|
Post by myownwords on Oct 13, 2015 12:25:57 GMT -8
I believe that the final poll after the win over Navy, put us at 27. Hoke brought the program from near collapse, to 27th in the nation in two years. He energized the base and the community. Rocky Long has only dreamed about those polling numbers and in the process put the alumni, the administration, the students, and the community at large, into a coma. OK that makes sence @ 27.Don't get me wrong I like Hoke more than Rocky and do think he is a better coach but I think he is slightly better.Hoke's first recruiting class he brought in 30 players! He brought in some good recruiting classes at Michigan too. But he crashed there. So it's not clear to me that given more time at SDSU, he may have crashed here as well. I have always thought that Rocky was a huge lazy blunder by this disinterested administration. Rocky has done nothing to alter that view of him.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Oct 13, 2015 13:02:48 GMT -8
Our recruiting isn't the problem. It's more about coaching. SDSU has always brought solid talent in, we just can never coach it Seventy something in recruiting will never get it done.You find me an example from the past where that has worked and I might believe your post. Simply having good players does not even come close to guaranteeing success. I'm way too lazy to look up specific examples of teams who had low recruiting rankings but how about before Boise state became a household name? Back in the late 90's (and probably all the way up to ~2005) I bet they had awful recruiting but they found ways to win due to good coaching and then the recruiting started to follow. Same with Utah, and basically every David to Goliath story you can think of. It ALL starts with coaching
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 13:42:20 GMT -8
Seventy something in recruiting will never get it done.You find me an example from the past where that has worked and I might believe your post. Simply having good players does not even come close to guaranteeing success. I'm way too lazy to look up specific examples of teams who had low recruiting rankings but how about before Boise state became a household name? Back in the late 90's (and probably all the way up to ~2005) I bet they had awful recruiting but they found ways to win due to good coaching and then the recruiting started to follow. Same with Utah, and basically every David to Goliath story you can think of. It ALL starts with coaching Do you agree that we have a QB and wide reciever problem?You can not be one demensional and have a chance to win every game.Boise and Utah could run and pass the ball.There is not a miracle coach out there for 800,000 a year that is going to bring players from basically ground zero to superstars and I am doubtful anyone could do it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 13:46:00 GMT -8
OK that makes sence @ 27.Don't get me wrong I like Hoke more than Rocky and do think he is a better coach but I think he is slightly better.Hoke's first recruiting class he brought in 30 players! He brought in some good recruiting classes at Michigan too. But he crashed there. So it's not clear to me that given more time at SDSU, he may have crashed here as well. I have always thought that Rocky was a huge lazy blunder by this disinterested administration. Rocky has done nothing to alter that view of him. Hoke may have found a QB or he might not have can not be sure.If Tyler Bray a four star that started for Tennessee would not have decommitted we would have been good to go.
|
|
|
Post by aztecanthony on Oct 13, 2015 13:49:23 GMT -8
Simply having good players does not even come close to guaranteeing success. I'm way too lazy to look up specific examples of teams who had low recruiting rankings but how about before Boise state became a household name? Back in the late 90's (and probably all the way up to ~2005) I bet they had awful recruiting but they found ways to win due to good coaching and then the recruiting started to follow. Same with Utah, and basically every David to Goliath story you can think of. It ALL starts with coaching Do you agree that we have a QB and wide reciever problem?You can not be one demensional and have a chance to win every game.Boise and Utah could run and pass the ball.There is not a miracle coach out there for 800,000 a year that is going to bring players from basically ground zero to superstars and I am doubtful anyone could do it anyway. its about getting the most out of the players we recruit and yes recruiting better talent. There may be a coach out there that can step it up for a little more money or the same money. An increased salary would easily be off set by higher attendance, winning, better football, beating the people on our schedules and then playing even better schools once we have a couple more years to recruit. Everyone thought it couldn't be done in Basketball before Fisher arrived. We just need the right head coach that can take us to the next level.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 14:36:29 GMT -8
Do you agree that we have a QB and wide reciever problem?You can not be one demensional and have a chance to win every game.Boise and Utah could run and pass the ball.There is not a miracle coach out there for 800,000 a year that is going to bring players from basically ground zero to superstars and I am doubtful anyone could do it anyway. its about getting the most out of the players we recruit and yes recruiting better talent. There may be a coach out there that can step it up for a little more money or the same money. An increased salary would easily be off set by higher attendance, winning, better football, beating the people on our schedules and then playing even better schools once we have a couple more years to recruit. Everyone thought it couldn't be done in Basketball before Fisher arrived. We just need the right head coach that can take us to the next level. Agree...Sterk needs to get to work on finding the next football version of the fish and up the salary to at least 1.3 million plus incentives.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 15:41:22 GMT -8
No, 50-something in recruiting would not necessarily guarantee you 10 wins or more per year. If you're Marshall last year & didn't play a P5 team all year, maybe, but not if you're SDSU & you played 2 quality P5 teams ON THE ROAD, and play 2 quality P5 teams in most years moving forward. You also don't assume an undefeated conference schedule, as BSU proved last year.
