Risk-taking in recruiting

[o_robbie]

So of the guys who should be SR's and leading this program. 1 out of 14 starts and only 2 are on the roster for this season with T.Smith injured/redshirting.
While some of this can be blamed on coaching changes/poor talent evaluation what I am getting at is it is still better to recruit the known product with some issues and try to coach them than trying to develop kids.

We need to take the kids that some of the other schools aren't interested in right now. We need to take on as many transfers with athletic ability as possible to compete. Another reason we need to do this is so our development type guys don't have to play early, get injured or rattled, and can save their RS eligibility.

 

[o_robbie]

It would have ended worse at CU. That's a significantly more forgiving environment.

Didn't Auburn recently win a National Championship?

 

[BuffClass90]

Not sure what they did at SJSU, but I don't think they were gamblers. They are looking for good kids who love football and want to play in Boulder. There should be enough kids out there like that to build a respectable program...or maybe not...

 

[o_robbie]

It would have ended worse at CU. That's a significantly more forgiving environment.

We won a single game last year and will likely win only one game against a FBS opponent this year. I think we got the it ended worse w/out the sweetness of the highs before it.

 

[Duff Man]

Didn't Auburn recently win a National Championship?

And went winless in conference play a mere two years later. Quite a fall, no?

 

[J.R. Ewing]

We won a single game last year and will likely win only one game against a FBS opponent this year. I think we got the it ended worse w/out the sweetness of the highs before it.

I can't think of another program in the nation that's put itself on probation without pending sanctions coming down the pipe.

 

[o_robbie]

Not sure what they did at SJSU, but I don't think they were gamblers. They are looking for good kids who love football and want to play in Boulder. There should be enough kids out there like that to build a respectable program...or maybe not...

SJSU doesn't require the same type of player to compete as CU does. The process of looking for athletic builds and teaching them technique works far better the lower the competition ladder goes.

 

[Quattro]

The guys from 07 and 08 would be gone regardless but lets look at 09's lesser signed recruits to see how much of an impact they are making.
Will Jefferson...gone
J.Forrest West...gone
Gus Handler...starter (by default?)
DeVaughn Thornton....gone
Shaun Simon....appears to have gone to KSU after becoming a JUCO
David Bahktiari...devloped into a good player...leaves early
Deji Olatoye...gone

Not very good use of devlopment type guys. Would it have been better to swing for the fences on higher 3 star and 4 star guys with character risks?

I fully realize there has been attrition outside of the talented guys who were character/academic risks, I did though outline them in the group that "Couldn't cut it at this level", which I stated earlier.

And actually Forrest West would be real nice to have right now.

 

[o_robbie]

And went winless in conference play a mere two years later. Quite a fall, no?

In the loaded SEC for one and two they are already back as a Top 25ish program again this year. So having one season of 3-9 doesn't sound to bad to me.
2010 if I get a National Championship
2011 Followed by a Bowl win t
2012 Crappy 3-9 season
2013 5-1 and on my way to a bowl game with a dang good recruiting class coming in.

 

[o_robbie]

I fully realize there has been attrition outside of the talented guys who were character/academic risks, I did though outline them in the group that "Couldn't cut it at this level", which I stated earlier.

And actually Forrest West would be real nice to have right now.

"The can't cut it at this level" is exactly what most of the 2 star/unranked guys end up being which is exactly my point on use of scholarships. Again, better to miss on a 4 star player like Katoa or Givens than with development type guys.

 

[BuffClass90]

SJSU doesn't require the same type of player to compete as CU does. The process of looking for athletic builds and teaching them technique works far better the lower the competition ladder goes.

That's a good point. I imagine it's easier to get into SJSU than it is CU.

 

[Duff Man]

"The can't cut it at this level" is exactly what most of the 2 star/unranked guys end up being which is exactly my point on use of scholarships. Again, better to miss on a 4 star player like Katoa or Givens than with development type guys.

I guess I don't see how either option is "better". You're not seeing positive impact on the field in either scenario.

 

[buffaholic]

SJSU doesn't require the same type of player to compete as CU does. The process of looking for athletic builds and teaching them technique works far better the lower the competition ladder goes.

That's bull**** as it's all relative. SJSU was much more competitive last year than CU has been in years. That's the only thing relevant. They were better than we've been, by a lot.

With that said, there are character risks, academic risks, and injury risks - and you got to weight each one individually. I see no sense in using Hawkin's late tenure 2-star signings as proof that can't work out. These guys weren't getting offers from SJSU even. CU went totally off the reservation on some of those recruits. Especially 2010.

