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

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)

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

A few points...

- The star rankings are subjective, and each of the ranking services is different. This year Rivals liked our class less than Scout. If you go by Scout ratings, our average star rating for 2013 was pretty much the same as it has been from 2010 - 2013. And as mentioned before, the Ducks were #12 in avg star rating on Scout for 2013... pretty good when you just had head coaching turnover.

- The difference between our average star rating on Rivals vs Scout can partially be explained by ratings assigned to guys like Mundt, Mattingly, and Walker. Those are guys the coaches obviously wanted given when they were offered -- so I'm not worried that their lack of stars bring down the Rivals avg star rating.

- We knew this would be a relatively small class, so comparing results to previous years by the overall number of 4/5 star guys is not a great way to evaluate. Comparing to the percentages of 4/5 star guys in the overall class to past years is more realistic. The Rivals percentage of 4/5 star guys is down this year compared to the last couple, but we're talking like 5%. If Rivals liked Mattingly and Mundt as much as the other rating services seem to, we're not even having this discussion.

- I would like nothing better than for the Ducks to be a consistent top 5 team in the recruiting rankings, but based on geography, population numbers in Oregon, and the relative quality of high school football in Oregon, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Regardless of where we finish ranked in the polls that really mean something.

I was on the SC board and read a comment on how surprised he was that both Stanford and Oregon did not have better classes based on being the top two programs this year in the Pac 12.  But my observation through the years finds the correlation irrelevant. Most of the recruiting is done early in the season, so the final standings is not always a factor

Besides neither of us will out recruit SC or UCLA on paper. But somehow that just hasn't made a difference.

We really have no clue if it's the best, worst or somewhere in between.  That is why I went bold to say it's our top 15 class of all time.

Using Scout....

Oregon finished 3rd in the Pac-12 in total points
Oregon finished 3rd in the Pac-12 in average star ratings
We have 9 4-5 star guys (not 8)
3.47 rating
Compare that to the past few years:

Star ratings:
2013 - 3.47
2012 - 3.48
2011 - 3.52
2010 - 3.25

Pac-10/12 ranking
2013 - 3rd in points/3rd in rating
2012 - 3rd in points/3rd in rating
2011 - 2nd in points/1st in rating
2010 - 4th in points/3rd in rating

4/5 star players
2013 - 9
2012 - 10
2011 - 12
2010 - 8

On paper at least, this looks to be a good class, especially when you consider losing a HC 3 weeks before LOI day.

If Oregon has to out-recruit UCLA, then we're in big trouble. That's just NEVER going to happen. UCLA is in _the_ premier location in Southern California. NOTHING else compares to Westwood and USC is not even close. Jim Mora took a lot of heat for saying "We don't have murders one block from our campus". That was an outrage but basically true. My friends daughter was at USC Law for 2 weeks this year before her first robbery. The only years Oregon has ever been ahead of UCLA in recruiting was when Neuheisel or Dorrell were on the hot seat.

I simply can not separate end results with the process. Chip Kelly appeared to have done little if any recruiting this fall. I've said it many times, Chip Kelly hated recruiting (not my opinion) and this class was allowed to almost disintegrate by the time he left. Could you imagine the melt down here if we'd lost Tyner, DW, the Robinson's, Carrington, and not signed Allen, Prevot or Hunt? That could EASILY have happened. Again, I can't separate out end result from process. Loook at the damage from the drama of CK leaving-staying-leaving. Add that for 2 months before he left ESPN media blitzed on TV and radio incessantly that he was a sure bet at leaving from November forward. Add that it took over a week for Oregon to sign Helfrich due to "due diligence". And with all that this class on paper is still equal to any of Chip's classes except in total numbers. That is astounding all things considered.

Then see that Mark Helfrich in 2 weeks solidified the class, signed three 4* recruits, and hired one of the nations premier recruiters and 2 excellent coaches. 

