Recruiting strategy

[VegasVol]

Where in the world would one even begin to make an argument with some of the blatant insanity that you post? Arguing with someone practicing such backasswards logic as yourself would just be an exercise in futility. Keep posting though, you're doing an excellent job of making my point for me.

So, you can use phrases like "blatant insanity" and "backasswards logic" but it would be an "exercise in futility" for you to post actual facts or an argument in opposition to mine. Wouldn't it be easy to do so given the "insanity" and "backasswards logic" involved?

 

[VegasVol]

I think it's called mental gymnastics. It's when you can bend over backwards mentally to convince yourself you're correct.

Sorta like saying we've never lost a recruiting battle this year, then being shown we've lost out for 90 of the top 92 players we targeted so far, so you reverse argument and suddenly claim everyone loses that many recruiting battles at that rate, then being shown you're dead wrong, so you just start calling people names instead....

 

[VegasVol]

Isn't that who we're competing against, and trying to run down?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I sure thought so. I thought that's why we fired a head coach.

 

[mooreaj21]

lol:opcorn:lol:opcorn:

 

[KiffinKiller]

Sorta like saying we've never lost a recruiting battle this year, then being shown we've lost out for 90 of the top 92 players we targeted so far, so you reverse argument and suddenly claim everyone loses that many recruiting battles at that rate, then being shown you're dead wrong, so you just start calling people names instead....

I did no such thing. I will tell you, however, that you are delusional if you think we are the exception when it comes to missing on recruits offered. I guarantee you look at any team in the SEC and they would have similar lists.

Another point - we are recruiting safer prospects that will make it in and stay out of trouble. We need to get enough scholarship players on the roster first before we're able to risk scholy's on players like we used to (Chris Donald, Kenny O'Neal, Creer, Paige, Vinson, Bolden, etc.).

 

[Doolittle 1720]

Sure. But which is more logical, when you know which players the staff has, in fact, offered after evaluation:

Situation: Player A has better athleticism, is considered the better player by recruiting analysts across the country, and is considered the better player by other elite coaches (as evident in their offer sheets) than Player B. We offer both. We only get Player B.

VN "Experts" Conclusion: According to the "experts" on here, that's because we only "really wanted" Player B, didn't "really want" Player A, for vague assertions of "need filling" and "character," even though public record documents we offered both.

My Conclusion: We're losing out on most of our top targets, leaving a Tennessee program on pace with less talent than it has right now.

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[Joe Vols]

I did no such thing. I will tell you, however, that you are delusional if you think we are the exception when it comes to missing on recruits offered. I guarantee you look at any team in the SEC and they would have similar lists.

Another point - we are recruiting safer prospects that will make it in and stay out of trouble. We need to get enough scholarship players on the roster first before we're able to risk scholy's on players like we used to (Chris Donald, Kenny O'Neal, Creer, Paige, Vinson, Bolden, etc.).

You don't need to help Dooley out by posting this. I went to Vandy and this is Vandyball at it's best. I love my alma mater and all, but we "UT" have to recruit players with the skills to help us win and teach them how to be respectable young men.

 

[sjt18]

Sure. But which is more logical, when you know which players the staff has, in fact, offered after evaluation:

Situation: Player A has better athleticism, is considered the better player by recruiting analysts across the country, and is considered the better player by other elite coaches (as evident in their offer sheets) than Player B. We offer both. We only get Player B.

VN "Experts" Conclusion: According to the "experts" on here, that's because we only "really wanted" Player B, didn't "really want" Player A, for vague assertions of "need filling" and "character," even though public record documents we offered both.

Why you must be right... why didn't we see it before? It is impossible to find talented 3* players by watching their film, checking their camp/combine results, interviewing them, etc.

They can only be talented if Rivals and other coaches like them. Of course somewhere around half the guys in the NFL blow that idea out of the water... but what do NFL talent scouts know? Don't they know they'd be much better off with the 60-80% of blue chips who either don't get drafted or else never amount to anything?

My Conclusion: We're losing out on most of our top targets, leaving a Tennessee program on pace with less talent than it has right now.

