OL Recruiting
- Thread starter jflores
- Start date
That's a damn fine post.
I don't recall TO annually getting boatloads of 5 star Linemen recruits what-so-ever. All they did was for 25 years was steamroll almost everybody. Very similar to Wisconsin.
But due to NU fans wanting fluff-ball so dearly we cancelled the NU traditions & brought in Clownahan & Smiling Mike.....and learned how to lose to everybody. We're very, VERY lucky to get another chance with SF & his staff.
I fully agree that star recruiting numbers are far, far more accurate for skill positions.
You don't recall that because there were no star rankings at that time, no internet, no Hudl, no rivals rankings. It was like two guys putting out a magazine.
I don't think so.....no rivals rankings but Emfinger, Wallace, Lemming, etc all had recruiting rankings in the early 1990s.
Yes, they were. But much better after winning a NC as TO's rankings started to sky-rocket. To bad he retired after 1997.....
But even in the 90s it was the high ranked skilled players that we were getting. Not so many high ranked big uglies that I recall.
But even in the 90s it was the high ranked skilled players that we were getting. Not so many high ranked big uglies that I recall.
What's wrong with two guys putting out a magazine? Do you need a huge bloated bureaucracy to feel satisfied?
That’s because in the 90’s we could just shoot up all of our OL/DL with juice to get them to the size we wanted as well as adding a little extra ‘rage’.
Obviously his point shot over your head. He knew who the guys providing the rankings were. He was pointing out that there were just a couple of dudes with small staffs that based their rating almost exclusively on what offers a player received.
Demand for proof. Now it's an official HOL thread. Next somebody needs to say that somebody's act has gotten old.
Haha.....Clownahan is proof?? My good friend, he was a HORRIBLE cfb HC. You know that.....
They have all the time in the world as far as I’m concerned. Im all in favor of letting the results in terms of wins and losses determine if this staff can recruit players that result in consistently elite teams. On the contrary it seems like those touting the recruiting prowess of this staff aren’t willing to let time tell us if they can recruit.
How dare you call me out like that?! I had back surgery or something!!!
Pelini sabotaged Riley last year!
The proof is in THE STREAK.
Last edited:
You don’t have to believe a damn word I say about some guy that looked like Pelini giving me the bird on the interstate and/or Pelini getting mad at a softball umpire one time!!
Kaczenski is the reason Nebraska went 4-8 last year. Toxins!
Even if this staff recruited nothing but 5 stars, it won't show that they can turn it into an elite team. They haven't even played a game yet. Let some games play out then we can critique the staff's eye for talent evaluation.
There's also quite a few schools getting those 4 and 5 star OL recruits and still putting together average to below average lines that are much worse than Wisconsin's.
Actually that sounds a lot like us. We haven't had much of a problem getting 4 star and even a couple 5 star lineman over the past decade but we still have average at best line play every year.
What's kept Wisconsin from potentially becoming a playoff team is average or poor qb play outside of the time they had Russell Wilson. Also it's taken time for them to put together a team capable of winning as much as it has. Wisconsin usually has a good defense but they haven't had a great playoff level defense until the last 2 years. Wisconsin almost always has very good line play so I don't know why anyone would try to criticize that or criticize attempting to replicate their success. 2 teams have proven you can have great lines with 2 and 3 star talent and they're right in our back yard. There's no reason we couldn't develop lines the same way they do if we tried. The last 2 years Wisconsin has been a playoff level team outside of the fact that their qb is one of the worst in FBS.
So if Wisconsin is capable of being a playoff level ream recruiting 2 and 3 star talent, we can do the same thing recruiting 3 and 4 star talent. We outrecruit Wisconsin almost every year. Our problem is not the talent level and never has been. The times we've struggled we've had poor coaching and development. With proper coaching and development and enough time we'll be a playoff team recruiting the same talent we are now.
So if Wisconsin is capable of being a playoff level ream recruiting 2 and 3 star talent, we can do the same thing recruiting 3 and 4 star talent. We outrecruit Wisconsin almost every year. Our problem is not the talent level and never has been. The times we've struggled we've had poor coaching and development. With proper coaching and development and enough time we'll be a playoff team recruiting the same talent we are now.
So if a "quite a few" schools getting these stud OL and are putting together average to below average lines, is that talent or coaching.
If you gave Wisconsin coaches a bunch 4-5 star kids their lines would be even better? They have proven they can develop players at those positions, why wouldn't they have potentially the best O Lines in history?
Probably both. Some of the higher rated recruits might have already peaked. A smaller lower rated player might have a high peak but just needs the time snd coaching to develop. Maybe Wisconsin's lines would be even better if they could get higher rated recruits, I don't know.
I do know kids at that age can develop an incredible amount physically and with proper strength and conditioning probably develop more athleticism than any other time in their lives. It's hard to know how a kid will develop at that age. A 5 star player might not develop much at all after high school while a 3 star player can develop a lot and in 2 or 3 years end up being much better than the 5 star recruit.
It's not only physically, but 18 is around the age where these players are developing mentally more than ever. I'm sure if you ask most college football players, they see the field completely differently as a senior than they did as a freshman. They think completely different. And that's a lot of times very hard to know when watching film how these players think. I think Frost puts a huge priority on mental toughness as much as he does physical abilities when he's recruiting a player.
I believe the Badger's highest rated OL guy is Van Lanen (5.8 4*), a RS Soph who is slated second string to Deiter, a 5.5 3* RS Sr.
Here is what they did. Guys like Lemming talked to coaches about who they were recruiting, then they had local high school writers at some of the bigger newspapers provide them with some names of the top talent in their area. They went to a few games local to their area, Then in April and May they sent in their list of top 150 players to Street and Smiths or Lindy's. They had a 4 page spread in those magazines where they listed the top players at each position, who signed where and a top 25 based on signing day.
Allen Wallace's Superprep magazine was probably the premier recruiting magazine in the late 80's and into the 90's. When they ceased operations in 2012, (they started in 1985) they had only 82 editions. Quick math shows that it was a 3 times annually publication.
Bobby Burton, who helped start Rivals, has even said their publications concentrated only on the top players, because their staffs weren't big enough to devote to some unknown player in rural Texas. Dave Campbell's magazine is huge down here in Texas. When Superprep started, Campbell was a contributor to Wallace for Texas recruits.
It simply wasn't the same as it is now. Only top players were covered, those top players went to top schools. They only had the top 25 recruiting classes because they had no idea who New Mexico St was recruiting because they didn't know until signing day arrived.
so back then it was just some guy's opinion, just like it's some guy's opinion today..
yep it's the exact same.
I typically formulate my opinion after careful review of the offer list to see if programs like Ohio St - Notre Dame - Georgia and other top tier programs are of the opinion that a prospect should be offered.
100% identical. It's just some guy's opinion exactly like the Vegas betting lines are just some guy's opinion.
No merit at all to the fact that there are multiple companies with staffs of football experts, scouts, former coaches dedicated exclusively to the evaluation of HS football talent as their every-day, full-time job.
Also no merit to the repeatedly proven fact that guys with higher rankings coming out of HS are more likely to be NFL players.
"Stars don't matter" is about as smart as, "My grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he lived to be 90." Congrats, smoking is still stupid, your grandpa proved nothing.
An offer list is a different animal than a guy's ranking. There can be a lot more involved in getting an offer than just being good. But to be sure I worry when I see NU competing with a bunch of schools that are either mid-major or the dregs of a P5 conference for a kid.
