One we can put to bed early

[whaler11]

When signing day 2016 rolls around there can be no argument it was a successful day if they aren't beating P5 schools for recruits.

Clearly the staff isn't on board with some the concepts posted around here relative to who they would prefer to land.

Edit: Title should say bed but I can't fix it.

 

[noeynox]

Okay why should we beating P5 schools for recruits in this conference, when we seldom won those battles while playing in a BCS=P5 conference?

 

[whaler11]

Okay why should we beating P5 schools for recruits in this conference, when we seldom won those battles while playing in a BCS=P5 conference?

Not what I said.

If you look at the players they have offered and the timing of the offers they are clearly targeting highly sought after recruits.

Realistic or not, if they don't sign some then the case can't be made that they are better off signing players with fewer and less noteworthy offers. Because the staff themselves clearly isn't recruiting in that fashion.

 

[noeynox]

Not what I said.

If you look at the players they have offered and the timing of the offers they are clearly targeting highly sought after recruits.

Realistic or not, if they don't sign some then the case can't be made that they are better off signing players with fewer and less noteworthy offers. Because the staff themselves clearly isn't recruiting in that fashion.

Isnt this the same route they took last year, then after camps they offered and got commits in early summer from a bunch of kids with no or few offers? I think after the obvious offers, the coaches reevaluate after seeing players at their camps. I see it playing out no different than any other year, but maybe I never noticed how offers went out before.

 

[whaler11]

Isnt this the same route they took last year, then after camps they offered and got commits in early summer from a bunch of kids with no or few offers? I think after the obvious offers, the coaches reevaluate after seeing players at their camps. I see it playing out no different than any other year, but maybe I never noticed how offers went out before.

It might be - it would only support the point that offers matter and can give you a relative idea of how you did in recruiting.

I don't see how being the 10th team in on a guy with SEC offers is productive - but they must think there is some value.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Recruiting has evolved into a completely different sport. I don't go to the recruiting board much anymore but a lot of the guys who post there don't post much on this board. It's taken a life of it's own. (BTW Medic does an admirable job keeping up with all of the crap)

When we land a player you can count on the following phrases being posted about the kid:

"He has a high motor"
"Great size and speed"
"Love that he's a multiple sport athlete"
"Sounds like a great kid"
"Love the way Diaco is recruiting"
"Love this kid's film"
"Kid has a mean streak"

 

[noeynox]

It might be - it would only support the point that offers matter and can give you a relative idea of how you did in recruiting.

I don't see how being the 10th team in on a guy with SEC offers is productive - but they must think there is some value.

Your second paragraph I agree with and have noticed a lot of that on twitter. It is one thing to be in early on a kid who is obviously going to blow up, but this is something different.

 

[huskymedic]

Recruiting has evolved into a completely different sport. I don't go to the recruiting board much anymore but a lot of the guys who post there don't post much on this board. It's taken a life of it's own. (BTW Medic does an admirable job keeping up with all of the crap)

When we land a player you can count on the following phrases being posted about the kid:

"He has a high motor"
"Great size and speed"
"Love that he's a multiple sport athlete"
"Sounds like a great kid"
"Love the way Diaco is recruiting"
"Love this kid's film"
"Kid has a mean streak"

You forgot the new one... He's a RKG (Right Kinda Guy).

 

[huskymedic]

I don't see how being the 10th team in on a guy with SEC offers is productive - but they must think there is some value.

Easy way to get the UConn name out... "you are who you associate with" ?

Sometimes it's just about building a relationship with the high school/head coach for the future or another player in the same class who may not have a boodle of offers.

 

[whaler11]

Easy way to get the UConn name out... "you are who you associate with" ?

Sometimes it's just about building a relationship with the high school/head coach for the future or another player in the same class who may not have a boodle of offers.

Yeah it doesn't cost anything but time so it's not a big deal either way - if they think there is value good enough.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You forgot the new one... He's a RKG (Right Kinda Guy).

Forgot about that one.

This thread really doesn't get started until Pudge comes here with his regression analysis anyway.

 

[BlueMAB]

You forgot the new one... He's a RKG (Right Kinda Guy).

Or #TenToesIn

wait, wrong board?

 

[CL82]

Disagree with the OP. If we fill needs with guys athletic enough to help us it's a success. It really doesn't matter me if anyone else thinks that they'd be of help to them.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Or #TenToesIn

wait, wrong board?

#uptick

 

[Dooley]

Easy way to get the UConn name out... "you are who you associate with" ?

Sometimes it's just about building a relationship with the high school/head coach for the future or another player in the same class who may not have a boodle of offers.

This.

We clearly aren't going to land any of these 4-star kids with offers from 10-20 P5 schools if we continue to win 2 games a year and show the same level of football that we've been showing on the field. I think what these offers are doing is just getting our name out there. Nothing more. Get enough of these 4-star kids to spread the word about just how blessed they feel that they received an offer from UConn, then maybe just maybe the trickle down effect kicks in. Then when we start winning games again, we might be able to lock up a kid or two that we might have not otherwise.