I think HCMM will take some calculated risks, when he feels there is a high chance of success. Clearly right now, he's not taking a lot of chances with the kids he's recruiting. They are high character, high academic kids. That was true for the 2013 handful he brought in and it appears to be true looking at these kids. Personally, I'd like to see him take chances on kids every so often that are at positions where physical God-Given talent really makes a huge difference. That position is WR & DE. Every team needs one explosive dude at each spot. You can develop most other positions pretty well and make up for a little less raw talent.

Lets not forget that Paul Richardson was at the time, a risky signing. But I think when people looked into the situation, they saw a good kid with some maturity issues. That's not always been true with some of the other risky signings....

 

[Duff Man]

In the loaded SEC for one and two they are already back as a Top 25ish program again this year. So having one season of 3-9 doesn't sound to bad to me.
2010 if I get a National Championship
2011 Followed by a Bowl win t
2012 Crappy 3-9 season
2013 5-1 and on my way to a bowl game with a dang good recruiting class coming in.

They had a losing record in conference over four years. If you can promise me that one of these players you want us so badly to take will turn out to Cam Newton, let's do it. But you can't.

 

[o_robbie]

That's bull**** as it's all relative. SJSU was much more competitive last year than CU has been in years. That's the only thing relevant. They were better than we've been, by a lot.

With that said, there are character risks, academic risks, and injury risks - and you got to weight each one individually. I see no sense in using Hawkin's late tenure 2-star signings as proof that can't work out. These guys weren't getting offers from SJSU even. CU went totally off the reservation on some of those recruits. Especially 2010.

I think HCMM will take some calculated risks, when he feels there is a high chance of success. Clearly right now, he's not taking a lot of chances with the kids he's recruiting. They are high character, high academic kids. That was true for the 2013 handful he brought in and it appears to be true looking at these kids. Personally, I'd like to see him take chances on kids every so often that are at positions where physical God-Given talent really makes a huge difference. That position is WR & DE. Every team needs one explosive dude at each spot. You can develop most other positions pretty well and make up for a little less raw talent.

Lets not forget that Paul Richardson was at the time, a risky signing. But I think when people looked into the situation, they saw a good kid with some maturity issues. That's not always been true with some of the other risky signings....

You are clueless if you think it's all relative. We won't know for 3 or 4 years but in my opinion their is absolutely no way we are going to be better than average with out recruiting elite talent. Yes, we might get as good as San Jose's kids were last year but that will likely make us good enough to win a game or two in the Pac 12. And don't argue about how they were so great and this and that. It's the same thing as Boise. If you put them in a conference where they get beat up every week they aren't nearly as good as they look on paper. Also it's not sustainable over time.

 

[o_robbie]

They had a losing record in conference over four years. If you can promise me that one of these players you want us so badly to take will turn out to Cam Newton, let's do it. But you can't.

They are going to be in 3 bowl games in 4 years. I'm not sure CU will be bowling in the next 4 years.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

O robbie you're making it a two choice option: A) take Non-BCs players B) take a bunch of Lynn Katoas.

 

[o_robbie]

That's bull**** as it's all relative. SJSU was much more competitive last year than CU has been in years. That's the only thing relevant. They were better than we've been, by a lot.

With that said, there are character risks, academic risks, and injury risks - and you got to weight each one individually. I see no sense in using Hawkin's late tenure 2-star signings as proof that can't work out. These guys weren't getting offers from SJSU even. CU went totally off the reservation on some of those recruits. Especially 2010.

I think HCMM will take some calculated risks, when he feels there is a high chance of success. Clearly right now, he's not taking a lot of chances with the kids he's recruiting. They are high character, high academic kids. That was true for the 2013 handful he brought in and it appears to be true looking at these kids. Personally, I'd like to see him take chances on kids every so often that are at positions where physical God-Given talent really makes a huge difference. That position is WR & DE. Every team needs one explosive dude at each spot. You can develop most other positions pretty well and make up for a little less raw talent.

Lets not forget that Paul Richardson was at the time, a risky signing. But I think when people looked into the situation, they saw a good kid with some maturity issues. That's not always been true with some of the other risky signings....

I do agree that Hawkins last couple classes were very unusual on the bottom end. I do think that this years lower signed guys project better.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

This is kind of similar to the stars argument, except that stars pertains mostly to physical ability and the "risk" thing is at least somewhat or mostly controlled by one's maturity, restraint and value-system (sometimes there are just mental issues and stupidity you just can't get past.)

I think you take each of these kids with risks and approach them almost in a psychological way. Do they have a real chance to change? Are they well past the deep end? What do they have to say about things they've done and situations they've put themselves into? Are they just kids being kids but in the wrong place at the wrong time?

For example, I have a friend that has got a DWAI and a DUI in college. While he was pressured into driving and perhaps didn't feel like he was too drunk, he recognizes that it was really dumb, and won't risk it ever again. He is also one of the kindest and hardest working people you'll ever meet. If he was a recruit his character might be painted in a terrible light, but truth be told he would be a great teammate.