I'm not normally the cheer-leader around here, I stay pretty even, but IMO, the program _appears_ to be better off without Chip than with Chip. I will qualify that as the "Chip of the last 3-4 months" because it's not clear to me what he did during that period apart from coaching the team (only one part of his job) That's my 2 week assessment and I reserve the right to complain later. 

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 think this is the key. One example is a guy like Pisarcik. Oregon obviously thought more highly of the kid earlier in the process than other teams/scouting services did. Was he a fall back? Doesn't really seem like it in the coaches eyes. Is he better than some kids who are more highly rated? Who knows at this point, but I would be willing to wager the coaches think so, at least for what Oregon wants to do. (By the way, he ended up as the #19 OG on Scout, and I don't recall him being rated that high when Oregon initially tripped and offered him.) Another is Joe Walker. He also takes the "star" average down, but the coaches must have really liked the guy a ton to wrap him up so early, and judging from Helf's comments, they seem pretty happy with their early observations.

While it would have been nice to get an interior D lineman, it seems pretty likely that the top shelf guys had to be aware that there wasn't much room on the 2-deep next year, and those kinds of kids want to play right away.

Edit: Forgot to quote 73duck's post, so cutting and pasting below:
__________________________________________________ _____________

73duck's post:

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.
Last edited Today 7:22 AM by 73duck

I would add that outside of Tyner most of the guys we got might not be sexy, but they will have a great impact. The oline guys look really good, and they will be a need in the next two years. These are the guys that don't get a lot of attention but will make our team really go.
---------------------------------------------
--- Go OR Ducks wrote:

We really have no clue if it's the best, worst or somewhere in between.  That is why I went bold to say it's our top 15 class of all time.

Using Scout....

Oregon finished 3rd in the Pac-12 in total points
Oregon finished 3rd in the Pac-12 in average star ratings
We have 9 4-5 star guys (not 8)
3.47 rating
Compare that to the past few years:

Star ratings:
2013 - 3.47
2012 - 3.48
2011 - 3.52
2010 - 3.25

Pac-10/12 ranking
2013 - 3rd in points/3rd in rating
2012 - 3rd in points/3rd in rating
2011 - 2nd in points/1st in rating
2010 - 4th in points/3rd in rating

4/5 star players
2013 - 9
2012 - 10
2011 - 12
2010 - 8

On paper at least, this looks to be a good class, especially when you consider losing a HC 3 weeks before LOI day.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- Gladstone Gander wrote:

If Oregon has to out-recruit UCLA, then we're in big trouble. That's just NEVER going to happen. UCLA is in _the_ premier location in Southern California. NOTHING else compares to Westwood and USC is not even close. Jim Mora took a lot of heat for saying "We don't have murders one block from our campus<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">". That</span> was an outrage but basically true. My friends daughter was at USC Law for 2 weeks this year before her first robbery. The only years Oregon has ever been ahead of UCLA in recruiting was when Neuheisel or Dorrell were on the hot seat.

I simply can not separate end results with the process. Chip Kelly appeared to have done little if any recruiting this fall. I've said it many times, Chip Kelly hated recruiting (not my opinion) and this class was allowed to almost disintegrate by the time he left. Could you imagine the melt down here if we'd lost Tyner, DW, the Robinson's, Carrington, and not signed Allen, Prevot or Hunt? That could EASILY have happened. Again, I can't separate out end result from process. Loook at the damage from the drama of CK leaving-staying-leaving. Add that for 2 months before he left ESPN media blitzed on TV and radio incessantly that he was a sure bet at leaving from November forward. Add that it took over a week for Oregon to sign Helfrich due to "due diligence". And with all that this class on paper is still equal to any of Chip's classes except in total numbers. That is astounding all things considered.

Then see that Mark Helfrich in 2 weeks solidified the class, signed three 4* recruits, and hired one of the nations premier recruiters and 2 excellent coaches. 

I'm not normally the cheer-leader around here, I stay pretty even, but IMO, the program _appears_ to be better off without Chip than with Chip. I will qualify that as the "Chip of the last 3-4 months" because it's not clear to me what he did during that period apart from coaching the team (only one part of his job) That's my 2 week assessment and I reserve the right to complain later. 

