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!
Recruiting really was bad under Hawkins...
- Thread starter BlackNGold
- Start date
fatbuff
Member
Depends on who he was rooting for.
well, he appeared to be rooting mostly for himself :huh:
BlackNGold
Club Member
I do not agree with that at all. CU has been looking for a quality back for years...Speedy is a good back but his size is an issue. And look at CU's backup situation at RB. Quality CBs are hard to come by, just being athletic is not enough.
Might be looking at the difference between good and great, a guy who can do the job and compete at this level vs. a guy who is a difference maker and creates wins.
Speedy is a great example. He is a solid AQ level back, gets good stats, does his job. On the other hand how many games does he take over, how often does he do something that makes you say "Wow," and changes a game in your favor.
At DB a good example is the difference between Jimmy Smith and a Ben Burney. Burney was a solid CB, good enough to get a FA look in the NFL but Jimmy was a guy who was able to make offenses change their game plan to avoid him, Burney covered guys, Jimmy took them away.
There are lots of guys available who can develop into quality players but if you want to win you have to have a number of the difference makers and they are a lot harder to find.
Yep. Quality CBs are not easy to find. Even harder to maintain quality depth, which is vital for both defense and special teams.
Walter White
Member
You need the difference makers on the line of scrimmage. With that, you're average D1 atheletes can produce. Without victories at teh LOS then even your stars will be struggling.
Walter White
Member
If you're not getting pressure up front then you're toast. Even the best can't cover the average for very long.
Sure. But even teams with really good DLs rarely get by with average corners.
Walter White
Member
I disagree, but not sure how you can measure it.
Buffy
Member
Boise St vs Utah- 4-0. Last 2 games vs Whittingham, 36-3 and 26-3. TCU kicked Utah's arse as well.
TCU and Boise St are step above Utah.. Utah hasn't had one decent win since beating Alabama 3 years ago. As weak as the Pac12 is this year, Boise would only lose to maybe Oregon and Stanford. And they beat Oregon teams as good as this years. TCU lost 18 starters, so they've taken a step back this year. But Boise has far more talent than most will give them credit for, especially at OL and DL. They have 2 projected 1st round picks in this years draft from the mock I just saw, in RB Doug Martin and DT Billy Winn. I've seen LT Nate Potter projected as a first rounder too, and he was on ESPN's 1st team AA list for the midseason. I think our losing streak is bringing out a lot of sour grapes towards Boise for some reason.
TCU and Boise St are step above Utah.. Utah hasn't had one decent win since beating Alabama 3 years ago. As weak as the Pac12 is this year, Boise would only lose to maybe Oregon and Stanford. And they beat Oregon teams as good as this years. TCU lost 18 starters, so they've taken a step back this year. But Boise has far more talent than most will give them credit for, especially at OL and DL. They have 2 projected 1st round picks in this years draft from the mock I just saw, in RB Doug Martin and DT Billy Winn. I've seen LT Nate Potter projected as a first rounder too, and he was on ESPN's 1st team AA list for the midseason. I think our losing streak is bringing out a lot of sour grapes towards Boise for some reason.
Last edited:
Not a great example this year because they have a difference maker behind them but most years Wisconsin is a perfect example of this. Despite huge college statistics their RBs (and sometimes QBs) end up dissapointing in the pros. They do so well in college because Wisconsin puts them behind that huge, mobile O-Line and gets 3-4 yards of push on every down. By the second half of games the defenses are so beaten down that even an average back can get huge gains.
At the same time a difference making RB can make average offensive linemen look tremendous.
Same things can be said on the D-line as well.
Bottom line though is that to win you have to have enough guys on the team who make a difference in the game. Which positions are most important can be argued but you need to have some of these guys somewhere on the team.
moett88
Well-Known Member
So I am confused. So far I've heard that high quality talent, with exceptions, can be marked half way decently thru the the ranking system, for the most part. The higher the ranking and the better the offer list, the more likely a team will is getting a player that will contribute and/or be a game changer. Also, other than the line, the skill positions are in abundance and can be picked up from anywhere.
But then, some schools that are taking average talent, per the ranking system, are getting it done somehow, or because they are in weaker conferences, giving themselves enough time to develop their games to dominate by the time bowl season comes around.
So how do you explain Oklahoma State? Looking back at their last 5 recruiting classes they have not had any 5*, averaging maybe 2 to 3 4*, and the rest 3* to 2* stars. So in th logic put out here today, then an offer from OSU would say something about that athlete?
But then, some schools that are taking average talent, per the ranking system, are getting it done somehow, or because they are in weaker conferences, giving themselves enough time to develop their games to dominate by the time bowl season comes around.
So how do you explain Oklahoma State? Looking back at their last 5 recruiting classes they have not had any 5*, averaging maybe 2 to 3 4*, and the rest 3* to 2* stars. So in th logic put out here today, then an offer from OSU would say something about that athlete?
I will give you three reasons why I think Oklahoma State is successful:
1. They recruit the hell outta Texas. From 2007-2011, they signed 76 players from the state of Texas. They have another 11 prospects from Texas committed in 2012. You know better than anyone about the competition across the state of Texas. If you getting that many players from a big football state, especially if the majority are 3* players (and several are high 3* at that), you have a great foundation for winning football teams.
2. Their OL coach might be the best in the conference. Joe Wickline has an eye for talent at probably the hardest position to project to the college level outside of QB.
3. They hit on two QBs in succession in a big way. QB is another position that is always hard to project to the next level, but Oklahoma State managed to get it right on Zac Robinson (local CO kid) and Weeden after he finished baseball.
