AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
OL recruiting - a big problem
- Thread starter sackman
- Start date
It's not. Florida has the best of the states that produce the most. Texas is probably a bit better than California, but it's pretty close.
And the year, and the perception.
The stereotype I have always heard and think there is some truth to is that Texas is the place to go for big guys, Florida for speed, and California for skilled kids (passers, etc.) Probably some truth but not the entire truth to all of that.
This article is dated (2008) but provides some facts to this discussion. By the way, you're right. The PAC produces QBs.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-04-21-draft-database-cover_N.htm
Bufferman
Member
Of course this year in the first round of the NFL Draft there were 4 QBs taken - 3 from Texas HS (one of them from Houston) and the 4th from OK. :hmmm:
All three states put out talent. Just talking about long-term perception. I think if you looked at the overall numbers of players who were quality D1 players Texas would have a higher proportion on the LOS and Cali would have a higher proportion of QBs and other skill guys.
Lots of each of those in Fla as well but when I think of Fla I think of the speed guys who have come out to there.
We've gone from getting no OL commits to a shotgun approach, it seems. Get as many bodies as we can and hope a few of them pan out. I suppose it's better than having numbers problems, but this presents issues of it's own. I'd really prefer to get 4-5 solid, quality OL every year as opposed to the approach we seem to be taking now.
I think that the nature of the position makes the position coach more important in recruiting OL than any other position. While I do like some of the commits we have on the OL I share the concerns that we are taking quantity over quality. I also am dissapointed in our innability to pick up even one guy who is widely considered an outstanding prospect, one of those kids who gets at least 4 stars, who has offers from multiple top 25 teams, a can't miss type. Even more dissapointing is that we have had more of these highly rated OL kids come out of the state of Colorado in the past two years than I can remember in a two year period in a couple of decades.
I can understand not getting a full class of highly rated prospects, everybody wants them and they have options with schools that are winning more. The same with the highly rated in-state kids. Some of these kids had strong ties to out-of-state schools, some got offers for schools with strong attractions academically, some were bound and determined to leave Colorado. Even with all this there is no excuse for striking out completely. I can understand not getting all or even the majority of the highly rated kids, in state and out, that we go after but to get Zero in the last two years indicates that something has the change and sooner than later.
Marshall may or may not be very good at coaching the position. Unfortunately at the PAC level all the coaching in the world won't help if we don't have the talent to execute it.
Changing Marshall out right now would probably hurt more than help. That stated he should be put on notice, do the work to bring in more talent or this season will be his last in Boulder.
I can understand not getting a full class of highly rated prospects, everybody wants them and they have options with schools that are winning more. The same with the highly rated in-state kids. Some of these kids had strong ties to out-of-state schools, some got offers for schools with strong attractions academically, some were bound and determined to leave Colorado. Even with all this there is no excuse for striking out completely. I can understand not getting all or even the majority of the highly rated kids, in state and out, that we go after but to get Zero in the last two years indicates that something has the change and sooner than later.
Marshall may or may not be very good at coaching the position. Unfortunately at the PAC level all the coaching in the world won't help if we don't have the talent to execute it.
Changing Marshall out right now would probably hurt more than help. That stated he should be put on notice, do the work to bring in more talent or this season will be his last in Boulder.
Idot Buff
Guest
Why is this thread not in Barzil? If I were an incoming OL, I might be pissed off about some of the comments here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like our OL recruits so far and recruiting overall. Welcome aboard guys!!!
Nobody is calling out any one particular recruit. This is the recruiting forum, and it's a logical place to have a discussion on recruiting OL. For a long time, we weren't recruiting any OL. That's changed to where we now have something like 6 commits. I don't think that anybody would argue that the guys we've accepted commitments from haven't had a ton of offers elsewhere, nor are they endowed with a ton of stars. It's all speculation and numbers at this point.
It seems to me that the coaches are hoping to bolster the numbers on the OL and hope that they can develop 7-10 guys to contribute at a high level.
It seems to me that the coaches are hoping to bolster the numbers on the OL and hope that they can develop 7-10 guys to contribute at a high level.
That develop word is key here. We are completley focusing on guys who are not ready right away (with a few exceptions) and instead are looking at guys who theoretically can be molded into average or above average BCS players. Unfortunately, we are striking out on everyone who does not fit that mold. This flurry of commitments definitely seems like a "Plan B".
In all fairness, contrast Embree's "Plan B" to Hawkins "Plan B" and we're still ahead of the game. Hawkins would strike out on his plan A guys, then not recruit anybody until all the cupboards were bare. The guys we're taking now haven't even played their Senior year. It's entirely possible that 3-4 of the guys we have committed now will have monster Senior seasons and the coaches will look like geniuses.
Fair point as to the differences between the Plan B's. As to your scenario. Yes. it is possible.
Not according to AZ, fwiw and he also said (maybe it was Adam), but that Gunnar was very high on the staffs board.
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
Plan B is for losers.
Don't believe EVERYTHING you read. If these guys were Plan A, then why were we going so hard after all the highly rated guys before hearing anything about these ones?
or for that lucky couple that had to much to drink.
I'm not believing everything I read, just stating what I saw reported by him.
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
I'm going to Dal Ward and taking away all their coffee.
dply
Doble hoja
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
Always.
Easy as 1,2,3.
It was a big plan with lots of contingencies built in? :wink2:
Are you suggesting that the terms "Plan A" and "Plan B" are somehow overly simplistic? HERESY! Still some truth to using those terms, however.