If we nuance our blowout in the Cotton then we should mention that NW had it at 24-31 in the 4th qtr.
2020 Recruiting Update
- Thread starter IrishInOntario
- Start date
If we nuance our blowout in the Cotton then we should mention that NW had it at 24-31 in the 4th qtr.
That's fine. ND wasn't a ton better than Northwestern on that night in Evanston. No shame in that. They're a respectable team... They got demolished by Ohio State, however, and Clemson would have ate them alive, worse than what they did to ND.
My point is that ND isn't going to beat the top dogs landing undersized offensive linemen that those teams weren't interested in. They'll beat them by landing and developing their fare share of creatures those desperately want.
I get your point IIO. Still, I also think you’re being too harsh on prospects like Skoronski and Priebe. And too narrow in what you’re looking for in 17 year old OLM. Maybe you should read the 247 article. It was very thorough in their evaluation of these prospects. One projects to be a 6-4 305 lb. OC. The other a 6-5 315 lb. OG. Both are exceptionally lean, athletic and nasty. Capable of playing any position along the line. And their 3rd mate will play at 6-6 320+. Up from his current 290 lbs. Probably at OG. So NU is recruiting to what you’re looking for. Just going about it in a more realistic way for who they are. Other schools like Iowa and Wisconsin have been very successful using this developmental model.
As an aside, you must not have watched the NU vs OSU game. The LOS was not the problem for NU. And it was a one score game with 9 minutes to go in the game. Hardly the crushing, call off the dogs type game you described. Like Clemson, OSU beat teams with good enough OL play and exceptional skill players ... most notably at QB. Clemson was the better team because of its defense and coaching. Urban Meyer coached OSU teams were not well coached his last 2-3 years.
Good luck in 2019.
GOUNUII
Good luck to you on 2019 as well. I have lots of respect for the Northwestern program and what your coach has built there.
I'm not refuting the fact that Skoronski has a chance to be a good player. Heck, maybe Wiltfong is right and he's even a future NFL'er if his development goes as well as you hope. I simply see a player that is 3 years away from being able to compete for an job at a school like ND and who can only play one position. ND already took a kid in last cycle whi is built like that, in Zeke Correll, who like Skoronski, was a 6'3, 270lb high school senior. At least Zeke had Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, Michigan, etc, etc offers. He was a nationally ranked, top 100 recruit, with better film than Skoronski, playing against better competition in Ohio. That kid showed up at Notre Dame and looked tiny. Nowhere near ready to compete. ND doesn't need that player two years in a row...
ND needs to get to the point (and they're close) that a guy like Robert Hainsey, their all conference caliber right tackle, is is their starting center. A kid that will play at 6'5, 310lbs this year. Hainsey is the perfect size for a modern center, with tackle feet... Meanwhile, Aaron Banks, their 6'5.5, 325lb LG, who can also move, is what they're looking for in guards. As for tackles, 6'6+, with frames to be 320+lbs is the new goal.
Their left tackle now, Liam Eichenberg, is 6'6 and on his way to 320lbs. Their prized left tackle recruit in the 2020 class is 6'7, 280lb Tosh Baker, who projects well over 310lbs when he stops playing basketball. Elite level athlete for that size. In 2021 they have 6'6, 330lb Blake Fisher committed. Kid is an absolute monster and he's still two growth years away from stepping onto Notre Dame's campus. They also lead for 6'6, 310lb Landon Tengwall, again, 2 growth years away from getting to Notre Dame and they're trying to land Nolan Rucci, who Penn State leads for. He's 6'8, 270lbs right now, and in the same class as Tengwall and Fisher. All of the guys I just mentioned are / were upper half of the top 100, national recruits, with 30+ offers and all the big time programs pursuing them as suitors.
It's not that I have anything against Skoronski, I simply see a 6'3, 270lb kid and say "meh" by comparison.