Have noted multiple times, but is worth repeating - there were only 2 G5 teams in the nation last year rated in the 50's - BSU (#56) & SJSU (#58). BYU was right behind, and SDSU right behind them (#64 & #67). The gap between 56 & 67 is negligible, but the gap between the G5's & P5's is more concrete.
Also, the "errors" associated with these recruiting sites today aren't much different than they were in 5 years ago, and that's not how it works. They don't assign stars based on offers. If a player is seen once & graded lowly (e.g. 2-star) & then gets an offer from a more elite program (e.g. USC, Oregon, Stanford now, etc.) the analyst may question what he didn't see & then re-evaluate the player & decide if he's worthy of a higher grade. Most players get re-graded anyway these days.
Bottom line - Utah didn't attract the elite talents then, and that definitely didn't raise them into the P10. And again, their football record wasn't why they were added.
Also not sure why you think we should be a top 50 recruiting program, especially as a G5, when it simply rarely happens ANYWHERE these days? It's not like we have anything special to offer, and others have more money & better facilities. You don't snap your fingers & get elite athletes to come here. Recruiting is about bells & whistles these days. We are among the better recruiting programs in the conference as it is, and over the past 5 years one of the most consistent.
Not guarantee 10 wins but more than we have now.The star level is usually based on stats,40 time and all the drills the NFL combine uses to evaluate players not how many offers.I have worked for such services. Then you should know that a large share of college players don't attend camps which take those measures, yet go onto great success at the collegiate level. And you should also know game film is used as much if not more. You wouldn't want Munson? He was among our lowest rated recruits 2 years ago.
The difference between the recruiting guys & coaches is coaches are more intimately aware of where a kid is most likely to play in college, and look at their 2-4 year potential within their system.
If you were talking 5-star vs. 3, that's one thing. 3 vs. 2 - crapshoot.
You should also know that you can't bring in class of 30 any more, so not sure why you even mentioned that in another thread?
Our recruiting, overall, has been very good, relatively to other G5 schools. Yes, we've fallen short at QB & WR, but so have most other G5 programs. G5 QB's are generally a gamble - 2nd tier players who typically weren't offered a chance to play at the P5 level. Our defensive recruiting has been very good, as has our OL & RB recruiting.
Again, if you actually "worked for such services" you'd know that.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 16:13:03 GMT -8
Not guarantee 10 wins but more than we have now.The star level is usually based on stats,40 time and all the drills the NFL combine uses to evaluate players not how many offers.I have worked for such services. Then you should know that a large share of college players don't attend camps which take those measures, yet go onto great success at the collegiate level. And you should also know game film is used as much if not more. You wouldn't want Munson? He was among our lowest rated recruits 2 years ago.
The difference between the recruiting guys & coaches is coaches are more intimately aware of where a kid is most likely to play in college, and look at their 2-4 year potential within their system.
If you were talking 5-star vs. 3, that's one thing. 3 vs. 2 - crapshoot.
You should also know that you can't bring in class of 30 any more, so not sure why you even mentioned that in another thread?
