Online Now 631

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 353
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 580
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

I'm going to get killed for this post, but....

  • ...even thought I'm expecting brutal responses, I'm still curious about everyone's thoughts.

    Ok, here goes...

    Is anyone worried (or at least have this thought in the back of their mind), that we're recruiting to Rivals/Scout/247 "stars" and not film evaluation?

    There are a few reasons why I ask.

    1. For those who know me, they know I'm not a "star" guy. I do agree/believe that more stars *generally* means the kid probably brings top skills. BUT, I also think there are a lot of high skill guys that don't have 4/5 stars. So, I love to get 4/5 star commits as much as anyone, but I'm not nearly as turned off by 3* commits as many others are.

    2. I will go to my grave believing that the primary reason Charlie Weiss failed at ND is because he (and/or his staff) did not evaluate talent themselves. He/They let Rivals do it for them. I know this is only one data point, but I actually think a kid that we recruited -- that receiver out of southern VA, forget his name right now -- was a perfect example. The kid's "highlight" film looked pretty mediocre IMO, and the word from those who knew him was that he was nothing special. Rivals had him a 4*. He was all ours, but then after CW was hired, he went after him hard and got him. We haven't heard of the kid since.

    And lastly, just for the record... This question is NOT based on any of our current commits. Based on other offers, It's easy to see that two of our three commits are bona fide blue chippers, and the third is clearly skilled and in a serious position of need. Obviously AB is not in this group either.

    So, my question is more based on our offers that are out there. I just find it odd that -- that we know of -- there have been ZERO to VERY FEW offers to kids that are not highly ranked by the public recruiting services. Really? I guess Lemelle, but they haven't found anyone else? If we're evaluating on our own and not just going by what 247/Rivals/Scout says, that just seems odd to me.

    Ok... Hammer away! LOL

    This post was edited by BoulderFish on 3/6/2012 at 11:47 AM

    BoulderFish

  • I seriously doubt the staff is relying on rankings over film.

    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001

  • I don't think so at all. Partially because of some of the early offers like Dorian Johnson. He wasn't even rated on here (and probably not on other sites either) when we started going hard after him. He started out a high 3* on here but will be moving up very shortly, according to JC.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • Lemelle, Issah, Johnson (wasn't highly ranked at all before we offered), Anzalone ( we were one of the first to contact him, if not the first) all say your theory doesn't hold water.... And, I don't think February/March is the time to be finding "sleepers"...IMO they are to be found after blowing up in their senior year or someone like Jesse James that is really under the radar throughout his whole career (which is what we have been doing with the guys i mentioned above).

    PSU12

  • Deion Walker. He was all ours. His dad loved ND and what not.

    As to why he hasnt made an impact, who knows.

    signature image signature image signature image

    white_out

  • It's hilarious how many self proclaimed "experts" there are out there. Did you play college ball?

    gofrogs20

  • BoulderFish said...

    ...even thought I'm expecting brutal responses, I'm still curious about everyone's thoughts.

    Ok, here goes...

    Is anyone worried (or at least have this thought in the back of their mind), that we're recruiting to Rivals/Scout/247 "stars" and not film evaluation?

    There are a few reasons why I ask.

    1. For those who know me, they know I'm not a "star" guy. I do agree/believe that more stars *generally* means the kid probably brings top skills. BUT, I also think there are a lot of high skill guys that don't have 4/5 stars. So, I love to get 4/5 star commits as much as anyone, but I'm not nearly as turned off by 3* commits as many others are.

    2. I will go to my grave believing that the primary reason Charlie Weiss failed at ND is because he (and/or his staff) did not evaluate talent themselves. He/They let Rivals do it for them. I know this is only one data point, but I actually think a kid that we recruited -- that receiver out of southern VA, forget his name right now -- was a perfect example. The kid's "highlight" film looked pretty mediocre IMO, and the word from those who knew him was that he was nothing special. Rivals had him a 4*. He was all ours, but then after CW was hired, he went after him hard and got him. We haven't heard of the kid since.