Last edited:
The osu-n’wstrn game was not at all a “call the dogs off” type of game. Any time osu appeared to take control, n’wstrn would score to tighten things up. It was 24-21 late in the 3rd when a fluke INT set up osu in nwstrn territory. It was 31-24 w/ 9 minutes to go. Couldn’t get over the hump though as osu scored 2 late tds.
I probably did not articulate what I was getting at well. Ohio State could do whatever they wanted to on offense in that game. Their defense was average (as was the case the entire season) but there was nothing that Northwestern could do to slow down their offense.
Dwayne Haskins was 44-51, 499 yards passing with 5 passing touchdowns. One of the best performances of the season by a quarterback. The Northwestern defensive line and secondary didn't stand a chance. The Ohio State OL outclassed them significantly.
On the other side, Ohio State's average-to-bad defense had 6 sacks and 9 TFL's, leading to 2 Thorson interceptions. Ohio State's front outclassed the Northwestern front considerably.
My point is that I want ND to go after and the land the guys coveted by the likes of Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Georgia, not the guys that get whipped up front anytime they play legitimate talent.
What it comes down to is that I don't want 6'3 offensive lineman that will struggle to get to and play above 300lbs, unless they show the type of cruelty on film that a guy like Jeff Faine did. Tell me what a guy Skoronski's size is supposed to do in a playoff game against Clemson's 6'4, 320+lb, athletic defensive interior. You need guys the size of Alex Bars, Quenton Nelson, Aaron Banks, Landon Tengwall and Blake Fisher. DUDES that can move people.
Take a look at the Georgia offensive line. It'll be the best in the country this year, without question... The smallest of the guys that play along that front is All American, soon to be first round draft pick, LT Andrew Thomas, who is 6'5, 325lbs. Their center, Trey Hill is 6'4, 330lbs. The other 3 starters are 6'6, 345lbs, 6'6, 341lbs and 6'4, 336lbs.
“I probably did not articulate what I was getting at well. Ohio State could do whatever they wanted to on offense in that game. Their defense was average (as was the case the entire season) but there was nothing that Northwestern could do to slow down their offense.”
Agreed that Haskins and the osu offense were great, but that’s different than saying OSU “demolished” them & OSU “called off the dogs”. Neither happened. As for the rest of your post, I know very well that you’re all about the measurables. Exclusively, I’m not. Of course size & measurables are important, but unless there’s a huge disparity, I wanna know if the guy can play or not, and I could care less about his shuttle run and arm length. You’ve said many times that you’ve been wrong about recruits both positively and negatively in the past, as has everyone. Maybe the ones you’re getting wrong are the ones that have all the measurables you want but have no football instinct and vice versa, some of the ones you think don’t stack up measurables-wise, have the intangibles that make up a great player. I guess that’s why it’s so hard to evaluate players, even the ones at the highest levels get it wrong all the time.
Agreed that Haskins and the osu offense were great, but that’s different than saying OSU “demolished” them & OSU “called off the dogs”. Neither happened. As for the rest of your post, I know very well that you’re all about the measurables. Exclusively, I’m not. Of course size & measurables are important, but unless there’s a huge disparity, I wanna know if the guy can play or not, and I could care less about his shuttle run and arm length. You’ve said many times that you’ve been wrong about recruits both positively and negatively in the past, as has everyone. Maybe the ones you’re getting wrong are the ones that have all the measurables you want but have no football instinct and vice versa, some of the ones you think don’t stack up measurables-wise, have the intangibles that make up a great player. I guess that’s why it’s so hard to evaluate players, even the ones at the highest levels get it wrong all the time.
It's extremely hard to evaluate players. That said, certain factors will lead you to the answer the MAJORITY of the time and I think that's all we can really ask for, IMO.
What it comes down to for me is this. Which player would you rather take in volume? In this case, both are offensive lineman and high school seniors.
Player #1.
Height: 6'5+
Weight: 310lbs+
Best offers: Alabama, Notre Dame, Clemson, Oklahoma, Michigan, Georgia, Texas... 30+ offers.
