Started By
Message
Recruiting perception & the Mizzou way
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:37 pm
So every year there is the argument on recruiting stars and Mizzou's approach to recruiting. I'm reading the local South Carolina news responses to their loss this weekend. 1 writer wrote an article about their lack of defensive front talent. I thought "wait a minute, Mizzou tried to get 2 of their 4 star guys (Sawyer, Lewis) if we thought they were talented then they are talented.
A lot of these schools are so enamored with star rating and expect to plug and play (yes, you Butch Jones)and really are weak at development. Here we are with 0 star Harris and 2 star Brady, and all we worry about is can they perform like the previous All-American, SEC DPOY.
Mizzou just recruited a 3 star from Alabama. I've watched his tape, wasn't blown away, but somewhere in there is Kul saying "this kids got what it takes." So recruiting rankings be damned, I will take the Mizzou way.
A lot of these schools are so enamored with star rating and expect to plug and play (yes, you Butch Jones)and really are weak at development. Here we are with 0 star Harris and 2 star Brady, and all we worry about is can they perform like the previous All-American, SEC DPOY.
Mizzou just recruited a 3 star from Alabama. I've watched his tape, wasn't blown away, but somewhere in there is Kul saying "this kids got what it takes." So recruiting rankings be damned, I will take the Mizzou way.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 8:47 am
6
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:24 pm to surgicalvenom
Amen.
As an added bonus, the Mizzou Way is cheaper too.
As an added bonus, the Mizzou Way is cheaper too.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:43 pm to surgicalvenom
quote:
if we thought they were talented then they are talented.
yep, but that doesn't make the "star system" a bunch of phooey either, it just shows you have to recruit AND coach em up.
quote:
Mizzou just recruited a 2 star from Alabama.
who is that? the guy I thought they just landed was a consensus 3 star, iirc.
Also consider this, while we might not feel like we miss those 4 star DLine guys that much, what about the 4-5 star RB's, like the ones that went to Arky and tOSU that we apparently tried to recruit. Kul or no Kul I'm also sure glad we landed TBJ when we did, that was a good 4-5star pickup wouldn't you agree?
So, "recruiting rankings be damned," I don't think Mizzou proves the ratings are wrong, just that they aren't everything.
This post was edited on 10/5/15 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:58 pm to Jagd Tiger
A veritable voice crying in the wilderness.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 7:04 pm to surgicalvenom
quote:
So year there is the argument on recruiting stars and Mizzou's approach to recruiting. I'm reading the local South Carolina news responses to their loss this weekend. 1 writer wrote an article about their lack of defensive front talent. I thought "wait a minute, Mizzou tried to get 2 of their 4 star guys (Sawyer, Lewis) if we thought they were talented then they are talented.
I think it speaks volumes for coach Kul. The man is just a great Dline coach. I think that's what separates teams sometimes. Not just star rankings but coaching. Thing is, I think this defense is just as talented as the last group. I think there is going to be an adjustment time because of a new DC. But going forward, they seem to improve. There was a lot of gang tackling last weekend. They are swarming to the ball on the Dline.
quote:
A lot of these schools are so enamored with star rating and expect to plug and play (yes you Butch Jones)and really are weak at development. Here we are with 0 star Harris and 2 star Brady, and all we worry about is can they perform like the previous All-American, SEC DPOY.
I still think there is something to star rankings. there is usually a talent level you just can't teach when it comes to football. Receivers, RB's and QB's stand out to me in this case. I don't know how enamored other schools really are. They see a recruit they think fits their scheme and get him. We just are not going to out recruit the Bamas, LSU's, Auburns, and ohio states. So you have to rely of scouting and development.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 7:41 pm to jafo
I'm not arguing against star rankings, I argue against star rankings and the plug and play mentality. And then when the team doesn't perform blame the kid for not being talented.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 6:35 am to surgicalvenom
quote:
the argument on recruiting stars
Here's what virtually everyone misses: these stars are based on what they did in HIGH SCHOOL, not what did or could do in COLLEGE.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 6:49 am to surgicalvenom
Right. Your staff still has to evaluate and adjust players on the depth chart accordingly. That why I said coach Kul is amazing at what he does.
Some players are underrated out of HS also. Keep that in mind too.
Some players are underrated out of HS also. Keep that in mind too.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:51 pm to surgicalvenom
It's pretty apparent what Mizzou does, at least to me.
They don't recruit football players, they recruit athletes. They basically look at all of the things that you can't teach, and that's how they judge a player.
Maybe the kid had a bad coach in high school, maybe he was used wrong in the offense/defense, maybe he just never played football much. These things are what make up the star system.
Mizzou finds guys who have the talent/genetics/ability to be stars and then develops them.
A lot of great high school players don't have the physical attributes to make it in college, a lot of college players can't do it in the NFL. The key for Mizzou is finding guys who CAN do it in college, regardless of their current high school skill level.
They don't recruit football players, they recruit athletes. They basically look at all of the things that you can't teach, and that's how they judge a player.
Maybe the kid had a bad coach in high school, maybe he was used wrong in the offense/defense, maybe he just never played football much. These things are what make up the star system.
Mizzou finds guys who have the talent/genetics/ability to be stars and then develops them.
A lot of great high school players don't have the physical attributes to make it in college, a lot of college players can't do it in the NFL. The key for Mizzou is finding guys who CAN do it in college, regardless of their current high school skill level.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:53 pm to TigerCruise
looks like as of now we have 4 in this class out of Tx and 4 more out of SEC power states(Al,Ga,La) that doesn't sound like a bad mix at all, so if we cashed in on bevo's demise I wonder if we can steal a high star or two from Butch?
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 10/6/15 at 1:17 pm to surgicalvenom
Mizzou offers a ton of 4 & 5 star kids every year. They just don't waste time on those kids when they don't show interest back in Mizzou.
Recruiting rankings matters for the top tier players like TBJ. Once you get past the top 50-100 players it's all a crapshoot.
Recruiting rankings matters for the top tier players like TBJ. Once you get past the top 50-100 players it's all a crapshoot.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 1:51 pm to Wtodd
Not just what they did in high school but did they pay to attend that providers camps or combines or whatever they call it
Posted on 10/6/15 at 1:54 pm to wubilli
Most 4 and 5 star kids are ranked that high because they possess the high school skills and the college level ability.
3 stars are historically what teams are built on(outside of Alabama). The team that can develop the best 3 star talent usually sees the most success on the field.
3 stars are historically what teams are built on(outside of Alabama). The team that can develop the best 3 star talent usually sees the most success on the field.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 2:07 pm to TigerCruise
Yea Ronnie Hillman was barely a 3 star, got offers from Wyoming and New Mexico and not much else, then developed pretty well (ran through our D like crap through a goose) and now will make sure the chiefs dont usurp the broncos..
Posted on 10/6/15 at 7:33 pm to Jagd Tiger
I saw a chart a while back where it said that most kids that are 5* and high 4* turn out to do well in the NFL and are high draft picks. A 3* player could turn out to be an ascending talent that just happens to get better as time goes on. A 5* or high 4* players has no where to go but down as time goes on unless he can maintain his status. 
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News