Well I guess we got enough receivers.

During his senior season Quentin Sims would help the Colerain Cardinals advance in the Ohio Division One (Big School)playoffs losing in the Region 4 Championships to future state champion St. Xavier High School.

Sims, who would see his season start with him playing wide receiver soon found himself in the middle of the action replacing the teams starting quarterback after an injury would force him to miss the rest of the season.

Colerain, one of Ohio's top prep programs was a key weapon for the Cardinals the past two seasons and should find himself as a wide receiver at Buffalo.
Click to expand...

http://georgiatech.scout.com/a.z?s=140&p=2&c=718229

Ooookaaay. Dude is a six foot four WR/QB. Maybe he's fast? What were his QB stats in HS? Evidentally they were an option team. Here's all I could find on Scout:

* Cincinnati Colerain blanked Columbus Brookhaven 70-0. Colerain backup QB Quentin Sims gained 120 yards on seven carries and scored two TDs. Eugene Clifford tallied on a 12-yard TD run and also had an 85-yard interception return for a score.
Click to expand...
http://georgiatech.scout.com/a.z?s=140&p=2&c=564640


Hrmm.

Need more info on this dude.
 
Don't know anything about him, but Colerain is a big football school up here.
 
oh noes!!!!1111oneoneone!! We're competing with Buffalo for recruits???!?!?!?!!!!!?!!

Going ahead and getting that out of the way in this thread...
 
a few tidbits on him:

1) He played at a powerhouse program in Ohio
2) He started the season at WR and TB...but switched to QB after their starter got hurt...so his time was split all over
3) They run the same offense PJ does
4) He supposedly runs a 4.5
5) Virginia offered him last week...same time that we did.
 
I'm noticing that just about all of PJ's recruits are under-the-radar guys. I know we said that about Chan, but it really does seem like every one of his guys was offered by the big guys right after PJ found out about them.
 
floridajacket said:
I'm noticing that just about all of PJ's recruits are under-the-radar guys. I know we said that about Chan, but it really does seem like every one of his guys was offered by the big guys right after PJ found out about them.
Click to expand...

Was it this board where someone posted the analysis correlating performance with recruiting? It was very thorough over an extended period and closely examined all schools that our performed or under performed relative to recruiting. It also only counted games between BCS conference teams to correct for the cupcake games.

FWIW, GT was a school that had outperformed its recruiting by a decent percentage. So the conclusion is either that the coaches imrpoved the players they got or were better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services. (I think it was more of the latter IMO.)

The conclusion of the study was (surprise) that for the most part there was a HIGH correlation between recruiting and on field success.

Found the link:
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228


Excerpt:
"Boston College, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech and Oregon State have a much stronger record as “overachievers” – they play more higher-ranked teams and are all at about .500 against that “superior” talent. Wake Forest is on pace to join that group after the last two seasons, especially if the ACC remains so friendly to conservative, defensive teams, but like their fellow recruiting bottom-dwellers in the Big East, their success is a result of beating teams in the middle of the pack, almost never (Wake’s two-year streak over Florida State, one of the real underachievers, is an exception) against teams at the top."
 
Last edited:
Good Athlete!

This guy is a real good athlete. He has two things you can not teach, speed (4.5) and he is 6'4" tall. Coming in at 190, you could see this guy easily getting up to the 230 range. Probably a redshirt this year but with some growth, he could play a number of positions, WR, running back, line backer, defensive back and even QB where he has some triple option experience.

I think he is the kind of player you can mold to fit the programs needs. Those are usually the types that may not be super stars but they provide the glue to make a team more effective.

Sounds like a solid pick up to me.

Go Jackets!
 
floridajacket said:
I'm noticing that just about all of PJ's recruits are under-the-radar guys. I know we said that about Chan, but it really does seem like every one of his guys was offered by the big guys right after PJ found out about them.
Click to expand...
The point is that PJ got a late start and has done a very good job identifying guys who have the body and athletic skills even if they don't have the big reputations. Plus you will notice that most were getting interest/offers from other BCS schools about the same time we were getting involved. I guess the real question is why someone would expect a coach who started during the quiet period to somehow make inroads with recruits who had been recruited for 2 years by the factories? We've got a good class coming in...probably better than any of Chan's with the exception of last year. The real test will be next recruiting season.
 
Both Sims and the guy from MLK are WRs from powerhouse teams.They both are athletes doing more than just receive since both have fairly avg stats for receiving.
So you can look at them 2 ways.Are they a real reason that their team is a powerhouse or they are just "carried along" by the other talent on their team.
Only time will tell on these.Probably odds are one will be a impact player for us down the road but in general you can not have a recruiting class full of these guys.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Was it this board where someone posted the analysis correlating performance with recruiting? It was very thorough over an extended period and closely examined all schools that our performed or under performed relative to recruiting. It also only counted games between BCS conference teams to correct for the cupcake games.

FWIW, GT was a school that had outperformed its recruiting by a decent percentage. So the conclusion is either that the coaches imrpoved the players they got or were better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services. (I think it was more of the latter IMO.)