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

Nominated.

I could not have said it better myself. I'm pumped about the class we got, considering the situation, and excited about the future of the program. The class could have been A LOT worse ...

---------------------------------------------
--- Ducksatbat wrote:


one of the most disappointing years EVER in recruiting?

EVER??? sheesh what a drama queen



^^^THIS^^^

Great class, especially considering the circumstances with Chip leaving.

Find the article on Pisarcik, it's a great read. After Oregon offered he was swamped by PSU, Rutgers and others with offers to visit. I think he's gonna be a good one. It's obvious the kid has the heart and desire to succeed.

Go Ducks!

---------------------------------------------
--- duck85 wrote:

I think this is the key. One example is a guy like Pisarcik. Oregon obviously thought more highly of the kid earlier in the process than other teams/scouting services did. Was he a fall back? Doesn't really seem like it in the coaches eyes. Is he better than some kids who are more highly rated? Who knows at this point, but I would be willing to wager the coaches think so, at least for what Oregon wants to do. (By the way, he ended up as the #19 OG on Scout, and I don't recall him being rated that high when Oregon initially tripped and offered him.) Another is Joe Walker. He also takes the "star" average down, but the coaches must have really liked the guy a ton to wrap him up so early, and judging from Helf's comments, they seem pretty happy with their early observations.

While it would have been nice to get an interior D lineman, it seems pretty likely that the top shelf guys had to be aware that there wasn't much room on the 2-deep next year, and those kinds of kids want to play right away.

Edit: Forgot to quote 73duck's post, so cutting and pasting below:
__________________________________________________ _____________

73duck's post:

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.
Last edited Today 7:22 AM by 73duck

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

For the fourth time...I like our class.  No I LOVE our class, as it is a great blend of the classic three star guys who turn into the Hroniss types and those who are elite to start with like Tyner.  I did not say anything deprecating about them.  (Gordo..this is actually responding to others, and not just you)

I just felt that yeah....we have NCAA sanctions looming over us; we had that last year too.  Is it reasonable to have expected three or four more great players from this recruiting season considering a BCS Bowl win, a #2 ranking, etc?  Sure.

Another poster nailed it IMHO.  As big a CK fan as I am....his recruiting game plan was flawed and we saw the results.  What Helfrich did in rescuing and improving the class was amazing and indicative of how good he is going to be for us.  I expect a revamped recruiting strategy this next year, and if we have the type of year on the field that I believe is going to come to pass?

The floodgates will open.

(My pom-poms have tempered my initial disappointment) 

Here is the Pisarcik article I think Jade was referring to:

www.maxpreps.com/news/x4jmV5GB...signing-day.htm

Great read, and some good highlights too. Even Beav and Husky honks would have a hard time not rooting for a kid like this.

Where does this theory that Chip hated recruiting come from? I never got that impression at all from him. I think he enjoyed talking to the kids about what the program was all about. It seemed that his attitude was that he wanted to educate the kids about the program, and then leave it to them to make the decision. I don't think he felt pandering to their egos was really the way to get the kinds of kids he wanted in the program. As Helf said, they don't promise these kids $hit, and they feel that is attractive to the type of people they want to recruit. They tell kids they have to come in, compete, and earn whatever they get. What was his comment in the presser? Something to the effect of, if a big time recruit isn't getting PT right off the bat after being promised the world would revolve around him, then he isn't going to be happy, and isn't going to be productive. If the lack of stroking means that some of the high profile kids were turned off, Chip (and now Helf) seem to be okay with that, and frankly, I like the strategy.

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

For the fourth time...I like our class.  No I LOVE our class, as it is a great blend of the classic three star guys who turn into the Hroniss types and those who are elite to start with like Tyner.  I did not say anything deprecating about them.  (Gordo..this is actually responding to others, and not just you)

I just felt that yeah....we have NCAA sanctions looming over us; we had that last year too.  Is it reasonable to have expected three or four more great players from this recruiting season considering a BCS Bowl win, a #2 ranking, etc?  Sure.