Ranking: Consensus top 100-150 player. Composite top 100 player.
Camp Circuit: Showed well at every major camp. Was invited to National Camps and All Star games and ranged from impressing to dominating.
Film: Elite film. Plays against top competition and dominates both as a run blocker and a pass blocker.
Player #2
Height: 6'3
Weight: 270lbs
Best Offers: Notre Dame, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern... 10'ish offers.
Rankings: Consensus top 400 player. Composite ranked closer to #200 than #100.
Camp Circuit: Participated and showed well at regional camps but was not invited to national camps. Did not dominate vs top national competition. Not invited to any of the All Star games.
Film: Quality film. Competition is lacking some and is obviously one of the best players on the field but doesn't jump off the film as dominating.
Personally, player #1 checks as many of the boxes as possible in terms of the type of player you'd like to recruit in volume. Notre Dame has the ability to do that along the offensive line. Player #2 checks some of the boxes but comes off short (no pun intended) in a number as well.
Surely there are intangibles to consider as well and those are difficult to measure. I just don't see why ND should go down their board any when it comes to OL recruiting. No need to force it.
Both their commits this year have a chance to be top end guys and have position flexibility. All of the guys they are targeting in 2020 are nationally ranked, prototype athletes, with position flexibility and national offer lists.
There are some positions where Notre Dame has to take some chances on from time to time. Offensive line is not one of them, they should go after the best guys that are available.
I’m not talking about what ND should do, we’ve been able to land some top notch o-line recruits under Kelly, I’m just talking about how many times the above comparison ends up being wrong. It happens a lot because some are enamored more-so w/ the measurables than performance. In a hoops comparison, there are so many duds drafted because they can run and jump, but when they get to playing against the elite in the NBA, you either need an excellent skill set or a combination of athleticism w/ decent to good skills, rarely do the ‘combine’ phenoms w/ below average skills make it, but GMs take a chance on them way too often because they are, imo, over-enamored w/ the measurables. Jmo.
Does the above comparion end up being wrong a lot of the time if all the boxes are checked?
When a recruit has...
1. All the top offers
2. A top 100 composite ranking
3. Prototype measurables
4. Elite film
5. Elite camp production
Is that player a bust often compared to the thousands of undersized, lowly ranked players with worse film, a mediocre offer list by comparison and no elite production at top camps?
I'm not being a smart ass, I just genuinely believe that player #1 winds up being a better player than player #2 exponentially more times than not, which is why the same handful of teams dominate college football... Their rosters are littered with "player 1's", while Northwestern, a proud program who does an great job of developing but winds ups 7-5, 8-4 and 9-3 has a roster fill of "player #2s".
Yes. Contrary to those who say Kelly beats only duds, we beat a division winner last year. If your like me and just have time to glance at the helmets: NU should expect to finish 4th behind Iowa, Wiscy, and the other NU.
OT: many voices are chirping about how the BUG 10 needs to realign its divisions again. I don't think they would be allowed to make this much smoke without fire.
How many coaches have put multiple productive QBs in the league? Honest question here.
Nobody is asking that they be productive, BK has put 1 QB in the league in over a decade. A QB that he didn't give the starting job until an injury and a QB that arguably regressed his 2nd year.
There really is no arguing, he's handled the QB position extremely poorly and it's been a thorn in his side since he was hired at Notre Dame.
“Does the above comparion end up being wrong a lot of the time if all the boxes are checked?”
No idea cuz I don’t follow it that closely but are you saying that all 5 stars that check all the boxes all live up to the hype? I say far from it. The star gazers are wrong a lot, way more than the NFL, and they get it wrong all the time.
No idea cuz I don’t follow it that closely but are you saying that all 5 stars that check all the boxes all live up to the hype? I say far from it. The star gazers are wrong a lot, way more than the NFL, and they get it wrong all the time.
