Is this the highest average star ranking Oregon has ever had? it was a small class but the quality, at least in star rankings, is very impressive.

As far as on paper goes...2011?

thaiduck wrote: Is this the highest average star ranking Oregon has ever had? it was a small class but the quality, at least in star rankings, is very impressive.

Certainly top 5

I think it improves all areas.  Looking at our redshirts makes me smile.

Magic

The LMJ/KB recruiting class is hard to beat...The DAT/MM class is dynamic.

But the Oregonian's characterization of the 2013 class this morning as "down" is completely ridiculous..this class is filled with outstanding athletes..and we filled our immediate needs.

Maybe the Oregonian was trying to make the Beavs feel better about their snoozer class

The experts are really not...


Magic

Opinions vary, and the Oregonian has theirs, which we seldom agree with anyways due to the number of Beaver alums and apologists that work there.
This class is not very large in size relative to past years, which might account for their low opinion of our class. All that matters is what the coaches think of the guys they signed, and how well they perform in their 4-5 years in Eugene.
It's interesting to note, that of all the P12 all conference players this year, NONE of them were 5 star High School players.
Most of them were only 3 star players, and there were even 3 of them that were only 2 star high school players.

---------------------------------------------
--- duxforus wrote:

The LMJ/KB recruiting class is hard to beat...The DAT/MM class is dynamic.

But the Oregonian's characterization of the 2013 class this morning as "down" is completely ridiculous..this class is filled with outstanding athletes..and we filled our immediate needs.

Maybe the Oregonian was trying to make the Beavs feel better about their snoozer class

---------------------------------------------

The article was probably written before a some of the recruits made their decisions (Prevot, Hunt, Twins). Plus, this was going to be a small class anyway, Very good quality for the number of commits.

NT

12th in the nation when ranked by average star rating.

I rarely post anymore due to "other" pressing concerns, but to me....this is one of the most disappointing years ever in recruiting.  Hardly the best, and compared to what we should have had?  One of the worst.

Let me explain.

I LOVE the guys we got, and the projects are going to be super down the road. REPEAT.  I love the guys we got.

But when UCLA has TWICE the 4-5 star players after their first 9 win season in years?  We dramatically underperformed in recruiting after having a 12 win season and a final #2 ranking.

The three years prior?  We amassed 10, 11, and 11 4-5 star players versus 8 of them this year.  Don't tell me about the stars...I'm not a newbie here.  Yes we have 2 stars that pan out, but most that do well for us ARE the higher rated players...and a TON of them we offered on and wanted went elsewhere.  (Go thru UCLAs commits)

Why?  That is for an article in itself, but I am grateful for what we have and believe we are due results more in line with a top-5 team that we have become.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ducks as many know....but sometimes you have to refrain from sticking your head in a hole and acting like a Husky.

Wanting more is not disloyal.  It is competitive.

I agree with the numbers, not as many 4 and 5 stars this year. My comment was based upon 19 instead of a much larger class. Percentage not numbers.

But I am sure that every coach we recruited against brought out our projected 2 deep and said "Do you see how many of these guys are still underclassmen?" That combined with kelly's imminent departure (been going on for over a year now) certainly hurt us.

I'm normally right there with you on your opinion. This year though, given the circumstances I am very happy with the job Helf did and looking forward to what he is going to do in the future.

The spirit of what you say, I agree with. I just dont think it applies totally to this year.

FishDuck wrote: I rarely post anymore due to "other" pressing concerns, but to me....this is one of the most disappointing years ever in recruiting.  Hardly the best, and compared to what we should have had?  One of the worst.

Let me explain.

I LOVE the guys we got, and the projects are going to be super down the road. REPEAT.  I love the guys we got.

But when UCLA has TWICE the 4-5 star players after their first 9 win season in years?  We dramatically underperformed in recruiting after having a 12 win season and a final #2 ranking.