Another poster nailed it IMHO.  As big a CK fan as I am....his recruiting game plan was flawed and we saw the results.  What Helfrich did in rescuing and improving the class was amazing and indicative of how good he is going to be for us.  I expect a revamped recruiting strategy this next year, and if we have the type of year on the field that I believe is going to come to pass?

The floodgates will open.

(My pom-poms have tempered my initial disappointment)  <img src="media.scout.com/media/forums/e.../wink.gif" alt="wink" border="0"/>

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

Scouts ranking in 2007 was No. 9. That is the best ranking that I can recall.

These were the 2007 kids, as usual some hits, some misses.

rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecru.../2007/oregon-60

But the lesson is that you really don't know how good a class is until they are juniors. When that 2007 class hit their true junior year the Ducks were in the Rose Bowl. Their red-shirt junior year they were playing the BCS Game.

But, 2007 was also the year Chip came in as O-coordinator.

One other thing, here is a link from this morning about Miami and the effect the prolonged NCAA issue has had...

sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?s...&id=8923554

What the pundiots at the bOregonian and some on this board don't get is the primary skill these coaches look at is speed. Speed wins games and by the looks of this class next year our 4x100 may be all FB players. Add the great linemen and kicker and we made our team much better next year. It is going to be tough to go 4th and 1 when you have a kicker that can hit from 50.

This was as fast a class as we have ever had and if we would have gotten Wilson would have been world class. The P-Town media was saying Riley outperforms Oregon since his classes are around 40 and went 9-4 while we avg 14 and only got 2nd in the pac. They kinda skipped his last 2 years or our last 4 but apparently he is the best coach in the league and we are just so so.

They poo pooed our class pretty much the entire time, not that they knew anything about any of the kids anyway. 

Bring on the buffs

> Chip Kelly appeared to have done little if any recruiting this fall. I've said it many times, Chip Kelly hated recruiting (not my opinion) and this class was allowed to almost disintegrate by the time he left.

In CK's defense, his classes > MB's both in star ratings and outcomes.

The assistants are the primary face to face recruiters, and this year's recruiting board was put together by CK. This is CK's class.

MH will have more spots next year, a terrific staff, and hopefully the NCAA thing will be behind us. Good chance it will be a top ten class. How it turns out several years out without CK's talent evaluation skills is the big question.

Parts of this thread are more than a little confusing. We have respected posters saying they are disappointed in this class, then, when challenged, saying they love this class, then issuing conditions on why this class is still a disappointment. One thing will never change, no matter how successful we are. We are in Oregon, and, for a lot of high profile recruits, that will never garner their interest. It is also good to remember that success in recruiting is only partially a result of a great effort by our staff. The rest of the process is up to an 18 year old kid, hearing from every major program in the country how he is NFL ready, while our coaches are guaranteeing nothing other than a shot a success. I think I will stick with our philosophy, and not get so upset when Alabama, USC, or even UW comes in with a supposedly "better" class. When academic attrition, disappointment in having to actually earn PT, homesickness, and all of the distractions set in, we will be the top ranked group, and have been for several years.

---------------------------------------------
--- DuckBoy73 wrote:

Scouts ranking in 2007 was No. 9. That is the best ranking that I can recall.

These were the 2007 kids, as usual some hits, some misses.

rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecru.../2007/oregon-60

But the lesson is that you really don't know how good a class is until they are juniors. When that 2007 class hit their true junior year the Ducks were in the Rose Bowl. Their red-shirt junior year they were playing the BCS Game.

But, 2007 was also the year Chip came in as O-coordinator.

One other thing, here is a link from this morning about Miami and the effect the prolonged NCAA issue has had...

sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?s...&id=8923554

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

After reviewing the 2007 class, the class was either a huge success or not a factor. Fili and Wade started the slide when neither qualified.