I’m not arguing against taking 5 stars, btw. I’m just pointing out that evaluating a player and projecting their success is a tricky thing and even the experts get it wrong often. All you need to do is look at the nfl draft to see the that. There’s GMs are risking millions and they still miss all the time.
Sure hope the experts are wrong about all this star-ratings stuff or we're in for a long season...!
Check out all of the guys who are starting/playing at 3* (or less!)
1. Ian Book, 2. Jafar Armstrong, Tony Jones, 3. Jarrett Patterson, 4. Finke, 5. Hinnish, 6. MTA, 7. Owusu, Moala, 8. Gillman, Genmark Heath.... (That is 8 out of 22 starters who are 3* or less, Gillmann was a 2* and Finke was unranked!)
Kinda the "Little Giants"....
Check out all of the guys who are starting/playing at 3* (or less!)
1. Ian Book, 2. Jafar Armstrong, Tony Jones, 3. Jarrett Patterson, 4. Finke, 5. Hinnish, 6. MTA, 7. Owusu, Moala, 8. Gillman, Genmark Heath.... (That is 8 out of 22 starters who are 3* or less, Gillmann was a 2* and Finke was unranked!)
Kinda the "Little Giants"....
Last edited:
It should be intuitively obvious by now in the year 2019 with all the data and studies and databases that go back nearly 20 years that the higher the rated the recruit the higher the performance on aggregate. and the correlation gets exponentially higher as the rating of the recruit goes up.
No matter the credibility of the poster, no matter the logic of the argument..why are veteran respected posters having to post the same f****** obvious arguments over and over and over and over again?
There are some real hard heads that simply cannot see beyond their own bias in this fan base and it gets frustrating as hell having to revert back to debates with Notre Dame fans that were over and settled with the rest of the college football world 10+ years ago.
Last edited:
Here is something that gets overlooked among fans pretty often. Number 1 ,3,4,5 on your list begets #2 on your list
For example if a prospect has dominant camp performance, has all the top offers, has elite measurables, has elite film, etc. That is pretty easy to notice and recruiting analysts that do the scouting reports consider all of that in their ratings of recruits.
basically an analyst that does ratinngs is considering all information available on that prospect and all of that information goes into the prospects rating. And then when you look at the composite rating it is three different staffs average rating of the recruit which is about as Good As it gets in terms of prospecting a player's potential.
These systems are of course not perfect but it is the best available information that the public has on the quality of the prospect.
there always going to be outliers/overlooked prospects that turn into Stars and overrated prospects that turn into duds ,but in general, if a program secures a higher rated recruit the odds are good (with all else equal) that that recruit is going to eventually produce more than a lesser rated recruit.
I'm not really saying anything new here but just wanted to expand on your excellent post.
Last edited:
How many bama qbs start in the nfl? Might still be true but im pretty sure the football giants at ncsu have the most qbs starting in the nfl and at some points have 4 (rivers, brissett, mclenon, wilson). Its possible 5 start games this year with rookie Finley. They have had over 6 ocs and three head coaches and none had a 60% win percentage and none have ever won the acc with any of those qbs. Putting qbs into the nfl pretty much in no way equates to national titles.
Ill take the ultra talented guys nd gets and the chances a a naty that bk brings over ncsu's results anyday
Last edited:
I'm with you on this one...
The idea that Brian Kelly ruins quarterbacks or that the quarterback position is porous under Brian Kelly has to be one of the biggest misconceptions among the Notre Dame fan base that there is.
In fact I see it as the complete opposite. Outside of Oklahoma and maybe Mike Leach at Washington State I'm not sure there is a better quarterback program / coach than Brian Kelly..and this dates back to his time at Cincinnati as well.
No matter the suspensions, the injuries, the rating of the recruit, B.K is always turning out solid to great quarterback production, which is probably the most difficult and crucial position on the football field to fill. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why despite all the other issues in the program BK is able to consistently win 8 or 9 plus games.