The three years prior?  We amassed 10, 11, and 11 4-5 star players versus 8 of them this year.  Don't tell me about the stars...I'm not a newbie here.  Yes we have 2 stars that pan out, but most that do well for us ARE the higher rated players...and a TON of them we offered on and wanted went elsewhere.  (Go thru UCLAs commits)

Why?  That is for an article in itself, but I am grateful for what we have and believe we are due results more in line with a top-5 team that we have become.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ducks as many know....but sometimes you have to refrain from sticking your head in a hole and acting like a Husky.

Wanting more is not disloyal.  It is competitive.

Thai, this class has 1 5*, 10/4*, and the rest are 3*. As was already shared, that makes this the #12 class nationally by star ranking. Calling this a poor class, or a down class really does make it look like some here really don't know how much the coaches REALLY like this class.

---------------------------------------------
--- thaiduck wrote:

I agree with the numbers, not as many 4 and 5 stars this year. My comment was based upon 19 instead of a much larger class. Percentage not numbers.

But I am sure that every coach we recruited against brought out our projected 2 deep and said "Do you see how many of these guys are still underclassmen?" That combined with kelly's imminent departure (been going on for over a year now) certainly hurt us.

---------------------------------------------

one of the most disappointing years EVER in recruiting?

EVER??? sheesh what a drama queen



---------------------------------------------
--- FishDuck wrote:

I rarely post anymore due to "other" pressing concerns, but to me....this is one of the most disappointing years ever in recruiting.  Hardly the best, and compared to what we should have had?  One of the worst.

Let me explain.

I LOVE the guys we got, and the projects are going to be super down the road. REPEAT.  I love the guys we got.

But when UCLA has TWICE the 4-5 star players after their first 9 win season in years?  <em>We dramatically underperformed</em> in recruiting after having a 12 win season and a final #2 ranking.

The three years prior?  We amassed 10, 11, and 11 4-5 star players versus 8 of them this year.  Don't tell me about the stars...I'm not a newbie here.  Yes we have 2 stars that pan out, but most that do well for us ARE the higher rated players...and a TON of them we offered on and wanted went elsewhere.  (Go thru UCLAs commits)

Why?  That is for an article in itself, but I am grateful for what we have and believe we are due results more in line with a top-5 team that we have become.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ducks as many know....but sometimes you have to refrain from sticking your head in a hole and acting like a Husky.

Wanting more is not disloyal.  It is competitive.

---------------------------------------------

I think you have to look deeper at this class. Star ratings are meaningless. The needs are: right fit for the program, right for position need, right for what you want to do... For those things it looks like we did quite well.

The thing I am most impressed with is the consistent upgrade in size and speed. Two 6 foot 200lb running backs with speed. The shortest wide out is 6 feet tall and is a serious burner (do you know how good 13.5 auto is in the high hurdles?), most are 6'2" and taller. Mattingly and Prevot have big frames and huge upside. We desperately needed a kicker, tic that box too.

You can't rate a recruiting class without intimately knowing the need.

The star ratings are dubious beyond belief. For instance, i've seen a lot of Tyner, and if he's not a 5 star RB, nobody is.

Star ratings are the same as the old baseball scout criteria: big hands, square jaw, good looking kid... it's a bunch of hooey. The stars are for the media, not for the field. Heck, Jerry Rice only had one coach visit him.

I knew I would have some disagreement and I'm fine with it.  I knew also that I would have some posters twist what I wrote into something else.  I stated twice that I love the guys we have, the needs met, and the obvious talent that the coaches are thrilled with.  This was not a knock on them.  (For the third time)

But being #2 in the nation and four BCS Bowl games should not have brought a recruiting result lower than that of other years.  Yes Chip left,....but even if he hadn't, we would have had nine 4-5 star players, which under-performs the recruiting results of the last three years.  (I use Rivals rankings since I had in the past and wish to remain consistent)

People say that stars don't matter.  The research I've seen confirms that it DOES matter, and proof are the four star kids that we pursued this year and failed to bring to Oregon.  Did we then go after two star replacements?  Can you build a great team with fewer 4-5 star kids and a bunch of 2-3 star kids who have grown through Rad and are coached up?  Of course, because that is what we have done as a team over time.

But none of that changes the fact that we underperformed in recruiting this year relative to the last three years, and especially in light of our current presence in the college football world.