Your conclusion based on what? Recruiting svc rankings, right? They KNOW that they don't find all of the 5* talent across the country. They don't even try to... the arbitrarily limit the number of 4-5* slots they award.

I don't claim to know that a single UT commit is any good or has a great future... I simply claim that neither you nor Rivals knows that at this point either.

 

[rocket31]

Think it lends at least a little credence that coaches cant be judged until they have 'their' players in place.

i definitely agree with that.

if by year 3 the vols are still looking lousy then i would be concerned, but right now considering ALL circumstances, its pretty weak to blast dooley.

 

[rocket31]

[/B]

No, he has exceeded expectations as a recruiter b/c he is at ND, which has more feeder schools across the nation than Tiger Woods does girlfriends. Skim the Catholic high schools in your area and tell me how many of them wear ND colors? It doesn't take a great recruiter to get great players to ND. That's a fact.

we have only recruited three-four kids from catholic schools. so your little "theory" is not very applicable to BKs recruiting efforts...

most, if not all, our "big" name guys have NOT come from "feeder" schools this year: lynch, tuitt, daniels, george atkinson, hayes, etc...

 

[Ravenheart]

You don't need to help Dooley out by posting this. I went to Vandy and this is Vandyball at it's best. I love my alma mater and all, but we "UT" have to recruit players with the skills to help us win and teach them how to be respectable young men.

You're forgetting one recurring theme: The Volunteers are roughly eight years behind in basically every aspect, and our depth is severely depleted at multiple positions. Again, we would love to aggressively pursue the higher-ranked prospects, but we need to fill in the gaps first, and to do so, we need to fill them with athletes we KNOW will (1) qualify academically, (2) come in and work hard on and off the field, and (3) stay out of trouble. If it means taking two-star, three-star, and low four-star athletes, then so be it. At least hopefully they'll come in with a chip on their shoulders wanting to go out and prove a point. We are NOT in a position to actively pursue the Stewards and the Grants and the Clowneys, and we won't be for another year or two.

I know that I've said this before, and some people have as well, but the answer is so obvious, and it would take a lot to not see it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Joe Vols]

You're forgetting one recurring theme: The Volunteers are roughly eight years behind in basically every aspect, and our depth is severely depleted at multiple positions. Again, we would love to aggressively pursue the higher-ranked prospects, but we need to fill in the gaps first, and to do so, we need to fill them with athletes we KNOW will (1) qualify academically, (2) come in and work hard on and off the field, and (3) stay out of trouble. If it means taking two-star, three-star, and low four-star athletes, then so be it. At least hopefully they'll come in with a chip on their shoulders wanting to go out and prove a point. We are NOT in a position to actively pursue the Stewards and the Grants and the Clowneys, and we won't be for another year or two.

I know that I've said this before, and some people have as well, but the answer is so obvious, and it would take a lot to not see it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Since when is a star level an indication of stickability?

 

[VolsDeep]

we have only recruited three-four kids from catholic schools. so your little "theory" is not very applicable to BKs recruiting efforts...

most, if not all, our "big" name guys have NOT come from "feeder" schools this year: lynch, tuitt, daniels, george atkinson, hayes, etc...

you miss the point. Your "expectations" were not that Kelly could recruit non-feeder school recruits, but that he could recruit good prospects. My point was that ND is one of the easiest places in the country to recruit b/c of all the feeder schools, tv contract, etc. The fact that Kelly hasn't gotten a lot of feeder school kids is on him, but certainly doesn't make him a great recruiter. It is more difficult for UT to land a top 20 class than it is for ND to land a top 10 class.

 

[rocket31]

It is more difficult for UT to land a top 20 class than it is for ND to land a top 10 class.

maybe, not sure the UT fanbase would agree with that statement however...

 

[OptimusPrimerib]

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my post.

missed it by thiiiis much

 

[VegasVol]

I did no such thing. I will tell you, however, that you are delusional if you think we are the exception when it comes to missing on recruits offered. I guarantee you look at any team in the SEC and they would have similar lists.