Tommy Rees, Ian Book, Kizer, all over performed their profiles, and then in years where new starters had to be broken in at QB there is very little drop off.
Kelly's best coaching job maybe in his entire career at Notre Dame has to be those years in between Jimmy Clausen and Deshone Kizer. The cupboard was bare as hell at quarterback during that time (bad recruiting, injuries, suspensions, etc.) and Notre Dame was able to get really solid QB play to keep the program respectable. After so many years of consistent success at the position, Brian Kelly and staff now have their pick of the litter at QB. I don't remember the last time they haven't received a commitment from a top 100/high-4-star recruit at the position.
The QB position is right up there with offensive line in terms of it being the least of Notre Dame's problems
Last edited:
There was a week a few years back where Purdue had three QBs starting on the same day in the NFL (Brees, Painter, Orton), which was the most by anybody.
Is this a joke? Notre Dame NEEDS talented QB play to compete for titles, Alabama doesn't. They have enough talent in other spots to compete without it Notre Dame doesn't. Even then Bama has had multiple QBs drafted under Saban and Tua will be an early 1st round pick when he comes out and should be the best yet.
Brian Kelly has had 1 in his entire career and Kizer didn't even get the job until Zaire got injured, who knows if he would've ever gotten the chance. Brian Kelly has not handled the QB situation well and every QB he's had time with has regressed, we'll see what happens with Book.
It isn't that hard to have multiple QBs drafted, plenty of teams have done it and I'm not writing all of them out, it will take forever. Hell Charlie Weis in his short time got more QBs drafted than BK.
Notre Dame to actually win titles will have to be like Clemson under Watson, they will have to rely on talented QB play to close the talent gap at other positions. Because while they're not Bama, they do get talented guys at QB that can make a difference. They just need a coach that can develop them and an OC that knows what the helll he's doing.
a lot of programs are looking for some Superstar transcendent quarterback to carry their talent lacking roster to a national title. You are absolutely correct in that Notre Dame needs that kind of player at QB, but I think it's unfair to hold the coach accountable to finding that guy. It's like finding a needle in a haystack (literally), which is why ND "just" needs to find a coach that can close the talent gap the more realistic (yet very challenging) way: by recruiting it 1-85 on the roster
Last edited:
He's not even getting guys drafted at the position, that's a major issue whether you want to admit it or not.
I've already conceited Notre Dame will never recruit like Bama again. Not until they make some changes within the program. Alabama is a win at all costs football factory and Notre Dame refuses to be that. Their best chance is like Clemson 2016 where they recruit decent talent with a star QB to take them over the top. Brian Kelly has done a terrible job of that and it's shown in big games.
that's every programs best chance that has a roster with less talented players on it.
Where you concede that Notre Dame will never recruit like bama I look to the Charlie Weis years where Notre Dame was pretty damn close for three seasons. Don't underestimate the impact a motivated hungry ambitious coaching staff can have in terms of moving the needle on the talent Gap; yes even at Notre Dame.
we've had Brian Kelly and his boring-ass vanilla mid-teens recruiting classes for almost a decade now. Notre Dame fans forget what it's like securing the nation's best prospects at their position in abundance despite Notre Dame recruiting those type of players successfully throughout the majority of their history.
finding the next DeShaun Watson is probably less likely than Notre Dame firing Brian Kelly and getting a coaching staff in here that can close the talent gap on the recruiting trail (as crazy and unlikely as that sounds).
There is a reason DeShaun Watson is DeShaun Watson and Vince Young is Vince Young and Cam Newton is Cam Newton those are generational type talents that are extremely rare and about as likely to develop in your program as it is to win the lotto.
Last edited:
Okay, under Charlie Weis how many defensive linemen did Notre Dame get drafted in the first round? What about DBs? Clemson just sent 3 in the first round and probably recruited 3 more.
