Don't forget that it is highly likely more than one of the incoming DLs end up at OL. We picked up more OL last year than people realize. Quality may be a topic of debate, but that is a circular unanswerable question until around their third years.
These are Boise State linemen who are currently on NFL rosters. McClellin and Clady were first round NFL draft choices. Not a single one of those players was higher than a 3* as ranked by Scout when we recruited them. Clady and McClellin were both two star recruits. Neither had a single other offer other than Boise State. Not an FCS offer. Nothing. Of that list only Winn had an AQ offer.
Not saying this at all to brag, but merely to make a point. There are very few 18 year olds who are fully developed physically, mentally and emotionally. Linemen, more than any other position, are hard to project, but it's true for high school players in general as well.
Last edited by nocoolnamejim; 05-04-2012 at 07:14 AM.
To add to this, the only 3 stars in the bunch of names I listed above are Winn and Crawford. Every single other player listed was a 2 star.
Last edited by nocoolnamejim; 05-04-2012 at 07:15 AM.
It's one thing if you've had a system in place for a decade and 8 of your games are against the sisters of the poor. Your 2* guys who don't pan out end up being just as good or better than most of the players in your conference anyway. And the minority that develop into truly special players are dominant. Very different when you are playing in a 3-5 star conference. You certainly take some unheralded guys you have identified in the recruiting process, but for the most part you can't be pulling in entire classes of guys you hope will develop.
Good point nocool. The hardest thing to project is a programs ability to find diamonds in the rough and then develop those players. Boise has done a great job.
I think our coaches have an eye for those type of players. Combine those with some blue-chippers and that is when CU will be back on top.
Just stay out of my way... or you'll pay! LISTEN to what I say!
I'm not arguing the need to bring in top-level talent in a major conference. I'm arguing that doing so is a very inexact science and that even the best evaluators are going to miss a large percentage of the time. Think of all the variables involved.
How many camps did they go to? Did a lot of evaluators get a chance to get a good look at the player or did they commit early and shutdown recruitment? Do they come from a place like Southern California or Texas where the density of Div 1 players is very high and evaluators get a lot of good data to work with, or do they come from a less recruited/less evaluated location? Were they actually very good at a high school level or did they just have underrated teammates around them that made them look better than they are?
How will their bodies be when they finish developing? How early did a lot of their offers come in? (Maybe they got their growth early and were dominant based on size alone, and therefore never really learned the technique and attitude that would make them successful at the next level.) How well do they handle making the transition from living with their parents to by themselves? Are they workout warriors who never really manage to produce on the field? (Dontari Poe) Did they happen to have a bad game on the one time that a talent evaluation agency like Rivals takes a look at them?
No doubt the downside consequences of missing on a recruit are a little less severe when you aren't playing quite as good of competition on a regular basis, but most male individuals don't finish developing physically, mentally and emotionally until around 21 or 22 years old. Talent evaluators are asked to evaluate thousands and thousands of these unfinished products every year, but just because a kid is a four star doesn't mean he's going to end up being a stud and just because they are a two star doesn't mean that they're not going to be a contributor.
Sure, there are going to be some kids that look to be mortal locks to be stars at the next level, but think of how often even NFL draft prospects don't pan out with even more data and resources and a smaller pool of young men to evaluate at their disposal.
Stars correlate with success, but only up to a certain point. Teams like Notre Dame, Clemson, North Carolina, Florida State, South Carolina, Texas A&M, UCLA and Ole Miss routinely pull in highly ranked classes and routinely underachieve and accomplish nothing. Meanwhile other schools, even schools who have been in major AQ conferences, have routinely been outside the top-25 recruiting classes, in some cases WAY outside the top-25 classes, and routinely win.
This may well be a matter of different experiences coloring perceptions. I come from a program that has NEVER managed to pull in a top-25 recruiting class, or come anywhere CLOSE to doing so far that matter, but has enjoyed major success for a decade and a half now. Certainly, some of the win totals are padded by the competition, but from 2002 to the present Boise State has been in the top-25 of the final BCS rankings every year except one. I have a hard time believing in the infallibility - or even the overall reliability - of the ranking of the professional talent evaluation agencies.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love it if Boise State was pulling in top-25 classes. But I trust Coach Pete's evaluation more than anyone else's.
"So is there a secret, an innovative NFL developmental system? No, Petersen said. "I don't get hung up on the NFL thing at all because it's not a focus of our program." That said, he also dismisses that a high school ranking means anything.
"I've never gotten – and never will – the star thing," Petersen said. "We'll discuss it more [in this interview] than in six years at Boise State. It never enters into our thinking."
Well, maybe that's it. Boise State certainly isn't the only place having great success turning lightly recruited players into NFL picks: Cincinnati, Utah, TCU and others also have tremendous track records.
Clearly Petersen and his staff have been adept at finding players who fit into the Broncos' culture. And it could be argued they attract the ultra-driven player seeking a chance to improve, that the program builds on itself. Or perhaps, out of necessity, they just have to scout harder and smarter.
"We look at tape and ask, 'Do we like this guy, and is he good enough to play for us?,' " Petersen said. "And then we do a lot of research. Will he do the things we ask him to do? Will he lift weights the way we do? Will he run the way we do? Will he live up to our expectations of how we conduct ourselves. And there's academics."
Petersen is 73-6 (.924) in six seasons and has been to two BCS bowls the last four seasons. "We would've had four BCS appearances in four years if we could make a field goal," Petersen said, and yes, no Broncos place kickers were selected. "
Last edited by nocoolnamejim; 05-04-2012 at 03:46 PM.
There will always be outliers on both sides of the statistical correlation. Lucky for you your coach happens to be one that can either find diamonds in the rough or develop players through way-above average coaching AND benefit from a way below-par schedule.
I hope you slow down with the Boise St/Peterson fellating pretty soon here. This is not your board. You are hitting on a touchy/sore subject and come off as a braggart. I know I come off as an asshole, but I'm not worried about that.
In summary: If you want to worship at the altar of Peterson, please go somewhere else.