Some perspective with the 2013 recruiting class

Donate To GopherHole
GopherGod said:
Dead last in the BigTen is not good IMO, no matter how you try to spin it. These classes simply aren't classes that can in any way compete for a division championship, much less Big Ten championship.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm with you on this one. It is absolutely assine and a complete waste of time to try and incrementally improve the team. Kill should be swinging on the fence with every recruit like Brewster did trying to land only 5 and 4 star recruits. Why waste time on trying to find the gems over looked when he can win a championship overnight, something a Gopher coach hasn't done in something like half a century.

You are absolutely right. Kill is an idiot!

God you are a dick...
 



GopherGod said:
Dead last in the BigTen is not good IMO, no matter how you try to spin it. These classes simply aren't classes that can in any way compete for a division championship, much less Big Ten championship.
Click to expand...

When is the last time we recruited to win a championship at any level? The reality is this. You have to win with less talent first.....then you will get better talent. Not until. Especially here where in-state talent just simply isn't there in numbers to compete.
 

Sumtimegophs said:
Yep, I'm with you on this one. It is absolutely assine and a complete waste of time to try and incrementally improve the team. Kill should be swinging on the fence with every recruit like Brewster did trying to land only 5 and 4 star recruits. Why waste time on trying to find the gems over looked when he can win a championship overnight, something a Gopher coach hasn't done in something like half a century.

You are absolutely right. Kill is an idiot!

God you are a dick...
Click to expand...

No he's a Cornhusker fan. First and foremost a Cornhuskers fan. Why his opinion on the level of recruits could have merit, he's also the guy who said Nebraska's Defensive problems would disappear once they fired Cosgrove and brought in Pellini. Those Defensive struggles they had with the Buckeyes, Bruins, Badgers and Bulldogs this past season show that his prognostications could be a little biased at best.
 


GopherGod said:
Dead last in the BigTen is not good IMO, no matter how you try to spin it. These classes simply aren't classes that can in any way compete for a division championship, much less Big Ten championship.
Click to expand...

Didn't UW just win three CC's in a row with classes that were ranked about the sam or worse than the Gophers last five?

As someone said in another thread, recruiting is not a separate sport.
 

GopherGod said:
Of the BCS schools the gophers "out recruited", how many actually had committable offers from those schools. Or was it a case where they were offered but their commits would have only been accepted as plan B or C guys after others fell through. It is not unusual for programs to offer but not accept a kid's commitment until they know their plan A or B guys have moved on.
Click to expand...

I typically have to side with Bob, he seems to look at and follow recruiting pretty closely from what I read from his posts. So, I guess my point is, how do you know that our commits were those schools plan B or C guys? Did you do research on the teams these kids were being recruited by to actually see if they are plan B/C guys? Again, Bob does some good leg work in researching recruiting things, so I am gonna go with his side.
 

badgergopher said:
Didn't UW just win three CC's in a row with classes that were ranked about the sam or worse than the Gophers last five?

As someone said in another thread, recruiting is not a separate sport.
Click to expand...

I think the thing to remember, though, is that Wisconsin landed a number of 4-star guys at the skilled positions (Ball, Clay, Toon, Gordon) and they all pretty much panned out. The missed on a few 4-star skilled position guys (Phillips, Appleton), but they've had a stable of top-shelf kids at impact positions and there is no doubt that has helped them.

I think you can "coach up" the lunchbucket guys on the line to some extent, but you can't make a kid markedly faster or more elusive through drills. My main point here is that at some point, Kill is going to need to find his "home run hitter" at a skilled position for this team to take a dramatic step forward. Who knows, maybe Berkely Edwards is that guy in the class of 2013 and Jeff Jones sits right over the horizon for 2014. But this why landing a kid like Jones would be extremely important for Kill and the Gophers.
 

