Well good folks, I think there is a lot of discussion right now about the recruits TU has committed and if our overal recruiting is/isn't up to par with teams in the new league. Well, I'm just not sure that the criticism is completely legitimate if you look at some of the facts.
As you may know, I use Phil Steele a lot in breaking down a program/teams comparable strengths and weaknesses. So let me use his magazine to do a little comparable data study on how our players compare - position by position - with the AAC. I will use their PS national HS ratings to compare.
Lets start at the immediate skill spots of QB and RB.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PS's projected starters for 2014 - AAC:
Quarterback
Team------------------Player/PS recruiting rank
UCF-------------------Holman/#113
Cincy------------------Kiel/#1 (trans from ND)
Houston---------------O'Korn/#54
ECU--------------------Carden/#258
Memphis---------------Lynch/#369
SMU--------------------Burcham/#77
Tulsa-------------------Evans/#80 or Burgess/#73
USF---------------------White/#78
Tulane------------------Lee/#131
Temple-----------------Walker/#103
UCONN-----------------Cochran/#41
Running back
UCF---------------------Stanback/#261
Cincy--------------------Williams/#279
Houston-----------------Farrow/#111
ECU----------------------Allen/#400 JC
Memphis-----------------Hayes/#343 JC
SMU----------------------Pr. Line/#100
Tulsa---------------------Flanders/#91
USF----------------------Pierre/#84 JC
Tulane-------------------Badie/#108
Temple------------------Harper/None
UCONN------------------DeLorenzo/#119
So you can make your own conclusions using these comparisons at the immediate skill spots.
Wide Recievers/TE's (only 2 included for simplification)
UCF---------Hall-#270/Tukes-#140
Cincy-------Washington-#89/Cogswell-#57 QB
Houston----Ambles-#6/Greenberry-#10
ECU--------Grayson-#352/Jones-#218
Memphis---Craft-#85/Malone-#31
SMU--------Lancaster-#228/Gaines-#28
Tulsa-------Garrett-#115/Wilson-#64
USF--------Dunkley-#11/Price-#7
Tulane-----Skinner-#24/Marfish-#112
Temple-----Fitzpatrick-#184/Herbin-#166
UCONN-----Thomas-#108/McQuillan#89
**Some of the players do not have a PS recruiting rating, but its assumed if they did they would therefore be a higher rated player. I grouped WRs and TE's together primarily as "receivers".
PS is Phil Steele's ranking? I can honestly say I've never looked at that. For example, Temple RB Kenny Harper was a safety in HS, so you're not going to find a ranking for him at RB. We use a 2 RB system with Harper and Zaire Williams. Williams was ranked the #44, 36, 43, 82 RB depending on the recruiting site you use. He was a universal 3* with offers from WVU, Iowa, UConn, Pitt, Purdue, and Wisconsin.
(07-27-2014 11:59 AM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]PS is Phil Steele's ranking? I can honestly say I've never looked at that. For example, Temple RB Kenny Harper was a safety in HS, so you're not going to find a ranking for him at RB. We use a 2 RB system with Harper and Zaire Williams. Williams was ranked the #44, 36, 43, 82 RB depending on the recruiting site you use. He was a universal 3* with offers from WVU, Iowa, UConn, Pitt, Purdue, and Wisconsin.
What I did was to simplify the process using PS's projected starters at the positions he listed them at. A starter at RB who had been moved there from another position had to be listed as a recruit by him. Some players didn't have a PS recruiting number and I attempted to narrow down the # of WRs (for instance) to reflect that. PS lists his projected starters and then his projected backups. Right after that, he numbers "his" recruit rank. That makes the system I used as unconfusing as possible.
PS lists only one RB for Temple as a starter and that was the one I included. Perhaps it would have been better to do it another way, but its the best I can come up with.
What I wanted to accomplish was an easy way to compare each position throughout the league. I use PS because he has been so successful at projecting teams and players over the years. Not perfect, but its about as good as I can could think of using an objective system.
But please stop by and keep this honest. I want to be as impartial as I can. My goal is to enlighten our fans at TU to how good or bad our recruting is and how it may be in the future. Rivals kind of screwed up the process last year when they "hardened" their evaluation process and IMO injected a lot of favoritism into the process by favoring BCS schools over the rest of us.
But PS is notoriously even handed in evaluating both BCS and Non BCS schools wo prejudice.
IMO
Like I said, I dont know anything about how he evaluates recruits. Just looking at where he had Carden and Walker compared to Cochran, it's hard to take him too seriously. I'm not a big fan of the ratings for football, because I dont think they go in depth enough. I think looking at who offered is a better indicator, but doesn't tell the whole story. Our coach, for example, does not look at stars or offers. He recruits solely based on tape and in-person evaluations.
