You just made your own analogy fall to pieces...

I know exactly how it works and I call it bs. If you call yourself an expert in anything, you don't go looking at everybody else to see if your right especially when everyone else is looking to you. That's the way it should be, but it's not.

If you can't see how Justin Thomas shows that service evals fall short for niche athletes, then I can't help you. Btw, he was a 4 star athlete, not qb. Don't you think the position we're recruiting him to play and where he's gonna actually play matters a little? He would have been a 2 star qb if he was rated as one AND if the services used their "demand" criteria that you tout as gospel.

 

[Techster]

I know exactly how it works and I call it bs. If you call yourself an expert in anything, you don't go looking at everybody else to see if your right especially when everyone else is looking to you. That's the way it should be, but it's not.

If you can't see how Justin Thomas shows that service evals fall short for niche athletes, then I can't help you. Btw, he was a 4 star athlete, not qb. Don't you think the position we're recruiting him to play and where he's gonna actually play matters a little? He would have been a 2 star qb if he was rated as one AND if the services used their "demand" criteria that you tout as gospel.

You're really reaching, man.

If a kid is a "5 star QB", he probably would have beaten out someone that was widely judged to be less suited for our offense, wouldn't he? Heck, even Vad admitted he was less suited for the offense than JT...yet JT never really took he job away from Vad did he? A "5 star QB" in our system should easily have done that. The guy has barely played enough to get a good scouting report much less make the determination on his ranking.

Demand as gospel? You really need to read a little better. I said demand as a FACTOR. If you know what factor means, you know it's not the all or nothing you're trying to make it out to be.

Anyhow, my discussion with you is over. Not gonna argue with someone who's making up rules on how they feel the world should work.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You're really reaching, man.

If a kid is a "5 star QB", he probably would have beaten out someone that was widely judged to be less suited for our offense, wouldn't he? Heck, even Vad admitted he was less suited for the offense than JT...yet JT never really took he job away from Vad did he? A "5 star QB" in our system should easily have done that.

Anyhow, my discussion with you is over. Not gonna argue with someone who's making up rules on how they feel the world should work.

You forget that Vad was supposed to be another perfect fit, too. I'm sure CPJ was very conflicted over sticking with Vad and moving on to Justin. Just because Vad didn't reach his potential in this offense doesn't mean it didn't exist. His biggest problem was want-to. If he possessed Tevin's want-to, we wouldn't even be talking about JT right now.

As far as arguing about how "the world works" that's exactly what the argument was about in the first place. One thing we agree on is how it works. Where we disagree on is if its right or not. Funny how experts in other fields stand by their work, but college football services experts are allowed to tally the sum of the experts around them and pass it off as their own, especially when their original evals differ. If that ain't bunk, I don't know what is!

Btw, I'm sorry if I'm coming off like a jerk in this discussion. I have strong feelings on this particular topic. Folks who disagree with me have every right to do so and their opinions are just as valid as mine.

 

[collegeballfan]

How the ESPN 2013 All ACC team was rated by ESPN coming out of high school. In summary only one 5*, eleven 4* and eight 3*.
Pay particular attention to the OL.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/67010/all-acc-where-they-stood-as-recruits

 

[Rodney Kent]

I think everyone understands that the recruiting services are nor perfect, and at times, has their own agenda in setting the star * on a particular recruit. However, there has to be some value in the star system or coaches and fans would not consider the star rating of a player.

It is the same with the Heisman winner every year in football. There are Heisman winners who fell flat in attempts to play pro football. There is validity in the rating systems, but it is not the all-in-all solution. Each coach must recruit according to his needs and his method of coaching. Yes, they still try to get the best players they can attract, but they also have to develop each player.

One of the most successful football programs in America, quite a few years back in time, was Nebraska. They did not receive the star studded classes of Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Southern Cal, etal, but they recruited nationwide and seldom played an incoming freshman. Each year, they won handily. At the beginning of the next year, they merely plugged into the positions new starters who they had been developing from their scout squads. They had a system where they developed players and filled the graduation spots extremely well each year.