We just have to trust a coaches judgment and probably coddle them a bit more than others during their early years.

 

[o_robbie]

O robbie you're making it a two choice option: A) take Non-BCs players B) take a bunch of Lynn Katoas.

No. I am defending my opinion to take as many 4 star and high 3 star guys who have issues as possible as opposed to taking development types. Someone else mentioned that it wasn't a good idea to risk a scholarship on them and it would be better served to take a development type guy instead. So then I laid out the info on how bad an idea that was and how are best player was a risk/second chance in P.Rich. I then went on to say we really should be looking at taking transfers who want a second chance and gave examples of Dwyer and Seastrunk as the exact type of athlete who could really help turn the program around.

 

[Duff Man]

O robbie you're making it a two choice option: A) take Non-BCs players B) take a bunch of Lynn Katoas.

A recruiting argument using the extremes?

Welcome to CU football recruiting forum on Allbuffs.:lol:

 

[o_robbie]

This is kind of similar to the stars argument, except that stars pertains mostly to physical ability and the "risk" thing is at least somewhat or mostly controlled by one's maturity, restraint and value-system (sometimes there are just mental issues and stupidity you just can't get past.)

I think you take each of these kids with risks and approach them almost in a psychological way. Do they have a real chance to change? Are they well past the deep end? What do they have to say about things they've done and situations they've put themselves into? Are they just kids being kids but in the wrong place at the wrong time?

For example, I have a friend that has got a DWAI and a DUI in college. While he was pressured into driving and perhaps didn't feel like he was too drunk, he recognizes that it was really dumb, and won't risk it ever again. He is also one of the kindest and hardest working people you'll ever meet. If he was a recruit his character might be painted in a terrible light, but truth be told he would be a great teammate.

We just have to trust a coaches judgment and probably coddle them a bit more than others during their early years.

I agree with this. We have to take any advantage we can get right now. I'm not saying we should bring in the 2 kids from Alabama who just recently got kicked off the team but I certainly would have been in favor of bringing in the Honey Badger or Jenkins out of Florida when they were booted off for drugs.

 

[o_robbie]

A recruiting argument using the extremes?

Welcome to CU football recruiting forum on Allbuffs.:lol:

I also understand that, with our current program being a doormat for almost everyone, even the guys with issues won't necessarily want to come here. But I still think you have to recruit them down to the last day instead of fill up on guys who probably aren't going to help a whole lot.

 

[buffaholic]

You are clueless if you think it's all relative. We won't know for 3 or 4 years but in my opinion their is absolutely no way we are going to be better than average with out recruiting elite talent. Yes, we might get as good as San Jose's kids were last year but that will likely make us good enough to win a game or two in the Pac 12. And don't argue about how they were so great and this and that. It's the same thing as Boise. If you put them in a conference where they get beat up every week they aren't nearly as good as they look on paper. Also it's not sustainable over time.

Clueless is a strong word, when you back it up with your opinion. My eyeballs tell me differently about Boise State. No, they wouldn't likely win a conference title, but they'd be much more competitive in the PAC12 than we are. All I'm looking for is for someone to put out the dumpster fire!

Recent teams to test this theory are Utah and TCU. TCU went bowling and has held it's own in the Big12. They have been much better than us, without yet realizing any of the uptick of their improved recruiting (i.e. it's too soon).

Utah made a mess of their program by letting their offensive coordinator go, and hiring Norm Chow. Now they are back to running the zone-read spread offense and making inroads. Also doing this with MWC recruits for the most part.

How's Norm Chow doing in Hawaii? Relic.
How's Dave Schramm doing at San Jose State? Pretty good.

I would be pretty happy if we could get to TCU or Utah level of competitiveness in the next 2 years. Thank you very much.

 

[buffaholic]

Here's an extreme: Kentucky's class.

I'm pretty sure it won't be what it seems, when the benefit of hindsight is available.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Here's an extreme: Kentucky's class.

I'm pretty sure it won't be what it seems, when the benefit of hindsight is available.

I would put money on that, and give odds too.

 

[Duff Man]

Maybe, but Kentucky is keeping kids that have many other options home. I would settle for some of that in-state success to start.

 

[MtnBuff]

We are in a very tough position. When your program is a train wreck, you won one game last year and haven't been to a bowl since the current recruits were in elementary school, when your administration has delayed long needed facility improvements, and when you are still getting blasted by conference opponents even though you have gotten better, you aren't working from a postion of strength.

It is hard to get kids interested in a program like CU right now. When they have other options they are going to take a strong look at those other options.

This becomes the classic need to crawl before you walk before you run situation. Right now we can't compete with anybody. Bring in a class of kids like we already have and we still won't compete with anybody. Bring in a class of kids who won't be here and we won't compete with anybody.

