Also important to keep in mind the poor results CU has gotten with 4*/5* recruits we have landed the past 15ish years. Sometimes there are reasons that the guys who are attainable for a CU are available at all and we'd be better served by staying away ourselves.Sure, some players fall through the cracks. But, a strategy of focusing on 3* players is not a recipe for success for Colorado. BYU (primary access for Mormon oldies) and UVA (elite school in a super talent-rich area) may have more of those players around. 3* players in this area should not be the focal point of our recruiting.
Recruiting is a numbers game. Strategizing based upon marginal cases is why Colorado has been a failure. The answer to “we have not had enough success with 4/5* players” is not “recruit fewer 4/5* players.” The answer is that we have to upgrade our recruiting apparatus and coaching skill to get more 4/5* players and better develop them. We’ve already tried the “find the 2/3* diamonds in the rough” approach. It is just another marginal approach that does not work.Also important to keep in mind the poor results CU has gotten with 4*/5* recruits we have landed the past 15ish years. Sometimes there are reasons that the guys who are attainable for a CU are available at all and we'd be better served by staying away ourselves.
Or the approach is having an evaluation criteria for recruits that applies to everyone regardless of raw talent level. So you go after the blue chips hard who fit your profile but don't recruit the ones who don't.Recruiting is a numbers game. Strategizing based upon marginal cases is why Colorado has been a failure. The answer to “we have not had enough success with 4/5* players” is not “recruit fewer 4/5* players.” The answer is that we have to upgrade our recruiting apparatus and coaching skill to get more 4/5* players and better develop them. We’ve already tried the “find the 2/3* diamonds in the rough” approach. It is just another marginal approach that does not work.
That may be in some cases, but I just don't think having that as your philosophy is going to lead to a winning strategy at a program like Colorado. The 3* talent in the Mountain region is far worse than the 3* talent in the SE region.Also important to keep in mind the poor results CU has gotten with 4*/5* recruits we have landed the past 15ish years. Sometimes there are reasons that the guys who are attainable for a CU are available at all and we'd be better served by staying away ourselves.
I would add you stop gambling on the guys with behavioral issues and injuries. It seems about 2/3 times a 4/5* ends up at CU, one of those two issues exists, which, as you point out, is the reason they are being passed on by others and in a position to consider CU.Or the approach is having an evaluation criteria for recruits that applies to everyone regardless of raw talent level. So you go after the blue chips hard who fit your profile but don't recruit the ones who don't.
Great points. Another thing with 3 star players at CU is that you have to have a coaching staff that can really coach them up. Don’t think we’ve seen a lot of that?That may be in some cases, but I just don't think having that as your philosophy is going to lead to a winning strategy at a program like Colorado. The 3* talent in the Mountain region is far worse than the 3* talent in the SE region.
I like a lot of what he says, but if we aren't going to be a program that tries to out recruit our conference peers, what are we even doing?
Yeah, a high 3 star is typically getting offers from most of your conference and where CU needs to feedLet's also highlight that there is a BIG range of 3* players. You can be a good team if you landing a lot of top end 3* players.
Brennan Armstrong was absolutely on the fast track to getting drafted before Anae and Mendenhall left. He's had a bit of a down year this year so might end up as UDFA.I still have Bronco as my #2 behind Herman based on fit and high floor.
But questions for me based on his recruiting strategy are, does Bronco bring in the needed P5 transfers immediately? Does the LDS poly angle help us land OL/DL P5 transfers? Has anyone in his Coach tree for OC/QB had a QB drafted within the last 4-5 years?
And something Hawkins did here which was key to the Boise State approach and we never should have stopped...I would add you stop gambling on the guys with behavioral issues and injuries. It seems about 2/3 times a 4/5* ends up at CU, one of those two issues exists, which, as you point out, is the reason they are being passed on by others and in a position to consider CU.