What I am stating is so obvious with the proof in front of us...I don't know how anyone can honestly dispute it.  But it is something few want to address, and normally I would not let my guard down, but I did at a late hour and wrote in a moment of weakness.

I will go back to being a cheerleader again.

FishDuck wrote: I rarely post anymore due to "other" pressing concerns, but to me....this is one of the most disappointing years ever in recruiting.  Hardly the best, and compared to what we should have had?  One of the worst.

Let me explain.

I LOVE the guys we got, and the projects are going to be super down the road. REPEAT.  I love the guys we got.

But when UCLA has TWICE the 4-5 star players after their first 9 win season in years?  We dramatically underperformed in recruiting after having a 12 win season and a final #2 ranking.

The three years prior?  We amassed 10, 11, and 11 4-5 star players versus 8 of them this year.  Don't tell me about the stars...I'm not a newbie here.  Yes we have 2 stars that pan out, but most that do well for us ARE the higher rated players...and a TON of them we offered on and wanted went elsewhere.  (Go thru UCLAs commits)

Why?  That is for an article in itself, but I am grateful for what we have and believe we are due results more in line with a top-5 team that we have become.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ducks as many know....but sometimes you have to refrain from sticking your head in a hole and acting like a Husky.

Wanting more is not disloyal.  It is competitive.

I agree with you.....KINDA...I, like you, don't want to "settle" for a nice class with good athletes that we are hoping to coach up..Part of me thinks that for a Top 5 program, we really should be having greater success in reeling these higher profile kids who are turnkey products from the first day they set foot on campus

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the guys we have, but Oregon is now a national brand that should be having an easier time...

The other side of me says: Hey dip$hit, CK just left you at the altar 2 weeks before LOI day; you just signed a Top 20 class by taking only 19 kids:  YOU COULD HAVE DONE ALOT WORSE...

To me, UCLA's success is a simple reminder that they only need marginal success to reel in the studs, Kids are kids and when you show them Westwood, the beach, the warm weather, the palm trees...and with SC down for a while, I expect it to continue.
 
And before somebody, brings Ole Miss into the argument....The SEC operates on a different set of rules.........PERIOD..

Fish, this happened the last time Oregon only had one loss to Stanford, won the Fiesta, and finished #2. The coach was all but leaving both times.

Oregon has to have everything going right to pull down the monster classes. No matter the flash, Eugene is in the middle of nowhere. If thinks look shaky recruiting will as well.

I agree with you. Another top of the mountain season followed by a decent recruiting class that should have been great.

FishDuck wrote: I rarely post anymore due to "other" pressing concerns, but to me....this is one of the most disappointing years ever in recruiting.  Hardly the best, and compared to what we should have had?  One of the worst.

Let me explain.

I LOVE the guys we got, and the projects are going to be super down the road. REPEAT.  I love the guys we got.

But when UCLA has TWICE the 4-5 star players after their first 9 win season in years?  We dramatically underperformed in recruiting after having a 12 win season and a final #2 ranking.

The three years prior?  We amassed 10, 11, and 11 4-5 star players versus 8 of them this year.  Don't tell me about the stars...I'm not a newbie here.  Yes we have 2 stars that pan out, but most that do well for us ARE the higher rated players...and a TON of them we offered on and wanted went elsewhere.  (Go thru UCLAs commits)

Why?  That is for an article in itself, but I am grateful for what we have and believe we are due results more in line with a top-5 team that we have become.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ducks as many know....but sometimes you have to refrain from sticking your head in a hole and acting like a Husky.

Wanting more is not disloyal.  It is competitive.

The only way to judge recruiting is to look at the staff's own board. Was it realistic? Does it do a good job of evaluating kids? Did they get the guys at the top of *their* board?

You can only guess about this. An early 2-3 star commit means that the kid was at evaluated more highly by UO than by some schmo at a recruiting service. If UO has offered X for position Y, and right after X commits somewhere else, player Z who plays the same position gets a late offer and snaps it up, you can guess that X was higher on the board than Z. The first scenario is a solid pickup if you trust the staff, the latter hopefully pans out. Overall, given the change in coaches and the NCAA thing, this was a very good LOI day IMHO.