Notre Dame is always going to be at a talent disadvantage compared to the very top end football factories(OSU, Bama, Clemson). That's the way it is going to be until they lower their academic standards (so they can recruit everyone), and not be afraid to throw some money around. These top end kids don't want to go 3+ states away for academics and cold weather, they just don't.
That being said, Notre Dame has still underachieved, I'm not denying that. 0 major bowl wins is a joke, 1 QB that has made the next level is a joke, and BK only has like 1 win over a top 10 team in his tenure. Also a joke. Ultimately I agree that Notre Dame can do better, just not THAT much better.
Notre Dame was recruiting the best prospects in the country in abundance up and down the roster between 2006 and 2008. Notre Dame was a recruiting powerhouse on the level of current Alabama through most of the 20th century. I think people have recency bias...it's easy to overlook the hundred 25 year history of a program and focus on the last 10 years which have been under Brian Kelly. Trust me, if for say hypothetically Urban Meyer were to take over at Notre Dame tomorrow do you think he would have any problem securing top five classes and returning Notre Dame back to the recruiting powerhouse that it has been over its history? Of course not
So if he can do it that means another hungry ambitious hard-working coaching staff full of great recruiters can do it here too
Last edited:
Also I'm on the road right now and having to use my mobile device to post. I apologize for the typos and rough grammar hopefully I could still make a clear point despite having to fight the auto correct and voice transcription on my phone
Last edited:
You didn't answer my question, how many DBs and defensive linemen did Weis recruit that were first round picks? Those are typically Notre Dame's biggest talent disadvantage is those 2 positions.
Urban Meyer would recruit well at Notre Dame for sure, he still wouldn't be securing the best class in the country every year like Alabama is. I would love to have Urban Meyer by the way, he's miles better than Kelly will ever be.
Almost every program has position groups they struggle to recruit. Even the juggernauts who consistently recruit in the top five. If you give a good coach top five classes to work with, even if those classes are heavy at certain positions and weaker at others, successful coaches are magicians at tailoring their system to maximize the strengths on the roster , and minimizing its weaknesses. Even programs rich in talent like Alabama and other recruiting powerhouses have to do that very same thing now.
From a pure talent development standpoint and leadership standpoint and even an X's and O's standpoint I think Brian Kelly is every bit as good as the best coaches in the country
What he lacks and it is a huge lack is the recruiting chops of those elite programs and those elite coaches
I don't know if it is just pure arrogance on his part where he thinks he can just X's and O's his way to a national title and doesn't have to sell out like those coaches do for the best talent, or if he simply doesn't have the salesmanship to get those players to sign or if it's all the institutional/bureaucratic b******* at Notre Dame that makes it impossible for him to do so.
whatever the case, it is a huge area of weakness that is handicapping the hell out of the program and capping its upside
Last edited:
Notre Dame has a disadvantage in recruiting that is impossible to overcome at those 2 positions, nothing is going to change that. Alabama/Clemson ect.. don't have that disadvantage, that alone puts them behind those schools. I agree that Brian Kelly could recruit better than he has (the 2019 class was an absolute disappointment) just like missing on Walker Little and Foster Sarrel the year before was.
I 100% disagree about the part where you think he's an elite coach, it isn't like Notre Dame doesn't get more talent than 90% of the other teams and he's done absolutely nothing with it. They don't show up in key spots, and they never look prepared/ready to play in tough environments.
David Shaw at Stanford has absolutely owned him and accomplished more with even tougher academic standards. Brian Kelly is what he is, a decent coach, and an okay recruiter. Nothing more nothing less.
in the early half of David Shaw's career I would agree with you, but Kelly has surpassed him in the latter half of his career and Shaw is a pretty good coach. but that has probably more to do with a decline in Shaw's program than an increase in Kelly's program but the point still stands.
A lot of what makes Brian Kelly a good leader / developer of talent / leader of coaching staff etc is easy to overlook. Brian Kelly probably gets more production from the bottom half of his roster than almost any other coach in the country.
