(05-16-2014 01:22 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:11 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 12:55 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 12:46 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 05:45 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  Well, to date that is ONE draft pick. Stephon was a great FCS player, fell thru the cracks b/c of his size and it is 50/50 he gets picked in the draft --- will be a FA sign but will have to make a team as a Special Teams guy and prove himself. Dean Marlowe needs to pick it up b/c last year I saw a very average player.

Akeem Jordan and Arthur Moats are in the league but they are not post 2008 I don't think.

Perhaps you should continue there has been a HUGE talent dropoff since 2008.......

I try to get you but it is really hard ----- this what you state:
- There has been no talent drop off
- The old coaching staff was great and made adjustments

Well I don't know how that can be the case after 2008 given the mediocre, at best product that has been put on the field at BFS. And don't give me a load of crap about 7-5, 6-6 not being bad records --- that freaking sucks when you typically schedule 2 gimme games each year....lol

:wingedeagle:

Not really sure what your freaking point is but if the recruiting and evaluation of talent and talent development has not dropped off since 2008 then I am at a loss to explain the very average record and lack of making the playoffs over that span...........:banghead:

Exhausted eligibility , coaching changes, redshirted , true freshman having to play , injuries.........etc. Lane Kiffin had a ton of talent at USC.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That was mickeys problem too. He took no accountability, which is a poor leadership trait.

Not really , it's just the nature of college football. Birdsong needed to redshirt , Reynolds will get better , Gage Steele is good , fisher should see some time this year. Can't just say " lack of talent" or " poor recruiting".

Fisher at TE or as an O-line work in progress?

I would assume Fisher would be a good candidate for OT. Would love to have a guy with athleticism and good footwork there having been a QB. I think we're good at TE with Cheatham. I don't know how this offense will look and if he'll play an H-back role kind of like last year so hard to say.

Fisher is playing OT. He's 280+ now

(05-16-2014 01:22 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  Excuses, excuses, excuses. That was mickeys problem too. He took no accountability, which is a poor leadership trait.

Thank you, thank you, a million times thank you. This was my response but you beat me to it.

(05-16-2014 01:28 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Not really , it's just the nature of college football. Can't just say " lack of talent" or " poor recruiting".

Dude, I just don't get what you're trying to say. If it's the nature of college football, you're explicitly stating that every college football team has the same issues to overcome. Injuries, depth, coaching...these are not 'JMU' problems. Just agree that a change clearly had to be made and we can moooooove along.

(05-17-2014 08:40 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:22 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  Excuses, excuses, excuses. That was mickeys problem too. He took no accountability, which is a poor leadership trait.

Thank you, thank you, a million times thank you. This was my response but you beat me to it.

(05-16-2014 01:28 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Not really , it's just the nature of college football. Can't just say " lack of talent" or " poor recruiting".

Dude, I just don't get what you're trying to say. If it's the nature of college football, you're explicitly stating that every college football team has the same issues to overcome. Injuries, depth, coaching...these are not 'JMU' problems. Just agree that a change clearly had to be made and we can moooooove along.

And why do I need to agree to that? MM recruited well and there was talent. But there are more factors to the 6-6 record. Even though these regular problems happen, the coach still and always will be responsible in the eyes of fans and admin.

To be fair -and I know rating recruiting classes is ridiculous- many media outlets had JMU with the best recruiting class in the country two years ago. I don't really know where those guys went and obviously that was off but it wasn't like they weren't getting the guys they wanted. I still say that ODU with 85 scholarship players out of left field put in a big dent in the guys JMU could/can get.

(05-17-2014 09:49 AM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  To be fair -and I know rating recruiting classes is ridiculous- many media outlets had JMU with the best recruiting class in the country two years ago. I don't really know where those guys went and obviously that was off but it wasn't like they weren't getting the guys they wanted. I still say that ODU with 85 scholarship players out of left field put in a big dent in the guys JMU could/can get.

Agree to an extent, but it wasn't 85 scholly players. 1st recruit class 08'. Up to 63 and at that for 11'-12'. Last season I believe they were in the 70s. So they have yet to play a game with 85 (which I believe they will this season).

(05-16-2014 01:04 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  he has no stars because he probably hasn't been evaluated yet by the scouts.

when summer camps begin this season, he'll be looked at and an evaluation will be made.

Lets hold off on downgrading him because he doesn't have a couple ** by his name yet.