What this also says is that the coaching staff thinks highly of UConn and/or the direction of the program. Past regimes have always kind of "sold short" the program/school by never offering/recruiting a highly sought after kid. That may send the message that we don't believe we're good enough to attract good players so why bother. And if we're not good enough to attract good players, why would under-the-radar types want to come here too? By offering all of these P5 level talents, we make the statement that we have something to offer these kids and that we believe we a school/program that can attract top talent. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean we're going to get any one of these top kids in the class of 2016 unless we go undefeated and get a B1G invite by year's end (100% unlikely). I think offering these top talent kids of 2016 is more so to recruit the kids of 2017-beyond than anything else. Start the word-of-mouth telephone game now and get our program's name/reputation out there so that when we truly have a shot at a kid, we have a foot in the door.

Of course, all of what I said above means nothing if we continue to win 2 games/year and punt on 4th and 1 from SMU's 45 yard line.

 

[Waquoit]

After last year, where practically every game became a new season low; no words coming from the program can be taken at face value. Change the culture already, quit talking about it. Win some games.

 

[gioff23]

All anyone will know come mid-February 2016 is who we signed. It will say nothing about how the staff built the board initially or who they ultimately signed. Their are advantages and frankly needs around playing the game of getting the school's name out there, the staff's approach and currying favors with lots of folks who have a very high opinion of themselves and who think they know what is best for a teenager. But if you focus on stars, early offers, etc., you miss the boat, time and time and time again. We have 2 players this year that will/should be drafted, maybe a 3rd. Go look at their offer lists from 2010, and you'll see 1-AAs, MAC, SunBelt, etc. You will not see Top 50 programs at all. You can't win the SEC recruiting under the radar kids, but you can build a succesful program around those kind of kids. What we need is to stabilize the program and get the kids we have to develop over their career. That, and a QB.

 

[whaler11]

Disagree with the OP. If we fill needs with guys athletic enough to help us it's a success. It really doesn't matter me if anyone else thinks that they'd be of help to them.

So if we aren't able to attract the players we wanted but still recruit others it's successful because the slots are filled.

OK.

 

[Waquoit]

So if we aren't able to attract the players we wanted but still recruit others it's successful because the slots are filled.

I think that makes sense when you think about it. Do you really trust this staff's judgment? If you factor in that these guys have been pretty much wrong on everything to date, it would only follow that they would have a better chance of success on their 2nd choices than their 1st.

 

[CL82]

So if we aren't able to attract the players we wanted but still recruit others it's successful because the slots are filled.

OK.

God it is so tiring to see you misquote people and then snark at your own made up questions. Do you even realize that you do it? It totally clutters up the periodic interesting points you do make.

I think it is fair to assume that the coaching staff "wants" anyone who gets a scholarship from them, don't you?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I think that makes sense when you think about it. Do you really trust this staff's judgment? If you factor in that these guys have been pretty much wrong on everything to date, it would only follow that they would have a better chance of success on their 2nd choices than their 1st.

Not sold on them recruiting wise yet but Ron Johnson, Diggs and Crozier gives me some hope that they can evaluate talent.

 

[RedSoloCup]

So if we aren't able to attract the players we wanted but still recruit others it's successful because the slots are filled.

OK.

Funny how things on the Internet are absolute when real life has so many facets.

If success is the return of the program to a path of growth, then that may be possible.

Answering your original point, I am quite sure that the program and coaches are going to be successful getting kids who will fit the program and what they want to build.

We may never know if they took an OL candidate and never looked at his P-5 level HS teammate because of character issues.

And I am sure they are aware of concepts posted around here. They get paid to put their own in place. Ain't nobody around here putting food on the table by what is posted.

 

[whaler11]

God it is so tiring to see you misquote people and then snark at your own made up questions. Do you even realize that you do it? It totally clutters up the periodic interesting points you do make.

I think it is fair to assume that the coaching staff "wants" anyone who gets a scholarship from them, don't you?

If your point is there aren't degrees of want then you'd be better off having me misquote you and being snarky because that's silly.

Since what matters is how you recruit relative to your competition the degree to which you prefer them is quite important.

By your definition you can't have a poor recruiting year because if the slots are filled it's a success.

And somehow the marketplace for college football players is inefficient enough that the opinion of the talent evaluators in that market mean nothing? You believe this?

 

[whaler11]

Funny how things on the Internet are absolute when real life has so many facets.

If success is the return of the program to a path of growth, then that may be possible.

Answering your original point, I am quite sure that the program and coaches are going to be successful getting kids who will fit the program and what they want to build.

We may never know if they took an OL candidate and never looked at his P-5 level HS teammate because of character issues.

And I am sure they are aware of concepts posted around here. They get paid to put their own in place. Ain't nobody around here putting food on the table by what is posted.

That doesn't respond to my original post at all.

They have 50+ offers out for 2016. If they don't close some of those players how can anyone claim it was a successful recruiting year? I'm talking about posters here - the staff can't be honest about the process or outcomes if those outcomes are poor.

 

[RedSoloCup]

That doesn't respond to my original post at all.

They have 50+ offers out for 2016. If they don't close some of those players how can anyone claim it was a successful recruiting year? I'm talking about posters here - the staff can't be honest about the process or outcomes if those outcomes are poor.

Well that does help! I didn't see it that way. You mentioned staff and being on board and all that.

We can now count 2016 recruiting as unsuccessful! No possible way that we take 50+ kids.

The good news is that we don't have many other schools that will have successful recruiting, if any do.

Anything else for the thread? Should we go back to discussing dead grass?

And no Butch, not that kind.