Recruiting Talent vs Success

[IlliniHusker]

I decided to compare the Talent (average Rival recruiting rank for 2003 - 2006) vs Final 2006 AP poll. Half the top 10 teams were also in the top 10 recruiting classes. In other word, these football teams preformed up to their potential. In other words the coaches properly used the talent they had.

Team AP Rank Talent Rank

Florida #1 #4

LSU #3 #7

USC #4 #1

Mich #8 #8

Auburn #9 #10

There are notable "over achievers", teams that performed and ranked MUCH HIGHER than their talent level would have predicted. These coaches got a lot out of their players.

AP Talent

Boise St #5 #59

Louisville #6 #50

Wisc #7 #42

W Va #10 #47

Obviously there are some "under achievers" as well, the 2006 Hall of Shame: FSU & Miami - out of the top 25 with a Talent rating of #5 & 6. Georgia is also shameful, with a final AP rating of 23 and a Talent rating of #3.

Somewhere in-between: Ohio State #2 in AP, had ave Talent rank of #14.

Finally, Nebr - out of the top 25 with an ave Talent rank of #19.

 

Talent is important, but so is coaching and lots of other factors. If Boise St, Louisville, Wisc & W Va can bust into the top 10, why not Nebraska?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

We can do it.......if we can make second half adjustments correctly we can win some games easily!!! Look at the OSU game for an example. If we would have played the second half like the first half we would have won that game easily.

[Ohio Pete]

Yes recruiting is important, but other factors are obviously afoot. Zook delivered great classes to Florida, and Blake got them to Oklahoma, but it took someone who could coach to deliver the promise of those classes.

 

Having a top recruiting class is no guarantee of future success, but it seems to have helped a few recent champs.

 

Here are the top 10 recruiting classes (rivals) and the team's poll finish the year before and the next few years.

 

Year Rank School_________2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2002 1___Texas______________5___6___12____5___1___13

2002 2___Tennessee__________4___X___15___13___X___25

2002 3___Georgia___________22___3____7____7__10___23

2002 4___Florida_State_____15__21___11___15__23___41

2002 5___Ohio_State_________X___1____4___20___4____2

2002 6___Auburn_____________X__14____X____2__14____9

2002 7___Oklahoma___________6___5____3____3__22___11

2002 8___Miami-FL___________1___2____5____X___X___42

2002 9___UCLA_______________X___X____X____X__16___43

2002 10__Colorado___________9__20____X____X___X___97

 

Year Rank School_________2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2003_1___LSU________________X___2___16____6___3

2003_2___Florida____________X__24____X___12___1

2003_3___Southern_Cal_______4___1____1____2___4

2003_4___Oklahoma___________5___3____3___22__11

2003_5___Miami-FL___________2___5____X____X__42

2003_6___Georgia____________3___7____7___10__23

2003_7___NC_State__________12___X____X____X_100

2003_8___South_Carolina_____X___X____X____X__30

2003_9___Mississippi_Sta____X___X____X____X__95

2003_10__Texas_A&M__________X___X____X____X__32

 

Year Rank School_________2003 2004 2005 2006

2004_1___Southern_Cal_______1___1____2____4

2004_2___LSU________________2__16____6____3

2004_3___Florida_State_____11__15___23___41

2004_4___Miami-FL___________5___X____X___42

2004_5___Michigan___________6__14____X____8

2004_6___Georgia____________7___7___10___23

2004_7___Florida___________24___X___12____1

2004_8___Oklahoma___________3___3___22___11

2004_9___Ohio_State_________4__20____4____2

2004_10__Texas_____________12___5____1___13

 

Year Rank School_________2004 2005 2006

2005_1___Southern_Cal_______1___2____4

2005_2___Florida_State_____15__23___41

2005_3___Oklahoma___________3__22___11

2005_4___Tennessee_________13___X___25

2005_5___Nebraska___________X__24___28

2005_6___Michigan__________14___X____8

2005_7___Miami-FL___________X___X___42

2005_8___Texas_A&M__________X___X___32

2005_9___California_________9__25___14

2005_10__Georgia____________7__10___23

 

Year Rank School_________2005 2006

2006_1___Southern_Cal_______2___4

2006_2___Florida___________12___1

2006_3___Florida_State_____23__41

2006_4___Georgia___________10__23

2006_5___Texas______________1__13

2006_6___Penn_State_________3__24

2006_7___LSU________________6___3

2006_8___Notre_Dame_________9__17

2006_9___Oklahoma__________22__11

2006_10__Auburn____________14___9

 

Year Rank School_________2006

2007_1___Florida____________1

2007_2___Southern_Cal_______4

2007_3___Tennessee_________25

2007_4___LSU________________3

2007_5___Texas_____________13

2007_6___South_Carolina____30

2007_7___Auburn_____________9

2007_8___Notre_Dame________17

2007_9___Georgia___________23

2007_10__Alabama___________59

[Syzygyone]

Way too much math.