Only way you get stars is if you go to a rivals or scout camp. Not all kids go to them. So, while a lot do, I would't base everything on how many stars are next to a kids name. They also are rated without pads in a combine type setting. While 40 times might mean something if you are a WR, doesnt so much if you are a lineman. Plus, colleges dont necessarily take any but their own times. Its actually better to go to the camp at the school you want to go/play for than the rivals combines, but the rivals combines sometimes bring visibility from schools outside your usual. Catch 22 of the recruiting game. Still, lack of stars doesn't mean you aren't a good player. Might just mean you didn't go to a combine.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-17-2014 04:37 PM)FBM2014 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:04 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  he has no stars because he probably hasn't been evaluated yet by the scouts.

when summer camps begin this season, he'll be looked at and an evaluation will be made.

Lets hold off on downgrading him because he doesn't have a couple ** by his name yet.

Only way you get stars is if you go to a rivals or scout camp. Not all kids go to them. So, while a lot do, I would't base everything on how many stars are next to a kids name. They also are rated without pads in a combine type setting. While 40 times might mean something if you are a WR, doesnt so much if you are a lineman. Plus, colleges dont necessarily take any but their own times. Its actually better to go to the camp at the school you want to go/play for than the rivals combines, but the rivals combines sometimes bring visibility from schools outside your usual. Catch 22 of the recruiting game. Still, lack of stars doesn't mean you aren't a good player. Might just mean you didn't go to a combine.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Not true. Not everyone who's ranked 2-5 stars by Rivals, Scout, ESPN, goes to one of their camps.

Sorry. Shouldnt have said ONLY. Point is, you gotta go somewhere where Rivals is. They dont rate or analyze every single kid on every single team

So..........just because a kid lacks stars doesnt necessarily mean he lacks talent.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

That actually brings me to a question. Who at rivals or ESPN or whatever is responsible for deciding on these stars? Seems to me they throw darts at a wall. For all the HS football players out there, you'd have to have thousands of people out there watching them which I'm sure they don't and even then, there would always be a difference of opinion. The only way I choose to judge recruiting is by who else offered the kid. That's not infallible by any means because there's lots of kids that just don't get eyeballs on them because maybe they came from a small HS program or didn't attend camps or whatever. But, when JMU gets a commit I always like to see who else wanted him. That list has been more impressive in football this year. It's been paltry in basketball and it shows on the court.

(05-18-2014 08:49 AM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  That actually brings me to a question. Who at rivals or ESPN or whatever is responsible for deciding on these stars? Seems to me they throw darts at a wall. For all the HS football players out there, you'd have to have thousands of people out there watching them which I'm sure they don't and even then, there would always be a difference of opinion. The only way I choose to judge recruiting is by who else offered the kid. That's not infallible by any means because there's lots of kids that just don't get eyeballs on them because maybe they came from a small HS program or didn't attend camps or whatever. But, when JMU gets a commit I always like to see who else wanted him. That list has been more impressive in football this year. It's been paltry in basketball and it shows on the court.

Not going to say to much because withers didn't have that much time to recruit. But this list is comparable to MM other recruiting classes. Not as impressive but if he can continue and have more time , I see the potential.

Those stars are primarily determined by the camps and even moreso by the offers these kids get. Rivals, Scout, or anyone else isn't capable of evaluating and ranking thousands of kids. So they pretty much determine that a kid offered by Alabama, LSU, and Florida is better than a kid offered by Rutgers, Boston College, and Syracuse for the most part.

Gage Steele is a pretty good example of the fickle nature of stars and ratings. He came from a small school in Warren County and, if I'm not mistaken, didn't have a rivals rating. His rFR year he comes in and starts at LB and was one of our 5 most valuable defensive players last year.

The correlation between stars and success in college is amazingly high.

The statistics are amazingly connected.

(05-18-2014 12:36 PM)Dukes86 Wrote:  Gage Steele is a pretty good example of the fickle nature of stars and ratings. He came from a small school in Warren County and, if I'm not mistaken, didn't have a rivals rating. His rFR year he comes in and starts at LB and was one of our 5 most valuable defensive players last year.

His name alone should have gotten him at least 2 stars...

He is a 5 ft 6 in linebacker.

He belongs in the CAA, which is exactly how things played out.

(05-18-2014 08:15 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  He is a 5 ft 6 in linebacker.

He belongs in the CAA, which is exactly how things played out.

I'm 5'9 and he is taller than me .......

I have no idea what Dukeman is talking about.