|
Post by carookie on Dec 16, 2017 17:45:37 GMT -6
Let me ask the OP. Do you care about middle school stats? I think we would care about MS stats if there were more similarities to our job and that of college coaches. If we were limited in the number of players we could have on our team (like colleges) and were in direct competition for the same group of kids with our opponents (like colleges). If we had a large number of players to choose from and only a small amount of time to get them (like college); if all the players I was bringing into my program were post pubescent and most likely close to their final adult size without many more growing spurts (like college). If all those things were at play, then I would look at MS stats....somewhat. As I wrote earlier, you need to contextualize stats and take into account level of opposition, strength of their given team, and system at play. If all those aspects were normalized, or at least closer than what they are now, and you had the same requirements as a HS coach that a college coach does; then it would make very much sense to look at stats.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Dec 16, 2017 18:09:41 GMT -6
I coached in the 2015 all star game. Our qb was Nathan Rourke. 6'2" 200. Great arm, speed, vision, student of the game, all the intangibles and measurables. Threw for 3700 yards and 59 td's senior year. Was UNSACKABLE in high school. Also a young kid. He is just 19 right now as a college sophomore. He had zero offers. Zero. I thought it was crazy. My son also played in that game. Plenty of d1 players in that game. (By the way, I don't count those guys in my count of d1 players coached LOL). I am not an autograph guy. I have no autographs of anyone. I had my son get his autograph. Other players did also. He was that good. I knew he would be something even though he had ZERO offers. Goes juco. Goes to Ohio Univesity. Wins starting job. Responsible for 37 td's this year. 15 passing. 1 receiving and 21 rushing. That is 9th in the entire nation NCAA d1. Again, no offers. And I KNEW he was going to be doing something like this. So how does every single d1 college miss that kid? It really was obvious. Probably because he's Canadian!
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 16, 2017 18:13:22 GMT -6
I coached in the 2015 all star game. Our qb was Nathan Rourke. 6'2" 200. Great arm, speed, vision, student of the game, all the intangibles and measurables. Threw for 3700 yards and 59 td's senior year. Was UNSACKABLE in high school. Also a young kid. He is just 19 right now as a college sophomore. He had zero offers. Zero. I thought it was crazy. My son also played in that game. Plenty of d1 players in that game. (By the way, I don't count those guys in my count of d1 players coached LOL). I am not an autograph guy. I have no autographs of anyone. I had my son get his autograph. Other players did also. He was that good. I knew he would be something even though he had ZERO offers. Goes juco. Goes to Ohio Univesity. Wins starting job. Responsible for 37 td's this year. 15 passing. 1 receiving and 21 rushing. That is 9th in the entire nation NCAA d1. Again, no offers. And I KNEW he was going to be doing something like this. So how does every single d1 college miss that kid? It really was obvious. Probably because he's Canadian! Could be, but his senior year he was in the middle of Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Dec 16, 2017 21:31:59 GMT -6
silkyice I knew that, I was speaking tongue in cheek. I'm looking forward to watching Nathan in his bowl game.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Dec 19, 2017 6:56:01 GMT -6
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadafootballchat.com%2Fncaa-2017-bowl-schedule-nathan-rourke-julian-laurent-neville-gallimore-and-chase-claypool-highlight-large-group-of-canadians-down-south%2F
|
|
|
Post by spillitnkillit on Dec 19, 2017 7:11:24 GMT -6
if a college is gonna "miss' on a recruit... they cant miss small... that gets them fired I wonder how long until people start to follow the Patriots model in college and have success...realizing that (holy crap!) you can build a good team around a great quarterback and then a whole lot of role players who are willing to work hard running backs don't matter, go cheap....lots of guys out there who can run fast with the football WR's don't have to be unbelievable - get a bunch of good route runners with good hands, great QB will throw them open get the best interior defensive lineman you can find ....win a lot One of the problems with that in college is that you only get your QB for a couple of years. An NFL team like the Patriots with a great QB can maybe keep him for 10+ years so it's easier to build a roster around the guy.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Dec 19, 2017 8:23:39 GMT -6
Don't forget all the rule changes that have multiple QBs with stats better than Vick's in that 2000 season... Stats cannot be compared before all the rule changes to after. How many times did Vick throw to a WR who got DESTROYED and it wasn't a targeting call with an ejection for the defender?