I am not sure the star system was in place, but they did not eat up the world each year in their recruits. Peterson and Boise State did the same, so did Dodd at Tech. So, again, the star system has value, but is not the whole game.

 

[Techster]

That is why it is so very important that our staff be EXPERT in recognizing talent, spend their time productively on going after kids that we can sign and get into school, and then develop and improve those kids once we have them on campus. .

Absolutely. I've said it many times. The ability to identify kids through our scouing process and develop them is MUCH MUCH more important than saying "We just signed a 4/5 star!!!"

If you look at thoses links I posted that referred to Gailey's recruiting, those were things he did that he doesn't get enough credit for.

 

[Boomergump]

Absolutely. I've said it many times. The ability to identify kids through our scouing process and develop them is MUCH MUCH more important than saying "We just signed a 4/5 star!!!"

If you look at thoses links I posted that referred to Gailey's recruiting, those were things he did that he doesn't get enough credit for.

Yep. I think Gailey had a great eye for talent. Pretty much any NFL team would be better off having him be part of the talent evaluation staff. Wish he could have found a QB.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think everyone understands that the recruiting services are nor perfect, and at times, has their own agenda in setting the star * on a particular recruit. However, there has to be some value in the star system or coaches and fans would not consider the star rating of a player.

It is the same with the Heisman winner every year in football. There are Heisman winners who fell flat in attempts to play pro football. There is validity in the rating systems, but it is not the all-in-all solution. Each coach must recruit according to his needs and his method of coaching. Yes, they still try to get the best players they can attract, but they also have to develop each player.

One of the most successful football programs in America, quite a few years back in time, was Nebraska. They did not receive the star studded classes of Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Southern Cal, etal, but they recruited nationwide and seldom played an incoming freshman. Each year, they won handily. At the beginning of the next year, they merely plugged into the positions new starters who they had been developing from their scout squads. They had a system where they developed players and filled the graduation spots extremely well each year.

I am not sure the star system was in place, but they did not eat up the world each year in their recruits. Peterson and Boise State did the same, so did Dodd at Tech. So, again, the star system has value, but is not the whole game.

Agree. Nebraska sets the precedent we're attempting to follow. It's not a one-to-one correlation by any means, but one could say if they did it, we can too. When you're not in it for the top 15% of the talent, all hope is NOT lost. Btw, it's the top 15% of prospects where the services get it right, go figure.

 

[gtdrew]

Right...recruiting evaluators should live in a bubble and not talk to college coaches or see demand from major colleges as a sign of a kid's potental. Get real, you are making it very apparent you don't understand how scouting and evaluating work. The analogy doesn't work for you because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Listen, our coaches have a long track record now. I would take your 3rd paragraph more seriously if GT wasn't barely over 0.500 with the kids they recruited. Sorry, man, just how I feel.

BTW...your Justin Thomas example, the guy you hold as someone who typifies the BS recruiting services...well, he was a 4 star. You just made your own analogy fall to pieces. And let's pretend he's actually played enough to even make the judgement on how badly the recruiting raters "missed" on his 4 stars...

Techster, to be fair, we don't know how much the current staff was hamstrung by he previous AD. I don't think it's a coincidence that we had more resources to commit to a full recruiting staff and things of that nature when we got a new AD. I'm not saying to completely set aside CPJ's record because of that one change, but like any other equation, when one variable changes, the outcome of the equation will inevitably change...

 

[GTJackets]

All you guys need to know is that there were 46 players in the Super Bowl that were 2 star or unranked coming out of high school. Most of these rankings are a joke.

That's because NFL teams can only afford so many 5-star players. They have to fill out the roster with 2-star types. Who do you think they are, Alabama?

 

[Techster]

Techster, to be fair, we don't know how much the current staff was hamstrung by he previous AD. I don't think it's a coincidence that we had more resources to commit to a full recruiting staff and things of that nature when we got a new AD. I'm not saying to completely set aside CPJ's record because of that one change, but like any other equation, when one variable changes, the outcome of the equation will inevitably change...

