CSNbbs

(02-05-2013 03:17 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I was referencing guys like Manziel, Luck, and RG3. Guys that are so talented they can sometimes carry a team.

Those guys belong in the same sentence as college players. As high school players being recruited, one of them doesn't belong with the other 2 (hint: first name is a euphemism for commode)

Micah Thomas signed with Utah.

Rice class will be 18 scholarship signees (some of which will likely gray-shirt), and some preferred walk-ons, including the kicker Price.

All Texas except for our annual Canadian-connection.

I'm excited about Ty Carter. I worked with his dad for a couple of years back in the mid-90s when Ty was about 1 or 2 years old. I feel old now.

Question:

Is there a recruiting party/reception at R Room tonite, and if so when, and who is invited?

It's at Dave and Buster's (on Richmond AVE near Fountainview) at 6:00 p.m.

(02-06-2013 01:09 PM)owlman70 Wrote: [ -> ]Question:

Is there a recruiting party/reception at R Room tonite, and if so when, and who is invited?

http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...13aaa.html

I'm very impressed by this class. There's a lot of good size coming in on both lines. D.J. Green may be a big star. I just read the biographies on each player. This may be the best class in the Bailiff era, and last year's class is hard to top.

This is potentially one of the best recruiting classes for Rice football in a long time. Well done to the coaches and congratulations to the new recruits.

But potential means you haven't done anything yet. I'll be more impressed when I see these guys in person making those kinds of plays to beat UH or Tulsa, rather than on film in a HS game. It's now up to them to produce and the staff to get the production out of them.

Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. There are reasons to quibble about rankings of certain individuals, and one factor is always that we retain more of our recruits and therefore have smaller classes (and lower cumulative scores) than many other places. But those factors aside, there are substantive differences between the athletes that we recruit and the ones who end up at Alabama or LSU or Ohio State or Texas. That's where we need superior scheming and preparation to make up that difference, if we are to climb back up the athletic competition ladder that we've fallen pretty far down.

But the raw materials appear to be there, let's see what we can make of them.

(02-07-2013 04:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This is potentially one of the best recruiting classes for Rice football in a long time. Well done to the coaches and congratulations to the new recruits.

But potential means you haven't done anything yet. I'll be more impressed when I see these guys in person making those kinds of plays to beat UH or Tulsa, rather than on film in a HS game. It's now up to them to produce and the staff to get the production out of them.

Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. There are reasons to quibble about rankings of certain individuals, and one factor is always that we retain more of our recruits and therefore have smaller classes (and lower cumulative scores) than many other places. But those factors aside, there are substantive differences between the athletes that we recruit and the ones who end up at Alabama or LSU or Ohio State or Texas. That's where we need superior scheming and preparation to make up that difference, if we are to climb back up the athletic competition ladder that we've fallen pretty far down.

But the raw materials appear to be there, let's see what we can make of them.

And that's been one of my primary beefs with DB and his staff-- they do not appear to be strong on player development and getting guys to play to their maximum potential. The complete opposite of The OG and the Rice Baseball staff, who consistently turn solid high school talent (but not Top 200 ranked prospect level) into elite players.

(02-07-2013 04:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This is potentially one of the best recruiting classes for Rice football in a long time. Well done to the coaches and congratulations to the new recruits.

But potential means you haven't done anything yet. I'll be more impressed when I see these guys in person making those kinds of plays to beat UH or Tulsa, rather than on film in a HS game. It's now up to them to produce and the staff to get the production out of them.

Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. There are reasons to quibble about rankings of certain individuals, and one factor is always that we retain more of our recruits and therefore have smaller classes (and lower cumulative scores) than many other places. But those factors aside, there are substantive differences between the athletes that we recruit and the ones who end up at Alabama or LSU or Ohio State or Texas. That's where we need superior scheming and preparation to make up that difference, if we are to climb back up the athletic competition ladder that we've fallen pretty far down.

But the raw materials appear to be there, let's see what we can make of them.

What does the rest of CUSA look like in rankings?

I don't agree w the player development comment.

Q. How many can't miss four or five star recruits have been come to South Main on DB's watch or Hat's or Toad's or Fred's?
A. Zero as freshman maybe two if you want to include Cook and Sam transfer (don't believe Fanuzzi was four-star, think he was three-star).