Agreed. In terms of recruiting, we are pretty much NEVER going to out-recruit the So-Cal schools, regardless of what happens to them, so that much is a given. It's nice to take a DAT from them every now and then, but that is the best we can do, and expectations should be the same.
I am from the LA area, and there's NO WAY I would ever go back. I went back there to my old home and neighborhood after many years, and it looked like Beirut after a mortar attack. Many more parts of LA look like that now, but despite this big decline in LA (outside of Westwood), guys still want to be there because of the beaches, girls, weather, things to do, etc.
Also, I for one, am glad to see Kelly gone now, because of the stressful "will he/won't he" drama played out every year during recruiting season. It was used against us once again this year, and because of that, we did lose a few players to other schools.
Kelly didn't want to be here any longer, so it's good that he's gone, and that we can now focus on bringing more stability to the program with coaches that want to be here and put Kelly in the rearview mirror as we speed away towards better things.
Our hope is that MH IS as good as some think that he is, which will bring continuity in wins, recruiting, and more national exposure that is expected now.

---------------------------------------------
--- Gladstone Gander wrote:

If Oregon has to out-recruit UCLA, then we're in big trouble. That's just NEVER going to happen. UCLA is in _the_ premier location in Southern California. NOTHING else compares to Westwood and USC is not even close. Jim Mora took a lot of heat for saying "We don't have murders one block from our campus<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">". That</span> was an outrage but basically true. My friends daughter was at USC Law for 2 weeks this year before her first robbery. The only years Oregon has ever been ahead of UCLA in recruiting was when Neuheisel or Dorrell were on the hot seat.

I simply can not separate end results with the process. Chip Kelly appeared to have done little if any recruiting this fall. I've said it many times, Chip Kelly hated recruiting (not my opinion) and this class was allowed to almost disintegrate by the time he left. Could you imagine the melt down here if we'd lost Tyner, DW, the Robinson's, Carrington, and not signed Allen, Prevot or Hunt? That could EASILY have happened. Again, I can't separate out end result from process. Loook at the damage from the drama of CK leaving-staying-leaving. Add that for 2 months before he left ESPN media blitzed on TV and radio incessantly that he was a sure bet at leaving from November forward. Add that it took over a week for Oregon to sign Helfrich due to "due diligence". And with all that this class on paper is still equal to any of Chip's classes except in total numbers. That is astounding all things considered.

Then see that Mark Helfrich in 2 weeks solidified the class, signed three 4* recruits, and hired one of the nations premier recruiters and 2 excellent coaches. 

I'm not normally the cheer-leader around here, I stay pretty even, but IMO, the program _appears_ to be better off without Chip than with Chip. I will qualify that as the "Chip of the last 3-4 months" because it's not clear to me what he did during that period apart from coaching the team (only one part of his job) That's my 2 week assessment and I reserve the right to complain later. 


<blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>FishDuck wrote:</strong> 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.</blockquote>

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

I will never reveal the source so you have to take it or leave.

I never said he wasn't good at it. He didn't like doing it. He didn't like dealing with the media or alumni either. Chip is kind of a savant. You take the whole package because the things he's good at, he's _really_ good at.

duck85 wrote: Where does this theory that Chip hated recruiting come from? 

I suppose there are different ways to look at the process. I think it was pretty evident that he didn't like blowing hot air up people's a$$es, be they 18 year old or rich donorsl. (He also made it quite clear that he didn't suffer fools, particularly in the media.) To the extent people viewed pandering to 18 year-olds as important in the recruiting process, I can see why they would think he didn't like it. I just never got the feeling that he viewed that as something that was really an important part in getting the kinds of kids he wanted.

---------------------------------------------
--- Gladstone Gander wrote:

I will never reveal the source so you have to take it or leave.

I never said he wasn't good at it. He didn't like doing it. He didn't like dealing with the media or alumni either. Chip is kind of a savant. You take the whole package because the things he's good at, he's _really_ good at.
<blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>duck85 wrote:</strong> Where does this theory that Chip hated recruiting come from? </blockquote>

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