This statement is a repackaging of the failed approach Colorado has tried in the past — the Bob Lopez style. Colorado has to recruit more talented players, let those players compete for spots, and coach them with experts. The evaluation criteria must be: who can play the best and make the manifested on field performance better?Or the approach is having an evaluation criteria for recruits that applies to everyone regardless of raw talent level. So you go after the blue chips hard who fit your profile but don't recruit the ones who don't.
So you'd be signing those 4* guys the top programs back off from due to the book on them from their coaches, teammates, school officials, etc are saying are lazy, bad teammates, don't accept coaching, won't go to class or do the work, and/or are criminals? Those are the guys I'm saying you don't recruit regardless of talent.This statement is a repackaging of the failed approach Colorado has tried in the past — the Bob Lopez style. Colorado has to recruit more talented players, let those players compete for spots, and coach them with experts. The evaluation criteria must be: who can play the best and make the manifested on field performance better?
Imagine 85 Antonio Alfanos on the roster....So you'd be signing those 4* guys the top programs back off from due to the book on them from their coaches, teammates, school officials, etc are saying are lazy, bad teammates, don't accept coaching, won't go to class or do the work, and/or are criminals? Those are the guys I'm saying you don't recruit regardless of talent.
I don't believe in blackballing a recruit because you're focused on 2-parent households (Hawkins) or the opposite of only taking guys who have a desperate situation so you'll own their ass (Briles). I don't agree with those approaches of recruiting to culture.
This post from you is a straw man.So you'd be signing those 4* guys the top programs back off from due to the book on them from their coaches, teammates, school officials, etc are saying are lazy, bad teammates, don't accept coaching, won't go to class or do the work, and/or are criminals? Those are the guys I'm saying you don't recruit regardless of talent.
I don't believe in blackballing a recruit because you're focused on 2-parent households (Hawkins) or the opposite of only taking guys who have a desperate situation so you'll own their ass (Briles). I don't agree with those approaches of recruiting to culture.
This post from you is a straw man.
Your original contention was that Colorado has not been successful with 4/5* players, so that’s not where our focus should be in recruiting. My point is that every highly competitive program has misses -- either due to misevaluation or poor self-motivation. That doesn’t negate the value of creating a team compiled with the most talented players who compete for spots on a roster coached by experts. My other point is: the concept that you can routinely compile rosters with numerous marginal players who far exceed their prep rating is a fantasy. Hoping to lucky vis-a-vis exception is not a recipe for success in the current college football landscape.
You misunderstood me.This post from you is a straw man.
Your original contention was that Colorado has not been successful with 4/5* players, so that’s not where our focus should be in recruiting. My point is that every highly competitive program has misses -- either due to misevaluation or poor self-motivation. That doesn’t negate the value of creating a team compiled with the most talented players who compete for spots on a roster coached by experts. My other point is: the concept that you can routinely compile rosters with numerous marginal players who far exceed their prep rating is a fantasy. Hoping to lucky vis-a-vis exception is not a recipe for success in the current college football landscape.
What are your standards for “football character”?You misunderstood me.
I'm saying you start with your standards for football character. From that pool, you are aggressive about going after and staying on the guys who you rated at the top of your talent board. That board may not exactly follow the 247 Composite due to system fit (maybe you play press coverage & prefer big corners, for example), but it would be close to what we see from the star ranks.
We’ve been terrible at evaluating most players. My point is that doesn’t mean you go after fewer 4/5* players.Nik's original point is CU has been terrible in evaluating the 4/5* players who have been signed.
We’ve been terrible at evaluating most players. My point is that doesn’t mean you go after fewer 4/5* players.
This is why I am surprised that he seemed to minimize it.Of course. But I can promise you Nik knows the importance of talent as much as anyone.
Work ethic, competitiveness, leadership (or at least a great teammate), coachable, takes care of business off the field so those things don't become a liability or distraction.What are your standards for “football character”?
Good call on Armstrong. The thing is the blue print back to relevance isn’t that complicated to me, in fact I think it’s way more simple than before the portal.Brennan Armstrong was absolutely on the fast track to getting drafted before Anae and Mendenhall left. He's had a bit of a down year this year so might end up as UDFA.