RT from MV

Matt H. ‏@MVofDT
RT @DanWolken: RT @travis_sawchik: We know recruiting is an inexact science: 42% of Rivals' top 100 players from 2006-09 were busts
 




50PoundHead said:
I think the thing to remember, though, is that Wisconsin landed a number of 4-star guys at the skilled positions (Ball, Clay, Toon, Gordon) and they all pretty much panned out. The missed on a few 4-star skilled position guys (Phillips, Appleton), but they've had a stable of top-shelf kids at impact positions and there is no doubt that has helped them.

I think you can "coach up" the lunchbucket guys on the line to some extent, but you can't make a kid markedly faster or more elusive through drills. My main point here is that at some point, Kill is going to need to find his "home run hitter" at a skilled position for this team to take a dramatic step forward. Who knows, maybe Berkely Edwards is that guy in the class of 2013 and Jeff Jones sits right over the horizon for 2014. But this why landing a kid like Jones would be extremely important for Kill and the Gophers.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail right on the 50 pound head with that comment. There is no doubt in anyones mind that Kill and Co. will find guys that can play. What remains to be seen is if they can find the guys you need to take the program to the next level. Maybe the guys you mentioned will turn out to be those players. I know a lot of people are excited about Edwards, my only reservation with him is that if he was a true homerun kind of talent I don't think there is anyway Michigan would have let him get away. Doesn't mean he can't come in and be a very good player but if he had elite potential I don't think there is anyway they don't offer him, because you know they took a really good look at him.
 





Wouldn't You like to Know said:
RT from MV

Matt H. ‏@MVofDT
RT @DanWolken: RT @travis_sawchik: We know recruiting is an inexact science: 42% of Rivals' top 100 players from 2006-09 were busts
Click to expand...

I don't like that tweet at all. What is their definition of "bust"? Didn't start? Didn't make all-conference? Didn't meet certain arbitrary statistical benchmarks?

Now, you take whatever their definition of "bust" is and apply it to all of the non-top 100 players from 2006-09, and I guarantee you the "bust" rating for that group is much, much, MUCH higher than 42%. Actually, given the difficulties inherent in talent evaluation, a 58% success rate is almost miraculous - especially when you consider that the analysis is stretched out over 4 years and encompasses 400 players.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't like that tweet at all. What is their definition of "bust"? Didn't start? Didn't make all-conference? Didn't meet certain arbitrary statistical benchmarks?

Now, you take whatever their definition of "bust" is and apply it to all of the non-top 100 players from 2006-09, and I guarantee you the "bust" rating for that group is much, much, MUCH higher than 42%. Actually, given the difficulties inherent in talent evaluation, a 58% success rate is almost miraculous - especially when you consider that the analysis is stretched out over 4 years and encompasses 400 players.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't like that tweet at all. What is their definition of "bust"? Didn't start? Didn't make all-conference? Didn't meet certain arbitrary statistical benchmarks?

Now, you take whatever their definition of "bust" is and apply it to all of the non-top 100 players from 2006-09, and I guarantee you the "bust" rating for that group is much, much, MUCH higher than 42%. Actually, given the difficulties inherent in talent evaluation, a 58% success rate is almost miraculous - especially when you consider that the analysis is stretched out over 4 years and encompasses 400 players.
Click to expand...

Totally agree that it would be very interesting to know how they define a "bust" because that is certainly something that could be open for interpretation. I would think the assumption on the top 100 is that they are destined for stardom so maybe a bust would be anyone that didn't become a starter or put up decent numbers, but even there the standard is pretty loose.
 

MNVCGUY said:
You hit the nail right on the 50 pound head with that comment. There is no doubt in anyones mind that Kill and Co. will find guys that can play. What remains to be seen is if they can find the guys you need to take the program to the next level. Maybe the guys you mentioned will turn out to be those players. I know a lot of people are excited about Edwards, my only reservation with him is that if he was a true homerun kind of talent I don't think there is anyway Michigan would have let him get away. Doesn't mean he can't come in and be a very good player but if he had elite potential I don't think there is anyway they don't offer him, because you know they took a really good look at him.
Click to expand...

50 got it right. The issue we face now however is a lack of those solid lunchpail types top to bottom in the program AND a handful of playmakers to build off of the solid base.

