Agree 100% with Fishduck.

Its all about the context you use. If you are using 4 BCS bowls in 4 yrs. and end of year rating of top 2: Then maybe it should have been better.

But if you use our inherent geographic location disadvantage, looming sanctions, Chips mind and body gone after the fiesta bowl 3 weeks before LOI day, and all of the negative recruiting that generated as a context, then it wasnt too bad at all.

From what I have seen/read from several national pundits who dont wear green colored glasses we did very well this year to keep our class together and closed strong.

BTW  I think next year we are going to be happy with our class any way you want to look at it.

---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:

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!

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

You make it sound a lot easier than I think it is in reality.

You mentioned Saban and Urban as master recruiters, but what types of classes were they bringing in when they were at Michigan St and Utah (respectively)? I know the current state of the Oregon program is a better situation than those two, but if just being a master recruiter was enough, then wouldn't MSU and Utah have been getting top 10 classes at least?

The other thing I wonder is whether a "master recruiter", who might be a heck of a salesman, is also going to be a guy that actually wins on the field (which is more important than winning an off-season recruiting championship). Someone like Ed Orgeron comes to mind... known as a great recruiter, but not exactly who I'd want as head coach for my team on gameday.

I agree with you...

there is no doubt that it is tougher to recruit to Oregon than it is to tOSU or to Florida. but I still believe that there is probably some credence to the idea that Saban or Meyer, (and some others) could take Oregon to another level of recruiting...which would suggest that it is in fact possible to turn Oregon into a "traditional power" that recruits top 10 annually.

not easy however!

I think whenever coaches say that something is not possible---then that thing has now officially become impossible for them...and they are sort of let off of the hook in trying to achieve something great...i.e, they have a built in excuse for not meeting high expectations---and high expectations are what build dynasties.


"people say that nothing is impossible, but I do nothing everyday!" ---A.A. Milne


---------------------------------------------
--- RedmondWaDuck wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:

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!

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

You make it sound a lot easier than I think it is in reality.

You mentioned Saban and Urban as master recruiters, but what types of classes were they bringing in when they were at Michigan St and Utah (respectively)? I know the current state of the Oregon program is a better situation than those two, but if just being a master recruiter was enough, then wouldn't MSU and Utah have been getting top 10 classes at least?

The other thing I wonder is whether a "master recruiter", who might be a heck of a salesman, is also going to be a guy that actually wins on the field (which is more important than winning an off-season recruiting championship). Someone like Ed Orgeron comes to mind... known as a great recruiter, but not exactly who I'd want as head coach for my team on gameday.

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

Debating recruiting based on stars is an inherently flawed process. AS best as I can tell stars are really based on what schools offer someone. If Alabama offers someone, it seems they automatically are at least a 4 star, otherwise Alabama wouldn't have offered them so the logic goes.

I guess the good news for Oregon, is that Oregon is starting to get that respect, look at the kid from New Jersey who couldn't even get anything from Villanova until Oregon offered him. Suddenly he has stars. This is to say, the whole ranking system is flawed.

I think over the past few years Oregon has recruited very well based on the how I have seen the kids perform. From a physical perspective Oregon players seem as good as anyone else in the country. The only real exception is we don't have real big super athletic freaks, but no one outside the SEC has those kids either. Why, because a lot of recruiting is done based on geography. In most of the country but the south, a big kid who is athletic is going to play basketball first.

Actually, it is quite obvious given the demographics of the former Confederate states of which the SEC is entirely comprised.

A quick glance at this map should leave little room for doubt.

130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US0047.GIF






---------------------------------------------
--- thegoodbubba wrote:

Debating recruiting based on stars is an inherently flawed process. AS best as I can tell stars are really based on what schools offer someone. If Alabama offers someone, it seems they automatically are at least a 4 star, otherwise Alabama wouldn't have offered them so the logic goes.

I guess the good news for Oregon, is that Oregon is starting to get that respect, look at the kid from New Jersey who couldn't even get anything from Villanova until Oregon offered him. Suddenly he has stars. This is to say, the whole ranking system is flawed.

I think over the past few years Oregon has recruited very well based on the how I have seen the kids perform. From a physical perspective Oregon players seem as good as anyone else in the country. The only real exception is we don't have real big super athletic freaks, but no one outside the SEC has those kids either. Why, because a lot of recruiting is done based on geography. In most of the country but the south, a big kid who is athletic is going to play basketball first.

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

a week after signing day is useless IMO. You don't know how good a class is until atleast 2 years down the road. How good a class is on paper doesn't mean sh!t IMO. From watching the film, it's tough to picture a majority of those guys not making an impact. IMO, the 2 players I wonder about the most are Brenner and Voeller. Their films just don't make a big impression on me. But, as Coach Kelly always would say, guys surprise you when they show up on Campus. Some surprise you in a good way while others surprise you in a bad way

It is amazing that no matter how many times I write it...people spin my post as an indictment against our coaches or the current class.  And you wonder why I only write happy stuff?  Geez nobody can handle ANYTHING that isn't smeared in frosting.

I LOVE EVERY player of this class.

I think Helfrich did a FANTASTIC job in preserving and adding to this class.

Helfrich made some home-run hires.

What we have is not bad...but it SHOULD have been better.  FORGET about UCLA-what about comparing to ourselves?  We had four stars or better of 10 recruits, 11 recruits, 11 recruits,  in the last three years, and now 8 recruits?  ***?  Why the decline?

Why not do just ONE better than our best....like 12 of them?  We still can't compare to UCLA...but we can win just fine being within range of their 16.

We have FIVE senior defensive tackles....and only two DTs in classes below the seniors; think we needed a few of those?

I don't know how I can make it any more obvious.

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

It is amazing that no matter how many times I write it...people spin my post as an indictment against our coaches or the current class.  And you wonder why I only write happy stuff?  Geez nobody can handle ANYTHING that isn't smeared in frosting.

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

What are you talking about? You already whined about this on the second page of this thread, and since that whine and I haven't seen any posts trying to twist what you write... it's just good discussion on the merits of the star system, when to judge a recruiting class, and what are realistic expectations. You seem to be taking things way too personally. Not every post in this thread is a response to you.



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

What we have is not bad...but it SHOULD have been better.  FORGET about UCLA-what about comparing to ourselves?  We had four stars or better of 10 recruits, 11 recruits, 11 recruits,  in the last three years, and now 8 recruits?  ***?  Why the decline?
---------------------------------------------

Well, for starters, our class was smaller. If we took 22-24 like we typically do, maybe you'd see another 10-11 4/5 star recruits.



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

We have FIVE senior defensive tackles....and only two DTs in classes below the seniors; think we needed a few of those?

I don't know how I can make it any more obvious.

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

Great discussion topic... much better than worrying about raw number of 4 star recruits from year to year in my opinion. I'm also curious to see what the coaches have planned for the DT position in 2014. Armstead, Balducci, and who else? Is the plan for Bair and/or Carriger put on a bunch of weight?

For the 2013 class, it doesn't seem like the coaches made a lot of DT offers. They must either feel comfortable with the current depth chart going forward, or they felt like there just weren't many guys they wanted in this class.

The answer to your last sentence....is not listed.  Things in recruiting will be different this year, assuming we get it done on the field. 

It still amazes me how many times I have to say that I like what we have...but we should have had MORE considering four straight BCS games and a final #2 standing, thus we underperformed.  Eight versus 11 four star players.  It is pretty drop-dead obvious.

This is why when I do my analysis,...I have been careful to give CK credit where it is deserved.  Shouldn't this be recognized as well?

Star ratings are entirely useless...How dows a walk-on such as Will Murphy, win out other 3-4 wide receivers. The star system is clearly flawed. Not trying to discredit Murphy who eventually earned a schollie, but the point is that star rankings do not translate to on field performance. Star rankings are all based on what other schools offer the kid a spot. So, you might see a 3 star guy, buy Helfrich see's a 5 star guy. Placing too much emphasis on star and class rankings is a complete waste of time.

It could have been much worse. I think that some folks get so caught up in stars and such. Did the Ducks have a down tick in recruiting this year? Yeah, I suppose so if you look at it in regards to stars. Did they sign more 4 star guys last year? You bet, but there are guys like French who are rated 4 stars out of HS because of great athletic ability but when they get to college they cant transform that athletic ability to on the field production. So, he is being counted as a 4 star recruit for the class but he will struggle to see the field in anything but ST's and mop up duty. What if Pisacrik ends up being the best player in the class? Like I said in my OP in this thread, trying to determine how good a class is the week after signing day is useless. 

FishDuck wrote: The answer to your last sentence....is not listed.  Things in recruiting will be different this year, assuming we get it done on the field. 

It still amazes me how many times I have to say that I like what we have...but we should have had MORE considering four straight BCS games and a final #2 standing, thus we underperformed.  Eight versus 11 four star players.  It is pretty drop-dead obvious.

This is why when I do my analysis,...I have been careful to give CK credit where it is deserved.  Shouldn't this be recognized as well?

They were young so they had fewer scholarships to give out this year, that made for a smaller class than if they had the full 25 to give out.
They usually have about 83 recruits on scholarship at this time, probably leaving one or two open for either rewarding walkons or securing transfers. They seem to have far less attrition now than they had in the past.

It is unreasonable to think that the rumors of Chip kelly leaving and the cloud of the NCAA investigation would not impact the past two recruiting classes to some degree. To use either of those classes as a measure of Oregon's recruiting acumen is a fools errand, at best.

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

It is amazing that no matter how many times I write it...people spin my post as an indictment against our coaches or the current class.  And you wonder why I only write happy stuff?  Geez nobody can handle ANYTHING that isn't smeared in frosting.

I LOVE EVERY player of this class.

I think Helfrich did a FANTASTIC job in preserving and adding to this class.

Helfrich made some home-run hires.

What we have is not bad...but it SHOULD have been better.  FORGET about UCLA-what about comparing to ourselves?  We had four stars or better of 10 recruits, 11 recruits, 11 recruits,  in the last three years, and now 8 recruits?  ***?  Why the decline?

Why not do just ONE better than our best....like 12 of them?  We still can't compare to UCLA...but we can win just fine being within range of their 16.

We have FIVE senior defensive tackles....and only two DTs in classes below the seniors; think we needed a few of those?

I don't know how I can make it any more obvious.

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

You've said it 5 times now but still talking out of both sides of your mouth. You LOVE every single player that committed but you wish more of them were 4 star or better. I think that's why people are questioning you. I don't quite get it either.

4 straight BCS Bowls, Oregon should have knocked it out of the park. And according to you, they didn't. Not enough stars.

So who is to blame? Stupid recruits? Bad/lazy coaches? Mark Helfrich? Chip Kelly? Wide left? Any ideas?

Or maybe your premise is flawed, maybe better performance on the field is not correlated 1:1 with recruiting success. It doesn't seem so for USC, UCLA, or UW, if anything the reverse. Why didn't KSU sign a good class? Or especially Stanford? Their classes are both awful, way, way down from Oregon's and they didn't even lose their head coaches. Or maybe recruits saw 65 underclassmen and thought: "how am I ever going to get on the field at Oregon?"

IMO Chip Kelly was the key to this class and he took it with him in a nearly 2 month saga of "will he or won't he"? I think we were very fortunate that MH not only held it together but improved it dramatically in the last 2 weeks of the recruiting period/1st 2 weeks on the job. That alone gives me optimism for next year's 2014 recruiting cycle with an intact coaching staff.

Oh yeah, as other's have stated, recruiting success can't be measured yet. I'll take 3 PAC 12 Championships and 4 BCS games over so called "East Coast" expert recruiting rankings of high school players. 

FishDuck wrote: The answer to your last sentence....is not listed.  Things in recruiting will be different this year, assuming we get it done on the field. 

It still amazes me how many times I have to say that I like what we have...but we should have had MORE considering four straight BCS games and a final #2 standing, thus we underperformed.  Eight versus 11 four star players.  It is pretty drop-dead obvious.

This is why when I do my analysis,...I have been careful to give CK credit where it is deserved.  Shouldn't this be recognized as well?

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

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

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

There's no argument that there were many fantastic players that were a part of the 2008 recruiting class. Seven players from that class are or will be playing in the NFL.

But nine of the 21 players signed failed to finish at Oregon, including a 5* DT that never became eligible to enroll, one player who flunked out after two terms and two others who ultimately were kicked off the team due to high profile off-field incidents.

One of the differences between Mike Bellotti and Chip Kelly in recruiting strategy was that Bellotti would offer and sign a higher number of risky players, whereas Kelly would hold such offers to use elsewhere...either with walk-ons that he felt deserved it or for use later on in other classes.

This translated into Oregon having all three recruiting classes where Chip Kelly was the head coach as being ones with 100% success in enrollment into Oregon (2010-12, though Kelly's first season was 2009...Bellotti was still the head coach when that class was signed).

In Bellotti's last two recruiting classes, 22 of 47 players signed didn't make it through the program. In Kelly's first two recruiting classes, only 11 of 46 have left (so far...eight transfers, two retired due to injury, one kicked off), three of them leaving after Kelly left. One could argue that some of Bellotti's signees may not have wanted to play for Kelly, but a counter to that argument would be that many of the position coaches under Bellotti were the same that were under Kelly (exceptions were the defensive line and receivers coaches, which also happen to be the same coaches that Mark Helfrich had to replace). Of the 35 remaining players from Kelly's first two recruiting classes, three have finished at Oregon, six are buried in the depth chart (but have all played), and 26 are in the two-deep.

As has been stated before, the quality of the class isn't determined by how highly rated the signees are coming in. It's by how well they did during their career at a school once they finished there. From the looks of things, the 2011 recruiting class appears to be incredible. 19 of 23 signees are still on the team, and all but four of them have had considerable playing time with all still having at least two seasons of eligibility remaining.

---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:




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.


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

Also keep in mind that Bowling Green and Utah under Urban Meyer and Michigan State under Nick Saban never had a Top 5 class while coaching at those schools. They became "recruiting gurus" or "master recruiters" once they took over the top programs (Florida, LSU, Alabama) in the top conference (SEC), only because of what they had to use at their disposal to sell their program. The fact that Meyer reeled in a Top 5 class at Ohio State isn't a surprise since Ohio State has had many Top 5 classes before Meyer ever showed up there too, and they're coming off of a 12-0 season and the sanctions have expired.

Now...what kind of classes would Arizona or Washington State have if Meyer or Saban decided to try coaching there? I'd agree that they'd have better classes than ever before, but I don't think they'd be sniffing the Top 5.

How about this? What kind of class does Southern Cal have if Chip Kelly fails in the NFL and the Trojans hire him to replace Lane Kiffin? You can bet that it'll be a Top 5 class then, and Kelly will suddenly be hailed as a "recruiting guru".

Sometimes one has to look in the mirror and admit who they are. What Oregon is at the moment is better than they've ever been and they're continuing to improve. But Oregon's not Kate Upton yet, and its fans shouldn't expect it to be.

I think what is important is the coaches look at the recruits as people who they can have an impact on. What

the rating services say about talent is one metric to look at but I like the idea of the coaches saying this guy

is going to improve under my coaching. This is another area where our football team is different than

others who look more for a finished product.

Fortunately we have the coaches with the talent to evaluate this kind of student and make this impact on

most of our Ducks. The day we start being guided by recruiting services is the day we begin the descent

into being one of the other guys. The Ducks should keep the team approach of coaches working together

to recruit, develop and create a team competing everyday to WTD!!!!

there are always going to be some exceptions to a rule(like the one's you stated)...but I firmly believe that some coaches are way better recruiters than other coaches---no matter what school they are at.

Paul Hacket had some classes at USC that were somehow outside of the top 25...but when Pete carol got there---it was straight to number one for the Trojans in the recruiting rankings...Bama had three consecutive years(or three out of 4 years) where Shula finished lower than Oregon in the final recruiting rankings...but when Saban got there...straight to number one.

"recruiting gurus" do in fact exist...that is why Washington paid Tosh so much money to get them a top 15 class this year....UW was 66th in recruiting just a couple of years ago in 2009(10th in the pac10). they were second in the pac12 this year

imo, in the grand scheme of college football (at least over an extended period of years or decades, recruiting is a much bigger contributor to on the field winning percentage than good coaching---

just look at Texas with Mack Brown, great recruiter---terrible coach= 1 national title and 3-1 in BCS games(including 2 NCG appearances) six "top 5" finishes in the final polls. if the guy cant coach, then all of that talent got him some pretty nice rings.



articles.philly.com/2001-02-07...uthern-lab-high



---------------------------------------------
--- Clydekins wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:




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.


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

Also keep in mind that Bowling Green and Utah under Urban Meyer and Michigan State under Nick Saban never had a Top 5 class while coaching at those schools. They became "recruiting gurus" or "master recruiters" once they took over the top programs (Florida, LSU, Alabama) in the top conference (SEC), only because of what they had to use at their disposal to sell their program. The fact that Meyer reeled in a Top 5 class at Ohio State isn't a surprise since Ohio State has had many Top 5 classes before Meyer ever showed up there too, and they're coming off of a 12-0 season and the sanctions have expired.

Now...what kind of classes would Arizona or Washington State have if Meyer or Saban decided to try coaching there? I'd agree that they'd have better classes than ever before, but I don't think they'd be sniffing the Top 5.

How about this? What kind of class does Southern Cal have if Chip Kelly fails in the NFL and the Trojans hire him to replace Lane Kiffin? You can bet that it'll be a Top 5 class then, and Kelly will suddenly be hailed as a "recruiting guru".

Sometimes one has to look in the mirror and admit who they are. What Oregon is at the moment is better than they've ever been and they're continuing to improve. But Oregon's not Kate Upton yet, and its fans shouldn't expect it to be.

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

one "Will Murphy" anecdote vs. decades of correlated high recruiting rankings to high winning percentages at schools like USC, BAMA, ND, tOSU, Michigan, LSU, Florida, etc etc.

I thing I'll have to side with the objective numbers on whether stars matter or not when it comes to consistent winning through out the decades of cfb

---------------------------------------------
--- Killory77 wrote:

Star ratings are entirely useless...How dows a walk-on such as Will Murphy, win out other 3-4 wide receivers. The star system is clearly flawed. Not trying to discredit Murphy who eventually earned a schollie, but the point is that star rankings do not translate to on field performance. Star rankings are all based on what other schools offer the kid a spot. So, you might see a 3 star guy, buy Helfrich see's a 5 star guy. Placing too much emphasis on star and class rankings is a complete waste of time.

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

Straw man.

Of course they could get a top 5 class, but they are established high profile HCs. Look how long it took the ole ball coach to get USCe competitive. And they still aren't there

---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:

there are always going to be some exceptions to a rule(like the one's you stated)...but I firmly believe that some coaches are way better recruiters than other coaches---no matter what school they are at.

Paul Hacket had some classes at USC that were somehow outside of the top 25...but when Pete carol got there---it was straight to number one for the Trojans in the recruiting rankings...Bama had three consecutive years(or three out of 4 years) where Shula finished lower than Oregon in the final recruiting rankings...but when Saban got there...straight to number one.

"recruiting gurus" do in fact exist...that is why Washington paid Tosh so much money to get them a top 15 class this year....UW was 66th in recruiting just a couple of years ago in 2009(10th in the pac10). they were second in the pac12 this year

imo, in the grand scheme of college football (at least over an extended period of years or decades, recruiting is a much bigger contributor to on the field winning percentage than good coaching---

just look at Texas with Mack Brown, great recruiter---terrible coach= 1 national title and 3-1 in BCS games(including 2 NCG appearances) six "top 5" finishes in the final polls. if the guy cant coach, then all of that talent got him some pretty nice rings.



articles.philly.com/2001-02-07...uthern-lab-high



---------------------------------------------
--- Clydekins wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Boiseduk wrote:




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.


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

Also keep in mind that Bowling Green and Utah under Urban Meyer and Michigan State under Nick Saban never had a Top 5 class while coaching at those schools. They became "recruiting gurus" or "master recruiters" once they took over the top programs (Florida, LSU, Alabama) in the top conference (SEC), only because of what they had to use at their disposal to sell their program. The fact that Meyer reeled in a Top 5 class at Ohio State isn't a surprise since Ohio State has had many Top 5 classes before Meyer ever showed up there too, and they're coming off of a 12-0 season and the sanctions have expired.

Now...what kind of classes would Arizona or Washington State have if Meyer or Saban decided to try coaching there? I'd agree that they'd have better classes than ever before, but I don't think they'd be sniffing the Top 5.

How about this? What kind of class does Southern Cal have if Chip Kelly fails in the NFL and the Trojans hire him to replace Lane Kiffin? You can bet that it'll be a Top 5 class then, and Kelly will suddenly be hailed as a "recruiting guru".

Sometimes one has to look in the mirror and admit who they are. What Oregon is at the moment is better than they've ever been and they're continuing to improve. But Oregon's not Kate Upton yet, and its fans shouldn't expect it to be.

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

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