Our recruiting, overall, has been very good, relatively to other G5 schools. Yes, we've fallen short at QB & WR, but so have most other G5 programs. G5 QB's are generally a gamble - 2nd tier players who typically weren't offered a chance to play at the P5 level. Our defensive recruiting has been very good, as has our OL & RB recruiting.
Again, if you actually "worked for such services" you'd know that.
I am not sure what you are talking about here.I am talking about high school players and how they come up with their ratings.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 16:16:49 GMT -8
Then you should know that a large share of college players don't attend camps which take those measures, yet go onto great success at the collegiate level. And you should also know game film is used as much if not more. You wouldn't want Munson? He was among our lowest rated recruits 2 years ago.
The difference between the recruiting guys & coaches is coaches are more intimately aware of where a kid is most likely to play in college, and look at their 2-4 year potential within their system.
If you were talking 5-star vs. 3, that's one thing. 3 vs. 2 - crapshoot.
You should also know that you can't bring in class of 30 any more, so not sure why you even mentioned that in another thread?
Our recruiting, overall, has been very good, relatively to other G5 schools. Yes, we've fallen short at QB & WR, but so have most other G5 programs. G5 QB's are generally a gamble - 2nd tier players who typically weren't offered a chance to play at the P5 level. Our defensive recruiting has been very good, as has our OL & RB recruiting.
Again, if you actually "worked for such services" you'd know that.
I am not sure what you are talking about here.I am talking about high school players and how they come up with their ratings. Munson I would take I never said zero two stars I said 3.I have not looked into why Munson was rated so low but I will do some reasearch and give you the answer.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Oct 13, 2015 16:24:13 GMT -8
Rocky said at the beginning of the year if you have a quality QB you have a strong likely hood of having a quality team . , Good QB and the team could be very good . Average QB and the team will be average at best . So that means the staff really needs to focus on recruiting and Developing the QB's . Until the focus is on the QB , we are not going to win MW Championships or even better . That is the make it or break it player on your team . Quality QB can also draw better WR 's , they know the guy is going to throw the ball . What WR's are going to want to come to SDSU if we are known for FB U or RB U . Same for OL , NFL teams want OL that can protect their million dollar QB's. If we have the reputation of playing smash mouth football then those are the players that will be coming here . Do appreciate that at least we are getting backs that have speed , hit another gear and be gone but it is the QB that really elevates the team . We have had DP , Muema, Hillman ... we have decent years but not the championship teams . Carr elevated Fresno , Bortles his team , the East Ill QB , Beavers QB , This year CAL QB , Penn State QB , QB at Bowling Green ,now Ripien at BSU, TCU 's QB , ......
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 16:31:53 GMT -8
Then you should know that a large share of college players don't attend camps which take those measures, yet go onto great success at the collegiate level. And you should also know game film is used as much if not more. You wouldn't want Munson? He was among our lowest rated recruits 2 years ago.
The difference between the recruiting guys & coaches is coaches are more intimately aware of where a kid is most likely to play in college, and look at their 2-4 year potential within their system.
If you were talking 5-star vs. 3, that's one thing. 3 vs. 2 - crapshoot.
You should also know that you can't bring in class of 30 any more, so not sure why you even mentioned that in another thread?
Our recruiting, overall, has been very good, relatively to other G5 schools. Yes, we've fallen short at QB & WR, but so have most other G5 programs. G5 QB's are generally a gamble - 2nd tier players who typically weren't offered a chance to play at the P5 level. Our defensive recruiting has been very good, as has our OL & RB recruiting.
Again, if you actually "worked for such services" you'd know that.
I am not sure what you are talking about here.I am talking about high school players and how they come up with their ratings. That's what I was referring to as well, obviously. The only guys with most of the measurables are those who attend certain camps. Usually, it's game film which is used to evaluate & grade talent.
AJ Watt was a 2-star walk on.
