One we can put to bed early

[ZooCougar]

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"

"He plays downhill"
"He doesn't stare down the receiver"
"love his upside"

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

"He plays downhill"
"He doesn't stare down the receiver"
"love his upside"

"Has great vision and fluid hips"

 

[ZooCougar]

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.

I don't follow recruiting one bit, but I would rather they aim high early on and build up some equity with these guys. Even if we don't stand a shot outright, if the staff from the P5 that beats us gets fired or moves on then we could be back in the picture.

How do you recruit successfully at UConn? Well that book has been written. Hopefully Bob read it.

 

[ZooCougar]

"Has great vision and fluid hips"

"He has good eye discipline"

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

"He has good eye discipline"

"Has a low base"
"Uses his hands well"

 

[whaler11]

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.

Yes become 'some' means all.

I assume the staff is attemping to actually land the players that they offer.

They don't have offers out to lower rated prospects yet - so I guess the assumption they would prefer the players they offer earlier is potentially a crazy thought.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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

Recruiting battles against the programs on the good side of the fence doesn't really mean much. We need to be recruiting on par minimum, and preferably better than: Memphis State U., U. of Cincinnati, U. of Central Florida, East Carolina U., U.of Houston, Temple U., U. of South Florida,Tulane U., U. of Tulsa, Southern Methodist U.

Recruiting the kinds of athletes that are being recruited by say: Pennsylvania State U., State U. of New Jersey, U. of Maryland, etc. is a pretty easy benchmark standard to make sure we are recruiting the appropriate level of athlete.

Having the problem of needing to compete and recruit on par or better than say: U. of Michigan, U. of Nebraska, etc. would be a nice problem to have, that we don't have.

That noted, of all that has happened since Diaco came on board, recruiting is by far the most reason for optimism. Not much else, really.

 

[CL82]

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?

Seriously man, you need medication. There's discussing an issue then there's just bickering. Far too often, you are just a bickerer. You restate stuff into a red herring and then challenge it. I'd use the ignore function, but when you aren't doing that, you make interesting observations.

 

[sdhusky]

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.

If we recruit guys that we can win championships with, its a success.

 

[sdhusky]

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.

Because we don't judge Diaco on winning or losing recruiting battles. It's winning or losing games.

So, however he gets the players to win the games, it doesn't matter.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Because we don't judge Diaco on winning or losing recruiting battles. It's winning or losing games.

So, however he gets the players to win the games, it doesn't matter.

Is anyone debating that?

 

[FDNY99]

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.

Fixed Whaler

 

[sdhusky]

Is anyone debating that?

Read the original post:

"there can be no argument it was a successful day if they aren't beating P5 schools for recruits."

I am debating that. Its a successful day if we can win championships with the recruits we sign. Not if we beat other P5 schools.

 

[whaler11]

Read the original post:

"there can be no argument it was a successful day if they aren't beating P5 schools for recruits."

I am debating that. Its a successful day if we can win championships with the recruits we sign. Not if we beat other P5 schools.

Obviously I'm talking about in the context of signing day.

If you don't sign players you pursued and win after you scramble to fill spots with players you didn't prioritize then I guess you can claim retrospective success but you don't actually find that species in the wild very often.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Obviously I'm talking about in the context of signing day.

If you don't sign players you pursued and win after you scramble to fill spots with players you didn't prioritize then I guess you can claim retrospective success but you don't actually find that species in the wild very often.

Recruiting is all sales INMNSHO. Salesmanship. I'm not sure I understand Kevin Dineen's point. I think the idea is that we have a problem if we have a coaching staff that is hanging on, or going through motions with a sale, for way too long, when it could've, should've been determined that it wasn't going to close much earlier. Not sure if that's the point.

I think the best recruiters try not to burn bridges and are constantly working to build new ones. The closed deals are by products of the quality and quantity of bridges you build.

Bartender, get me another Yuengling.

 

[UConnDan97]

I'm in the Huskymedic camp on this one. You have to get your name out there to the highly sought after players. Every now and again, you will actually land an EJ Levenberry (yes, yes, I know he's a transfer!). You HAVE to do it if you want to be successful.

Will our current "bread and butter" be the 2-star and 3-star athlete, with fewer P5 offers? Yes. Undoubtedly yes. But that shouldn't prevent us from getting our name in the mix...

 

[Srqhusky]

when recruiting you should have your athletes you feel safe getting and athletes that are reaches but maybe there were some good conversations and mutual interest. it's not like we haven't given some highly sought after recruits something to think about. Some four stars have had to make difficult decisions that were considering us but chose to go elsewhere. We need playmakers and nothing wrong with shooting out some offers to highly sought out kids. Diaco has already won some p5 battles so I'm not worried he can do it again. But when it comes down to it more interested I who we get and getting the team bigger.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Edsall laid the roadmap for recruiting the speed necessary to play at the level that gets you to a new year's day bowl game. It's one full recruiting cycle now, that we are removed from a New Year's Day game. The size, to go with the speed, is what actually gets the wins when you get there, and gets you there regularly. Remains to be seen whether or not Diaco can reproduce the speed and get the size to go with it but indications to date are good. I can't imagine that anyone can disagree with it now, at this point, but I'm sure some would, but Edsall let recruiting fall off from 2008-2010. Pasqualoni recruited a few players with both the size and speed, and was given a house of cards coming off the Fiesta Bowl, especially on offense, but he brought a few players in on both sides - and they will be on the field. The recruiting black hole is the offensive line, and has been for way, way too long, and it goes back to Edsall's stewardship, and then the albatross troll coach that is now back in the NFL. That OL will hopefully start to show some major correction in the curves this season.

 

[Adios]

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

And no Butch, not that kind.

I'm smoking you up at the tailgate.

 

[Samoo]

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.

I'm going to say that a person could claim "a successful recruiting year" if three years later the Huskies are winning a majority of their games and going to bowls. Before then I think the condemnation is a little premature.

 

[J187Money]

I'm going to say that a person could claim "a successful recruiting year" if three years later the Huskies are winning a majority of their games and going to bowls. Before then I think the condemnation is a little premature.

That's fair. Maybe we should shut down recruiting as a topic of conversation on this board and only talk about people retroactively once we see how they perform after 3 years.

 

[Samoo]

Just voicing my opinion, never mentioned shutting down conversation in any way, shape or form. You want to stop posting be my guest.

 

[whaler11]

I'm going to say that a person could claim "a successful recruiting year" if three years later the Huskies are winning a majority of their games and going to bowls. Before then I think the condemnation is a little premature.

Like I said a handful of posts above this I'm talking about in the context of signing day.

Nobody condemned anything BTW.

 

[sdhusky]

Like I said a handful of posts above this I'm talking about in the context of signing day.

Nobody condemned anything BTW.

Who gives a crap about the context of signing day???

Honestly.

How about in the context of winning and losing on the field and championships?

 

[whaler11]

Who gives a crap about the context of signing day???

Honestly.

How about in the context of winning and losing on the field and championships?

The fans of every major program in the country?

How exactly do you think championships are won?

Spoliler Alert: they are won by recruting better players than your opponents.