|
RE: Best class ever?
|
|
|
Posted: 02/07/2013 9:26 PM
RE: Best class ever?
I am still amazed and thrilled that kids now from all over the country grow up dreaming to be Ducks. So from that perspective i have to agree with FirstDuck. --------------------------------------------- --- duck85 wrote: Here is the Pisarcik article I think Jade was referring to: www.maxpreps.com/news/x4jmV5GB...signing-day.htmGreat read, and some good highlights too. Even Beav and Husky honks would have a hard time not rooting for a kid like this. --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 4:30 AM
Re: Best class ever?  (3 votes)
I think this class IS up there with our best, just a little behind our all time best. That, obviously can be debated.
But I think that the way we closed, especially on signing day, was epic. We kept the twins away from AfSarkistan, flipped Cameron Hunt from Cal, (who many said was their best recruit), and pulled Torrodney Prevot out of thin air (away from SC and Johnny Heisman), which nobody saw coming. Add that we got Carrington to recommit two days earlier and got a sleeper rb out of Phoenix, and that's 5 of our 4* guys in 3 days. Mariano Rivera or Martin Brodeur would be proud of that save!
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 6:53 AM
Re: Disagreement was assumed...  (6 votes)
Agree with you completely..we have always had weak classes for our ranking, wins, Nike
Connection.
Only thing I could think of was nobody likes the cold weather and we are in the NW corner of the US but when Univ of WA out recruits( and UCLA) us with their current reputation something's isn't right...maybe our coaches even with CK are not great recruiters?...what other conclusions can you come up with?
We should be a top 5-10 in recruiting every year....we have been winning for a long time now and have put plenty of kids into the NFL.
Posts like this one along with Fishducks will always get the one stars cause it is human nature to protect what you love at all costs and sometimes reality is easily ignored...kinda like admitting your kid is ugly....:)
---------------------------------------------
--- FishDuck wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 7:12 AM
Re: Not what I see.... (4 votes)
Ducksatbat wrote:
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.
--------------------------------------------- Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 7:21 AM
Re: Not what I see....  (3 votes)
do you understand that Oregon will NEVER compete on a consistent basis with Alabama, Florida, USC, Texas and many of the others you think of when you read these lists? Sorry, but that's just not going to ever happen. --------------------------------------------- --- irishduck84 wrote: <blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>Ducksatbat wrote:</strong> 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. ---------------------------------------------</ blockquote> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there. --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 8:33 AM
Re: Not what I see.... (3 votes)
do you understand that Oregon will NEVER compete on a consistent basis with Alabama, Florida, USC, Texas and many of the others you think of when you read these lists?
Sorry, but that's just not going to ever happen.
--------------------
I never said we will consistently compete with them. RATHER, the whole point is that we CAN'T consistent compete with them because we CAN'T recruit like them.
Moreover, we can't even beat bottomfeeder SEC schools, like Ole Miss, on a consistent basis.
We can realistically expect a more perfect coaching staff than we've been blessed with over the past years. If we want our program to achieve the next level, we need better recruiting.
I don't think we need to be top 5 recruiting to win. But top ten, yes. And why can't we get there?
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/08/2013 8:48 AM
Re: Not what I see.... (2 votes)
This is getting beyond silly. Do we want our coaches using the methods that many of the "successful" recruiters use, such as negative talk, outright lying, etc., or do we want classes that when they arrive, we can be pretty sure they will be here for the end of their eligibility. We are Oregon so it is time to get used to our reality. That we have interest already from numerous east coast kids, for 2014, shows that this staff knows what they are doing, and appear to be headed for even better results. --------------------------------------------- --- irishduck84 wrote: <blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>Ducksatbat wrote:</strong> 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. ---------------------------------------------</ blockquote> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there. --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 11:59 AM
Re: Best class ever?  (1 vote)
I think Kelly was an enthusiastic and aggressive recruiter. Before he was head coach I was amazed at how much time he spent on the road. There are more restrictions on head coaches, like just one home visit.
One thing that stands out to me about this class is I don't see kids that are unlikely to contribute on the field in their time at Oregon. Reading about them and watching the films I am excited about them all. Also, our needs were filled.
Perhaps the two best recruits were the two new coaches that are both supposed to be top recruiters and coaches. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 12:56 PM
Re: Best class ever?
Excellent post, Running.