Another point - we are recruiting safer prospects that will make it in and stay out of trouble. We need to get enough scholarship players on the roster first before we're able to risk scholy's on players like we used to (Chris Donald, Kenny O'Neal, Creer, Paige, Vinson, Bolden, etc.).

1. They don't have similar lists. If you're point is they lose out on recruits, of course. That's never been the issue. The issue is the rate and number they miss out on. Good recruiters have an commitment-to-offer rate of about 15%-20% of the top 250 recruits in the nation; Dooley right now is at 2%. That's a huge difference.

2. If we're only recruiting "safer" prospects, then why do we have more offers to 4/5* recruits than others, if you're argument is that these 4/5* recruits are less "safe"? There is simply no evidence we're offering less 4/5* recruits than anyone else or anyone prior; we're just getting fewer of them to commit so far.

 

[VegasVol]

Why you must be right... why didn't we see it before? It is impossible to find talented 3* players by watching their film, checking their camp/combine results, interviewing them, etc.

They can only be talented if Rivals and other coaches like them. Of course somewhere around half the guys in the NFL blow that idea out of the water... but what do NFL talent scouts know? Don't they know they'd be much better off with the 60-80% of blue chips who either don't get drafted or else never amount to anything?

Your conclusion based on what? Recruiting svc rankings, right? They KNOW that they don't find all of the 5* talent across the country. They don't even try to... the arbitrarily limit the number of 4-5* slots they award.

I don't claim to know that a single UT commit is any good or has a great future... I simply claim that neither you nor Rivals knows that at this point either.

1. I am not saying it is "impossible" find 3* talent; I am saying that Dooley is failing (so far) at an extraordinary rate in his success rate getting 4/5* recruits he has offered.

2. Just look at the numbers over the years -- you can predict the probability of a player's talent using such measurements as Rivals, offer sheets, combine numbers, etc. Is it a certainty? Of course not. But the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the higher-recruit, more-offered, better athlete. Dooley knows that just as well as anyone; that's why he's offered 95+ 4/5* athletes; he just ain't getting them to come here yet.

 

[tvols75]

1. I am not saying it is "impossible" find 3* talent; I am saying that Dooley is failing (so far) at an extraordinary rate in his success rate getting 4/5* recruits he has offered.

2. Just look at the numbers over the years -- you can predict the probability of a player's talent using such measurements as Rivals, offer sheets, combine numbers, etc. Is it a certainty? Of course not. But the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the higher-recruit, more-offered, better athlete. Dooley knows that just as well as anyone; that's why he's offered 95+ 4/5* athletes; he just ain't getting them to come here yet.

Wrong! Your argument holds true if he is going after fall-back options, which he has not. He offered the players we have around the same time if not sooner than those 4 stars you keep pointing to. You will not address he didn't lose the battle with Thurman, Countess, or Walls. He decided he would rather have Kerbyson, Thomas, and Coleman. If those 3 were Vols, it skews your stupid stat.

Also, he was in good shape to land Buie. Guess what, he cooled on Buie and went after Devrin.

Like I said, that stupid stat only holds true if he is having to go after fall-back options, which he is not.

 

[OHvol40]

Sorta like saying we've never lost a recruiting battle this year, then being shown we've lost out for 90 of the top 92 players we targeted so far, so you reverse argument and suddenly claim everyone loses that many recruiting battles at that rate, then being shown you're dead wrong, so you just start calling people names instead....

You may be right about some of the homerism/delusion in terms of recruiting.... but what you may not realize is you are getting your information about who the "top" players on our board are from a third party's opinionated list, rather than the coaching staff's opinionated list.

So until you know for a fact how our staff prioritized the players they have offered you have 0 credibility/knowledge about the "top" players we have "missed" on.

You can regurgitate what a pay site may think about who we have offered, but you have no ground to say that you know who the staff has seriously pursued and missed on.

Show me the UT football staff's priority board rather than rivals/scout rankings, then we can talk about who we missed on.

