Recruiting or coaching? Look at this...

[Wethydrant]

Which team has this recruting lineup as their team????

*** 37th...QB
*** 53rd...RB
*** 59th...WR (Y receiver)
*** 12th...C
** NR...OG
*** 75th...OT
*** 34th...OG
*** 23rd...TE
***** 1st...WR
**** JC...OT
Defense don't appear much better....honestly
*** 43rd...DT/DE
* NR...LB
** NR...OLB
*** 29th...CB
*** 57th ...CB
*** PG(prep NR)...S
*** 35th...S
**** JC...NT
**** 7th...ILB
**** 20th...DE
*****2nd...MLB

This is the mighty Alabama. There are 2 all world offensive plaerys, and 4 all world defensive players. That is just 7 out of 22 starters that were heavily recruited...which goes to prove that coaching can make a huge difference. By comparison, I believe UF romps them in ratings per player yet we all saw the product on the field. (By the way, how was Ingram 53rd in HS???)</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

A lot of that is talent evaluation too. That's as big a part of recruiting as anything. Are Bama's LBs that good because they've been "coached up" or are they that good because they were that good of athletes to begin with and the recruiting services just missed on them?

I lean more toward the latter. Again was Patrick Willis really a 2 star talent when he got to Ole Miss that just got coached into an All-American? What about Titus Brown at MSU? No, they both just had the natural ability and were missed by the recruiting services.

 

[kired]

For instance, I remember the announcers talking about Jonathon Banks - how most recruiters probably can't even find East Webster HS. I think that has a big effect on their evaluation. Good players from high profile schools are more likely to be evaluated correctly because they are easier to access and have more people evaluating them. They are also probably competing against better talent. A decently athletic guy from a 1A or 2A school can look like superman based on the lesser talent he's playing against, so it's tougher to judge what he's really capable of. I've got to imagine a recruiting service is very reluctant to give a guy from a small MS or AL school a 4* or 5* rating just because they aren't sure if he's actually good or if it's just the lack of competition. So those guys are more likely to slip through with a 2* or 3* rating.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Which is exactly why I say recruiting rankings are bogus. Recruiting rankings have a little bit of merit in basketball and baseball because the best get to play against the best in summer leagues and AAU leagues, so you can see how the best talent really matches up.

In football, it's guesswork at best.

 

[Sutterkane]

and that's development, especially what happens when you go to college because there are some guys that completely change physically between 18-20. Titus coming out of high school was a linebacker and was even considered too small to play the position, one of the reasons why nobody really looked at him. 2 years later, he's big enough to play DE at an SEC level. Queue the jokes up, but Mike Hunt was recruited as a DB and he's probably big enough to play DE meow at 6'3 240

 

[RebelBruiser]

I agree with that, especially with some guys that have yet to mature physically. I think Quentin Culberson is another good example. If memory serves, he was recruited as a DB, and he ended up a 240 pound MLB, and a really good one at that.

I read a comment from Tuberville a couple years back talking about recruiting in Texas saying that often he felt like he was buying the finished product when he got kids from big schools in Texas. They may look better on film than some kids from other schools in the South, but in many cases that's because they are in such great weight programs and football programs in general that their potential is almost completely tapped. He said that it was often hard for him to make a decision to go for an undersized kid with more upside over a finished product that may only have a little bit of upside still left.

Either way, that's part of the job of the coaches, to evaluate and find those kids that aren't finished products. The best coaches can do that even at schools where they have the opportunity to recruit more "sure things".

 

[paindonthurt_]

ranked in the top 100 by position coming out of high school.

I'd say thats pretty good recruiting if you ask me. Match that with good evaluation and good coaching...........you get........

Championship caliber teams.

You can be the best recruiter in the world and not be able to coach. You'll still suffer. Stansbury. Orgeron. etc.
You can be the best coach in the world and not be able to recruit. You'll still suffer. Cutcliffe (he wasn't great, but he was above average. couldn't recruit worth a lick though.)