---------------------------------------------
--- TheRunningDuck wrote:
<span style="font-size: medium;">I think Kelly was an enthusiastic and aggressive recruiter. Before he was head coach I was amazed at how much time he spent on the road. There are more restrictions on head coaches, like just one home visit.</span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">One thing that stands out to me about this class is I don't see kids that are unlikely to contribute on the field in their time at Oregon. Reading about them and watching the films I am excited about them all. Also, our needs were filled.</span>
<span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps the two best recruits were the two new coaches that are both supposed to be top recruiters and coaches.</span>
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 1:32 PM
Re: Not what I see....
UCLA has more crime on campus than any other Pac-12 school, including USC. There was an article that came out recently (maybe some SC fans would be happy to link it again, LA Times maybe?) that reviewed crime and campuses and UCLA was the worst. So SC might have a bad neighborhood and UCLA a nice one, but that doesn't tell the whole story. talos4 wrote: 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>
--------------------------------------------- Autzen Stadium: 127.2 decibels
Can you hear me now? |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 1:54 PM
Re: Not what I see....
If you've been to the two campuses then you know that USC is in a run down ghetto and UCLA is in Beverly Hills across the street from the Bel Air and Los Angeles Country Clubs. You could be right about the crime rate on campus, but by the eye-ball test: UCLA>>>>>>USC. LegacyDuck wrote: UCLA has more crime on campus than any other Pac-12 school, including USC. There was an article that came out recently (maybe some SC fans would be happy to link it again, LA Times maybe?) that reviewed crime and campuses and UCLA was the worst. So SC might have a bad neighborhood and UCLA a nice one, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
- join the duck side
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 2:16 PM
Re: Not what I see.... (3 votes)
You can choose to be disappointed or you can choose to be happy. If you want to disregard that Chip Kelly had one foot out the door most of the last season, highlighted by ESPN and every major outlet broadcasting it nearly every day with no rebuttal by Chip. And how there were zero recruit signings between early September and December (that's on Chip Kelly). And then ignore all the drama of early to mid January, then sure, feel free to be disappointed. How many schools lose a coach and aren't hit super hard in recruiting? I'd guess almost 100% take a hit the year they lose their coach, let alone losing one of the 2-3 best coaches in all of college football. You can also ignore that UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles where most of our recruits live in perpetual 75 degree weather. You can ignore that Washington is in Seattle, a big city with a lot to offer and it's relatively clean and there is a TON of stuff to do. They have a brand new football stadium in arguably one of the most awesome settings in college football. They also have some trophies in that dusty old trophy case. Personally I don't worry about UCLA or USC or UW's recruiting because I've learned it doesn't matter. I'll take results on the field any day over recruiting "star" wars or off-season championships. We are Oregon people! We've won 47 games in 4 years. Sooner or later some people are just going to have to shake off their insecurities and develop some trust in this program and stop listening to Scout or ESPN (Connecticut) recruiting "experts". Oh and why don't we give Mark Helfrich, you know, more than 2 weeks as head coach to recruit before griping at his results? irishduck84 wrote: Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class.
Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years.
Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team.
We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there. - join the duck side
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 2:31 PM
Re: Not what I see....  (1 vote)
When did the rules change to allow signings between September, and December? The only ones allowed at any time within that period are JC's and we signed the young man who is likely to be our starting MLB this season, Joe Walker, AND he enrolled early for spring ball. For all the whining about Chip, we wound up with the #12 nationally ranked class, by star ranking, lost ONE recruit who, it appears might have actually been the least impacting of anyone in this class, and flipped TWO 4* recruits, one each from Cal and USC. This points out several things: Chip, and this staff had set a solid foundation, and this staff knows what they are doing, with, or without, Chip. --------------------------------------------- --- Gladstone Gander wrote: You can choose to be disappointed or you can choose to be happy. If you want to disregard that Chip Kelly had one foot out the door most of the last season, highlighted by ESPN and every major outlet broadcasting it nearly every day with no rebuttal by Chip. And how there were zero recruit signings between early September and December (that's on Chip Kelly). And then ignore all the drama of early to mid January, then sure, feel free to be disappointed. How many schools lose a coach and aren't hit super hard in recruiting? I'd guess almost 100% take a hit the year they lose their coach, let alone losing one of the 2-3 best coaches in all of college football. You can also ignore that UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles where most of our recruits live in perpetual 75 degree weather. You can ignore that Washington is in Seattle, a big city with a lot to offer and it's relatively clean and there is a TON of stuff to do. They have a brand new football stadium in arguably one of the most awesome settings in college football. They also have some trophies in that dusty old trophy case. Personally I don't worry about UCLA or USC or UW's recruiting because I've learned it doesn't matter. I'll take results on the field any day over recruiting "star" wars or off-season championships. <strong>We are Oregon people!</strong> We've won 47 games in 4 years. Sooner or later some people are just going to have to shake off their insecurities and develop some trust in this program and stop listening to Scout or ESPN (Connecticut) recruiting "experts". Oh and why don't we give Mark Helfrich, you know, more than 2 weeks as head coach to recruit before griping at his results? <blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>irishduck84 wrote:</strong> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there.</blockquote> ---------------------------------------------
Last edited 02/09/2013 2:54 PM by FirstDuck
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 5:38 PM
Re: Not what I see....
