Depth in Recruiting

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
907
Reaction score
234
Points
43
Per Rockford’s request!

Was interested, so did a little research into what our top 10 players looked like back to 2014.... Our 10th best recruit both in 2018 and currently in 2019 would have been our 3rd best recruit in 2017, 4th best recruit in Coughlin’s Empire 2016 class, #1 in 2015’s class; or 3rd in Jeff Jones’ 2014 class.

I was looking at top 10 from each class figuring that those end up being the foundation of your starters in any given year.
 

rockford

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
966
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I think this is a great measure of how recruiting has improved.

OTOH, the only measure that really counts is wins. So hopefully the uptick in recruiting is a leading indicator.

One of the reasons I started the "Rockford's files" series of threads is to see how accurately recruiting rankings predict individual success. What I expect we'll find is a floor, a point in the position rankings that determine how likely a player is to have an impact. That would be far from a perfect measure, but I think it's safe to say the higher a guy is ranked, the more likely he is to become an impact player. And the last few years it seems like we're getting a lot of potential impact players.

JTG
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
Yeah, class depth and attrition really matter for programs like ours.

It's also important to make a distinction between 5th yr seniors moving on (Oseland) and losing FR/SO (Beck and KHH).
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,258
Reaction score
1,391
Points
113
Yeah, class depth and attrition really matter for programs like ours.

It's also important to make a distinction between 5th yr seniors moving on (Oseland) and losing FR/SO (Beck and KHH).
Your motives are obvious Bob. What about losing FR/SO like London?
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
Your motives are obvious Bob. What about losing FR/SO like London?
LOL. You're following me and crying about me pointing out your post.

But yeah, London's a bad one, Craig James is a bad one, KHH, Beck.

If you look at anyone, from any class (not cherry-picking), attrition of underclassmen hurts more than attrition of 5th year seniors.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out your obvious motives before. I didn't think you would have this kind of hissy fit. I really am sorry you're so hurt and I'll try not to hurt your feelings going forward.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,493
Reaction score
705
Points
113
LOL. You're following me and crying about me pointing out your post.

But yeah, London's a bad one, Craig James is a bad one, KHH, Beck.

If you look at anyone, from any class (not cherry-picking), attrition of underclassmen hurts more than attrition of 5th year seniors.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out your obvious motives before. I didn't think you would have this kind of hissy fit. I really am sorry you're so hurt and I'll try not to hurt your feelings going forward.
You motives are obvious.... lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,258
Reaction score
1,391
Points
113
LOL. You're following me and crying about me pointing out your post.

But yeah, London's a bad one, Craig James is a bad one, KHH, Beck.

If you look at anyone, from any class (not cherry-picking), attrition of underclassmen hurts more than attrition of 5th year seniors.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out your obvious motives before. I didn't think you would have this kind of hissy fit. I really am sorry you're so hurt and I'll try not to hurt your feelings going forward.
London's transfer is good. He was never going to play, so it's good that he's moving on. Despite it happening this week and being fresh in everyone's minds, you chose KHH and Beck from over a year ago, which are examples of "bad" transfers that we didn't want to happen. We all know why...
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
London's transfer is good. He was never going to play, so it's good that he's moving on. Despite it happening this week and being fresh in everyone's minds, you chose KHH and Beck from over a year ago, which are examples of "bad" transfers that we didn't want to happen. We all know why...
You are so salty. This is pathetic.

Well, I chose KHH and Beck because we missed them this year and they were fresh in my mind.

You're right about London, his transfer helped, but it's also a bad signing (put that one on Claeys and Kill, I think Fleck just didn't the right thing and honored local offers when he came on).

The Isaac Hayes or Beebe signings were somewhere between. They played for us, contributed, but moved on prior to the 5 years.

You're feelings were really hurt by that comment and I'm sorry. You're white knight is here in this thread to help fight for your honor. But I want you to both know, I'm sorry for hurting you. You'll be okay, just hang in there fellas.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,165
Reaction score
3,223
Points
113
Isn’t there a proven theory out there about rating inflation? We just gonna ignore that variable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,338
Reaction score
1,612
Points
113
I don’t look at ratings much or recruiting much to be honest. One thing I typically do like is having a class filled early. It gives me confidence that the recruits signing are guys they wanted not guys they had to take.

No idea if we filled classes early or late under previous coaches. It seems like we fill classes early under Fleck.

I’d rather have a 3 Star we wanted then barely miss a 4 star and settle for a 3 star we didn’t like as much. Even if the guy we got is the lowest rates of the three
 

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
907
Reaction score
234
Points
43
Isn’t there a proven theory out there about rating inflation? We just gonna ignore that variable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would love a source for this... The data seems to correlate with the offers that our recruits have gotten as well though... Lots of SEC offers, Notre Dame offers, B1G offers, etc. on a lot of our recruits the last 2 years... I can only remember a few in prior years???
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
I don’t look at ratings much or recruiting much to be honest. One thing I typically do like is having a class filled early. It gives me confidence that the recruits signing are guys they wanted not guys they had to take.