He just had a great interview on our Rivals site about telling recruits they should go to certain schools, because we're not going to offer them. He's had recruits with tons of offers come to our camps and been totally unimpressed with them. He's brutally honest, no nonsense, and like he says, he tries to run a program that isn't fake. He's had a lot of success turning recruits with zero or lower level offers into excellent college and NFL players like Mo Wilkerson (WKU, Kent State, Marshall offers, 1st round pick), Bernard Pierce (James Madison offer, 3rd round pick), Jaiquawn Jarrett (no offers, 2nd round pick), Tahir Whitehead (no offers, 5th round pick), and several who were undrafted and made it to the NFL.
So for us, getting 4 star recruits like Kareem Ali and Aaron Ruff to turn down schools like Penn State, Pitt, Wisconsin, Clemson, Duke, Northwestern, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Michigan State, Louisville, Florida, Nebraska, UNC, etc. for Temple is huge, but a lot of our recruiting and development is based on turning recruits with only non-major and non-FBS offers into good players.
(07-27-2014 06:12 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, I dont know anything about how he evaluates recruits. Just looking at where he had Carden and Walker compared to Cochran, it's hard to take him too seriously. I'm not a big fan of the ratings for football, because I dont think they go in depth enough. I think looking at who offered is a better indicator, but doesn't tell the whole story. Our coach, for example, does not look at stars or offers. He recruits solely based on tape and in-person evaluations.
He just had a great interview on our Rivals site about telling recruits they should go to certain schools, because we're not going to offer them. He's had recruits with tons of offers come to our camps and been totally unimpressed with them. He's brutally honest, no nonsense, and like he says, he tries to run a program that isn't fake. He's had a lot of success turning recruits with zero or lower level offers into excellent college and NFL players like Mo Wilkerson (WKU, Kent State, Marshall offers, 1st round pick), Bernard Pierce (James Madison offer, 3rd round pick), Jaiquawn Jarrett (no offers, 2nd round pick), Tahir Whitehead (no offers, 5th round pick), and several who were undrafted and made it to the NFL.
So for us, getting 4 star recruits like Kareem Ali and Aaron Ruff to turn down schools like Penn State, Pitt, Wisconsin, Clemson, Duke, Northwestern, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Michigan State, Louisville, Florida, Nebraska, UNC, etc. for Temple is huge, but a lot of our recruiting and development is based on turning recruits with only non-major and non-FBS offers into good players.
That sounds a lot like us. We are all in the same boat where player development has got to be as important as just recruiting.
But the reason I did this in this way was that I've used PS in a variety of ways for quite a while on this site as a primary source and this seems to give a good picture of how we shape up in the AAC since its our first year. Its hard to compare recruits in the AAC to those in CUSA.
How PS arrives at his evaluations are not as important as his ability to project the result of a teams success in the season imo. But since he's been so successful, I use it as best I can. I could use another method, but mine is a bit different and by doing it this way, can add to the information of our fans - at least those that stop by. We also have a situation similar to yours in that perhaps our best player (Marco Nelson) who was a great RB in HS was shifted to safety as a freshman, became a frosh all american, and imo could play RB for us immediately right now.
So the end result using my method is that IMO our recruiting is at least on a par with the upper two thirds of the AAC. So the expectation level should be that level of achievement if we develope our talent to match our recruiting.
Next up: Offensive Line.
Offensive Line
UCF--------Evans#225/Wilson#35
Cincy------Schloemer#86/Keebler#150
Houston---Thomas#111/Parris#130JC
ECU--------Robertson#208/Williams#299
Memphis---Uselton#217JC/Collins#341
SMU--------Myers#160/Weeks#205
Tulsa-------Gladd#77/Walton#206JC
USF---------Eatmon#161/Jozwiak#243
Tulane------Taylor#118/Shienle#254
Temple-----Friend#295/Dawkins#398
UCONN-----Schafenacker#113/Samra#249
Please remember that my criteria model is that a player must be a starter as listed in the PS 2014 CFB magazine. A backup with the better recruiting rating isn't considered. It must be a starter vs starter comparison.
And I will point out to you that Kyle Friend is ranked #295 and was a 2* recruit. He will likely be a 3rd round pick in the NFL Draft. All about development. If your coaches can spot talent and develop it, you will be fine.
(07-30-2014 07:55 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]And I will point out to you that Kyle Friend is ranked #295 and was a 2* recruit. He will likely be a 3rd round pick in the NFL Draft. All about development. If your coaches can spot talent and develop it, you will be fine.
Absolutely agree. Linemen are not born as much as made. OLine is probably the hardest position to judge in the recruiting process. And part of the development is patience since most don't set foot on the field for a year or two.
(07-30-2014 09:03 PM)rabidTU2 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2014 07:55 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]And I will point out to you that Kyle Friend is ranked #295 and was a 2* recruit. He will likely be a 3rd round pick in the NFL Draft. All about development. If your coaches can spot talent and develop it, you will be fine.