I do think edwards is a huge get. His style of play is so similar to Kill's back from NIU that shredded us and our offense lacked a big play runner all year. Michigan got a similar back to him last year and got the top RB in the country this year.
I think there are several "playmakers" in this class. Edwards IMO is the top get, Streveler has potential in a spread O to be a factor.

Santoso and Wozniak offer interesting skill sets, I expect Santoso to be an excellent kickoff specialist and Wozniak to be at least a redzone and blocking factor.

On top of that I see Laster, Salzwedel, and Myrick as super athletes who will need polish but may be the best of the class, and alot of the other kids are as has been said, lunchpail types who can be coached up and play disciplined and tough.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't like that tweet at all. What is their definition of "bust"? Didn't start? Didn't make all-conference? Didn't meet certain arbitrary statistical benchmarks?

Now, you take whatever their definition of "bust" is and apply it to all of the non-top 100 players from 2006-09, and I guarantee you the "bust" rating for that group is much, much, MUCH higher than 42%. Actually, given the difficulties inherent in talent evaluation, a 58% success rate is almost miraculous - especially when you consider that the analysis is stretched out over 4 years and encompasses 400 players.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest thing that people forget. Being a 5 star recruit doesn't mean that that player is going to be an All American for sure. It just means that STATISTICALLY, he is WAY more likely to be more succesful than a 3 star player.

If they used their definition of "bust" across the board, could you imagine what the bust rate would be for 3 star recruits?

Does bust rate sound dirty?
 

e.bigelow said:
I typically have to side with Bob, he seems to look at and follow recruiting pretty closely from what I read from his posts. So, I guess my point is, how do you know that our commits were those schools plan B or C guys? Did you do research on the teams these kids were being recruited by to actually see if they are plan B/C guys? Again, Bob does some good leg work in researching recruiting things, so I am gonna go with his side.
Click to expand...

I honestly just took the rivals data, I know it's not 100% the same across the board, but I didn't cherry pick to "prove a point". His question is somewhat valid, but he's just going to keep asking questions until he runs into an "I don't know".

It reminds me of Bill O'Reilly and the whole "tides" thing (I'm not trying to go political).
First, he said, no one knows where the tides come in and out.
People corrected him and explained that people knew exactly why the tides come in and out.
Then he said, "yeah but, how did the moon get there?"
People explained to him that we knew exactly how the moon got there.
Then he said "yeah but, how did the universe get there?"
Again, people explained it to him.
Eventually he just kept going until the other side said, fine. And he "won".

I'm really not trying to argue or debate about politics, I was just using that as a relatively famous example of the kind of debating that GopherGod is doing. He's essentially saying "yeah, but..." until we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Does bust rate sound dirty?
Click to expand...

200x200px-ZC-c0d4e839_vince-vaughn-motorboat.gif
 

dpodoll68 said:
I don't like that tweet at all. What is their definition of "bust"? Didn't start? Didn't make all-conference? Didn't meet certain arbitrary statistical benchmarks?

Now, you take whatever their definition of "bust" is and apply it to all of the non-top 100 players from 2006-09, and I guarantee you the "bust" rating for that group is much, much, MUCH higher than 42%. Actually, given the difficulties inherent in talent evaluation, a 58% success rate is almost miraculous - especially when you consider that the analysis is stretched out over 4 years and encompasses 400 players.
Click to expand...

I ran across the same article and posted a portion, plus the link in another thread, but here is how it read in the article:

"Recruiting is often called an inexact science and the level of inaccuracy, even with the best prospects, is surprisingly high.

An analysis of Rivals.com’s top 100 players from 2006 to 2009 reveals that 42 percent of the nation’s top prospects became busts, meaning they failed to either play in 40 games, start 20 games, or have one above-average season in their college careers.

More than 1 million boys play high school football each fall. The chance of one of them being ranked as a Rivals.com top 100 prospect as a senior is 0.0004 percent. Yet, 42 percent of the best of the top one percentile still fail.