Obviously you know he meant commitments, but we know you're just trying to be difficult so I guess it's cool. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this class will be good/or it won't. We'll find out in two years. Maybe. --------------------------------------------- --- FirstDuck wrote: When did the rules change to allow signings between September, and December? The only ones allowed at any time within that period are JC's and we signed the young man who is likely to be our starting MLB this season, Joe Walker, AND he enrolled early for spring ball. For all the whining about Chip, we wound up with the #12 nationally ranked class, by star ranking, lost ONE recruit who, it appears might have actually been the least impacting of anyone in this class, and flipped TWO 4* recruits, one each from Cal and USC. This points out several things: Chip, and this staff had set a solid foundation, and this staff knows what they are doing, with, or without, Chip. --------------------------------------------- --- Gladstone Gander wrote: You can choose to be disappointed or you can choose to be happy. If you want to disregard that Chip Kelly had one foot out the door most of the last season, highlighted by ESPN and every major outlet broadcasting it nearly every day with no rebuttal by Chip. And how there were zero recruit signings between early September and December (that's on Chip Kelly). And then ignore all the drama of early to mid January, then sure, feel free to be disappointed. How many schools lose a coach and aren't hit super hard in recruiting? I'd guess almost 100% take a hit the year they lose their coach, let alone losing one of the 2-3 best coaches in all of college football. You can also ignore that UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles where most of our recruits live in perpetual 75 degree weather. You can ignore that Washington is in Seattle, a big city with a lot to offer and it's relatively clean and there is a TON of stuff to do. They have a brand new football stadium in arguably one of the most awesome settings in college football. They also have some trophies in that dusty old trophy case. Personally I don't worry about UCLA or USC or UW's recruiting because I've learned it doesn't matter. I'll take results on the field any day over recruiting "star" wars or off-season championships. <strong>We are Oregon people!</strong> We've won 47 games in 4 years. Sooner or later some people are just going to have to shake off their insecurities and develop some trust in this program and stop listening to Scout or ESPN (Connecticut) recruiting "experts". Oh and why don't we give Mark Helfrich, you know, more than 2 weeks as head coach to recruit before griping at his results? <blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>irishduck84 wrote:</strong> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there.</blockquote> --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 6:14 PM
Re: Disagreement was assumed... (2 votes)
Gotta agree with you - and completely. I like our class and think there are some very good players in it, so don't get me wrong. That being said, we have played in 4 BCS Bowl games in the last 4 years. We have played for 1 NC in the past 4 years. We have won our last 2 BCS games. Short of winning the NC, we have done everything we could possibly do. With that in mind, my recruiting expectations are very high. And IMO, we are certainly not recruiting at the level we should be. Don't know what else to say.
Sure, we aren't in Southern California where there is sunshine, warmth, big city excitement and hot girls in bikinis. And sure, we don't live in a heavily populated state with recruits growing up going to all our games. I get that. Regardless, with our record, the exciting way we play on offense, having a tough D, stable coaching (except for CK), and the best (player friendly) uniforms in college football, we should have no trouble bringing in 4 and 5 star recruits across the board.
I think we will be fine. It just baffles me a bit that we don't do even better than we do. If Helfrich does as well, or close to as well as Kelly, I think he may be able to recruit better than CK. Only time will tell.