There are probably 30 QBs that have better stats than Vick did... but when Vick did it, it was a COMPLETE OUTLIER. He was completely distanced from every other QB at the time.
In 1992 and 1993 Steve Young didn't throw more than 30 TD passes in the entire season... he led the NFL both years. Now if you start for 12 games you throw 30. Stats LIE. Physical Attributes don't lie. The trick is finding kids with the physical attributes who can compete at your level and teach them to do so.
There are a lot of guys that say Saban maxes out his players at Alabama... great for him. They win NC or play for them every year, but there isn't a lot of room for growth when they come up to the next level. All they can do is stay the same or get worse. While a guy that may not have maximized his ability at a lesser-known school, could get much better after leaving college and he focuses on football full-time.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2017 20:16:48 GMT -6
Don't forget all the rule changes that have multiple QBs with stats better than Vick's in that 2000 season... Stats cannot be compared before all the rule changes to after. How many times did Vick throw to a WR who got DESTROYED and it wasn't a targeting call with an ejection for the defender? Not only that, but the pace of the game has changed and the amount of games have changed. Rourke had 30 more rushing attempts and over 110 more passing attempts in 2 more games to accumulate those stats.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 19, 2017 21:42:15 GMT -6
Don't forget all the rule changes that have multiple QBs with stats better than Vick's in that 2000 season... Stats cannot be compared before all the rule changes to after. How many times did Vick throw to a WR who got DESTROYED and it wasn't a targeting call with an ejection for the defender? Not only that, but the pace of the game has changed and the amount of games have changed. Rourke had 30 more rushing attempts and over 110 more passing attempts in 2 more games to accumulate those stats. I think the point is that Rourke got zero d1 offers. And not that I am some kind of super guru, but good gosh, I could not believe that someone was not offering him. So much so that I had my son get his autograph at the all star game. And again, I am not some kind of autograph junkie weirdo. And this game has produced OJ Howard and guys that currently start at Penn State, Troy, Auburn, and Florida, not to mention tons of other schools. I didn't even think to ask for those guys autographs. Didn't even cross my mind. Like didn't even cross my mind at all. But with Rourke, I was like, we are getting that autograph. I almost asked him myself, but my grown man pride wouldn't let me. And he we are. He goes juco. Then after one year, goes to Ohio and wins the job and then is responsible for 37 td's as a 19 year old true soph. I am like, well , knew that was going to happen. Not sure how the other 125 plus schools missed that.
|
|
|
Post by gators41 on Dec 20, 2017 0:47:50 GMT -6
The other 10 spots on Offense, I am not arguing with you. QB is different. Dont have to be elite physically, really just cant have glaring weaknesses. Top 2 QBs of all time are Joe Montana and Tom Brady. No one wanted Tom, and if Joe came along today he would be hammered. That argument holds up for a Linebacker, it doesnt for a QB You didn't answer yet. Do middle school stats matter to you? Somehow I missed your question. What a fantastic question by the way... To be frank, I am not sure. I have never seen middle school stats. But now I am curious to look at them... I think I have always been a coach who puts more stock into what they did in Middle School than others. As I watch their games, I dont take away from what they are doing because it is a lower level. But I guess I never thought about statistics. I may be putting my foot in my mouth, But it is a lot harder to throw at that level. I coached MS ball for 3 years, one as a HC. You lack staff and maturity level to teach some harder concepts in the passing game. And my main argument here is QB. So I would say yes, if a young kid and chuck it around I would be impressed
|
|
|
Post by gators41 on Dec 20, 2017 0:52:12 GMT -6