The solution is to do two things. One is to work on bringing in kids who may not be at the level of the top teams we will face but who are a significant step up from what we have. Bring in kids who can compete with Utah and WSU and the kids Cal puts on the field (not their recruiting classes because those are almost always rated much higher than they play.) Two is to take a limited number of selective risk on kids who may be identified as risk but who the coaching staff is confident can and will take care of business and contribute.

The result of this is to upgrade the level of our team. Not to a level that competes with the conference leaders but that allows us to consistently win our OOC games and start picking up some conference wins against the lower level teams. Move us to 4, then 6, then 7 wins and a lower level bowl.

At this point the staff has more to sell. We then start to be able to get the attention of the middle level recruits and even a few of the higher level recruits. These are the kids who then give us the shot at 8,9,10 wins and let us establish ourselves as a legitimate option for kids who want to play for a winning team that is respected.

We aren't going to get there by rolling the dice and hoping that a bunch of high risk kids make us a winner. You also don't get there by being afraid to take some risk and settling for classes full of safe but inadequete kids. We have to see a gradual improvement in the level of talent mixed with some selective risk taking to jump us ahead.

It isn't going to happen overnight but it does have to happen if we are going to become relevant again. Cheating isn't an option. The culture of Boulder and CU would not support it an allow it to happen and the NCAA would fry us. We are going to have to get there the right way with hard work and patience along with some support from the administration in terms of allowing a few academic risk and with supporting facility improvements and supporting the athletic culture.

 

[o_robbie]

We are in a very tough position. When your program is a train wreck, you won one game last year and haven't been to a bowl since the current recruits were in elementary school, when your administration has delayed long needed facility improvements, and when you are still getting blasted by conference opponents even though you have gotten better, you aren't working from a postion of strength.

It is hard to get kids interested in a program like CU right now. When they have other options they are going to take a strong look at those other options.

This becomes the classic need to crawl before you walk before you run situation. Right now we can't compete with anybody. Bring in a class of kids like we already have and we still won't compete with anybody. Bring in a class of kids who won't be here and we won't compete with anybody.

The solution is to do two things. One is to work on bringing in kids who may not be at the level of the top teams we will face but who are a significant step up from what we have. Bring in kids who can compete with Utah and WSU and the kids Cal puts on the field (not their recruiting classes because those are almost always rated much higher than they play.) Two is to take a limited number of selective risk on kids who may be identified as risk but who the coaching staff is confident can and will take care of business and contribute.

The result of this is to upgrade the level of our team. Not to a level that competes with the conference leaders but that allows us to consistently win our OOC games and start picking up some conference wins against the lower level teams. Move us to 4, then 6, then 7 wins and a lower level bowl.

At this point the staff has more to sell. We then start to be able to get the attention of the middle level recruits and even a few of the higher level recruits. These are the kids who then give us the shot at 8,9,10 wins and let us establish ourselves as a legitimate option for kids who want to play for a winning team that is respected.

We aren't going to get there by rolling the dice and hoping that a bunch of high risk kids make us a winner. You also don't get there by being afraid to take some risk and settling for classes full of safe but inadequete kids. We have to see a gradual improvement in the level of talent mixed with some selective risk taking to jump us ahead.

It isn't going to happen overnight but it does have to happen if we are going to become relevant again. Cheating isn't an option. The culture of Boulder and CU would not support it an allow it to happen and the NCAA would fry us. We are going to have to get there the right way with hard work and patience along with some support from the administration in terms of allowing a few academic risk and with supporting facility improvements and supporting the athletic culture.

I think this is a good plan and I especially like the part about taking higher rated recruits with risks associated with them.

 

[o_robbie]

Clueless is a strong word, when you back it up with your opinion. My eyeballs tell me differently about Boise State. No, they wouldn't likely win a conference title, but they'd be much more competitive in the PAC12 than we are. All I'm looking for is for someone to put out the dumpster fire!

Recent teams to test this theory are Utah and TCU. TCU went bowling and has held it's own in the Big12. They have been much better than us, without yet realizing any of the uptick of their improved recruiting (i.e. it's too soon).



Utah made a mess of their program by letting their offensive coordinator go, and hiring Norm Chow. Now they are back to running the zone-read spread offense and making inroads. Also doing this with MWC recruits for the most part.

How's Norm Chow doing in Hawaii? Relic.
How's Dave Schramm doing at San Jose State? Pretty good.

I would be pretty happy if we could get to TCU or Utah level of competitiveness in the next 2 years. Thank you very much.

If you think the boys from San Jose could compete in the Pac 12 then you might be clueless. If you think bigger/stronger/faster doesn't create a competitive advantage as you go from SEC, to MWC, to FCS, to NAIA then you might be clueless and if you think that recruiting kids like we are recruiting now is going to amount to any wins in the Pac 12 than you might be clueless.