Most G5 rosters have as many if not more 2-star recruits as 3-star, and rarely a 4-star, and many 3-stars don't get rated as such until they're reevaluated during their senior year of HS when final ratings come out.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 16:33:17 GMT -8
I am not sure what you are talking about here.I am talking about high school players and how they come up with their ratings. Munson I would take I never said zero two stars I said 3.I have not looked into why Munson was rated so low but I will do some reasearch and give you the answer. I just checked Munson was rated at 5.3 which means .2 of a higher rating and he is a three star.It looks like he did not submit his camp results and Missouri high school football is usually not as competitive as California,Texas,Florida etc. So his rating was affected by both of these things.So he is basically a three star.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 16:58:08 GMT -8
Munson I would take I never said zero two stars I said 3.I have not looked into why Munson was rated so low but I will do some reasearch and give you the answer. I just checked Munson was rated at 5.3 which means .1 of a higher rating and he is a three star.It looks like he did not submit his camp results and Missouri high school football is usually not as competitive as California,Texas,Florida etc. So his rating was affected by both of these things.So he is basically a three star. Nah. Only 1 of the 4 rating services really even values the camp measureables & that's Rivals; the rest primarily go off game film and in-person visits & use any camp results just to verify a kids size/weight, etc. All the services had Munson as a 2-star, and someone who didn't stand out. Coaches can see potential, which is where 2-stars come more into play.
Most decent analysts can also discern between a HS kid playing in Missouri & one playing in California, and the talent they're going up against. Has nothing to do with camps. In fact many stud athletes don't do well in HS camps because they're so limiting when it comes to the style of competition.
Here's a terrific article about recruiting & how each of the 4 services rates players (& when):
www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/index.ssf/2014/06/college_football_recruiting_stars_rankings.html
Here's a great quote from the lead guy with 24/7 Sports, where most of the ratings reference in this thread are from:
"We don't believe in the camp evaluations that go on throughout our industry now," Shurburtt said. "We think camps are a great resource to check things that you see on film and in the actual sport of football, because you can check: Is a guy really 6-5? Is he really 300 pounds? Is he really that fast? That's what's good for camps." - 24/7 Sports
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 17:05:53 GMT -8
I just checked Munson was rated at 5.3 which means .1 of a higher rating and he is a three star.It looks like he did not submit his camp results and Missouri high school football is usually not as competitive as California,Texas,Florida etc. So his rating was affected by both of these things.So he is basically a three star. Nah. Only 1 of the 4 rating services really even values the camp measureables & that's Rivals; the rest primarily go off game film and in-person visits & use any camp results just to verify a kids size/weight, etc. All the services had Munson as a 2-star, and someone who didn't stand out. Coaches can see potential, which is where 2-stars come more into play.
Most decent analysts can also discern between a HS kid playing in Missouri & one playing in California, and the talent they're going up against. Has nothing to do with camps. In fact many stud athletes don't do well in HS camps because they're so limiting when it comes to the style of competition.
Here's a terrific article about recruiting & how each of the 4 services rates players (& when):
www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/index.ssf/2014/06/college_football_recruiting_stars_rankings.html
Here's a great quote from the lead guy with 24/7 Sports, where most of the ratings reference in this thread are from:
"We don't believe in the camp evaluations that go on throughout our industry now," Shurburtt said. "We think camps are a great resource to check things that you see on film and in the actual sport of football, because you can check: Is a guy really 6-5? Is he really 300 pounds? Is he really that fast? That's what's good for camps." - 24/7 Sports
Sure buddy lol
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 13, 2015 17:13:19 GMT -8
Nah. Only 1 of the 4 rating services really even values the camp measureables & that's Rivals; the rest primarily go off game film and in-person visits & use any camp results just to verify a kids size/weight, etc. All the services had Munson as a 2-star, and someone who didn't stand out. Coaches can see potential, which is where 2-stars come more into play.
Most decent analysts can also discern between a HS kid playing in Missouri & one playing in California, and the talent they're going up against. Has nothing to do with camps. In fact many stud athletes don't do well in HS camps because they're so limiting when it comes to the style of competition.
Here's a terrific article about recruiting & how each of the 4 services rates players (& when):
www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/index.ssf/2014/06/college_football_recruiting_stars_rankings.html
Here's a great quote from the lead guy with 24/7 Sports, where most of the ratings reference in this thread are from:
"We don't believe in the camp evaluations that go on throughout our industry now," Shurburtt said. "We think camps are a great resource to check things that you see on film and in the actual sport of football, because you can check: Is a guy really 6-5? Is he really 300 pounds? Is he really that fast? That's what's good for camps." - 24/7 Sports
Sure buddy lol Are you discounting the article? Ha. To quote you, "sure buddy...LOL".
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Oct 13, 2015 17:22:39 GMT -8
Simply having good players does not even come close to guaranteeing success. I'm way too lazy to look up specific examples of teams who had low recruiting rankings but how about before Boise state became a household name? Back in the late 90's (and probably all the way up to ~2005) I bet they had awful recruiting but they found ways to win due to good coaching and then the recruiting started to follow. Same with Utah, and basically every David to Goliath story you can think of. It ALL starts with coaching Do you agree that we have a QB and wide reciever problem?You can not be one demensional and have a chance to win every game.Boise and Utah could run and pass the ball.There is not a miracle coach out there for 800,000 a year that is going to bring players from basically ground zero to superstars and I am doubtful anyone could do it anyway. Utah 2006 - 55 2007 - 72 2008 - 60 2009 - 44 2010 - 32 2011 - 37 2012 - 28 2013 - 44 BSU 2006 - 70 2007 - 68 2008 - 89 2009 - 72 2010 - 83 2011 - 53 2012 - 54 2013 - 62 SDSU 2006 - 83 2007 - 63 2008 - 77 2009 - 104 2010 - 73 2011 - 61 2012 - 98 2013 - 79 BSU and Utah have won with about the same amount of talent we have had. Utah has had a little better recruiting since joing the P12. If we had the right coach, Dino Babers?, we could do what they have done. It is possible.
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Oct 13, 2015 21:49:12 GMT -8
Do you agree that we have a QB and wide reciever problem?You can not be one demensional and have a chance to win every game.Boise and Utah could run and pass the ball.There is not a miracle coach out there for 800,000 a year that is going to bring players from basically ground zero to superstars and I am doubtful anyone could do it anyway. Utah 2006 - 55 2007 - 72 2008 - 60 2009 - 44 2010 - 32 2011 - 37 2012 - 28 2013 - 44 BSU 2006 - 70 2007 - 68 2008 - 89 2009 - 72 2010 - 83 2011 - 53 2012 - 54 2013 - 62 SDSU 2006 - 83 2007 - 63 2008 - 77 2009 - 104 2010 - 73 2011 - 61 2012 - 98 2013 - 79 BSU and Utah have won with about the same amount of talent we have had. Utah has had a little better recruiting since joing the P12. If we had the right coach, Dino Babers?, we could do what they have done. It is possible. Not sure about Barbers he is 12 and 8 at BGU the last two years.I would like to see a big time coach.This is a longshot but Spurrier is available and stated he is interested in coaching again.He is 70 and maybe a job with less pressure such as SDSU would be a better fit.That is the level of coach I would like to see here just like we did in basketball.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Oct 14, 2015 9:58:31 GMT -8
Need a staff that prioritizes the recruitment and development of its QB;s . Without that priority we are not going to be able to win quality games against quality teams,MW championships , get to better Bowls . Many games come down to the fourth quarter and what team has the QB that can lead them to a victory . So no matter who is the HC that needs to be the priority Recruiting and Developing QB's . SDSU be noted as a QB school .
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Oct 14, 2015 13:51:28 GMT -8
Need a staff that prioritizes the recruitment and development of its QB;s . Without that priority we are not going to be able to win quality games against quality teams,MW championships , get to better Bowls . Many games come down to the fourth quarter and what team has the QB that can lead them to a victory . So no matter who is the HC that needs to be the priority Recruiting and Developing QB's . SDSU be noted as a QB school . There isn't a football staff in the nation, except maybe an option team, which doesn't prioritize the recruitment & development of QBs. None. Including ours.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Oct 14, 2015 14:05:07 GMT -8
How would you rate the recruiting , development and production of our QB's .?
|
|