Absolutely agree. Linemen are not born as much as made. OLine is probably the hardest position to judge in the recruiting process. And part of the development is patience since most don't set foot on the field for a year or two.
We have 4 OTs in the NFL. Other than Temple, they had two FBS offers between them and that was by a single one of them.
Wow that was very interesting. I think you should take this to the American Board. I've never seen a breakdown like this, great idea
(07-31-2014 04:04 AM)Tigersmoke Wrote: [ -> ]Wow that was very interesting. I think you should take this to the American Board. I've never seen a breakdown like this, great idea
Thanks for dropping by. I hope it all makes sense to the average observer. I attempt to give thoughts that don't always follow the company line - sort of outside the box, but still pertinent. CFB is all about comparing strengths and weaknesses and I hope this gives some credence to those comparisons.
Its really been neat to have a little site we can all post on and give our thoughts, hopes and criticisms without having to defend ourselves like the rivals site.
I think a lot of TU fans will post more often on the AAC site when we get more acclimated to the environment there. We certainly don't want to be combative in the first few months - at least the ones that visit this site. In time we'll get used to the AAC. Its a thrill being able to move up with our old conference brothers.
Since defensive schemes are so diverse (4-3, 4-2, 3-3, 3-4 fronts) I thought it would be best to give only the top rated DL, LBer and DB.
Defensive Line:
UCF-----------McDowell/#43JC
Cincy----------Allonce/#87JC
Houston-------Jackson/#31
ECU------------Stanley/#214
Memphis-------Redden/#118
SMU------------Wright/#220
Tulsa------------Alexander/#181
USF--------------Chandler/#44
Tulane-----------LaFrance/#244
Temple----------Chudnoff/#239
UCONN----------Pruitt/#362
Next up - Linebackers.
I will tell you in advance, and I apologize if I'm being a broken record. Temple LB Tyler Matakevich was a 2* recruit, and is the leading tackler in the entire country and on a bunch of award watch lists. He will be a 3rd or 4th round pick (if he was 6'3, he'd be a 1st round pick)
(08-01-2014 01:53 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]I will tell you in advance, and I apologize if I'm being a broken record. Temple LB Tyler Matakevich was a 2* recruit, and is the leading tackler in the entire country and on a bunch of award watch lists. He will be a 3rd or 4th round pick (if he was 6'3, he'd be a 1st round pick)
You're fine as far as I'm concerned.
We -Tulsa - (I almost put TU which I obviously can't do anymore - ha!) have a bundle of players who fit that as well. We even have a player in the pro football hall of fame named Steve Largent (who became a US congressman for a while) that vitutally noone recruited because of size and speed. Those stories are everywhere and some of the problem is how vague the evaluation process CAN be. Its virtually impossible to evaluate potential at the college level. But a lot of that is because of the unkown of how hard a kid is willing to work which for the most part is unprojectable.
What I would look at is that you're starting to get recruits to pick Tulsa over other FBS schools, especially from the P5. Obviously, none of us are going to have entire classes like that, but you want to start winning some battles against other schools.
We're still getting under-the-radar recruits with 0 FBS offers, or MAC level offers, but we're also getting recruits to pick Temple over schools like Louisville, Florida, Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State, Purdue, TCU, Iowa, etc. Last year alone, we went 4/6 against Michigan State.
Linebackers:
UCF - Gray #133
Cincy - Luc #4
Houston - Oliphant #158
ECU - Bigger #178
Memphis - Harris #182
SMU - Sanders #127
Tulsa - *Wilson #30
USF - Harris #121
Tulane - Williams #124
Temple - Smith #196
UCONN - Stewart #34
*Petera Wilson is a true freshman who was highly recruited and I believe PS is the only one projecting him as a Tulsa starter.
Secondary
UCF - Ozerities #190
Cincinnati - Wilder #178JC
Houston - Walker #167JC
ECU - Allen #138
Memphis - Ball #230
SMU - Richardson #275
Tulsa -Barrow #137
USF - Byrd #94JC
Tulane - Monroe #47
Temple - Pretlow #153
UCONN - Jones #211
(08-02-2014 07:54 PM)rabidTU2 Wrote: [ -> ]Linebackers:
UCF - Gray #133
Cincy - Luc #4
Houston - Oliphant #158
ECU - Bigger #178
Memphis - Harris #182
SMU - Sanders #127
Tulsa - *Wilson #30
USF - Harris #121
Tulane - Williams #124
Temple - Smith #196
UCONN - Stewart #34
*Petera Wilson is a true freshman who was highly recruited and I believe PS is the only one projecting him as a Tulsa starter.
Latest rumors I've heard on Wilson is he may be given a shot as a 3rd down DE.