    And lastly, just for the record... This question is NOT based on any of our current commits. Based on other offers, It's easy to see that two of our three commits are bona fide blue chippers, and the third is clearly skilled and in a serious position of need. Obviously AB is not in this group either.

    So, my question is more based on our offers that are out there. I just find it odd that -- that we know of -- there have been ZERO to VERY FEW offers to kids that are highly ranked by the public recruiting services. Really? I guess Lemmel(sp?), but they haven't found anyone else? If we're evaluating on our own and not just going by what 247/Rivals/Scout says, that just seems odd to me.

    Ok... Hammer away! LOL

    Not going to hammer away, but we already read that Bob was reviewing film prior to handing out ships? This was going back to the 2012 few ships he handed out. Very few staffs do what you stated, it's more of a myth than fact.

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

    LaJollaLion

  • BoulderFish said...

    ...even thought I'm expecting brutal responses, I'm still curious about everyone's thoughts.

    Ok, here goes...

    Is anyone worried (or at least have this thought in the back of their mind), that we're recruiting to Rivals/Scout/247 "stars" and not film evaluation?

    There are a few reasons why I ask.

    1. For those who know me, they know I'm not a "star" guy. I do agree/believe that more stars *generally* means the kid probably brings top skills. BUT, I also think there are a lot of high skill guys that don't have 4/5 stars. So, I love to get 4/5 star commits as much as anyone, but I'm not nearly as turned off by 3* commits as many others are.

    2. I will go to my grave believing that the primary reason Charlie Weiss failed at ND is because he (and/or his staff) did not evaluate talent themselves. He/They let Rivals do it for them. I know this is only one data point, but I actually think a kid that we recruited -- that receiver out of southern VA, forget his name right now -- was a perfect example. The kid's "highlight" film looked pretty mediocre IMO, and the word from those who knew him was that he was nothing special. Rivals had him a 4*. He was all ours, but then after CW was hired, he went after him hard and got him. We haven't heard of the kid since.

    And lastly, just for the record... This question is NOT based on any of our current commits. Based on other offers, It's easy to see that two of our three commits are bona fide blue chippers, and the third is clearly skilled and in a serious position of need. Obviously AB is not in this group either.

    So, my question is more based on our offers that are out there. I just find it odd that -- that we know of -- there have been ZERO to VERY FEW offers to kids that are highly ranked by the public recruiting services. Really? I guess Lemmel(sp?), but they haven't found anyone else? If we're evaluating on our own and not just going by what 247/Rivals/Scout says, that just seems odd to me.

    Ok... Hammer away! LOL

    They have some good herb up in Colorado huh?

    signature image signature image signature image

    PENN STATE FOREVER

    philafan

  • PSU12 said...

    And, I don't think February/March is the time to be finding "sleepers"...IMO they are to be found after blowing up in their senior year or someone like Jesse James that is really under the radar throughout his whole career (which is what we have been doing with the guys i mentioned above).

    Actually, I think just the opposite. Right now, while the "scouting services" are trying to catch up and rank every kid in the country (i.e. there are a lot of kids they haven't seen/evaluated yet) is when I would think we would have more offers to unranked recruits. I would be expecting our coaches to find them first.

    After this next season, there are a lot less unknowns out there.

    BoulderFish

  • white_out said...

    Deion Walker. He was all ours. His dad loved ND and what not.

    As to why he hasnt made an impact, who knows.

    He hasn't made an impact because... well... he's not that good.

    BoulderFish

  • Any staff who subscribed to that philosophy wouldn't last very long. We've offered numerous guys who are lower ranked than other available options. Typically, those who possess more obvious talent are both offered scholarships and recognized by national services this early in the process. I think you may have been frozen by lowered expectations.

    signature image signature image signature image

    tdiddy ●

  • Not to hammer on you, but if they were just recruiting based on the stars they wouldn't have waited so long to throw offers at some of these guys. I looked at that waiting period where they didn't offer as extra evaluation time for BO'B to look over tape and make sure these guys were definitely ball players. Of course it could also be construed as them waiting until after the junior day to be certain some of those guys had real interest, but I really think that it was so they had more observation time to be certain of their talent.

    signature image

    beimel4 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 or All Access VIP members only. Start Free Trial
    signature image

    PSUjosh11

  • I always think offer lists are much more relevant to look at than star rankings...but even they sometimes can be deceptive like players like Wayne Morgan last year that still listed UM and 'Bama offers but there was no chance at the end of the cycle either of those teams would have accepted his commitment.

