What method is more effective?

#151
#151
Volnukem said:
So for the waiting option, you are saying that losing a recruit that you want because you slow-played them isn't a failure for that recruiting method? That doesn't make any sense. I assumed you were arguing that we should exclusively use the waiting method. If so, you must consider losing recruits as a failure. Your logic is fallacious and your argument is biased to the result you presupposed. Perhaps, your conclusion is true. It would be interesting to look at a larger data set across all P5 teams with specific criteria for categorizing the recruits and their success.
Click to expand...

Recruiting is about who you get especially in this context and not who you miss on.

While I am sure we have lost some guys slow playing them but in the end the lower ranked kids we have taken at the end of cycles have been much more productive than those kids taken early in the process that were under the radar

Now if we started using a more wait and see approach and were left with open spots It would be worth looking at who we lost. That hasn't happened yet.

IMO I think we should gradually cut back on the marginal takes early. Only take 1-2 instead the of the 3-4 we are currently taking every class. If we are still overflowing our numbers then cut out the practice all together
 
#153
#153
BruinVol said:
Recruiting is about who you get especially in this context and not who you miss on.

While I am sure we have lost some guys slow playing them but in the end the lower ranked kids we have taken at the end of cycles have been much more productive than those kids taken early in the process that were under the radar

Now if we started using a more wait and see approach and were left with open spots It would be worth looking at who we lost. That hasn't happened yet.

IMO I think we should gradually cut back on the marginal takes early. Only take 1-2 instead the of the 3-4 we are currently taking every class. If we are still overflowing our numbers then cut out the practice all together
Click to expand...

2013: late takes is all you could get because Butch wasn't hired until December. Our roster was in terrible shape so it was easy to get on the field if you signed in this class.

2014: We had an instate rival school that had seen unprecedented success on the field and in recruiting lose their head coach late in the recruiting game (January 11th). This is much different than UGA losing their coach in Nov/Dec. Because of Franklin's departure we were able to steal some guys from their class. Again, playing time is relatively easy to come by if you signed with this class.

2015: Playing time getting harder to come by this point and there's less of a sample size to tell whether or not signees going to be an impact player. The same caliber of prospect signed in this class may not see the field until later. The Malik Foremans and AJ Bransiels that you think are great late pickups are now redshirting and not on the 2 deep in some cases.

There's a dozen other factors that go into play in all this. When is a kid ready to commit? What school is the kid at? Is it in an area we recruit often? Is the kid doing his part? Have our needs changed as a result of injury, coaching changes, defections, etc.? What coaching changes are likely to occur and when? Are we going to lose the kid to a rival if we don't take his commit early?

Bruin, I like you probably more than most. But stuff like this thread is why people grow weary of you. You get something in your head and become hell bent on championing your argument and recognize that your argument is flawed.

Not sure why I decided to lock horns with you today. I've done good at avoiding this but I can't stand when our fans start polishing their halos and pointing fingers with the morality card in hand.
 
#154
#154
A lot said there ziti.

This thread isn't about being on a moral high horse. This thread is looking at our recruiting practices and what has worked and what hasn't.

We can argue about why or exactly how much but it's clear the later we have taken the marginal recruit the more the chance of them helping us has risen. That part is a fact

Now would that trend continue if we tried a more patient approach I don't know. If it didn't help overall results then I certainly don't want the staff to do it just to avoid the practice of dropping kids.

I don't like the practice of dropping kids but I know it's a necessary evil and i am ok with that. I just think we do it more than we should. Once a cycle is fine but 3 or more is way too much bad PR IMO.

Again the purpose of the thread was to point out that there is evidence out there that this practice isn't a part of what has been good about our recruiting but it's actually been the part of it that hasn't yielded success on the field
 
Last edited:
#155
#155
BruinVol said:
A lot said there ziti.

This thread isn't about being on a moral high horse. This thread is looking at our recruiting practices and what has worked and what hasn't.

We can argue about why or exactly how many but it's clear the later we have taken the marginal recruit the more the chance of them helping us has risen. That part is a fact

Now would that trend continue if we tried a more patient approach I don't know. If it didn't help overall results then I certainly don't want the staff to do it just to avoid the practice of dropping kids.

