Recruiting isn't an exact science?

[horshack.sixpack]

Missouri

2008 - 25
2009 - 40
2010 - 21
2011 - 48
2012 - 31
2013 - 41

Somebody needs to tell them that they are no better than 34th with this crappy recruiting average over the last 6 years. Just don't tell them until after they play Ole Miss.***

I know, recruiting meltdown threads and college football message boards go hand in hand like peas and carrots, but it's just silly. I will say that Alabama has been #1 for 5 of those 6 years listed. I think that does make a difference, particularly when you have a Saban to coach them. But I think that it really only matters if you are at or very near the top year in and year out AND you have coaching to make use of and manage the talent.

It's just interesting that in spite of the lack of evidence to suggest that recruiting well guarantees a good team we will still have to endure a million Dan can't recruit threads. There are just too many variables. Of course I'd love to win in everything, but I'll forgo all other accolades to just win on the field.

 

[engie]

Missouri

2008 - 25
2009 - 40
2010 - 21
2011 - 48
2012 - 31
2013 - 41

Somebody needs to tell them that they are no better than 34th with this crappy recruiting average over the last 6 years. Just don't tell them until after they play Ole Miss.***

I know, recruiting meltdown threads and college football message boards go hand in hand like peas and carrots, but it's just silly. I will say that Alabama has been #1 for 5 of those 6 years listed. I think that does make a difference, particularly when you have a Saban to coach them. But I think that it really only matters if you are at or very near the top year in and year out AND you have coaching to make use of and manage the talent.

It's just interesting that in spite of the lack of evidence to suggest that recruiting well guarantees a good team we will still have to endure a million Dan can't recruit threads. There are just too many variables. Of course I'd love to win in everything, but I'll forgo all other accolades to just win on the field.

Missouri has a tremendous coaching staff. It's amazing to me that everyone overlooked Mizzou in the first place -- when they won 63 games in 7 years prior to joining the SEC and were ridiculously injured last year. Funny you bring up Saban -- when Pinkel was his roommate at Kent St and is, to this day, his closest friend in the coaching profession...

Mizzou has also done tremendous at recruiting and coaching up skill positions -- the same things we lack. They've got 2 total badass receivers -- a RB that pre-injury was the best in the country(and isn't very far from it now) -- and one of the better dual threat QBs in the country. Oh, apparently his freshman backup is pretty good too.

 

[57stratdawg]

I think in 2009 Mullen decided he wanted us to be a power/spread option attack, and I'm not so sure that was great decision. I had a friend point out to me prior to the season that we had 2/3 very solid RBs on the roster, but the problem was a defense only needed one gameplan for both of them. I think that was/is insightful.

We really need a change of pace RB and a WR that can take safeties deep. Maybe that turns into Shumpert and DeRunnya next year, I don't know.

 

[121Josey]

We really need a change of pace RB and a WR that can take safeties deep. Maybe that turns into Shumpert and DeRunnya next year, I don't know.

State has RBs in many shapes and sizes. But with no (power) run blocking, it's like putting a round peg in a square hole.

 

[fishwater99]

State has RBs in many shapes and sizes. But with no (power) run blocking, it's like putting a round peg in a square hole.

Our lack of a FB is killing out running game.

 

[121Josey]

Our lack of a FB is killing out running game.

We use an H-Back, a FB in a different position. Plus, the traditional FB does not work well with the read-option (more for straight ahead running).

 

[dawgman42]

Exactly. Our OL is substandard. It's almost as simple as that. Yeah, we need receivers that can get better separation, block downfield better, etc. But the average horses up front aren't helping any of our causes. That's where our recruiting has been very lackluster.

 

[esplanade91]

What I remember from when we were successful is the WR's were asked to block and did so 9 out of 10 plays, our RB's would punish you, and we threw a 17 ton of check-downs. Mississippi produces RB's like crazy. Even the low rated guys can contribute on D1 squads.

Here's how we fix MSU:

Offer Mississippi's best OL recruits the moon, offer JUCO's best OL the NFL, every 4 years pick up a big-bone RB (think Dixon) and play him immediately in short yardage situations, go and be the only D1 school to offer the #1 rated FB a scholarship (Hud did this a couple years ago), and tell every WR that shows up for their first day of practice they won't see any playing time if they don't block. Offer immediate playing time to freshman WR's who CAN block. Finally, offer the most athletic, horrible small forward in Mississippi a full scholarship to play TE. He can play inside and outside (ala Jimmy Graham) and the WR who block turn him/them into record breaking receivers.

MSU's never going to get Odell-Beckham's and Treadwell's to come to play. What we lack in elite talent we make up for in big, tough *** kids. Use them. Dixon wasn't the most talented back in the world but he had stats that said he was, and that came almost entirely because he was a BAMF. We need to go back there.

 

[Fletch F. Fletch.sixpack]

Pinkel has a very specific type of player he wants............

Before my kid wound up at State, I had season tickets for Missouri for 14 years. GP isn't interested in the biggest OLineman he can find, but likes them tall and angular. He wants fast mobile guys with the quickness and strength to zone and trap block. RB's are always scatback type players who come out of nowhere behind those linemen and they always blast through the holes. There isn't much misdirection with them. And for wide receivers, he has said repeatedly one of the key things they look at in a wideout is vertical jump and height. It is no accident that MU sends wave after wave of 6 foot 3 to 6 foot 6 receivers out on the field. And he mockingly said one time he met one of the guys who did the ratings and he was convinced the guy never set foot on a football field in his life. He is maddeningly hard headed sometimes (defensive backs NEVER, EVER attack a receiver at the line or play bump and run) but he has gotten MU out of the deep, deep ditch it was in for far too long. He has done well.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I suspect that more often than not coaches know what they need for their team and focus on that for recruiting (even Dan). It's just interesting how many variables actually go into a football team being successful and how many message board jockeys (myself included) who can quickly tell you with pinpoint precision the exact singular reason why MSU isn't doing as well as they'd like. And then meltdown every time somebody decent commits to Ole Miss. As if THAT guy is the one that will spell doom for the MSU program forever because he is so much better than ANY of the guys we have on our team or that we are recruiting.

 

[ckDOG]

Do they have large paying memberships to the Rivals, Scouts, 247s of the world?

If not, there's part of your answer. These sites cater to the fan bases who have the largest memberships. All other things considered equal, the recruiting class of the school that has more fans paying for subscriptions will get the higher ratings. The site owners will ***** to the evaluators enough that they bump of the rating. Anyone know how you can quickly look up how Mizzou stacks up in this regard?