    PSU12

  • BoulderFish said...

    ...even thought I'm expecting brutal responses, I'm still curious about everyone's thoughts.

    Ok, here goes...

    Is anyone worried (or at least have this thought in the back of their mind), that we're recruiting to Rivals/Scout/247 "stars" and not film evaluation?

    There are a few reasons why I ask.

    1. For those who know me, they know I'm not a "star" guy. I do agree/believe that more stars *generally* means the kid probably brings top skills. BUT, I also think there are a lot of high skill guys that don't have 4/5 stars. So, I love to get 4/5 star commits as much as anyone, but I'm not nearly as turned off by 3* commits as many others are.

    2. I will go to my grave believing that the primary reason Charlie Weiss failed at ND is because he (and/or his staff) did not evaluate talent themselves. He/They let Rivals do it for them. I know this is only one data point, but I actually think a kid that we recruited -- that receiver out of southern VA, forget his name right now -- was a perfect example. The kid's "highlight" film looked pretty mediocre IMO, and the word from those who knew him was that he was nothing special. Rivals had him a 4*. He was all ours, but then after CW was hired, he went after him hard and got him. We haven't heard of the kid since.

    And lastly, just for the record... This question is NOT based on any of our current commits. Based on other offers, It's easy to see that two of our three commits are bona fide blue chippers, and the third is clearly skilled and in a serious position of need. Obviously AB is not in this group either.

    So, my question is more based on our offers that are out there. I just find it odd that -- that we know of -- there have been ZERO to VERY FEW offers to kids that are highly ranked by the public recruiting services. Really? I guess Lemmel(sp?), but they haven't found anyone else? If we're evaluating on our own and not just going by what 247/Rivals/Scout says, that just seems odd to me.

    Ok... Hammer away! LOL

    I understand your concern, but I don't know that I share it. Which kids that we've offered do you view as overrated? This might help me decide if I agree.

    Early in the game is when I expect them to go after those that they would consider the top prospects. The fact is, generally, the highest rated guys are targeted first. Show them the love and see where they stand. There is more film available on these higher rated guys as well. As things start shaking out and we see where we stand with some of our first offers, BOB and staff will (hopefully) be evaluating more and more film on some of the "lower profile" kids and we will probably start seeing some of those kids receive offers. You also can't forget that our staff is a little behind the 8 ball due to getting such a late start. At this point, I imagine they are still playing a little bit of catch-up. All but two of our staff are still getting a feel for their new recruiting areas.

    I think the previous staff had a tendency to look for the "under the radar" kids a bit early in the process which could have cost us some other recruits. There is no doubt they are valuable, but I think they are guys you slow play a bit because you can.

    ftlawdog

  • If you need any more proof on this issue...look at our LB recruiting to date. We didn't offer the highly ranked guy (Mike McCray) but offered much lower ranked guys (Issah, Anzalone (we were one of the first pursuing))

    PSU12

  • I think this board, more so than any others I have seen/lurked on, is more balanced about stars. There is always film being thrown around here (thank you rmj) and discussion of prospects from 2 star to 5 star. Its quite impressive the number of people on here that just aren't star gazers and look at film and offer sheets first.

    Like someone else said, BOB is watching film relentlessly as well. And I don't think Charlie failed because of rivals, he failed because he couldn't develop them as players and didn't emphasize defense.

    MTayl72

  • BoulderFish said...

    He hasn't made an impact because... well... he's not that good.