The conclusion of the study was (surprise) that for the most part there was a HIGH correlation between recruiting and on field success.

Found the link:
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228


Excerpt:
"Boston College, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech and Oregon State have a much stronger record as “overachievers” – they play more higher-ranked teams and are all at about .500 against that “superior” talent. Wake Forest is on pace to join that group after the last two seasons, especially if the ACC remains so friendly to conservative, defensive teams, but like their fellow recruiting bottom-dwellers in the Big East, their success is a result of beating teams in the middle of the pack, almost never (Wake’s two-year streak over Florida State, one of the real underachievers, is an exception) against teams at the top."
Click to expand...

I came away from that article seeing that the very cream of the crop of the recruiting rankings, top 5 or so, performed very well while it was relatively a crapshoot after that. Somehow, for example, Syracuse and WVU have, until recently, been close in the rankings with extremely different results. That's why I just can't get up in arms about finishing 40th in the rankings as opposed to 30th.
 
AlaGold said:
Probably odds are one will be a impact player for us down the road but in general you can not have a recruiting class full of these guys.
Click to expand...
I think the real point AlaGold is we don't have a class filled with those type of guys....and we won't in the fiuture. But it's worth taking a shot at good athletes from good programs when you have 'ships available to finish off a class. If we have 25 blue chippers next year, we won't take that kind of kid. But for now, why not?
 
AlaGold said:
Both Sims and the guy from MLK are WRs from powerhouse teams.They both are athletes doing more than just receive since both have fairly avg stats for receiving.
So you can look at them 2 ways.Are they a real reason that their team is a powerhouse or they are just "carried along" by the other talent on their team.
Only time will tell on these.Probably odds are one will be a impact player for us down the road but in general you can not have a recruiting class full of these guys.
Click to expand...

i agree. I always come from the thought if you come from a VERY visible high school program like they did, and one has no D1A offers and the other has marginal D1A offers (buffalo); that tells you something IMO. If they came from a small middle of nowhere school...then ok...flying under the radar...but from ultra visible schools its odd to have misses IMO.

With that said they come from a position on this offense that doesn't really matter, and how knows they may be very good players that somehow were over looked on 11-1 major teams for reasons such as run oriented offenses.

One did get a UVA offer late....good to see!

But I agree. You cannot build a program on these types of players and compete with top 10 status. Period. B/c with these types, there are more misses than hits, than with big time prospects, which also has its misses, but when a big timer misses he is usually a starter or key backup just not a star. When a small timer misses he hardly sees the field. THAT is the difference in depth vs quality depth. You need to have many good to great prospects sprinkled with chances. THAT is what this class has...so its a good start...next year is key.
 
I think we're taking this guy as our emergency backup option QB, and I think he's a good pickup for that reason.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Was it this board where someone posted the analysis correlating performance with recruiting? It was very thorough over an extended period and closely examined all schools that our performed or under performed relative to recruiting. It also only counted games between BCS conference teams to correct for the cupcake games.

FWIW, GT was a school that had outperformed its recruiting by a decent percentage. So the conclusion is either that the coaches imrpoved the players they got or were better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services. (I think it was more of the latter IMO.)

The conclusion of the study was (surprise) that for the most part there was a HIGH correlation between recruiting and on field success.

Found the link:
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228


Excerpt:
"Boston College, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech and Oregon State have a much stronger record as “overachievers” – they play more higher-ranked teams and are all at about .500 against that “superior” talent. Wake Forest is on pace to join that group after the last two seasons, especially if the ACC remains so friendly to conservative, defensive teams, but like their fellow recruiting bottom-dwellers in the Big East, their success is a result of beating teams in the middle of the pack, almost never (Wake’s two-year streak over Florida State, one of the real underachievers, is an exception) against teams at the top."
Click to expand...

What a fantastic article. Excellent evidence that the SEC's recruiting ratings are overrated. I'd say the services are just marketing to their rabid fans.

And the article further proves that the boys from the Institute represent!!

Where are all the dawg lurkers when the truth is revealed...
 
ramblinwise1 said:
What a fantastic article. Excellent evidence that the SEC's recruiting ratings are overrated. I'd say the services are just marketing to their rabid fans.

And the article further proves that the boys from the Institute represent!!

Where are all the dawg lurkers when the truth is revealed...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure they reached that conclusion. Most of the SEC teams "underperforming" was attributed to competition. It is hard to get a good W/L record when competing with other schools ranked higher than you in recruiting.

On the surface, about half the teams performed as expected, half under performed and half over performed. But most of the over and under performing teams can be attributed to schedule (playing a disproportionate number of teams above or below you in recruiting.)

"It's not groundbreaking because it's obvously true: Good teams are good because they recruit good players, and recruiting rankings are more accurate than their reputation in which players are likely to be good, and to what extent. It’s not perfect, but it’s not random. What the gurus get wrong pales in comparison to what they get right, "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top