No idea if we filled classes early or late under previous coaches. It seems like we fill classes early under Fleck.

I’d rather have a 3 Star we wanted then barely miss a 4 star and settle for a 3 star we didn’t like as much. Even if the guy we got is the lowest rates of the three
The other coaches did not have an early signing period while they were here so it is difficult to compare that one, but it does seem like PJ likes to fill up the class fairly early and does not hesitate to offer a low rated kid early in the process, which is a tactic I don't always agree with.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
Another important part is recruiting the right positions at the correct times.
 

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
907
Reaction score
234
Points
43
The other coaches did not have an early signing period while they were here so it is difficult to compare that one, but it does seem like PJ likes to fill up the class fairly early and does not hesitate to offer a low rated kid early in the process, which is a tactic I don't always agree with.
Depends how well you evaluate talent. Seems like over the last two years he has offered multiple guys early that have added big time offers later in the recruiting cycle... I think this significantly improves Fleck’s ability to recruit.
 

GoGoGopher12

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
264
Reaction score
33
Points
28
The other coaches did not have an early signing period while they were here so it is difficult to compare that one, but it does seem like PJ likes to fill up the class fairly early and does not hesitate to offer a low rated kid early in the process, which is a tactic I don't always agree with.
So PJ and staff should use the ratings on 247 or Rivals to determine who to offer? Wonder if any other coaches around the country do that?
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
Depends how well you evaluate talent. Seems like over the last two years he has offered multiple guys early that have added big time offers later in the recruiting cycle... I think this significantly improves Fleck’s ability to recruit.
He's also signed some that haven't and seemingly had to turn away some talented players later on in the process. You win some and lose some I guess, tough to be perfect.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
So PJ and staff should use the ratings on 247 or Rivals to determine who to offer? Wonder if any other coaches around the country do that?
I didn't say that. But I think coaches generally have an idea of how much recruiting attention certain kids are getting, I think in some situations Fleck would be better served slow playing some of the offers. I think for some of the instate kids for example. Or a long snapper for example.
 

GoGoGopher12

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
264
Reaction score
33
Points
28
I didn't say that. But I think coaches generally have an idea of how much recruiting attention certain kids are getting, I think in some situations Fleck would be better served slow playing some of the offers. I think for some of the instate kids for example. Or a long snapper for example.
I'll put stock, a LOT more stock in a coach's evaluation of a kid than I will a bunch of so called "experts" from a the recruiting sites. Especially when it comes to the QB position. Do you know how the majority of the initial ratings come about? From the respective rating service camps. Meaning, the QB throws 1 on 1 to a receiver. No rush, no check-downs. Just 1 on 1 with a receiver they've likely never thrown a pass to before. A 10 yard comeback for one receiver can be different than a 10 yard comeback for another.

Case in point: Look how many 2019 commitments have already been bumped by the rating services. Fleck & Staff saw the talent and potential with their own eyes, offered the kid(s), and kept on them until they got a commitment. That's a pretty damn good judge of talent.

And the Long Snapper situation...Weeks is like the #1 LS in the country. They won't need another LS for 4 years. Pretty solid investment.
 

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
8,717
Reaction score
1,098
Points
113
I put more stock in kids staying with the program.
If 18 of the 23 kids graduate from here, it will have been a great class.
If 5 of the 23 kids graduate from here, we missed.
 

HolyCross66

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Just before signing day there are always some recruits that fall out of favor or there is no room for on teams like Alabama and OSU. Is there anyone we may be in the running for that could be a nice bump for us?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,165
Reaction score
3,223
Points
113
I put more stock in kids staying with the program.
If 18 of the 23 kids graduate from here, it will have been a great class.
If 5 of the 23 kids graduate from here, we missed.
I am with this 100%. Ratings don’t account for how kids fit on a specific team or factor in kids that wash out for one reason or another. Longevity tends to sort most of those aspects quite well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
I'll put stock, a LOT more stock in a coach's evaluation of a kid than I will a bunch of so called "experts" from a the recruiting sites. Especially when it comes to the QB position. Do you know how the majority of the initial ratings come about? From the respective rating service camps. Meaning, the QB throws 1 on 1 to a receiver. No rush, no check-downs. Just 1 on 1 with a receiver they've likely never thrown a pass to before. A 10 yard comeback for one receiver can be different than a 10 yard comeback for another.

Case in point: Look how many 2019 commitments have already been bumped by the rating services. Fleck & Staff saw the talent and potential with their own eyes, offered the kid(s), and kept on them until they got a commitment. That's a pretty damn good judge of talent.

