Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

I think this is incredibly obvious. Half the job of a coach is to find the other team’s bad players/units, while hiding your own. Does anyone really argue talent doesn’t matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talent that loses doesn't matter. It's about winning. Arbitrary words like "talent" don't define winning.
 

I think one of the issues here is how "talent" is defined.

If "talent" is strictly based on star ratings and recruiting team rankings, then GWG's argument has merit.

I (and I suspect others) take a somewhat more expansive view of the term "talent." And I don't see star ratings and team rankings as a 100% infallible method of ranking "talent."

There are intangibles at play - some almost impossible to measure - heart, determination, drive, the will to win. Why do certain teams and certain players find a way to win close games, while other, equally 'talented' teams seem to find a way to lose close games? intangibles. I cover a HS team that has a lot of skilled athletes, but almost always finds a way to make a mistake at the worst possible time. To me, that is folded into the definition of "talent."

In that sense, coaching could be defined as helping players realize their talent to the fullest potential. I'm not sure you can separate one from the other. It's almost a chicken-and-egg debate. Where does the value of talent end and the value of coaching begin? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why did I buy a canary yellow leisure suit for my roommate's wedding in 1977? Questions to ponder. (not christian or sam ponder - but sam is still hot)

Truly awesome. Actual footage of SON from the 70s:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r1PtFuLQLJU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Look up winning percentages for early Patterson, Dantonio, Petersen, Meyer, etc. Do certain coaches tend to overachieve recruiting rankings while others underperform? I'd argue YES.

Unless we get a coach that can overachieve, develop players, and win, to create that positive feedback loop, or hotwire the process and recruit at a very high level right off the bat (extremely difficult IMO) we'll continue to struggle. Hopefully Fleck is the real deal in all areas.
 

Talent that loses doesn't matter. It's about winning. Arbitrary words like "talent" don't define winning.

And if you don't play the winning talent such as Kobe McCrary after a performance like he had against MTSU, then that is a coaching error.
We should be 6-1 right now with a shot at the west title if the coaches would have been playing McCrary to soften up the other teams defense. But instead, all we hear is that we have no talent.
 

And if you don't play the winning talent such as Kobe McCrary after a performance like he had against MTSU, then that is a coaching error.
We should be 6-1 right now with a shot at the west title if the coaches would have been playing McCrary to soften up the other teams defense. But instead, all we hear is that we have no talent.
That and adapting to your talent. Finally ran a bunch out of the I like we should have since week two.
 



Yeah I like Croft under center as well. At least a good percent of the time.

Considering he’s fumbled/bobbled several shotgun snaps in his short playing time already, if he’s in there I like him under center as well.
 

Considering he’s fumbled/bobbled several shotgun snaps in his short playing time already, if he’s in there I like him under center as well.

I'm just curious, but what's your deal with the kid? He's barely played. Learning curve expected, or nah?
 

Was it a good coaching decision...to bring back Kiondre so soon after a hamstring? I'd say no. Just play the freaking freshmen PJ instead of bringing guys back too soon. Not many injuries sufficiently heal in a couple weeks. Now we've really got problems if one of Ayinde or Harris goes down. Just another questionable decision.
 



The more talented B1G teams were 6-1 today and are now 28-7 for the season.
 






Again, this is based straight off of recruiting rankings.

Not exactly. Recruiting rankings - those that never made it to campus - those that have left the team, etc., etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Not exactly. Recruiting rankings - those that never made it to campus - those that have left the team, etc., etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's the composite of every individual recruits rating that is on the team. It is exactly recruiting rankings.
 


It's the composite of every individual recruits rating that is on the team. It is exactly recruiting rankings.

And why do you think they created this measurement rather than just using their initial class rankings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

And why do you think they created this measurement rather than just using their initial class rankings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already explained it to you once in this thread, go back and read it.
 

I already explained it to you once in this thread, go back and read it.