CPJ was Radokovich's guy. When you hire a guy you want him to succeed...not "hamstring" them. I'm not saying the extra recruiting personnel isn't a great thing, it obviously is, but I wouldn't blame DR for CPJ not getting it when CPJ has said him and DR were working to get it in place before the moves were made. It's no secret DR left because Clemson has better resources for him to play with...maybe DR leaving was the impetus for our administration and donors to put more money into the program.

With the extra personnel I think it's fair to say GT fans are allowed expect better recruiting and on the field results. I dont think we'll see it with this class, because those moves take a little time, but how much time it takes CPJ to make the next step is the question.

 

[Tech First]

Yep. I think Gailey had a great eye for talent. Pretty much any NFL team would be better off having him be part of the talent evaluation staff. Wish he could have found a QB.

He had a good one lined up when he was fired.

 

[Techster]

He had a good one lined up when he was fired.

Actually 3, but 1 ended up transferring (Threet), 1 probably wouldn't have been a QB in the long run (Nesbitt), and 1 which you're probably referring to (Renfree). Irony of ironies, after not having one for 5 years, the guy hits the jackpot with QBs and with the 2007 class and doesn't really get to do anythng with them.

I've always thought that offense would have been NASTY. Demaryius on one side, DJ Donley on the other, with Greg Smith (who was actually a pretty good pro style receiver) and Corey Earls who was a good slot guy for a bit. Then you had Dwyer as a feature back, and maybe Roddy as the backup guy (people forget he was actually Dekalb's all time leading rusher for a bit). Lucas Cox would have stayed at fullback. GT also had Colin Peek at TE, who ended up transferring to 'Bama because of the offense but had a pretty good career there. Add Renfree at QB.

Then the plug was pulled...but Gailey had 5 years to get over the hump. Oh well...

 

[Tech First]

Actually 3, but 1 ended up transferring (Threet), 1 probably wouldn't have been a QB in the long run (Nesbitt), and 1 which you're probably referring to (Renfree). Irony of ironies, after not having one for 5 years, the guy hits the jackpot with QBs and with the 2007 class and doesn't really get to do anythng with them.

I've always thought that offense would have been NASTY. Demaryius on one side, DJ Donley on the other, with Greg Smith (who was actually a pretty good pro style receiver) and Corey Earls who was a good slot guy for a bit. Then you had Dwyer as a feature back, and maybe Roddy as the backup guy (people forget he was actually Dekalb's all time leading rusher for a bit). Lucas Cox would have stayed at fullback. GT also had Colin Peek at TE, who ended up transferring to 'Bama because of the offense but had a pretty good career there. Add Renfree at QB.

Then the plug was pulled...but Gailey had 5 years to get over the hump. Oh well...

Yes I believe at the time we jumped the gun on CCG. I hope we don't do the same CPJ. Although I am getting a little anxious about things.

 

[jacketup]

Agree. Nebraska sets the precedent we're attempting to follow. It's not a one-to-one correlation by any means, but one could say if they did it, we can too. When you're not in it for the top 15% of the talent, all hope is NOT lost. Btw, it's the top 15% of prospects where the services get it right, go figure.

If Nebraska sets the precedent we are trying to follow, then I guess we will not be running the TO anymore.

That was one of the items on my "why did he hire this guy?" list: If Tom Osborne couldn't recruit for the TO at Nebraska, why did we think GT could recruit for it?

Of course, the current coach will give up his offense on the 12th of never. So, I guess we won't follow the Nebraska example.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

All you guys need to know is that there were 46 players in the Super Bowl that were 2 star or unranked coming out of high school. Most of these rankings are a joke.

Any of those 46 GT players?

Thx

 

[stylee]

Tom Osborne didn't run the triple option.
If you can find one true triple option Nebraska ran under Osborne, please show me.

Their offense was based on the fullback trap and a double option off the trap fake.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

There's actuallt a lot more truth to this sarcastic post than you know. We as a fanbase do not support the program like other fanbases. We also do not have shady boosters like other programs. We don't fill our small stadium like other programs. We cannot afford to keep good assistants like other programs. A lot of recruiting is $$$ and $$$ comes from donors and fans.

Besides, PERHAPS, Lowder at Auburn, whose name ya got?

Let's put it,out there to embarrass them