And the Long Snapper situation...Weeks is like the #1 LS in the country. They won't need another LS for 4 years. Pretty solid investment.
Interesting how the higher rated guys have more coaches offering them than lower rated kids. Every team has kids that get bumped. I agree though Fleck has done a good job at finding a lot of talent early, but some have been head scratchers. You mock the ratings in one sentence then defend offering the long snapper because of his rating in another sentence. I’m just saying things have seemed dicey the last two years where we seem to be in on some talented players late but are down to only a few scholarships.
 

GoGoGopher12

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
264
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Interesting how the higher rated guys have more coaches offering them than lower rated kids. Every team has kids that get bumped. I agree though Fleck has done a good job at finding a lot of talent early, but some have been head scratchers. You mock the ratings in one sentence then defend offering the long snapper because of his rating in another sentence. I’m just saying things have seemed dicey the last two years where we seem to be in on some talented players late but are down to only a few scholarships.
Yeah, Weeks is rated like .79 so that's surely why I'm super high on him... But I did say #1 RANKED. There's a big difference between how specialists are ranked/rated at their own camps versus how QBs and other positions get rated. But, since you speak with such keen knowledge I'll go ahead and assume you understand this despite what you say.

I don't necessarily mock the ratings but I do mock those that think they are the only true indication of talent. I see it all the time unfortunately. There's a lot of kids out there who don't/can't camp for whatever reason and they don't get the ratings they deserve. There are others that are WAY over rated for various reasons but when you see their game film and season stats it makes you wonder. Then finally, there are those that are rated right where they probably should be.
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,951
Reaction score
483
Points
83
Yeah, Weeks is rated like .79 so that's surely why I'm super high on him... But I did say #1 RANKED. There's a big difference between how specialists are ranked/rated at their own camps versus how QBs and other positions get rated. But, since you speak with such keen knowledge I'll go ahead and assume you understand this despite what you say.

I don't necessarily mock the ratings but I do mock those that think they are the only true indication of talent. I see it all the time unfortunately. There's a lot of kids out there who don't/can't camp for whatever reason and they don't get the ratings they deserve. There are others that are WAY over rated for various reasons but when you see their game film and season stats it makes you wonder. Then finally, there are those that are rated right where they probably should be.
No I don't really understand the big difference in how specialists are rated vs other positions, other than you don't ever really see a four or five star specialist. I see Weeks is ranked the number 3 LS out of like 10 that they even evaluated. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, you are happy we are taking Cole Kramer and Brady Weeks early in the recruiting process, I'd be happier out recruiting multiple P5 schools for a couple highly rated kids later in the recruiting season. You say you trust Fleck's evaluation, well he offered the kids in both situations, many times the later on kids were offered months and months ago, but just didn't insta commit because they aren't long snappers with few teams willing to offer them.
 

PoockItInfor6

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
907
Reaction score
234
Points
43
They aren’t going to get every recruit right, but they composite rankings are as objective of a quantitative measure as we have, since they take multiple recruiting services’ evaluations into account.
 

pharmacygopher

114 Row 11
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
123
Points
63
No I don't really understand the big difference in how specialists are rated vs other positions, other than you don't ever really see a four or five star specialist. I see Weeks is ranked the number 3 LS out of like 10 that they even evaluated. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, you are happy we are taking Cole Kramer and Brady Weeks early in the recruiting process, I'd be happier out recruiting multiple P5 schools for a couple highly rated kids later in the recruiting season. You say you trust Fleck's evaluation, well he offered the kids in both situations, many times the later on kids were offered months and months ago, but just didn't insta commit because they aren't long snappers with few teams willing to offer them.
Curious what you don't like about Kramer. I've read a couple posts now similar to this. I don't pretend to know how to evaluate QBs and EP seems to run a lot, so I have to defer to the coaches evaluation.

Just from a rankings perspective, Kramer (84.52) is on par with Morgan (83.75) and Annexstad (83.55). To me it was a position of need, pretty decently ranked, from a local 'powerhouse' program that is good to keep a pipeline with. I'm not saying take every local kid but this one doesn't bother me a bit especially with how thin the Gophers were/are at QB. Curious what you're seeing?

FWIW I'm not thrilled with taking a long snapper but Weeks is rated by 247 as the #1 overall LS. Other P5 programs to offer LS scholarships per 247: Washington State, NC State, UCLA, Indiana, LSU, North Carolina. LSU and UCLA also offered kickers a scholarship this year, so the Gophers aren't the only school to use 2 scholarships on specialists.
 
Last edited:

bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
54
Points
48
I put more stock in kids staying with the program.
If 18 of the 23 kids graduate from here, it will have been a great class.
If 5 of the 23 kids graduate from here, we missed.
I put more stock in how the class translates into wins. If this class is a part of a several 8+ win seasons, I'll consider it a strong class. If they are more often a part of 6-7 win seasons, it will have been a disappointing class .
 
Top Bottom