Just Win baby!

[junior4949]

This is very unscientific, but look at how the 2002 top 10 classes finished in 2006. This is about the only year we can use as the 2002 class were either seniors in 06 or redshirt juniors. The aveage ranking of the 02 top 10 class came in at 30.6. I guess I would look at this and say that really it all comes back to coaching rather than talent. Maybe someone should highlight this for Pud.

 

Looking at those top 10 in 02 explains a lot. It explains why CU got a new coach. It explains why Coker was replaced at Miami. It explains why Fulmer is on the hot seat. It explains why Dorrell is on the hot seat. It also explain why Bowden should step down as well as Joe Pa. They're getting the talent, and then they are underachieving with it.

 

Considering NU has only had 1 class in the top 10 in the last 5 years, it's hard to say whether we're underachieving or not. For NU to be successfull, we need a couple of things to happen. First, we need to keep the talent we have here at NU. Every time a good or great player leaves the team it hurts the team. Second, we need to stop the bleeding in terms of losing coaching staff as well. If we lose as many assistants per year as we did this year, it will be very hard to make a championship run any time soon. The final thing that really needs to happen is better on field adjustments. Everybody gets on Coz and BC about adjustments, and probably rightfully so. In 06, we outscored our opponents in the first quarter by an obscene amount. So, we know that the pregame schemes are outstanding. Both coaches are very good board room X's and O's coaches. However, their on field adjustments really kind of suck.

 

In 06, our defense was pretty crippled up considering our DB's. If we want to have a defense like we did in the mid-90's, we need to increase the speed at the LB position. I realize that Shanle Sr., Ruud, etc. are now in the pros playing, but I think we need to get away from this type of LB. We need LB's like Terrell Farley that were undersized but had blazing speed. Let's get 215-225 pound LB's that run 4.3's and 4.4's instead of 250 pound LB's that run 40's clocked by the sun dial. On offense, the only thing I think we really need to do is get better blocking schemes by the OL. I think plenty of talent is there on the OL, but they just aren't getting it done. They're not dominating anyone's DL. We need more fire and desire by the OL. We have the receivers, we have the backfield, now we just need more consistent play from the OL.

[hastingshusker]

Don't forget how important coaching adjustments can be. I realize the players have to execute first, but they have to be put into positions where they can execute.

[Hunter94]

This is very unscientific, but look at how the 2002 top 10 classes finished in 2006. This is about the only year we can use as the 2002 class were either seniors in 06 or redshirt juniors. The aveage ranking of the 02 top 10 class came in at 30.6. I guess I would look at this and say that really it all comes back to coaching rather than talent. Maybe someone should highlight this for Pud.

 

Looking at those top 10 in 02 explains a lot. It explains why CU got a new coach. It explains why Coker was replaced at Miami. It explains why Fulmer is on the hot seat. It explains why Dorrell is on the hot seat. It also explain why Bowden should step down as well as Joe Pa. They're getting the talent, and then they are underachieving with it.

 

Considering NU has only had 1 class in the top 10 in the last 5 years, it's hard to say whether we're underachieving or not. For NU to be successfull, we need a couple of things to happen. First, we need to keep the talent we have here at NU. Every time a good or great player leaves the team it hurts the team. Second, we need to stop the bleeding in terms of losing coaching staff as well. If we lose as many assistants per year as we did this year, it will be very hard to make a championship run any time soon. The final thing that really needs to happen is better on field adjustments. Everybody gets on Coz and BC about adjustments, and probably rightfully so. In 06, we outscored our opponents in the first quarter by an obscene amount. So, we know that the pregame schemes are outstanding. Both coaches are very good board room X's and O's coaches. However, their on field adjustments really kind of suck.