I don't like he practice of dropping kids but I know it's a necessary evil and i am ok with that. I just think we do it more than we should. Once a cycle is fine but 3 or more is way too much bad PR IMO.

Again the purpose of the thread was to point out that there is evidence out there that this practice isn't a part of what has been good about our recruiting but it's actually been the part of it that hasn't yielded success on the field
Click to expand...

What you fail to acknowledge is the circumstances that have been present that helped you come to your conclusion.

We aren't going to benefit from Dooley being fired or Franklin leaving Vandy every year.
 
#156
#156
BigZiti09 said:
What you fail to acknowledge is the circumstances that have been present that helped you come to your conclusion.

We aren't going to benefit from Dooley being fired or Franklin leaving Vandy every year.
Click to expand...

Yes circumstances were involved just like any year

It would also be reasonable to say now the program is WAY AHEAD of where it was that taking early marginal commits is even more questionable

Again I am not sure the next 3 years would show the same but the past shows we should wait longer to offer under the radar recruits
 
#157
#157
BruinVol said:
Yes circumstances were involved just like any year

It would also be reasonable to say now the program is WAY AHEAD of where it was that taking early marginal commits is even more questionable

Again I am not sure the next 3 years would show the same but the past shows we should wait longer to offer under the radar recruits
Click to expand...
The past shows us that our roster wasn't any good when Jones arrived and playing time was easy to come by.
 
#158
#158
BigZiti09 said:
The past shows us that our roster wasn't any good when Jones arrived and playing time was easy to come by.
Click to expand...

Agreed but not exactly sure what that means in the content discussed here unless you are suggesting we aren't going to get the elite players anymore
 
#159
#159
when I saw this thread. I knew one of two people had started it. I didn't even have to read the name under thread. I guess it's my espn kicking in.:thud::blink:
 
#160
#160
BruinVol said:
Agreed but not exactly sure what that means in the content discussed here unless you are suggesting we aren't going to get the elite players anymore
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the roster coupled with two events has led you to your conclusion.

Our roster is a lot different and we don't have an instate school going thru a coaching change in mid January to dump players to us and we don't have a Derek Dooley to fire so we can come in late on kids we should have already committed.

Going forward I think you'll see less of the early takes that we have to part ways with later. Especially in the 2018 class if we have a great 2016 season.
 
#161
#161
BigZiti09 said:
I'm saying that the roster coupled with two events has led you to your conclusion.

Our roster is a lot different and we don't have an instate school going thru a coaching change in mid January to dump players to us and we don't have a Derek Dooley to fire so we can come in late on kids we should have already committed.

Going forward I think you'll see less of the early takes that we have to part ways with later. Especially in the 2018 class if we have a great 2016 season.
Click to expand...

Fair enough for sure.

I hope you are correct and it's as soon as the 17 class.

We are elite and need to start being more picky IMO.
 
#162
#162
BruinVol said:
Fair enough for sure.

I hope you are correct and it's as soon as the 17 class.

We are elite and need to start being more picky IMO.
Click to expand...

We aren't elite til we have an elite season. I think you'll see the same approach in the 2017 class unless we have a really hot start.
 
#163
#163
BigZiti09 said:
We aren't elite til we have an elite season. I think you'll see the same approach in the 2017 class unless we have a really hot start.
Click to expand...

I think we should be able to convince the 17 cycle we are elite but I understand your post for sure
 
#168
#168
Lol at Bruin arguing that Branisel was as good as Wolf as a freshman. He was the worst of two bad TEs in 2013 and saw the field mostly because We had no one else.

As soon as Wolf and Helm got to campus, he became the 4th best TE we had.

Wolf on the other hand, was the starter pretty much from the minute he set foot on campus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#169
#169
Darth_Shiveman said:
Lol at Bruin arguing that Branisel was as good as Wolf as a freshman. He was the worst of two bad TEs in 2013 and saw the field mostly because We had no one else.

As soon as Wolf and Helm got to campus, he became the 4th best TE we had.

Wolf on the other hand, was the starter pretty much from the minute he set foot on campus.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute i may have helm and he confused.


Which one left and transferred to duke?
 
#174
#174
Dust10 said:
Lol that's funny. Helm is from my area. He's a good kid.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is I looked at the signing classes at the start of the day and I would have sworn the Branisel kid was from upper tenn. So I guess I was wrong on that as well
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top