In contrast, only 14 percent of those 100 prospects have been, or are projected to be, first- or second-round picks in the NFL Draft."
 

Unregistered User said:
An analysis of Rivals.com’s top 100 players from 2006 to 2009 reveals that 42 percent of the nation’s top prospects became busts, meaning they failed to either play in 40 games, start 20 games, or have one above-average season in their college careers.
Click to expand...

That's a very stupid definition of "bust". What does "above-average" mean?
 

Unregistered User said:
I ran across the same article and posted a portion, plus the link in another thread, but here is how it read in the article:

"Recruiting is often called an inexact science and the level of inaccuracy, even with the best prospects, is surprisingly high.

An analysis of Rivals.com’s top 100 players from 2006 to 2009 reveals that 42 percent of the nation’s top prospects became busts, meaning they failed to either play in 40 games, start 20 games, or have one above-average season in their college careers.

More than 1 million boys play high school football each fall. The chance of one of them being ranked as a Rivals.com top 100 prospect as a senior is 0.0004 percent. Yet, 42 percent of the best of the top one percentile still fail.

In contrast, only 14 percent of those 100 prospects have been, or are projected to be, first- or second-round picks in the NFL Draft."
Click to expand...

So out of 1 million people they select 100 and dub them the best (quote doesn't specify how many of that 1 million are seniors but at least 250,000 would seem like a safe bet). Of that 100 14% turn out to be first or second round draft picks in the NFL. That is pretty damn good in my book given the pool they started with.
 


MNVCGUY said:
So out of 1 million people they select 100 and dub them the best (quote doesn't specify how many of that 1 million are seniors but at least 250,000 would seem like a safe bet). Of that 100 14% turn out to be first or second round draft picks in the NFL. That is pretty damn good in my book given the pool they started with.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. When you actually break it down, 14% is very high.

There were 68 teams in the BCS as of last season. Say each of those schools averages signing 22 recruits a year (I know that numbers is probably low). That means about 1500 recruits are signed each season by these 68 teams. There are 64 draft picks in the first two rounds of the NFL draft. That means 22% of those first and second rounders come from the top 100 recruits, even though that group only makes up less than 7% of the overall recruiting pool.

I know this isn't a perfect way to look at it, but it still shows how much of a difference there is.
 


btowngopher said:
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/...ollege-programs-and-conferences-at-developing

According to this info
Recruiting Stars
Percent drafted
Average draft position
★★ 4.9% 143 (5th rd)
★★★ 8.1% 124 (late 4th)
★★★★ 16.7% 107 (early 4th)
★★★★★ 38.0% 81 (3rd rd)
Click to expand...


That's interesting info. I can't imagine how some people say that they are not accurate.

A 3 star is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 2 star.
A 4 star is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 3 star.
A 5 stare is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 4 star.
 

GopherInPittsburgh said:
5-star CB Jalen Ramsey is headed to FSU. Still enough time to flip back Nate Andrews ;)
Click to expand...

Serious question - How do you do that when we are now in a supposedly "dead period", i.e no contact with recruits? Does anybody know if and how you can communicate with a recruit during this period?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
That's interesting info. I can't imagine how some people say that they are not accurate.

A 3 star is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 2 star.
A 4 star is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 3 star.
A 5 stare is TWICE as likely to make it to the NFL than a 4 star.
Click to expand...

Those that downgrade the star system will say that 83% of the 4 star recruits don't get drafted therefore the system is worthless. Clearly the system isn't perfect but in the end the most important aspect of recruiting is not missing on guys, and the odds are better that a higher ranked player is going to be a star player than a lower ranked player.
 

Killjoy said:
Serious question - How do you do that when we are now in a supposedly "dead period", i.e no contact with recruits? Does anybody know if and how you can communicate with a recruit during this period?
Click to expand...

If it is a dead period the coaches are not allowed to contact the recruit period. Doesn't mean all will abide by the rule hoping not to get caught but in a dead period as I understand it no contact is permitted. The only possible exception might be mail sent thorugh the USPS because I don't know how you would regulate that in terms of arrival dates and what not.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom