Started By
Message
re: 2022 Recruiting Thread
Posted on 8/2/21 at 8:51 pm to CorchJay
Posted on 8/2/21 at 8:51 pm to CorchJay
Oh ye of little faith.
We're certainly not going to drop game one, hopefully the oline will be picked by game three, I can't imagine there'll not be a hot backup RB this year, if Bo is throwing off his back foot I'm sure there'll be a foot up his a---, and just not knowing the play has to help the other coach not look like a genius.
I'm more of the belief they don't really know what to recruit. O'line yes, but beyond who's graduating, how many at other spots. Got to play some first unless we just load up on WR's.
You got a numbers list by position?
We're certainly not going to drop game one, hopefully the oline will be picked by game three, I can't imagine there'll not be a hot backup RB this year, if Bo is throwing off his back foot I'm sure there'll be a foot up his a---, and just not knowing the play has to help the other coach not look like a genius.
I'm more of the belief they don't really know what to recruit. O'line yes, but beyond who's graduating, how many at other spots. Got to play some first unless we just load up on WR's.
You got a numbers list by position?
1
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:12 pm to makersmark1
Maker... 247 essentially tries to predict where a player will be going into the draft as their recruiting ranking.
So player 1 in recruiting based on that should be the number 1 player selected "4" years later in the draft. Player 200 is expected to be selected 200 in the draft. Cares nothing about college potential essentially not sure why they rate like that but it's kind of the standard for now. I would much rather rate a player based on how they fit the college game but I understand that a 4 start could be a 5 star in the right situation and a 5 star a 3 star in the wrong system. Kind of like a 6' 4" 250lb linebacker could be rated a 5 star but probably isn't as impactful on a team that runs a 4-2-5 defense.
Only thing I'll add is there are more 5 and 4 star players rated each year for all of them to be drafted. 4 star players are reaching up to around the top 275ish -300ish ranked players. That's why I look at position ranking for the player not the rating. I've broken it down to anything above a .9200 should be an SEC at some point, .9600 and above possibly All-SEC, .9200 - .8800 could be a starter but would be consider depth players unless they have a unique skillset that wasn't seen on high school film. Like being a very good blocking WR, or a great tackling corner back, possibly a DL that is a lot stronger then they appeared. So player position ranking makes a lot more sense then saying we have 6 4star WRs blah blah. Well 5 of the 6 may be rated lower then 40th at their position.
So player 1 in recruiting based on that should be the number 1 player selected "4" years later in the draft. Player 200 is expected to be selected 200 in the draft. Cares nothing about college potential essentially not sure why they rate like that but it's kind of the standard for now. I would much rather rate a player based on how they fit the college game but I understand that a 4 start could be a 5 star in the right situation and a 5 star a 3 star in the wrong system. Kind of like a 6' 4" 250lb linebacker could be rated a 5 star but probably isn't as impactful on a team that runs a 4-2-5 defense.
Only thing I'll add is there are more 5 and 4 star players rated each year for all of them to be drafted. 4 star players are reaching up to around the top 275ish -300ish ranked players. That's why I look at position ranking for the player not the rating. I've broken it down to anything above a .9200 should be an SEC at some point, .9600 and above possibly All-SEC, .9200 - .8800 could be a starter but would be consider depth players unless they have a unique skillset that wasn't seen on high school film. Like being a very good blocking WR, or a great tackling corner back, possibly a DL that is a lot stronger then they appeared. So player position ranking makes a lot more sense then saying we have 6 4star WRs blah blah. Well 5 of the 6 may be rated lower then 40th at their position.
This post was edited on 8/2/21 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:15 pm to awestruck
quote:
You got a numbers list by position?
Like for finding holes in the roster? or scholarship players per position. What numbers are you looking for? We will have our normal 105 players with 85ish on scholarship and 70 on the travel squad.
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:21 pm to CorchJay
How many to recruit position wise?
In a normal season there's a pretty good feel for need. And we'll have an approx list preseason.
You got one yet for this year?
In a normal season there's a pretty good feel for need. And we'll have an approx list preseason.
You got one yet for this year?
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:26 pm to awestruck
The standard.
1QB
1RB
3 WR
1 TE
5 OL
4 DL
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
However I don't expect us to sign many more then 17-18 players because of how poorly we are doing with the high school kids. We will hit the portal again and save possibly 3-4 to roll over to '23 when the expectation is to have better relationships in that class. How much of that is fact or true I don't know. That's pretty close to what a lot of folks have thrown around.
1QB
1RB
3 WR
1 TE
5 OL
4 DL
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
However I don't expect us to sign many more then 17-18 players because of how poorly we are doing with the high school kids. We will hit the portal again and save possibly 3-4 to roll over to '23 when the expectation is to have better relationships in that class. How much of that is fact or true I don't know. That's pretty close to what a lot of folks have thrown around.
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:29 pm to CorchJay
Also wanted to follow-up you can just about pencil this in for every year.
1QB
1RB
3 WR
1 TE
5 OL
4 DL
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
Some years you'll add a kicker or punter, a second running back or QB, maybe another DL or LB. But those numbers shouldn't change much more then + or - 1
1QB
1RB
3 WR
1 TE
5 OL
4 DL
2 LB
2 S
2 CB
Some years you'll add a kicker or punter, a second running back or QB, maybe another DL or LB. But those numbers shouldn't change much more then + or - 1
Posted on 8/2/21 at 9:39 pm to CorchJay
serial downvoter stalker. You're hurting my feelings.
Posted on 8/2/21 at 10:24 pm to AUEE13
Do we think class rankings will be nearly as important going forward with transfer portal and instant eligibility? I mean sure we’d love to have nothing but 5-star HS athletes and a few proven transfers coming in, but in reality if we have to plug some holes via transfers in the next couple of seasons, does class ranking matter as much since transfers aren’t included in it? Or should we care more about average per player rating and good roster management? Genuinely just trying to learn what’ll be most important in the new landscape
This post was edited on 8/2/21 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 8/2/21 at 11:11 pm to TheJones
No we are not. Will you please change your avatar for fricks sake? It’s disturbing.
Posted on 8/2/21 at 11:53 pm to McCalebbUpTheMiddle
quote:
Do we think class rankings will be nearly as important going forward with transfer portal and instant eligibility? I mean sure we’d love to have nothing but 5-star HS athletes and a few proven transfers coming in, but in reality if we have to plug some holes via transfers in the next couple of seasons, does class ranking matter as much since transfers aren’t included in it? Or should we care more about average per player rating and good roster management? Genuinely just trying to learn what’ll be most important in the new landscape
All of this is yet to to be determined because the coaches would never make a comment one way or another. We just have to see what direction the coaches take and try to guess which way they will go after those decisions.
Reports out from some are that the staff and AD are a lot more strict on rules around the NIL at AU then at say bammer or ThUGA. But I'm sure those reports are about as accurate as Bob Stoops to AU in 2019 were.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:45 am to makersmark1
Auburn sent an official offer to Austin Ausberry. His dad Verge, played at LSU and works in the athletic department. Also, Austin goes to high school on LSU’s campus 
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:54 am to TheJones
Ballsy
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:55 am to TheJones
Maybe he wants to move away from BR. It isn't the best college campus
Posted on 8/3/21 at 9:57 am to TheJones
quote:
Auburn sent an official offer to Austin Ausberry. His dad Verge, played at LSU and works in the athletic department. Also, Austin goes to high school on LSU’s campus
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:05 am to CorchJay
I just saw the thread title change.
Loved it...and totally fits the mood here.
Loved it...and totally fits the mood here.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:21 am to CorchJay
quote:
Found this interesting and I'll just leave it here. Boise state head coaches from Koetter to Harsin... essentially what they would refer to as the Boise way. Hasn't worked for shite outside of BSU.
Dirk Koetter BSU – 3 seasons .722
AZ State – 6 seasons .600
Dan Hawkins BSU – 5 seasons .828
Colorado – 5 seasons .327
Chris Petersen BSU – 8 seasons .885
Washington – 6 seasons .679
Bryan Harsin BSU – 7 Seasons .784
Auburn - TBD
Petersen was essentially Gus in a very watered down PAC with USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Oregon all down to varying degrees.
Another incredibly lazy and uninformed take, as expected.
Notwithstanding the fact that Boise State jumped conferences twice in the timeframe of Koetter to Harsin (Big West Conference to Western Athletic Conference to Mountain West Conference) and has incrementally been increasing its strength of schedule (Harsin faced tougher opponents during his tenure there than Petersen did - and replicated nearly identical results) which makes "comparisons" between the the coaches stupid and pointless, even Dirk Koetter himself has gone on record to state that Boise State's "transition" is really broken down to the Koetter/Hawkins era, and then the Petersen/Harsin era - where they took a big step forward in terms of developing the "Boise State culture". Petersen stands well above Koetter/Hawkins, and Koetter himself has basically alluded to this.
Secondly, the notion of painting Petersen's tenure at Washington as anything other than a huge success is absolutely comical, and of course to try to make a point there you had to ignore reality entirely. Petersen was at Washington for 6 seasons, never compiled a losing season, and built his program up to three straight 10+ win seasons with two conference titles in that span. He literally only stepped down/retired due to stress/burnout, likely spawned from that fact during his tenure at Boise he was coaching while his youngest son was battling pediatric cancer.
You thought that you were being clever by pointing out his .679 career winning percentage at Washington as if to prove that his "system" (the "Boise System") didn't work - but what you conveniently left out is that you have to go all the way back to Don James, who coached at Washington from 1975-1992 and is the program's "Pat Dye", to find a coach with a better winning percentage than Petersen's .679. If you look at Washington coaches who coached in 50 or more games, Petersen's .679 ranks as the 4th best winning percentage in school history, and two of the guys that posted better winning percentages (Gil Dobie and Enoch Bradshaw) coached in the pre-1930's era of college football. You can deflect all you want about how the "PAC was down", Washington is historically a mid-tier program in that conference, and Petersen ranks as one of the most successful coaches in program history. What he accomplished is not in the least bit "easy"; as proven by Steve Sarkisian who was there for 5 seasons and only won more than 7 games ONCE, with his best season being an 8-4 season in which they finished 3rd in the North Division. Petersen won the North Division in three straight seasons.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:43 am to metafour
Good God not this shite again today. I posted the info the cold hard stats. Take them for what they mean to you.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 10:50 am to CorchJay
See what I mean about trying to drive these conversations off this thread?
Posted on 8/3/21 at 11:07 am to TheJones
I think they need their own Sports Board.... 
Posted on 8/3/21 at 11:10 am to CorchJay
quote:
Good God not this shite again today. I posted the info the cold hard stats. Take them for what they mean to you.
You posted the "info" and "cold hard stats"?
What you literally wrote:
quote:
essentially what they would refer to as the Boise way. Hasn't worked for shite outside of BSU.
And then you went on an obtuse "choose your own adventure" story to try to spin Petersen's obvious success at Washington, a NON-ELITE program, as unimpressive...despite the fact that he empirically ranks as one of the most successful coaches in that program's entire history. Three straight 10+ win seasons and two conference championships. At Washington. THOSE are "the facts". "But but but USC and UCLA and Oregon were down!"
What other point did you have to make? That his career winning percentage dropped going from a mid-major conference, to a Power 5 conference? Oh wow! What a revelation! That certainly proves that Boise State coaches are bound to fail! Petersen didn't maintain an .885 winning percentage!
Why the frick should I care how Dan Hawkins did at Colorado (another hopeless program BTW), or Dirk Koetter at Arizona State? Dirk Koetter himself has literally come out and said that the "Boise State System" didn't actually hit it's true form until Chris Petersen took over the job. What Koetter and Hawkins did before him was just the the early Beta version. Bryan Harsin is rolling forward what he learned from Chris Petersen, not what Dan Hawkins was doing. And once again: Chris Petersen's "system" was unequivocally successful at Washington where he won multiple conference titles.
Page 120 of 395
Latest Auburn News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News