    That could be true, but it could be other reasons too though...Chris Bell was a 4 star Army All American who never saw any meaningful time for us because of off the field stuff...and we need to look no further than Eric Shrive to see a big time recruit who is a terrific guy off the field but hasn't done anything at all on it

    signature image

    beimel4 ●

  • I gave you +1 for trying to initiate some discussion even though I feel from what little I see that the staff are doing their homework. Not concerned right now.

    "We want the warriors"

    jimh74

  • ftlawdog said...

    I understand your concern, but I don't know that I share it. Which kids that we've offered do you view as overrated? This might help me decide if I agree.

    Early in the game is when I expect them to go after those that they would consider the top prospects. The fact is, generally, the highest rated guys are targeted first. Show them the love and see where they stand. There is more film available on these higher rated guys as well. As things start shaking out and we see where we stand with some of our first offers, BOB and staff will (hopefully) be evaluating more and more film on some of the "lower profile" kids and we will probably start seeing some of those kids receive offers. You also can't forget that our staff is a little behind the 8 ball due to getting such a late start. At this point, I imagine they are still playing a little bit of catch-up. All but two of our staff are still getting a feel for their new recruiting areas.

    I think the previous staff had a tendency to look for the "under the radar" kids a bit early in the process which could have cost us some other recruits. There is no doubt they are valuable, but I think they are guys you slow play a bit because you can.

    Well, I'm not sure I would call it a "concern." Just something I thought about.... And thought could be an interesting topic for discussion.

    BoulderFish

  • MTayl72 said...

    I think this board, more so than any others I have seen/lurked on, is more balanced about stars. There is always film being thrown around here (thank you rmj) and discussion of prospects from 2 star to 5 star. Its quite impressive the number of people on here that just aren't star gazers and look at film and offer sheets first.

    100% agree. I love your objective (i.e. non-star-gazing) evaluations of the big guys.

    BoulderFish

  • I'll be the first one to tell you that I think Sickels is overrated and I've said so since before we got him...there must be something on his complete game films or when you saw him in person that garnered him so many offers though although I don't see it. I also think Douglas is underrated and is a very good get at DB. This argument at this point in the year is pretty absurd imo though. It's not like we're going through and only offering the highly ranked kids, like I said, look at the Mike Mccray recruitment and plenty of other examples. Just because we find a kid first (Anzalone, Johnson) and then he blows up doesn't mean we're star-gazing.

    PSU12

  • To be honest I am way more concerned about Stan Hixon trying to steal every athlete away from Butler for his million man WR army. Haha

    MTayl72

  • A question very similar to this was posed to BOB and he said basically stars and rankings by various sites would mean little to he and his staff. He wanted his guys to fit his system no matter what they were ranked.

    Penn State 7x National Champs, home of the winningest college football coach to ever grace a sideline.

    NittanyEagles ●

  • PSU12 said...

    I'll be the first one to tell you that I think Sickels is overrated and I've said so since before we got him...there must be something on his complete game films or when you saw him in person that garnered him so many offers though although I don't see it. I also think Douglas is underrated and is a very good get at DB. This argument at this point in the year is pretty absurd imo though. It's not like we're going through and only offering the highly ranked kids, like I said, look at the Mike Mccray recruitment and plenty of other examples. Just because we find a kid first (Anzalone, Johnson) and then he blows up doesn't mean we're star-gazing.

    > I also think Douglas is underrated and is a very good get at DB.

    Agree. Very much so.

    > This argument at this point in the year is pretty absurd imo though.

    I'm not really "arguing" anything. I'm not saying I don't think our coaches are doing their own evaluation. It's just a thought I had, and thought it would be interesting to hear everyone else's thoughts on the idea. Thank you for yours.

    > It's not like we're going through and only offering the highly ranked kids, like I said, look at the Mike Mccray recruitment and plenty of other examples.

    Not offering some highly ranked kids is not what kicked off this thought in my brain. It's easy to find reasons not to offer highly ranked kids. The fact that we've (seemingly) offered so few unranked kids is what kicked off this thought in my head.

    > Just because we find a kid first (Anzalone, Johnson) and then he blows up doesn't mean we're star-gazing.

    These are two fine data points to counter my OP. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

    BoulderFish

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports