|
Post by backwhenaztec on Jul 12, 2012 5:46:02 GMT -8
If you truly believe that recruiting is the exact same as it was 3-8 years ago, then u truly are lost! It's Sad to read post from u and spgonzo that believe after decades of mediocrity, playing in a non bcs conference, etc that in 2 successful seasons, we should be out recruiting USC and Oregon.. Pathetic! What you fail to recognize is that recruiting is not based off how many 5 star guys sDSU is gonna get, but rather the quality of the entire team...
For example we have always been able to get a couple of 3 star players even 1 or 2 4 star players.. The problem is that we surrounded those guys with 1-2 star guys and got the crap kicked outta us.. NOW the foundation is a whole bunch of 3 star guys and add that to getting a couple of superstars, and you have your championship team.. Building up the Off and Def fronts with 3 Star guys, bringing in multiple skill guys that can be threats, bringing in quality athletes that can help at multiple positions.... Recruiting is night and day improving!
|
|
|
Post by spgonzo on Jul 12, 2012 6:19:08 GMT -8
If you truly believe that recruiting is the exact same as it was 3-8 years ago, then u truly are lost! It's Sad to read post from u and spgonzo that believe after decades of mediocrity, playing in a non bcs conference, etc that in 2 successful seasons, we should be out recruiting USC and Oregon.. Pathetic! What you fail to recognize is that recruiting is not based off how many 5 star guys sDSU is gonna get, but rather the quality of the entire team... For example we have always been able to get a couple of 3 star players even 1 or 2 4 star players.. The problem is that we surrounded those guys with 1-2 star guys and got the crap kicked outta us.. NOW the foundation is a whole bunch of 3 star guys and add that to getting a couple of superstars, and you have your championship team.. Building up the Off and Def fronts with 3 Star guys, bringing in multiple skill guys that can be threats, bringing in quality athletes that can help at multiple positions.... Recruiting is night and day improving! I never once said anything about out recruiting USC or Oregon, check your facts. I have simply been stating that I am not impressed. Not one of our commits has blown me away. I want to win recruiting battles against someone other than the Nevada's or Colorado's for some high 3 stars. Besides our O-Line recruiting, which has yet to be tested on the field, I do not see anything different. We are still getting mid to lower tier D1 prospect and yes, some do turn out to be fine players. We always had solid skill players. Sorry, but I do not see a "whole bunch" of 3 stars on our roster. The majority of our starters and contributors are 2 stars. Pretend you are not an SDSU fan and tell me that you are impressed with our commits so far. What do you see that is so night and day compared to past years? I see the same type of recruits, we just finally have a decent coach.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 12, 2012 6:31:25 GMT -8
This year, we'll have more *** or better OL in the program than we've ever had since Rivals started in '02.
Nevermind the fact that our two best OL were ** when they came in.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 12, 2012 6:40:57 GMT -8
Rocky and staff wouldn't be out there recruiting all those 4 star guys then turn around and offer an unranked star guy with no other offers unless he was good. Just because he doesn't have big offers, that does not mean he is not good or has a great deal of potential.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 12, 2012 6:42:39 GMT -8
James, do guys usually get upgraded during they're senior year? Is it likely that our 2* guys would be 3* by signing day? I personally don't care, I think we're doing well, but some people need to see ****** to be satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by spgonzo on Jul 12, 2012 6:47:25 GMT -8
Rocky and staff wouldn't be out there recruiting all those 4 star guys then turn around and offer an unranked star guy with no other offers unless he was good. Just because he doesn't have big offers, that does not mean he is not good or has a great deal of potential. Offer list, not stars. Out recruiting real programs is what I need to be satisfied. We are offering these lower tier guys because we missed on the high or mid tiered guys. We are getting our 5th option. Stamps was our #1 guy, our "most important" recruit? Then why was he offered so late? Because we missed out on the other 7 or 8 guys we offered before him.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 12, 2012 6:57:40 GMT -8
James, do guys usually get upgraded during they're senior year? Is it likely that our 2* guys would be 3* by signing day? I personally don't care, I think we're doing well, but some people need to see ****** to be satisfied. Yes and no, basically, if they get around to it. Begg and Wells will likely end up as *** guys due to the fact that they play at big time schools that have other prospects so they'll have a lot of tape this year. Morris was unrated when he committed because they hadn't evaluated him. He shows up to some camps with legit size and athleticism and boom, he's a *** despite not receiving another offer. Rivals just promoted a Kansas guy to West Coast Analyst so it will be interesting to see how the ratings pan out over the next year or so.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 12, 2012 7:00:16 GMT -8
The problem is, that is you go back over the past 8 years of recruiting you'll see pretty much the same thing you've just outlined. Except for one season, the recruited O-line were the same size as they are now, so were was the D. As to "footwork"? I have no idea, but I have no reason to believe that is any different in that regard than they were 3 years or 8 years ago. They were 2 and 3 stars then and that's where we are today. Last year's OL class was the best in the history of our program. James, I respect your opinion and you may be right about our OL being the best in history. But it does seem counter intuitive when I think of Faulk's Oline. But that aside, our Oline seemed to get mauled by TCU and Boise and Michigan last year. And they were underwhelming against Wyoming and Louisana. And since I don't think size is or has been our issue over the past ten years it must be--as some say-- coaching.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 12, 2012 7:03:54 GMT -8
He's F-in NASTY. My favorite clip is the play @ :54. He pancakes his guy, gets up and takes out another guy who is nowhere near the play, just cuz he was there to hit. LOVE IT, Rocky's kinda guy. Maybe he could play DT? www.hudl.com/athlete/663260/highlights/12142376
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 12, 2012 7:22:05 GMT -8
Last year's OL class was the best in the history of our program. James, I respect your opinion and you may be right about our OL being the best in history. But it does seem counter intuitive when I think of Faulk's Oline. But that aside, our Oline seemed to get mauled by TCU and Boise and Michigan last year. And they were underwhelming against Wyoming and Louisana. And since I don't think size is or has been our issue over the past ten years it must be--as some say-- coaching. I said it was the best OL recruiting class in the history of our program. It remains to be seen if they will be molded into the best OL in our history. Faulk's OLs weren't all that great anyway. I think the mid 90s Tollner OLs were better. How was the OL underwhelming against Wyoming? We got almost 300 yards on 37 carries on the ground in that game... Size has been an issue, along with athleticism and coaching up until Hoke got here.
|
|
|
Post by spgonzo on Jul 12, 2012 7:29:17 GMT -8
James, I respect your opinion and you may be right about our OL being the best in history. But it does seem counter intuitive when I think of Faulk's Oline. But that aside, our Oline seemed to get mauled by TCU and Boise and Michigan last year. And they were underwhelming against Wyoming and Louisana. And since I don't think size is or has been our issue over the past ten years it must be--as some say-- coaching. I said it was the best OL recruiting class in the history of our program. It remains to be seen if they will be molded into the best OL in our history. Faulk's OLs weren't all that great anyway. I think the mid 90s Tollner OLs were better. How was the OL underwhelming against Wyoming? We got almost 300 yards on 37 carries on the ground in that game... Size has been an issue, along with athleticism and coaching up until Hoke got here. You guys remember Dave Moreno? Offensive guard in 00-01. Went to Poway High and Palomar. He is my cousin. That line was filthy in the early 2000's. Moreno, Pitts and Malano. Moreno is the last JC OL that panned out that i can recall.