 

[VegasVol]

You may be right about some of the homerism/delusion in terms of recruiting.... but what you may not realize is you are getting your information about who the "top" players on our board are from a third party's opinionated list, rather than the coaching staff's opinionated list.

So until you know for a fact how our staff prioritized the players they have offered you have 0 credibility/knowledge about the "top" players we have "missed" on.

You can regurgitate what a pay site may think about who we have offered, but you have no ground to say that you know who the staff has seriously pursued and missed on.

Show me the UT football staff's priority board rather than rivals/scout rankings, then we can talk about who we missed on.

Agreed, we don't know who Dooley has prioritized. However, I think it more likely he prioritized those recruits who a) other top coaches have targeted; b) recruiting analysts list as the best and c) athletically, fit the physical size/speed ratios better than most.

 

[VegasVol]

Wrong! Your argument holds true if he is going after fall-back options, which he has not. He offered the players we have around the same time if not sooner than those 4 stars you keep pointing to. You will not address he didn't lose the battle with Thurman, Countess, or Walls. He decided he would rather have Kerbyson, Thomas, and Coleman. If those 3 were Vols, it skews your stupid stat.

Also, he was in good shape to land Buie. Guess what, he cooled on Buie and went after Devrin.

Like I said, that stupid stat only holds true if he is having to go after fall-back options, which he is not.

Assuming Dooley really only wanted the lesser-recruited, less-targeted, less-athletic players is not an assumption I find likely. That's where we disagree.

 

[VolsR#1n98]

Vegas, got to say you are persistent and very mathematical in your approach to determining the value of our current class. You make some points, but I think there are way too many variables out there to base our talent pool (increasing/decreasing in relation to this team) on the percentage of 4/5 stars saying no thanks. Certainly does not equal the final grade of CDD's staff's ability to recruit or this class's value in my opinion.

Future talent that will contribute to rebuild = current ability (recruiting part) + coachability (player development) + intangibles: intelligence/attitude/work ethic + longevity. Very few players will rate high in all areas, they key is to not whiff on many.

Just a snap shot in time, but take a look at the current Top 10 BCS standings. The majority of the teams did not consistently finish in the Top 10 (recruiting) the last few years (06-09). They are not loaded with 4/5 stars but are loaded with solid players that match good systems.

This staff will absolutely miss their #1 prospect more than they will sign him, but so do all the others. The key is who they SIGN more so than who they miss on. Just as important is what they do with those players after they sign. Are their #2 and #3 choice by position still a great fit for our system? Will they develop into productive team players?

I like this class, no matter if it’s a top 10 or a top 30. Way to early to lose faith in CDDs staff’s ability to recruit, develop, and coach. That will take a couple of years to sort out.

 

[tvols75]

Assuming Dooley really only wanted the lesser-recruited, less-targeted, less-athletic players is not an assumption I find likely. That's where we disagree.

And you have evaluated them right? We were the first to offer Tom Smith then Florida has recently. You are basing less talented off of rivals while the coaches base it off their evaluations.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Billy Antrim]

Some of you lack perspective on reality when it comes to this star debate. Some of you honestly believe this is how it works: The coaching staff at colleges review game tape, combine results, talk with the recruit and form the opinion that they think this particular recruit fits and would be successful in college. Then they check rivals and find out he is a 3-star and change their opinion and decide they dont want them! Or vice versa, the coaches review game tape, combine results, talk with the recruit and determine that he does not fit and would not be successful in college. They then check rivals and find out he is a 4-star and change their mind and decide now we have to offer him! Its idiotic to be that narrow-minded about how the recruiting process works. The players we end up signing for this class with be players that were evaluated extensively by our coaching staff. If they like the kid and he is a 3-star they will offer. If they dont like the kid and he is a 4-star they wont offer. Our class last year was #9. This year is will be probably around #15-#17. Thats is a pretty good baseline foundation considering where our program is at.

Wow! And all along I thought our coaches consulted the recruiting geniuses on VN in deciding who to offer. Thanks for setting us straight!



I agree with you, by the way. :hi: