BlackNGold
Club Member
This is totally ironic....Just a few months ago I remember the lynch mobs forming because Greg Brown cannot recruit (according to some). Now all of a sudden he is a key recruiter.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
OL recruiting - a big problem
- Thread starter sackman
- Start date
This is totally ironic....Just a few months ago I remember the lynch mobs forming because Greg Brown cannot recruit (according to some). Now all of a sudden he is a key recruiter.
Yeah, but Brown actually proved people wrong. If we had missed on some of the DB prospects we ended up signing, Brown would have deserved some heat. You could argue Marshall's track record is more suspect than Brown's was at this time last year as well.
With the possible exception of Lopez, I don't think we're in the driver's seat for any of those guys.
That's disappointing. I'd like to get a couple 4*.
If we can get Lopez and maybe one other guy, I'd step off the ledge. I don't think we need to load up on OL every year. We need 3 solid OL contributors every year. Do that, and the depth chart will take care of itself. The problem we've had lately is that it's been at least three years since we've done that.
fify
I also think that with his athleticism, Dwayne Johnson has a lot more upside than most of those guys... and he's not even rated.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Johnson and Lopez would be 2 very fine additions to this recruiting class.
Irwin?
I think the consensus is he ends up at Guard.
If we can get Johnson and Nowland locked up, I'll feel a lot better about this class. It'd allow the staff a chance to be a little bit more selective in filling out the rest of the class too.
Not so sure. And we do have two Irwin brothers. Down the road, our OL could very well end up with Jeromy at RG and Sean at RT.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought one of the Irwin brothers was a tight end.
Sean is a TE. But there's potential that he grows into an OL. He's certainly got the frame for it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he was used this year like Alex Lewis was last year, redshirts his sophomore year while gaining weight, then fights for a starting job on the OL in his third year.
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.
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
Linemen on both sides of the ball are absolutely an incredibly tough position to project and an imperfect science.
Ryan Clady
Darryn Colledge
Billy Winn
Nate Potter
Shea McClellin
Chase Baker
Jarrell Root
Tyrone Crawford
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:
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
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:
that kind of approach to recruiting can work at a place like Boise. It is a recipe for disaster at CU, where we have to go up against 5* players week in and week out. Just ask Dan Hawkins.
Yep.
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.
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.
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
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.
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 at ALL Positions. Fact.
Could stars mean less at OL? Perhaps. Haven't seen any studies on that though.
Could stars mean less at OL? Perhaps. Haven't seen any studies on that though.
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1238729
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.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...plays-.html;_ylt=AmgUjbDZF5BQRSgdfFvUplQcvrYF
"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. "
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.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...plays-.html;_ylt=AmgUjbDZF5BQRSgdfFvUplQcvrYF
"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:
Everything after the bold is an irrelevant attempt to use anecdotal evidence to counter statistical evidence.
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.