Q. How many guys have gone to NFL, getting looks in NFL, gotten played to play pro ball, etc. on DB's watch developing them compared to Hat's, Fred's, etc. (can't evaluate Toad as only one year)?

A. At least 10 that I can think of off top of head in last five years (e.g,. Casey, Dillard, Q. Smith, Sendejo, Cheta, Solomon, Sam, VMcD, Willson, Mitchell, and CC). That compares to 10 in the last 20-years prior (Izzo, Bert, ND, Hollas, Tony Barker, OJ, Green, Dendy, Pontbriand, and C. Hall). This does not even include the existing roster w/ guys like Boswell, Callahan, Gaines, Taylor, etc. that could likely get pro looks.

Q. Final one. How can one argue that player development w/ DB is not there if has accomplished the same amount of professional talent in 25% of the time given that 4 and 5 star recruits were not there in first place in any of the administrations?

A. Game day preparation, X's and O's, etc. may not be there but better quality developed talent is undoubtedly better now than in prior Rice coaching administrations. The data proves that point.

(02-07-2013 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 04:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]... Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. ...

What does the rest of CUSA look like in rankings?

Here's a link to Rivals' incoming 2013 ranking within C-USA. Rice is #9 of 12.

In the national rankings, its:

50 - Houston
62 - Marshall
67 - SMU
72 - Tulsa, USM & UCF (tie)
80 - Tulane
89 - Memphis
90 - Rice
93 - ECU
95 - UAB
121- UTEP

Marshall with 3 4-star commits. Only 1 other 4-star commit in the rest of the conference (Tulsa).

This article makes for interesting reading: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/fi...s-ranking/

In it, "regular SEC football expert" Jon Cooper looks at the outcomes for 23 QBs rated as 5-star prospects coming out of high school in the past 10 years. His verdict: only 8 "lived up to the hype," while 9 were busts.

Also noteworthy are each year's list of "QBs ranked lower."

(02-07-2013 01:43 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]This article makes for interesting reading: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/fi...s-ranking/

In it, "regular SEC football expert" Jon Cooper looks at the outcomes for 23 QBs rated as 5-star prospects coming out of high school in the past 10 years. His verdict: only 8 "lived up to the hype," while 9 were busts.

Also noteworthy are each year's list of "QBs ranked lower."

I saw the same thing for a number of other positions.

It was really interesting to see how off the recruiting sites can be, but also how spot on they can be too.

(02-07-2013 01:07 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 04:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]... Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. ...

What does the rest of CUSA look like in rankings?

Here's a link to Rivals' incoming 2013 ranking within C-USA. Rice is #9 of 12.

In the national rankings, its:

50 - Houston
62 - Marshall
67 - SMU
72 - Tulsa, USM & UCF (tie)
80 - Tulane
89 - Memphis
90 - Rice
93 - ECU
95 - UAB
121- UTEP

Wow, that's not good news. Seems like we were straight in the middle of the pack the last few years.

(02-07-2013 04:13 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 01:07 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2013 04:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]... Note also that Rivals ranks this the #90 class in the country. ...

What does the rest of CUSA look like in rankings?

Here's a link to Rivals' incoming 2013 ranking within C-USA. Rice is #9 of 12.

In the national rankings, its:

50 - Houston
62 - Marshall
67 - SMU
72 - Tulsa, USM & UCF (tie)
80 - Tulane
89 - Memphis
90 - Rice
93 - ECU
95 - UAB
121- UTEP

Wow, that's not good news. Seems like we were straight in the middle of the pack the last few years.

With 4 or 5 of those leaving I'm sure our standing in the new CUSA would show a much higher ranking.

5 of Rice's 18 commits were defensive MVP's (or POY) in their respective districts and all were given 2-stars by Rivals (and that excludes Cole Hunt). 1/2 the class committed quite early (for Rice) and I'm sure some of them didn't really receive offers from other schools or much attention because of their strong committments to Rice. The other 1/2 the class is composed of late risers who were signed quite recently and presumably had a lot of growth (be it opportunity, skills, size, or athleticism) between their junior and senior years. I'm not so worried about the star-ratings this year, as I feel they are probably less reflective of the strength of the class than most years. I feel good, stars be damned!