 

In 06, our defense was pretty crippled up considering our DB's. If we want to have a defense like we did in the mid-90's, we need to increase the speed at the LB position. I realize that Shanle Sr., Ruud, etc. are now in the pros playing, but I think we need to get away from this type of LB. We need LB's like Terrell Farley that were undersized but had blazing speed. Let's get 215-225 pound LB's that run 4.3's and 4.4's instead of 250 pound LB's that run 40's clocked by the sun dial. On offense, the only thing I think we really need to do is get better blocking schemes by the OL. I think plenty of talent is there on the OL, but they just aren't getting it done. They're not dominating anyone's DL. We need more fire and desire by the OL. We have the receivers, we have the backfield, now we just need more consistent play from the OL.

 

 

boy, i sure agree with the speed at Lb spot, speed kills on defense, especially at that position

[AR Husker Fan]

One thing I've said for the last few years is that the linebackers have been a step or two slow - I would certainly welcome more speed there.

 

Having said that, the sucess of light, fast guys can depend to a large extent on whether you have a front four that can keep the blockers off of the linebackers. Remember Auburn's fear - running right up the middle at them? They acknowledged that while their linebackers were fast, they were suseptuble to a power running attack. I don't want that to happen, either...

[Hunter94]

One thing I've said for the last few years is that the linebackers have been a step or two slow - I would certainly welcome more speed there.

 

Having said that, the sucess of light, fast guys can depend to a large extent on whether you have a front four that can keep the blockers off of the linebackers. Remember Auburn's fear - running right up the middle at them? They acknowledged that while their linebackers were fast, they were suseptuble to a power running attack. I don't want that to happen, either...

 

 

agreed, we need those big, fast guys at LB.

[farmerscarlet]

I think you will start to see the talent all over the place on this years team. We can crack the top 10 this upcoming season and I believe we will.

[strigori]

The numbers really show that one great recruiting class doesnt mean a whole lot. It needs to be consistant. One thing the numbers do not show, however, is how many members of those recrutiing classes qualified, or stayed for the3-5 years that those numbers assume. Recruiting is an art, not a science.

[junior4949]

One thing I've said for the last few years is that the linebackers have been a step or two slow - I would certainly welcome more speed there.

 

Having said that, the sucess of light, fast guys can depend to a large extent on whether you have a front four that can keep the blockers off of the linebackers. Remember Auburn's fear - running right up the middle at them? They acknowledged that while their linebackers were fast, they were suseptuble to a power running attack. I don't want that to happen, either...

 

 

The one thing I remember the mid-90's team defense being susceptible to was a running QB. Running Qb's have always been a problem for us. We had a very good front 4 back then, but our fast undersized LB's were typically back covering receivers or TE's. Having said that, isn't the only running QB threat we play next year Freeman at KState? I think this is why Urban Meyer's offense is so good. They run a spread option where the QB can either choose the dump off a short pass or run the ball. In order to run this offense, you have to have a fairly mobile QB. Not many traditional WCO's have mobile QB's. If White at OU would have had any mobility at all, I think OU would have at least 1 more NC trophy in their trophy case. It will be interesting to watch Teebo next year at Florida. He could create some serious problems for defenses.

[DJR313]

One thing I've said for the last few years is that the linebackers have been a step or two slow - I would certainly welcome more speed there.

 

Having said that, the sucess of light, fast guys can depend to a large extent on whether you have a front four that can keep the blockers off of the linebackers. Remember Auburn's fear - running right up the middle at them? They acknowledged that while their linebackers were fast, they were suseptuble to a power running attack. I don't want that to happen, either...

 

Having said that, isn't the only running QB threat we play next year Freeman at KState?

 

Bobby Reid shredded the blackshirts last year and we face him in Lincoln this year. Jackson was pretty mobile for Colorado. McGhee is an option QB at A&M. Meyer is pretty mobile for ISU. I believe the Wake QB is pretty mobile. I guess to answer your question, no.

[huskers1]

Ok my brother and I always debate that recruiting doesnt mean as much as I think it means. My arguement is that ON AVERAGE the teams with the best recruiting classes year in and year out are the teams that are fighting for a spot in the national championship games or BCS games. He just doesnt seem to think that is true. I even went to every teams web site who you have listed in the first post out of the top ten recruiting classes on average and looked at their leaders in stats in all offensive categories. Combined, all the teams that I looked three of them were below a four star. I was just wondering where you got your info from and if you could possibly give me a link so I can maybe shut him up. I would appreciate it, thanks.

[gamecocks]

I would also like to add that a lot has to do with the schemes that teams run as well. Some players will thrive in one offense while others may struggle in it. Use Tech as an example, they can put just about any type of athlete in at reciever and they will thrive, however Arkansas had a very good quarterback last year that struggled in that type of offense.