---------------------------------------------
--- FishDuck wrote:
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 <em>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.</em>
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.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/09/2013 8:07 PM
Re: Not what I see.... (4 votes)
Actually, I learned a long time ago not to guess at what a poster means. He said signings, and that is what I responded to, because others have made similar comments. You are correct in that we will know in two years, although several in this class will make a large impact before that time. --------------------------------------------- --- ryanallenlee wrote: Obviously you know he meant commitments, but we know you're just trying to be difficult so I guess it's cool. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this class will be good/or it won't. We'll find out in two years. Maybe. --------------------------------------------- --- FirstDuck wrote: When did the rules change to allow signings between September, and December? The only ones allowed at any time within that period are JC's and we signed the young man who is likely to be our starting MLB this season, Joe Walker, AND he enrolled early for spring ball. For all the whining about Chip, we wound up with the #12 nationally ranked class, by star ranking, lost ONE recruit who, it appears might have actually been the least impacting of anyone in this class, and flipped TWO 4* recruits, one each from Cal and USC. This points out several things: Chip, and this staff had set a solid foundation, and this staff knows what they are doing, with, or without, Chip. --------------------------------------------- --- Gladstone Gander wrote: You can choose to be disappointed or you can choose to be happy. If you want to disregard that Chip Kelly had one foot out the door most of the last season, highlighted by ESPN and every major outlet broadcasting it nearly every day with no rebuttal by Chip. And how there were zero recruit signings between early September and December (that's on Chip Kelly). And then ignore all the drama of early to mid January, then sure, feel free to be disappointed. How many schools lose a coach and aren't hit super hard in recruiting? I'd guess almost 100% take a hit the year they lose their coach, let alone losing one of the 2-3 best coaches in all of college football. You can also ignore that UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles where most of our recruits live in perpetual 75 degree weather. You can ignore that Washington is in Seattle, a big city with a lot to offer and it's relatively clean and there is a TON of stuff to do. They have a brand new football stadium in arguably one of the most awesome settings in college football. They also have some trophies in that dusty old trophy case. Personally I don't worry about UCLA or USC or UW's recruiting because I've learned it doesn't matter. I'll take results on the field any day over recruiting "star" wars or off-season championships. <strong>We are Oregon people!</strong> We've won 47 games in 4 years. Sooner or later some people are just going to have to shake off their insecurities and develop some trust in this program and stop listening to Scout or ESPN (Connecticut) recruiting "experts". Oh and why don't we give Mark Helfrich, you know, more than 2 weeks as head coach to recruit before griping at his results? <blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>irishduck84 wrote:</strong> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there.</blockquote> --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Boiseduk
- Gang Green
- Rating: 2.3/5 this site
- 515 posts this site
|
Posted: 02/10/2013 9:20 AM
Re: Disagreement was assumed...  (3 votes)
"- 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."
IMO, taking the Ducks recruiting to the next level(i.e.) "top 5" classes and selling out an 80,000 seat Autzen would be the final step to Oregon becoming a "traditional power" for decades to come---much like USC, or Ohio State, Bama, etc. etc.
While we know that it will take significant time to pay for an Autzen expansion and then to "grow" the fanbase enough to fill that expansion every Saturday, what about recruiting?
I have an honest question--- If Phil Knight were to have pulled some strings and offered Urban Meyer or Nick Saban 10 million a year to become Oregon's next head coach this year, would either of those two recruiting gurus have been able to produce a top 5 class at Oregon within two years time? It is an interesting question about how much influence a master recruiter can have...
imo, I would bet that with Nick Saban or Urban Meyer going into living rooms as the Ducks head coach, that the odds would be pretty high that Oregon would realize it's first top 5 recruiting class in history---which would somewhat debunk the idea that geography, lack of tradition, and or lack of D1 talent within the state of Oregon makes it "impossible" for Oregon to recruit a top 5 class.
dont forget, before Oregon scored a top 10 class a couple of years ago---that accomplishment was deemed "impossible" by many Duck fans as well...due to all of the same reasons.
---------------------------------------------
--- RedmondWaDuck wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- 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.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Boiseduk
- Gang Green
- Rating: 2.3/5 this site
- 515 posts this site
|
Posted: 02/10/2013 9:42 AM
Re: Not what I see....  (1 vote)
one thing I've never understood about selling the supposed negatives of the State of Oregon to 4-5 star recruits from the South---especially Texas--, is how nice Oregon's weather is during the fall and summer when players don't want to practice in sweltering heat like in Texas, Southern Cal and most of the South states---for God's sake football players are dying on the field every year of heat stroke down there---why not sell how nice and temperate the climate is in the NW to practice football in---not to mention no natural disasters like Hurricanes, tornado, etc. mix that sales pitch in with how dangerous the crime rates and horrible smog, traffic etc, is in the southern parts of the country, and a master recruiter should be able to turn all of that into a recruiting plus for moving to the state of Oregon vs. the South!
---------------------------------------------
--- irishduck84 wrote:
do you understand that Oregon will NEVER compete on a consistent basis with Alabama, Florida, USC, Texas and many of the others you think of when you read these lists?
Sorry, but that's just not going to ever happen.
--------------------
I never said we will consistently compete with them. RATHER, the whole point is that we CAN'T consistent compete with them because we CAN'T recruit like them.
Moreover, we can't even beat bottomfeeder SEC schools, like Ole Miss, on a consistent basis.
We can realistically expect a more perfect coaching staff than we've been blessed with over the past years. If we want our program to achieve the next level, we need better recruiting.
I don't think we need to be top 5 recruiting to win. But top ten, yes. And why can't we get there?
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 02/10/2013 10:00 AM
Re: Not what I see.... (2 votes)
Agreed. It'll be interesting to see who from this class is able to get on the field next year. Tyner and Wogen obviously will. --------------------------------------------- --- FirstDuck wrote: You are correct in that we will know in two years, although several in this class will make a large impact before that time. --------------------------------------------- --- ryanallenlee wrote: Obviously you know he meant commitments, but we know you're just trying to be difficult so I guess it's cool. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this class will be good/or it won't. We'll find out in two years. Maybe. --------------------------------------------- --- FirstDuck wrote: When did the rules change to allow signings between September, and December? The only ones allowed at any time within that period are JC's and we signed the young man who is likely to be our starting MLB this season, Joe Walker, AND he enrolled early for spring ball. For all the whining about Chip, we wound up with the #12 nationally ranked class, by star ranking, lost ONE recruit who, it appears might have actually been the least impacting of anyone in this class, and flipped TWO 4* recruits, one each from Cal and USC. This points out several things: Chip, and this staff had set a solid foundation, and this staff knows what they are doing, with, or without, Chip. --------------------------------------------- --- Gladstone Gander wrote: You can choose to be disappointed or you can choose to be happy. If you want to disregard that Chip Kelly had one foot out the door most of the last season, highlighted by ESPN and every major outlet broadcasting it nearly every day with no rebuttal by Chip. And how there were zero recruit signings between early September and December (that's on Chip Kelly). And then ignore all the drama of early to mid January, then sure, feel free to be disappointed. How many schools lose a coach and aren't hit super hard in recruiting? I'd guess almost 100% take a hit the year they lose their coach, let alone losing one of the 2-3 best coaches in all of college football. You can also ignore that UCLA and USC are in Los Angeles where most of our recruits live in perpetual 75 degree weather. You can ignore that Washington is in Seattle, a big city with a lot to offer and it's relatively clean and there is a TON of stuff to do. They have a brand new football stadium in arguably one of the most awesome settings in college football. They also have some trophies in that dusty old trophy case. Personally I don't worry about UCLA or USC or UW's recruiting because I've learned it doesn't matter. I'll take results on the field any day over recruiting "star" wars or off-season championships. <strong>We are Oregon people!</strong> We've won 47 games in 4 years. Sooner or later some people are just going to have to shake off their insecurities and develop some trust in this program and stop listening to Scout or ESPN (Connecticut) recruiting "experts". Oh and why don't we give Mark Helfrich, you know, more than 2 weeks as head coach to recruit before griping at his results? <blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>irishduck84 wrote:</strong> Sorry, but what isn't disappointing about the Huskies having a comparable class by stars (after 3 7-6 years), being blown out recruiting-wise by Ole Miss (13-24 over the past 3 years) and having a significantly lower star ranking than UCLA (a decade plus of mediocrity)? Other than a non-AQ TCU, find me another team that finished ranked #2 and had a worse recruiting class. Say what you want but no team has won a BCSNC that didn't average being in the top ten of recruiting the previous four years. Does picking the right guys, and coaching up, matter greatly, yes. But when you have a tremendous coaching staff AND you recruit like Saban at Alabama, or Urban at Florida, Carroll at USC, Jimmy Johnson at Miami, etc, then you have greatness as a team. We have the coaching part. The recruiting for a BCSNC isn't there.</blockquote> --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Boiseduk
- Gang Green
- Rating: 2.3/5 this site
- 515 posts this site
|
Posted: 02/10/2013 10:07 AM
Re: Not what I see.... (3 votes)
one other important thing to consider--is that 17-18 year-old 4-5 star high school athletes raised in the warm southern U.S. states go to smallish northern cities to play their college ball all of the time to play basketball in places say like Syracuse NY(terrible weather, and out in the middle of nowhere, Indiana, East Lancing, etc etc.---
Are star HS basketball players somehow a different species than star HS football players? I think not, they just go to the best place for them to be successful at their sport and to make it to the next level---and when it comes to college basketball, many of the best places just happen to be in the north.
in CFB, Urban Meyer is not letting his northern location get in the way of out-recruiting the SEC schools located in the southern part of the country...
Oregon has enough advantages with Nike, and Phil Knight to recruit top 5-10 classes most years---that should be a goal
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
Duck Pond