Right. Something like every team losses players so that all "evens out" so it is "exactly recruiting rankings". Right? I guess we should therefore ignore the flaws of recruiting rankings and treat them as gospel because they made this new skewed measurement for the sole purpose of trying to validate recruiting rankings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Right. Something like every team losses players so that all "evens out" so it is "exactly recruiting rankings". Right? I guess we should therefore ignore the flaws of recruiting rankings and treat them as gospel because they made this new skewed measurement for the sole purpose of trying to validate recruiting rankings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They matter. It's a proven fact. Get over it.
 

They matter. It's a proven fact. Get over it.

I've never said they don't matter. I have only said the difference between 20-60 is negligible and not the deciding factor in success. Your stats on tOSU beating Rutgers and this new measurement that 247 came up with for the sole purpose of hiding the biggest flaw with rankings does nothing for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I've never said they don't matter. I have only said the difference between 20-60 is negligible and not the deciding factor in success. Your stats on tOSU beating Rutgers and this new measurement that 247 came up with for the sole purpose of hiding the biggest flaw with rankings does nothing for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also false.
 


Also false.

How about this: We don't agree on recruiting rankings and likely won't. We don't agree on using this transparent "measurement" of "talent" and likely won't.

Also, I'll throw you a bone: I overestimated our talent at QB & WR this year. I didn't think it was great, but didn't think it was as gawd awful as it is either.

With that said, I have also been disappointed with a lot of the coaching decisions this year and don't think we need to be as bad as we are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

How about this: We don't agree on recruiting rankings and likely won't. We don't agree on using this transparent "measurement" of "talent" and likely won't.

Also, I'll throw you a bone: I overestimated our talent at QB & WR this year. I didn't think it was great, but didn't think it was as gawd awful as it is either.

With that said, I have also been disappointed with a lot of the coaching decisions this year and don't think we need to be as bad as we are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I criticized some of the play calling in the in game thread. But we're not going to win the west until we get better players.

:drink:
 

The problem remains Fleck isn't getting better players than our competitors. Hopefully he can reel in some big fish this year or next. We better hope he is one of the coaches that can outperform.

You never researched the early careers of the best coaches in the business - what was their winning percentage and national ranking situation vs recruiting rankings? I believe we did this with Dantonio this summer but I'd guess it applies to many of the top tier coaches.
 

And I criticized some of the play calling in the in game thread. But we're not going to win the west until we get better players.

:drink:

I don't think anybody would argue that good players are better, but the concern is hearing we will win when we have better players than our opponents. Almost every coach can win when they have better players, the special ones can win some when they don't. Fleck was sold as a special one and it is disappointing to hear that he'll win the games when we have clearly better talent. That should get us to about 9 wins at best and....
 

The problem remains Fleck isn't getting better players than our competitors. Hopefully he can reel in some big fish this year or next. We better hope he is one of the coaches that can outperform.

You never researched the early careers of the best coaches in the business - what was their winning percentage and national ranking situation vs recruiting rankings? I believe we did this with Dantonio this summer but I'd guess it applies to many of the top tier coaches.

Depending on the source, the Gophers are either 1st or 2nd in the west right now. Will that stick? I don't know but it's going to be an improvement regardless. Plus the most intriguing prospects are on the offensive side of the ball and that was also the case with his 3 week 2017 recruiting class.

As for some of the early coaches, are we talking their first job or their first years in the B1G? Dantonio won 7, 4, and 7 in his 3 years at Cincinnati. He then won 7, 9, and 6 in his first 3 years at Michigan St. The recruiting classes before he took over Michigan St were highly ranked. His second full recruiting class at Michigan St was also ranked 17th in the country.
 

You seem to have a hard time acknowledging some coaches are better than others at development and scheme.
 

You seem to have a hard time acknowledging some coaches are better than others at development and scheme.

No I don't, but talent is still the number one factor.

Although they should have beaten Purdue, and had opportunities to beat Maryland and Iowa, I think Fleck and staff have done a good job of staying competitive with a depleted secondary, thin/young OL, and almost no talent at QB and WR.
 




Top Bottom