First of all.. that dude has guys to throw to.. he's throwing bubbles, and the kid runs for 70 yds.. that's pretty helpful to the stat line. I think depending on the system, completion % is a bit overrated with all the bubbles, and now screens people throw. When I was a GA the QB I coached was 26-27 for 280 and 4 TDs. He threw 5 passes more than 10 yds, and we had great WR's. Stat line looks amazing, but most guys can throw a hitch. I have a buddy who's a D2 coach at a pretty good school, just went undefeated and blew a big lead in the playoffs to end their season.. I've told him about several kids who I think are a steal, and he can't offer them because they are 6'0 DEs. He knows they are good, but if they miss on a kid who was too small, they get fired.. and that's at a level where they don't recruit stars. My best friend in high school was #12 OG in the country... absolute stud.. Couldn't get a single Power 5 offer because he was 6'1. Was a 4 year starter and won a FCS national championship. Measurables matter more than anything else at that level. Many (not all, I know there are some great ones out there) D1 coaches are arrogant guys who feel that if they get a guy who looks good, they can fix any problems he has. Especially a QB coach or OC who wants to be a HC.. if they can groom a guy some duumbass AD will get excited about him and hire him because he took one guy who has a cannon, and can run like a deer, and put up stupid video game numbers. Qbs are really the focus here. I get the trenches argument. Not saying its right, but this game does sometimes come down to physical attributes up front. But why does a qb who is 6'2 200 lbs no glaring physical weakness not get more love if his specific and measureable statistics are in good?? Should that be a great tool to use with rating qbs
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 20, 2017 6:47:34 GMT -6
Not only that, but the pace of the game has changed and the amount of games have changed. Rourke had 30 more rushing attempts and over 110 more passing attempts in 2 more games to accumulate those stats. I think the point is that Rourke got zero d1 offers. And not that I am some kind of super guru, but good gosh, I could not believe that someone was not offering him. So much so that I had my son get his autograph at the all star game. And again, I am not some kind of autograph junkie weirdo. And this game has produced OJ Howard and guys that currently start at Penn State, Troy, Auburn, and Florida, not to mention tons of other schools. I didn't even think to ask for those guys autographs. Didn't even cross my mind. Like didn't even cross my mind at all. But with Rourke, I was like, we are getting that autograph. I almost asked him myself, but my grown man pride wouldn't let me. And he we are. He goes juco. Then after one year, goes to Ohio and wins the job and then is responsible for 37 td's as a 19 year old true soph. I am like, well , knew that was going to happen. Not sure how the other 125 plus schools missed that. Absolutely agree. I was just showing an example again of attributes over stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 7:50:56 GMT -6
Qbs are really the focus here. I get the trenches argument. Not saying its right, but this game does sometimes come down to physical attributes up front. But why does a qb who is 6'2 200 lbs no glaring physical weakness not get more love if his specific and measureable statistics are in good?? Should that be a great tool to use with rating qbs What were his grades and test scores like? Did he play the game and have parents spend a lot of money to put him through the camp systems and gatekeepers to get on the schools' and recruiting services radar? Also, if he's Canadian and played his senior year in Alabama... when did he transfer down there? If kids transfer, it's common for colleges to lose track of them. If they weren't on the radar before and just show up for a year, I've noticed that schools can easily overlook them. A few years ago my cousin was his state's OPOY. He ran a 4.3 forty at 5'11" 170lbs and returned 2/3 of the punts and kicks he handled for TDs, along with rushing for over 1,000 yards and a 13+ ypc average on a team that made the state semis. In fact, he made the All State team the only 2 years he played HS ball. He had also been a 4 time All State selection in soccer and set his state's single game record for goals in a game as a sophomore. He graduated with honors and a 27 ACT. He got no FBS offers, either, and he didn't show up on any list of top prospects in the state in either sport because of how he hadn't gone through the gatekeepers--nobody knew about him. The closest he got were a couple of visits from VA Tech and Marshall coaches because his own coaching staff and an opposing coach had raved about him to those schools.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 20, 2017 8:31:14 GMT -6
Guys there is a whole game of it's own going on with this recruiting stuff. We promote the hades out of our guys. We have a recruiting manual for every single player in our program, the one that have a snowball's chance in hades of getting an offer. We went to recruiting fair our coaches association puts on. We took kids to camps/visits. We make hudl highlights. We emailed every program in the country about this stuff.
Last years seniors hated our guts because we didn't 'try to get them a scholly', so we're having to deal with that BS in community.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 20, 2017 9:29:27 GMT -6
What were his grades and test scores like? Did he play the game and have parents spend a lot of money to put him through the camp systems and gatekeepers to get on the schools' and recruiting services radar? Also, if he's Canadian and played his senior year in Alabama... when did he transfer down there? If kids transfer, it's common for colleges to lose track of them. If they weren't on the radar before and just show up for a year, I've noticed that schools can easily overlook them. Grades and test scores - awesome. Parents and coach did everything possible. Parents moved him from Canada (where he was the number 1 ranked qb) to Alabama specifically to get recruited. Came in the Spring of junior year I believe. Could be wrong there. This isn't the case of no one knowing about him or small school or not having attributes. He specifically came to that high school because they had a kid sign with Auburn in football that came over as a senior from Africa to play basketball. Another kid came from Africa at the same time to play basketball also. He signed with Troy the next year which was Rourke's senior year. The school also had a rb sign with Oregon State and the previous QB was offered by BYU but choose to play d1 baseball instead. This is at a school that one like 5 or more state championships in a row and had a 50 plus (might have been 80) game win streak. They won state that year. He had all the measurables. Height, weight, speed, arm. Could run and pass. Had all the intangibles. Leader. Smart. EXTREME student of the game. You meet this kid and every single thing screamed winner. Best intangibles I have ever witnessed. I got that from being with him three days. Nice kid. Grades. Dedication - moved 2000 miles to play ball. Had exposure and camps. Literally could not have been more of a prospect in my opinion. Except I guess he could have been taller, but 6'2" is plenty tall enough for every single NFL team much less college teams. This kid was so good, him not getting offered never diminished my belief that he still would be a star. I hated it for him, but thought, oh well, he will just have to go juco and then d1 to be a star, but that nothing is stopping him. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW HE DIDN'T GET OFFERED! And yes I am screaming that.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 20, 2017 10:08:15 GMT -6
Not only that, but the pace of the game has changed and the amount of games have changed. Rourke had 30 more rushing attempts and over 110 more passing attempts in 2 more games to accumulate those stats. I think the point is that Rourke got zero d1 offers. And not that I am some kind of super guru, but good gosh, I could not believe that someone was not offering him. So much so that I had my son get his autograph at the all star game. And again, I am not some kind of autograph junkie weirdo. And this game has produced OJ Howard and guys that currently start at Penn State, Troy, Auburn, and Florida, not to mention tons of other schools. I didn't even think to ask for those guys autographs. Didn't even cross my mind. Like didn't even cross my mind at all. But with Rourke, I was like, we are getting that autograph. I almost asked him myself, but my grown man pride wouldn't let me. And he we are. He goes juco. Then after one year, goes to Ohio and wins the job and then is responsible for 37 td's as a 19 year old true soph. I am like, well , knew that was going to happen. Not sure how the other 125 plus schools missed that. I imagine he didn't get offers because there recruiters were looking at dozens of other QBs who were taller and faster and put up similar stats. And, this is becoming more and more prevalent with the types of offenses that are common these days. We had many QBs in this state throw for 2000+ yards and rush for 1000+ yards this last season; in all classifications. One is in our division, he is 6'4'' and 210lbs and will be going FCS. He's a solid QB and should have a good career at that level. With that being said, there was a 5'11'', 190lb QB/Mike LB that has won two state titles at the highest classification, has better production in stats and is being recruited as a SS at the FCS level. Honestly, I've watched the kid play and I believe he could easily start at QB for an FCS team but he isn't even being considered for the position. He has accepted a scholarship at an FCS school but I imagine he will be at the NAIA, D2, or D3 level, lighting it up as a QB within a few years. So, I believe this will be an on-going discussion with QBs, given the prevalence of "spread" offenses in the country. There's just so many of them that put up huge numbers. Now, if you show me a 5'10'', 180lb RB that has rushed for 2000-3000 yards in a season and isn't getting D1 offers, I will frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 20, 2017 10:15:31 GMT -6
As someone who has no info on the specific instance being discussed outside what is brought up here; how cool would it be if a coach came out and said, "We didn't recruit him because we saw he switched to a bigger school.We hate it when players transfer in to powerhouse schools just to get recruited and respect it more when kids play for their local school."
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 20, 2017 12:59:47 GMT -6
So, let's set up a hypothetical situation and put ourselves in the shoes of a college recruiter.
You're looking hard at two possible QB recruits. All three are 6'1'' or taller, quick and have decent arms. The stand-out of the bunch is a 6'4'' kid with a cannon for an arm, is fast and athletic and his put up some decent stats over the last few seasons. But, his completion percentage is sub-par and his TD/INT ratio is ugly. The other kid is 6'0'' is just as quick and athletic as the 6'4'' kid and his stats are much better. Both kids have high GPAs, are multiple sport athletes and are involved heavily in the school and the community.
So, you pour over film of the kids.
You notice that the 6'4'' kid makes seriously poor decisions when reading his passing progression and tries to force a lot of throws. He's got two quality WRs on the team and seems to zero in on them, regardless of the coverage. And, there are times when the kid just flat screws-up his progression, regardless of the WR. So, this tells you why his TD/INT ratio is so chitty. You also notice that the only WRs that catch the ball consistently are the two described earlier; his other WRs and RBs drop the ball continually. Between watching the film and talking to the kid's HC, it becomes pretty clear that the coaching is questionable at this point. The kid is coming from a middle tier program that has had some serious success with this kid at the helm. This kid also does some fantastic things on film; he runs well with the ball on certain schemes, uses his feet well to avoid pressure on the pocket and makes plays happen.
The 6'0'' kid's stats are out of this world and you KNOW the coaching is solid as he's coming from a perennial powerhouse. As you watch the film, you're impressed with the kid's athleticism, ability to read coverage and make good decisions. He's got a decent receiving corp that run quality routes, makes good catches, and gets the job done which obviously helps his stats. But, there are a few negatives that stand out on the film. First of all, the kid has a tendency to take off when he's pressured. He doesn't move around in the pocket and make plays with his arm; he sees pressure, he finds a running lane and he takes off. You talk to the HC about it and find out that the kid struggled to see over their OL at times so he got used to running with the ball as his speed was an advantage but his height wasn't.
So, you've got some hard decisions to make as a recruiter. The 6'4'' kid is an athlete and there's no way around it. He's got a cannon for an arm but you have to wonder if how he is going to develop in your school's offensive system given that he hasn't been coached very well. The shorter kid is an athlete as well, his arm is also strong and he has had more quality coaching. But, you know that you're going to have a tall OL, year in and year out at your school and this kid has struggled with that.
Do you go with the taller kid and hope that he's sharp enough to pick up on the progressions with some good coaching? Or do you go with the shorter kid who can probably walk straight into the system and do well if you can get him to slow down a bit?
No easy answers here..
|
|
dbeck84
Sophomore Member
Posts: 170
|
Post by dbeck84 on Dec 20, 2017 14:20:15 GMT -6
So, let's set up a hypothetical situation and put ourselves in the shoes of a college recruiter. You're looking hard at two possible QB recruits. All three are 6'1'' or taller, quick and have decent arms. The stand-out of the bunch is a 6'4'' kid with a cannon for an arm, is fast and athletic and his put up some decent stats over the last few seasons. But, his completion percentage is sub-par and his TD/INT ratio is ugly. The other kid is 6'0'' is just as quick and athletic as the 6'4'' kid and his stats are much better. Both kids have high GPAs, are multiple sport athletes and are involved heavily in the school and the community. So, you pour over film of the kids. You notice that the 6'4'' kid makes seriously poor decisions when reading his passing progression and tries to force a lot of throws. He's got two quality WRs on the team and seems to zero in on them, regardless of the coverage. And, there are times when the kid just flat screws-up his progression, regardless of the WR. So, this tells you why his TD/INT ratio is so chitty. You also notice that the only WRs that catch the ball consistently are the two described earlier; his other WRs and RBs drop the ball continually. Between watching the film and talking to the kid's HC, it becomes pretty clear that the coaching is questionable at this point. The kid is coming from a middle tier program that has had some serious success with this kid at the helm. This kid also does some fantastic things on film; he runs well with the ball on certain schemes, uses his feet well to avoid pressure on the pocket and makes plays happen. The 6'0'' kid's stats are out of this world and you KNOW the coaching is solid as he's coming from a perennial powerhouse. As you watch the film, you're impressed with the kid's athleticism, ability to read coverage and make good decisions. He's got a decent receiving corp that run quality routes, makes good catches, and gets the job done which obviously helps his stats. But, there are a few negatives that stand out on the film. First of all, the kid has a tendency to take off when he's pressured. He doesn't move around in the pocket and make plays with his arm; he sees pressure, he finds a running lane and he takes off. You talk to the HC about it and find out that the kid struggled to see over their OL at times so he got used to running with the ball as his speed was an advantage but his height wasn't. So, you've got some hard decisions to make as a recruiter. The 6'4'' kid is an athlete and there's no way around it. He's got a cannon for an arm but you have to wonder if how he is going to develop in your school's offensive system given that he hasn't been coached very well. The shorter kid is an athlete as well, his arm is also strong and he has had more quality coaching. But, you know that you're going to have a tall OL, year in and year out at your school and this kid has struggled with that. Do you go with the taller kid and hope that he's sharp enough to pick up on the progressions with some good coaching? Or do you go with the shorter kid who can probably walk straight into the system and do well if you can get him to slow down a bit? No easy answers here.. Easy, if I'm interested in keeping my job. If I bring in the 6'4" kid, and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered his fault. If I bring in the 6' kid and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered my fault.
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Dec 20, 2017 14:51:01 GMT -6
So, let's set up a hypothetical situation and put ourselves in the shoes of a college recruiter. You're looking hard at two possible QB recruits. All three are 6'1'' or taller, quick and have decent arms. The stand-out of the bunch is a 6'4'' kid with a cannon for an arm, is fast and athletic and his put up some decent stats over the last few seasons. But, his completion percentage is sub-par and his TD/INT ratio is ugly. The other kid is 6'0'' is just as quick and athletic as the 6'4'' kid and his stats are much better. Both kids have high GPAs, are multiple sport athletes and are involved heavily in the school and the community. So, you pour over film of the kids. You notice that the 6'4'' kid makes seriously poor decisions when reading his passing progression and tries to force a lot of throws. He's got two quality WRs on the team and seems to zero in on them, regardless of the coverage. And, there are times when the kid just flat screws-up his progression, regardless of the WR. So, this tells you why his TD/INT ratio is so chitty. You also notice that the only WRs that catch the ball consistently are the two described earlier; his other WRs and RBs drop the ball continually. Between watching the film and talking to the kid's HC, it becomes pretty clear that the coaching is questionable at this point. The kid is coming from a middle tier program that has had some serious success with this kid at the helm. This kid also does some fantastic things on film; he runs well with the ball on certain schemes, uses his feet well to avoid pressure on the pocket and makes plays happen. The 6'0'' kid's stats are out of this world and you KNOW the coaching is solid as he's coming from a perennial powerhouse. As you watch the film, you're impressed with the kid's athleticism, ability to read coverage and make good decisions. He's got a decent receiving corp that run quality routes, makes good catches, and gets the job done which obviously helps his stats. But, there are a few negatives that stand out on the film. First of all, the kid has a tendency to take off when he's pressured. He doesn't move around in the pocket and make plays with his arm; he sees pressure, he finds a running lane and he takes off. You talk to the HC about it and find out that the kid struggled to see over their OL at times so he got used to running with the ball as his speed was an advantage but his height wasn't. So, you've got some hard decisions to make as a recruiter. The 6'4'' kid is an athlete and there's no way around it. He's got a cannon for an arm but you have to wonder if how he is going to develop in your school's offensive system given that he hasn't been coached very well. The shorter kid is an athlete as well, his arm is also strong and he has had more quality coaching. But, you know that you're going to have a tall OL, year in and year out at your school and this kid has struggled with that. Do you go with the taller kid and hope that he's sharp enough to pick up on the progressions with some good coaching? Or do you go with the shorter kid who can probably walk straight into the system and do well if you can get him to slow down a bit? No easy answers here.. Easy, if I'm interested in keeping my job. If I bring in the 6'4" kid, and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered his fault. If I bring in the 6' kid and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered my fault.
If it doesn't pan out, you're getting fired either way
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 20, 2017 16:53:36 GMT -6
So, let's set up a hypothetical situation and put ourselves in the shoes of a college recruiter. You're looking hard at two possible QB recruits. All three are 6'1'' or taller, quick and have decent arms. The stand-out of the bunch is a 6'4'' kid with a cannon for an arm, is fast and athletic and his put up some decent stats over the last few seasons. But, his completion percentage is sub-par and his TD/INT ratio is ugly. The other kid is 6'0'' is just as quick and athletic as the 6'4'' kid and his stats are much better. Both kids have high GPAs, are multiple sport athletes and are involved heavily in the school and the community. So, you pour over film of the kids. You notice that the 6'4'' kid makes seriously poor decisions when reading his passing progression and tries to force a lot of throws. He's got two quality WRs on the team and seems to zero in on them, regardless of the coverage. And, there are times when the kid just flat screws-up his progression, regardless of the WR. So, this tells you why his TD/INT ratio is so chitty. You also notice that the only WRs that catch the ball consistently are the two described earlier; his other WRs and RBs drop the ball continually. Between watching the film and talking to the kid's HC, it becomes pretty clear that the coaching is questionable at this point. The kid is coming from a middle tier program that has had some serious success with this kid at the helm. This kid also does some fantastic things on film; he runs well with the ball on certain schemes, uses his feet well to avoid pressure on the pocket and makes plays happen. The 6'0'' kid's stats are out of this world and you KNOW the coaching is solid as he's coming from a perennial powerhouse. As you watch the film, you're impressed with the kid's athleticism, ability to read coverage and make good decisions. He's got a decent receiving corp that run quality routes, makes good catches, and gets the job done which obviously helps his stats. But, there are a few negatives that stand out on the film. First of all, the kid has a tendency to take off when he's pressured. He doesn't move around in the pocket and make plays with his arm; he sees pressure, he finds a running lane and he takes off. You talk to the HC about it and find out that the kid struggled to see over their OL at times so he got used to running with the ball as his speed was an advantage but his height wasn't. So, you've got some hard decisions to make as a recruiter. The 6'4'' kid is an athlete and there's no way around it. He's got a cannon for an arm but you have to wonder if how he is going to develop in your school's offensive system given that he hasn't been coached very well. The shorter kid is an athlete as well, his arm is also strong and he has had more quality coaching. But, you know that you're going to have a tall OL, year in and year out at your school and this kid has struggled with that. Do you go with the taller kid and hope that he's sharp enough to pick up on the progressions with some good coaching? Or do you go with the shorter kid who can probably walk straight into the system and do well if you can get him to slow down a bit? No easy answers here.. Easy, if I'm interested in keeping my job. If I bring in the 6'4" kid, and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered his fault. If I bring in the 6' kid and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered my fault. You are right, unfortunately it is one of the big problems in coaching (well, really in all sports); it is significantly worse to fail uniquely than to fail doing the same things everyone else does. Just do what everyone else is doing and try to do it better, because if you fail trying to do something different (even if that different thing is better) then you'll be shunned as some sort of crackpot.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 20, 2017 17:43:51 GMT -6
Easy, if I'm interested in keeping my job. If I bring in the 6'4" kid, and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered his fault. If I bring in the 6' kid and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered my fault. You are right, unfortunately it is one of the big problems in coaching (well, really in all sports); it is significantly worse to fail uniquely than to fail doing the same things everyone else does. Just do what everyone else is doing and try to do it better, because if you fail trying to do something different (even if that different thing is better) then you'll be shunned as some sort of crackpot. I liked the post because it is the truth. Not because I like the principle stated. It is a risk/reward situation. Get it right and you can become a guru. QB guru or recruiting guru. Or whatever. Mess up, and you might not have a job. But great things can be accomplished by taking a risk. Like running the wing t and kicking tail. LOL
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 21, 2017 7:13:07 GMT -6
Easy, if I'm interested in keeping my job. If I bring in the 6'4" kid, and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered his fault. If I bring in the 6' kid and he doesn't pan out, it will be considered my fault.
If it doesn't pan out, you're getting fired either way
Chances are, you're going to get canned if the 6'0'' kid doesn't produce as the administration is going to say "WHAT THE _ WERE YOU THINKING RECRUITING A SHOT QB?" With the taller kid, they'll simply claim that "he had all of the tools".
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 22, 2017 23:07:29 GMT -6
Statistically every national championship FBS team has had at least 50% of their roster made up of 4 or 5 star Is this right? I think there are only two 5 star qbs in the nation this year. Maybe 50% of their starters? By the way, I am asking. I don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 22, 2017 23:10:32 GMT -6
So 19 year old Nathan Rourke had a big day today in the 41-6 bowl win against a team that is 1 hour and 15 minutes from his high school. But again, he went juco.