1. They recruit the hell outta Texas. From 2007-2011, they signed 76 players from the state of Texas. They have another 11 prospects from Texas committed in 2012. You know better than anyone about the competition across the state of Texas. If you getting that many players from a big football state, especially if the majority are 3* players (and several are high 3* at that), you have a great foundation for winning football teams.
2. Their OL coach might be the best in the conference. Joe Wickline has an eye for talent at probably the hardest position to project to the college level outside of QB.
3. They hit on two QBs in succession in a big way. QB is another position that is always hard to project to the next level, but Oklahoma State managed to get it right on Zac Robinson (local CO kid) and Weeden after he finished baseball.
aik
Well-Known Member
Yeah but maybe next summer he can finally make that trip to the state of Colorado if you get my drift.
Just goes to show that development is just as important as evaluation. Oklahoma state is the outlier, not the norm. They have had two very low ranked QBs come in and dominate.
Idot Buff
Guest
http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showt...elist-on-quot-The-Experts-quot-on-ESPNU-today
Found this humorous.....anybody see Doosh Danny on The "Experts" last night?
Found this humorous.....anybody see Doosh Danny on The "Experts" last night?
Do that again and I'll neg rep you into the stone age.
Okie State does a great job of development, I think they also do a very good job of evaluation. What they do though is find a lot of kids who they can develop but are "rated" a little lower because they haven't been developed yet.
Zac Robinson is a perfect example. He clearly had the athletic ability but people weren't lining up for him coming out of HS. Okie State saw something in him, developed him, and ended up winning a lot of games.
Idot Buff
Guest
Which part, the picture, or the reference to the nub site? As you well know, I despise Doosh face more than anyone on here, and was predicting the horrific situation we would find ourselves in if Danny was not **** canned in 2009....
moett88
Well-Known Member
Along with Snow Buff and Boulder Buff............these are the points that i'm trying to make. I know we need a system as a benchmark but there has to be more to look at than just the system to know if a kid has the potential for greatness or at least work to improve a program.
Example: There is a WR we have played against for the last few years. His name is Devante Lacy. Not a huge kid, but is a smart player at his position.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/recru...s-1-1097315;_ylt=AiMYOFdmLtSTny6BcbA4ZJrwOrF_
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/high-schools/grand-prairie-news/
Junior stats 1144 yrd, 14 TDs. Senior stats are on the way to blowing out junior stats. I believe he got all region and I think all state last year. Problem is he IS the team. And other than him, there is nobody there and the team can't buy a game. I'm not sure if anyone will or has offered but I hope they do. He's not ranked or rated. But when you watch film on him, he has a great knack for finding any hole that is there.
Now on the flip side...........there was a thread that went out about the current #1 WR in the state saying to not judge him by his senior stats and situation. He is a 5* kid and his team has only won 1 game, like the kid above. I think he's pulled off 784 yrd and 2 TDs.
Last edited:
Walter White
Member
First, you have to look at a large data set and not individual examples. Same with individual players. You can find a five star guy who ended up sucking in college and you can find no-star walk ons who turned into superstars, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t meaningful patterns and trends.
With that said, let’s look at your OSU example their recruiting rankings within the Big 12
2007 = 3
2008 = 5
2009 = 6
2010 = 5
2011 = 5
Now look at their conference win/loss record over the past few years. OSU is finishing slightly ahead of the recruiting rankings, but not much ahead. Never won the conference. Take last year, five teams had an equal or better Big 12 record.
They’re doing very well this year so far, but we’re only halfway done.
Lastly, as I said in the other post, the biggest difference maker is the QB and it’s nearly impossible to measure the elements that make a QB successful. Their QB is 28 years old and is fantastic. He’s the wildcard that’s driving the boat this year.
Walter White
Member
Okie state isn't performign that much ahead of their recruiting rankings over time. Their recruiting is pretty good. A few steps below OU and UT and that's where they are typically finishing.
2008 they had 6 four-star guys
2009 they had 5 four-star guys
2010 they had 5 foru-star guys
2008 they had 6 four-star guys
2009 they had 5 four-star guys
2010 they had 5 foru-star guys
Over time, on average a group of 4* and 5* kids are going to outperform a group of 2* and 3* guys. If a team is going to win they will rarely do it without at least some of these players.
At the same time if you look at teams that have made major steps up from sub .500 teams to contenders a part of their success has been with finding and developing a certain number of guys who outplay their rankings. Unless you are using the $EC method of roster building the limited number of 5* and 4* guys aren't lining up to play for losing teams. First you have to prove that you are going to win then they pay attention to you in numbers more than 1's and 2's.
At the same time if you look at teams that have made major steps up from sub .500 teams to contenders a part of their success has been with finding and developing a certain number of guys who outplay their rankings. Unless you are using the $EC method of roster building the limited number of 5* and 4* guys aren't lining up to play for losing teams. First you have to prove that you are going to win then they pay attention to you in numbers more than 1's and 2's.
moett88
Well-Known Member
1. Ok. Now of those, how many are still performing?
2. Explain UT's struggles last year and this year. Under your argument UT is one of the strongest, consistent recruiters of top talent. Shouldn't this formula keep them consistently producing?
moett88
Well-Known Member
So then you are saying that they are middle of the road and don't count? That I need to go higher? Like a Notre Dame or a Michigan?
How many years of 10+ wins did they have before they sucked wind? A lot. Never really MNC contenders most of those years, but 10+ wins is definitely nothing to sneeze at.
I'd love to have one of those a decade given how much we suck right now.