He's constantly developing stars and solid starters from the bottom of the scrap heap. This is a rare feat. Its his two-deep that lacks the upside to compete with the best programs in the country and the only way to fix that is with rolling up the sleeves and being far more successful on the recruiting trail. but after 10 years it is super rare for a coach to suddenly start improving his results on the recruiting trail so he is who he is and apparently it's good enough for a lot of decision makers at Notre Dame and hell even Notre Dame fans. just look at all the Kelly apologist that post on this forum.
Lastly I think we all need to look at Kelly with a lot more nuance. you can point out areas where he's successful and good and still be dissatisfied with the overall package
Last edited:
If you've read my posts you know that I'm far from a Kelly apologist. I don't care what he gets out of the bottom of his roster, all I care about are results. His results have been absolutely mediocre. I think Notre Dame can and should do better, the problem is you can't fire a coach after a playoff appearance. It just isn't going to happen.
I would love to have Urban Meyer though he could do big things here.
Are you joking? OSU / Meyer went 33-5 in his last three years and won the Rose bowl and Cotton bowl.
he finished top three in Fp+ in 2016 and 2017 and finished top five in FP+ last year...and and went 23-3 in the big ten which is as competitive as ever during that time.
Can you tell me who his peers are besides dabo Swinney and Nick saban (2 legends) the last 3 years? Because it ends there.
Last edited:
“It should be intuitively obvious by now in the year 2019 with all the data and studies and databases that go back nearly 20 years that the higher the rated the recruit the higher the performance on aggregate. and the correlation gets exponentially higher as the rating of the recruit goes up.
No matter the credibility of the poster, no matter the logic of the argument..why are veteran respected posters having to post the same f****** obvious arguments over and over and over and over again?
There are some real hard heads that simply cannot see beyond their own bias in this fan base and it gets frustrating as hell having to revert back to debates with Notre Dame fans that were over and settled with therest of the college football world 10 plus years ago”
Which veteran respected posters are you taking about? You? Thanks, but I don’t need you to teach me anything about football, chase. Really, thanks but no thanks. I don’t know what you’re arguing w/ me about anyway. All I said was that projecting how a player will perform is a tough job and even at the highest levels, the ones that are supposed to know more than everyone else, get it wrong all the time. As I said before, I’m not saying not to recruit the 5 stars, I’m just saying not to ignore a player that doesn’t have as high a ranking as others if your evaluators think he can play at a high level.
No matter the credibility of the poster, no matter the logic of the argument..why are veteran respected posters having to post the same f****** obvious arguments over and over and over and over again?
There are some real hard heads that simply cannot see beyond their own bias in this fan base and it gets frustrating as hell having to revert back to debates with Notre Dame fans that were over and settled with therest of the college football world 10 plus years ago”
Which veteran respected posters are you taking about? You? Thanks, but I don’t need you to teach me anything about football, chase. Really, thanks but no thanks. I don’t know what you’re arguing w/ me about anyway. All I said was that projecting how a player will perform is a tough job and even at the highest levels, the ones that are supposed to know more than everyone else, get it wrong all the time. As I said before, I’m not saying not to recruit the 5 stars, I’m just saying not to ignore a player that doesn’t have as high a ranking as others if your evaluators think he can play at a high level.
the poster I was referring to was the one you were debating on the issue which is i i o.
There should just be a general consensus on this forum by now on the issue of talent and recruiting rankings. I see this same debate ad nauseam over an issue that was settled in the college football community seemingly eons ago in internet time
My comments weren't directed at you specifically, sorry that I wasn't more clear on that, but more generally to the nd community where this conversation (or something close to it) is happening over and over again.
this is the only place where half of the community is still convinced that there's not a correlation between recruiting ratings and on the field results. And it is incredibly ironic given just how much Notre Dame's recruiting results correlate with their on the field performance.
Last edited:
