Techbert
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 26,432
I would not be shocked if the 2021 recruiting ranking is lower than 2020's, and I think that is natural and has nothing to do with going backwards in effort and results. Hear me out.
Last year, we set targets for number at each position and we worked it hard. But it did not matter what flavor at each position we got, within limits. We wanted the best qb or two. The best rb or two. The best wr or four, and so on. We needed EVERYTHING. Any player at the required position was going to help.
I don't think we went for the best players we MIGHT get. I think we went for the best players we PROBABLY would get. Cuz missing would leave real holes on the field in a couple of years.
This year, it looks like we set more specific positional targets, designed to fill in the gaps of last year's class. This is true within the position we go after. Rutherford, for example, is very different in what he offers from last year's receivers. So if the highest ranked receivers this year are a certain style of leggy wr, and they usually are, we will only get partial credit for getting a quick slot back and return specialist. We got the leggy wr's last year.
We did well enough last year across the board to afford signing a punter. We're not going to get full recruiting credit for an Irish punter.
We go developmental, which is what we claim our program is, and go after a high ceiling developmental project like Biggers.
We like position flexibility. We go after some hybrid players. It's not enough to get tight ends. We go after different tight ends. So is a guy a wr or te? The services don't know. We may not even know, despite what we say. If you cannot fit your measurables and skill set in a cookie-cutter positional box, you will not get full credit from the recruiting services.
Every year Bill Belichick was told he had a sub-par NFL draft. Logan Mankins in the first round? What's that about? But he went after the players that made his team better, not the players the pundits ranked the highest. So after enough titles, the pundits just started praising the Belichick picks, even though they were not anywhere near the top of the pundits' pre-draft rankings. It was not that Belichick scouted better. He doesn't. It was that Belichick worried about building a TEAM and not a collection of athletes.
I think 2022 is when we get the unbelievably high recruiting rankings. 2019 was about getting anything we could after the coaching change. 2020 was about rebalancing our roster and upgrading our overall talent level. 2021 is about filling in the gaps from 2020, and still playing it a bit safe. 2022 will be about swinging for the fences cuz if we miss a few and leave a few ships on the table we won't have a non-P5 player on the field because of those misses. And for the very best athletes you need time to percolate those relationships.
I had real issues with our last HFC, but I never beat up on him because our offensive players were not highly ranked by the services. His offensive recruiting had to be judged on what he needed, not on what the recruiting services look for. The same is true now, just not nearly as drastically.
Last year, we set targets for number at each position and we worked it hard. But it did not matter what flavor at each position we got, within limits. We wanted the best qb or two. The best rb or two. The best wr or four, and so on. We needed EVERYTHING. Any player at the required position was going to help.
I don't think we went for the best players we MIGHT get. I think we went for the best players we PROBABLY would get. Cuz missing would leave real holes on the field in a couple of years.
This year, it looks like we set more specific positional targets, designed to fill in the gaps of last year's class. This is true within the position we go after. Rutherford, for example, is very different in what he offers from last year's receivers. So if the highest ranked receivers this year are a certain style of leggy wr, and they usually are, we will only get partial credit for getting a quick slot back and return specialist. We got the leggy wr's last year.
We did well enough last year across the board to afford signing a punter. We're not going to get full recruiting credit for an Irish punter.
We go developmental, which is what we claim our program is, and go after a high ceiling developmental project like Biggers.
We like position flexibility. We go after some hybrid players. It's not enough to get tight ends. We go after different tight ends. So is a guy a wr or te? The services don't know. We may not even know, despite what we say. If you cannot fit your measurables and skill set in a cookie-cutter positional box, you will not get full credit from the recruiting services.
Every year Bill Belichick was told he had a sub-par NFL draft. Logan Mankins in the first round? What's that about? But he went after the players that made his team better, not the players the pundits ranked the highest. So after enough titles, the pundits just started praising the Belichick picks, even though they were not anywhere near the top of the pundits' pre-draft rankings. It was not that Belichick scouted better. He doesn't. It was that Belichick worried about building a TEAM and not a collection of athletes.
I think 2022 is when we get the unbelievably high recruiting rankings. 2019 was about getting anything we could after the coaching change. 2020 was about rebalancing our roster and upgrading our overall talent level. 2021 is about filling in the gaps from 2020, and still playing it a bit safe. 2022 will be about swinging for the fences cuz if we miss a few and leave a few ships on the table we won't have a non-P5 player on the field because of those misses. And for the very best athletes you need time to percolate those relationships.
I had real issues with our last HFC, but I never beat up on him because our offensive players were not highly ranked by the services. His offensive recruiting had to be judged on what he needed, not on what the recruiting services look for. The same is true now, just not nearly as drastically.