Oh the irony.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Dec 23, 2017 8:49:48 GMT -6
Statistically every national championship FBS team has had at least 50% of their roster made up of 4 or 5 star Is this right? I think there are only two 5 star qbs in the nation this year. Maybe 50% of their starters? By the way, I am asking. I don’t know. Roster. Every National Championship team since 2005 has had at least 43 four or five star kids on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by gators41 on Jan 4, 2018 13:49:07 GMT -6
So, let's set up a hypothetical situation and put ourselves in the shoes of a college recruiter. You're looking hard at two possible QB recruits. All three are 6'1'' or taller, quick and have decent arms. The stand-out of the bunch is a 6'4'' kid with a cannon for an arm, is fast and athletic and his put up some decent stats over the last few seasons. But, his completion percentage is sub-par and his TD/INT ratio is ugly. The other kid is 6'0'' is just as quick and athletic as the 6'4'' kid and his stats are much better. Both kids have high GPAs, are multiple sport athletes and are involved heavily in the school and the community. So, you pour over film of the kids. You notice that the 6'4'' kid makes seriously poor decisions when reading his passing progression and tries to force a lot of throws. He's got two quality WRs on the team and seems to zero in on them, regardless of the coverage. And, there are times when the kid just flat screws-up his progression, regardless of the WR. So, this tells you why his TD/INT ratio is so chitty. You also notice that the only WRs that catch the ball consistently are the two described earlier; his other WRs and RBs drop the ball continually. Between watching the film and talking to the kid's HC, it becomes pretty clear that the coaching is questionable at this point. The kid is coming from a middle tier program that has had some serious success with this kid at the helm. This kid also does some fantastic things on film; he runs well with the ball on certain schemes, uses his feet well to avoid pressure on the pocket and makes plays happen. The 6'0'' kid's stats are out of this world and you KNOW the coaching is solid as he's coming from a perennial powerhouse. As you watch the film, you're impressed with the kid's athleticism, ability to read coverage and make good decisions. He's got a decent receiving corp that run quality routes, makes good catches, and gets the job done which obviously helps his stats. But, there are a few negatives that stand out on the film. First of all, the kid has a tendency to take off when he's pressured. He doesn't move around in the pocket and make plays with his arm; he sees pressure, he finds a running lane and he takes off. You talk to the HC about it and find out that the kid struggled to see over their OL at times so he got used to running with the ball as his speed was an advantage but his height wasn't. So, you've got some hard decisions to make as a recruiter. The 6'4'' kid is an athlete and there's no way around it. He's got a cannon for an arm but you have to wonder if how he is going to develop in your school's offensive system given that he hasn't been coached very well. The shorter kid is an athlete as well, his arm is also strong and he has had more quality coaching. But, you know that you're going to have a tall OL, year in and year out at your school and this kid has struggled with that. Do you go with the taller kid and hope that he's sharp enough to pick up on the progressions with some good coaching? Or do you go with the shorter kid who can probably walk straight into the system and do well if you can get him to slow down a bit? No easy answers here.. It seems like the programs that could benefit the most from this kind of thinking are the tweeners, that could theoretically catch a break for recruiting an undersized kid. Or be like Belicheck and do whats right for the program, but you have to win now.
|
|
|
Post by gators41 on Jan 5, 2018 7:07:19 GMT -6
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canadafootballchat.com%2Fncaa-2017-bowl-schedule-nathan-rourke-julian-laurent-neville-gallimore-and-chase-claypool-highlight-large-group-of-canadians-down-south%2F Vick breaks the mold doesnt he?
|
|
|
Post by YoungDumbCoach on Jan 5, 2018 7:26:24 GMT -6
Don’t know if anyone has said this yet, probably so but you cant teach BFS. I can teach a kid who to throw to and when to throw the ball, as a coach i am paid to do that. Can’t teach 6-4, 225 with a cannon arm. I want to start with the Porsche and supe it up, not a Prius.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 5, 2018 9:14:20 GMT -6
Don’t know if anyone has said this yet, probably so but you cant teach BFS. I can teach a kid who to throw to and when to throw the ball, as a coach i am paid to do that. Can’t teach 6-4, 225 with a cannon arm. I want to start with the Porsche and supe it up, not a Prius. no doubt measurabales matter. But as long as someone is within acceptable measures, there is a good argument that his performance should count for more. And this is the rub. There are plenty of stories like Emmitt Smith and Jerry Rice not being super fast but still being Hall of Fame. But it isn’t like those guys were small weak and slow. They just weren't the absolute BFS. But, for a qb, I think measurables matter the least of any position. Intagibles are much more important as long as the measurables are acceptable.
|
|