|
|
|
Post by bill456 on Jul 12, 2012 7:57:59 GMT -8
Rocky and staff wouldn't be out there recruiting all those 4 star guys then turn around and offer an unranked star guy with no other offers unless he was good. Just because he doesn't have big offers, that does not mean he is not good or has a great deal of potential. Offer list, not stars. Out recruiting real programs is what I need to be satisfied. We are offering these lower tier guys because we missed on the high or mid tiered guys. We are getting our 5th option. Stamps was our #1 guy, our "most important" recruit? Then why was he offered so late? Because we missed out on the other 7 or 8 guys we offered before him. If these guys play like 4 to 5 stars after proper eating and training, I really don't care what they come in as. I want guys with heart and the desire to be the best. While it would be great to land some highly sought after talent, we must be realistic. State right now, needs these types of players as their base for recruiting. Sprinkle in transfers for other D1 programs and JC's and the guys like Ronnie Hillman(Sought after guys who the PAC-12s of the world wants at a different position). You build a winning system the players will come. Until State gets into what some would consider a "upper tier" conference, Big East or what ever, your not going to see stars you're expecting, will maybe not straight out of HS at first. And that's not say that State won't still be successful.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Jul 12, 2012 8:13:50 GMT -8
There really isn't a big difference between 3 and 2 star players. To focus on 3 vs 2 stars is silly. Conversely, the facts are pretty clear that 4 and 5 star players have the greatest likelihood of excelling in college football. Thus, to become a truly elite program you need classes full of 4 and 5 star players. However, with shrewd recruiting and top flight coaching you can build a program with 3 and 2 star recruits that will eventually allow you to get more 4 and 5 star players (the Boise model). It's just not realistic to expect that to already have happened for the Aztecs who just a mere 4 years ago was one of the worst programs in college football.
Things are immensely better with recruiting, coaching, wins and losses and conference affiliation. Enough with the negativity and over emphasis on stars!
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Jul 12, 2012 8:34:19 GMT -8
Last year's OL class was the best in the history of our program. James, I respect your opinion and you may be right about our OL being the best in history. But it does seem counter intuitive when I think of Faulk's Oline. But that aside, our Oline seemed to get mauled by TCU and Boise and Michigan last year. And they were underwhelming against Wyoming and Louisana. And since I don't think size is or has been our issue over the past ten years it must be--as some say-- coaching. Good thing Finn is gone then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 9:42:06 GMT -8
Not having played a lick of tackle football myself, I have difficulty judging the talent of a lineman much on the basis of film or watching them in a single game. However, that isn't so with skill guys. As an example, since we got a commitment from Nick Begg, I watched most of the replay of Santa Margarita against San Clemente the other night and wasn't all that impressed with the S.C. QB who's going to Utah. Throwing motion is so low I think he could struggle at the next level despite his height. So although I'll defer to others on Rosales, I have my own impression of Stamps and that is the kid could be very, very good. For a guy who is going to run past LBs and over cornerbacks, Stamps has very good moves and pretty good speed. That said, however, it similarly concerns me that our staff has said he's going to be the best recruit in this class? Really? At this point in time, I would think we should be able to get several guys with that much talent. Well since my son was a nose tackle I got a pretty good idea of what they are looking for having been to a couple of camps. They want size of course,footwork,agreesivenss good hips and able to use thier hands,low pad level as well.. A lot of guys are late bloomers and they play behind someone or awhile. Mine played three years of Pop Warner and I actually learned a lot just from that, including that although my son has never had a lot of bulk, because he's always been strong both in his upper body and legs, and because he could get very low, as a TE he was able to block kids who were a lot wider but not very athletic and unable to get good leverage. So I know that much about offensive linemen anyway and you can tell that some of Rosales' pancakes are because he's gone up against opponents who are almost standing upright. It's no knock on Rosales but I have a feeling the caliber of competition is therefore not exactly equal to big city football in California.
|
|
|
Post by spgonzo on Jul 12, 2012 9:48:33 GMT -8
Well since my son was a nose tackle I got a pretty good idea of what they are looking for having been to a couple of camps. They want size of course,footwork,agreesivenss good hips and able to use thier hands,low pad level as well.. A lot of guys are late bloomers and they play behind someone or awhile. Mine played three years of Pop Warner and I actually learned a lot just from that, including that although my son has never had a lot of bulk, because he's always been strong both in his upper body and legs, and because he could get very low, as a TE he was able to block kids who were a lot wider but not very athletic and unable to get good leverage. So I know that much about offensive linemen anyway and you can tell that some of Rosales' pancakes are because he's gone up against opponents who are almost standing upright. It's no knock on Rosales but I have a feeling the caliber of competition is therefore not exactly equal to big city football in California. I agree. Hell, Tuscon area football is not even close to the competition in Phoenix either.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 12, 2012 9:58:45 GMT -8
James, I respect your opinion and you may be right about our OL being the best in history. But it does seem counter intuitive when I think of Faulk's Oline. But that aside, our Oline seemed to get mauled by TCU and Boise and Michigan last year. And they were underwhelming against Wyoming and Louisana. And since I don't think size is or has been our issue over the past ten years it must be--as some say-- coaching. Good thing Finn is gone then. Are you joking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 10:14:27 GMT -8
We just can't afford not to get at least a couple quality O-linemen every year. Considering these classes and what the qualify of our offensive line was a few years thereafter.
2005 Ikaika Aken-Moleta Evan Caso Ramsey Fiapai Trask Iosefa Nick Smith
2006 Whitley Fehoko Dan Hathaway Peter Manuma
2007 Juan Bolanos Tommie Draheim Kellen Farr Leo Grassilli Kurtis Gunther Mike Matamua
2008 Nick Embernate Alec Johnson Brian Milholland Jimmie Miller Erik Quinones Taylor Wallace
2009 Not a single O-lineman signed
With the exception of Iosefa in 2005, the first two classes brought next to nothing. The 2007 class, which some on this board doubted would be any good since Chuck Long hired a HS coach to be his O-line guy, ended up being relatively great as four of the six guys saw considerable playing time. The 2008 class was also very good as four of those six have also played a lot and a fifth was kicked out of school for reasons reportedly unrelated to football. Then came 2009 and we got nobody, presumably because Hoke doesn't believe in recruiting anybody to play O-line who isn't a complete HS stud.
Maybe six is more than should be signed in any one year, but zero? Even though Hoke's rationale makes some sense, signing zero does not and the result is going to be more inexperience in 2012 and 2013 than I'm comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 12, 2012 10:19:24 GMT -8
We just can't afford not to get at least a couple quality O-linemen every year. Considering these classes and what the qualify of our offensive line was a few years thereafter. 2005Ikaika Aken-Moleta Evan Caso Ramsey Fiapai Trask Iosefa Nick Smith 2006Whitley Fehoko Dan Hathaway Peter Manuma 2007Juan Bolanos Tommie Draheim Kellen Farr Leo Grassilli Kurtis Gunther Mike Matamua 2008Nick Embernate Alec Johnson Brian Milholland Jimmie Miller Erik Quinones Taylor Wallace 2009Not a single O-lineman signed With the exception of Iosefa in 2005, the first two classes brought next to nothing. The 2007 class, which some on this board doubted would be any good since Chuck Long hired a HS coach to be his O-line guy, ended up being relatively great as four of the six guys saw considerable playing time. The 2008 class was also very good as four of those six have also played a lot and a fifth was kicked out of school for reasons reportedly unrelated to football. Then came 2009 and we got nobody, presumably because Hoke doesn't believe in recruiting anybody to play O-line who isn't a complete HS stud. Maybe six is more than should be signed in any one year, but zero? Even though Hoke's rationale makes some sense, signing zero does not and the result is going to be more inexperience in 2012 and 2013 than I'm comfortable with. His signing zero is why we're signing so many JC OL now. Trying to beef up the upperclass #s.
|
|
|
Post by bill456 on Jul 12, 2012 10:32:52 GMT -8
There really isn't a big difference between 3 and 2 star players. To focus on 3 vs 2 stars is silly. Conversely, the facts are pretty clear that 4 and 5 star players have the greatest likelihood of excelling in college football. Thus, to become a truly elite program you need classes full of 4 and 5 star players. However, with shrewd recruiting and top flight coaching you can build a program with 3 and 2 star recruits that will eventually allow you to get more 4 and 5 star players (the Boise model). It's just not realistic to expect that to already have happened for the Aztecs who just a mere 4 years ago was one of the worst programs in college football. Things are immensely better with recruiting, coaching, wins and losses and conference affiliation. Enough with the negativity and over emphasis on stars! +1.
|
|