Devin Studsill is making his announcement Tuesday night at 6. If I was to put $ on it I'd say we land this 1. Saw a rumor this week that he'd announce for ND before the dead period and sure enough today he announced the date of his decision. He's not a 5* kid, but it sounds like he's got potential to be a very good player. Also would put us at 20 commits with 5 spots left and a lot of guys still out there.
I have to admit... our lack of recruits is surprising me
- Thread starter justacollegefan
- Start date
6-1, 183 | 40: 4.76 are his stats... what position does he play? The only thing that comes to mind is QB, is that right? I just can't think of any other positions for a kid his size and with that speed, unless it is incorrect. I hope he isn't a QB considering we have Kizer, Malik, and Wimbush along with another kid coming in, though I think someone will end up transferring if Kizer keeps playing strong.
He's a safety prospect that some say may also be able to play CB. From what I understand the coaches have had him at or near the top of their DB board since the beginning of this recruiting cycle so they are very high on him. Verified 40 times are always suspect with HS kids even when the time seems slow, but he might be one of those "quicker than fast" type athletes according to this scouting report:
http://www.scout.com/college/notre-dame/story/1556418-in-the-film-room-devin-studstill
Thanks for the info... I hope you are correct about the 40 time, that is very slow for a DB lol.
go watch his vids; he is a destroyer back there! WR's need to know where he is at all times.
Jack Tatum was not very big, nor exceptionally fast, however he was as good a DB as there was.
Jack Tatum was not very big, nor exceptionally fast, however he was as good a DB as there was.
There are a TON of quality safeties that run a laser timed 4.60-4.70, but are much better athletes than that. I've coached at the collegiate level and I can tell you this. You would be SHOCKED at how many kids aren't track athletes and have no idea how to "get out of the blocks" so to speak in the 40 yard dash... A lot of kids are much faster than their time indicates, but they are terribly slow starters (because of technique), but fluid, fast twitch athletes that read and react well... Two quick stories as examples.
1. We had an All Canadian running back who is now playing in the CFL and was at one time, on a NFL practice squad. He was extremely highly recruited here in Canada and had some mid level interest in the U.S. among D1 schools. The reason he didn't have more interest was his 40 time, which was 4.81 laser-timed at a combine coming out of high school. The first time I saw him test his 40 time it was evident he was a brutal starter. He was "overtrained" in his Olympic lifts and although he was an impressive looking ball of muscle, his hip flexers and his core muscles were not flexible and it made him a rigid, slow starter. Not that he was a rigid athlete, but he needed to loosen up that region of his body. We got him hooked up with a personal trainer in Toronto, the winter before he reported to our training camp. That guy worked a lot on his flexibility and his explosiveness and basically made him put down the heavy weights. He kept his strength up, but also limbered him up and worked on his running technique and the bio mechanics of running. He can to our camp and on testing day he ran 4.73, nearly .1 of second faster. We redshirted him as a freshman and our strength coach worked with him tirelessly to continue to loosen up his core, his hips and his gluts. Our strength coach worked at one time with the Canadian Olympic Gymnastic team and had keen understanding of how to increase flexibility and durability in athletes. He was great improving functional strength By time he tested his 40 in his second season with us, he was 5'11, 194lbs, he had really good lifts numbers and he was infinitely more flexible than he had been. That second testing day he ran 4.66 and every year he improved. When he went to the CFL combine, 3 years later, he was incredibly flexible, over 200lbs and ran 4.58... There is so much more to it than simply looking at a guy's time at 18 years old and saying "he's slow".
2. We signed a 6'4, 205lb wide receiver, who had played 1 year of football. We were the only team to offer him a scholarship. He was a very good basketball player, but played as a power forward his who life and stopped growing around age 16 and eventually he knew that he wasn't going anywhere with basketball because he didn't shoot well enough to be a guard, but would be dwarfed at the collegiate level as a forward. His senior year of high school he switched to football and he was physical, fluid athlete. All the years of playing basketball made him a much more limber, flexible athlete and he wasn't bulky and muscular, but rather, he was a lean, toned athlete, with strong, naturally developed legs and he was use to sprinting. He actually ran his first ever laser timed 40 at our summer camp and clocked a 4.47. He's had a great beginning to his career at the university and I expect him to be a really good player down the road. He hasn't gotten much faster, but instead, he's focused on getting stronger. He still runs sub 4.5, but he's now about 215lbs and solid.
Definitely don't live-and-die on speed of 18 year olds... Consider this. Would you want Zibby or Bruton at safety, or Max Redfield? Because I guarantee you that on paper and at a combine, Max blows those two guys away in the athleticism department, but those guys are fast enough and smart enough, to not only be impact players in college, but also went on to play a little bit of ball in the NFL.
If Devin Studstill runs 4.76, but has great instincts, a nose for the ball, the desire to get off the hash, and the work ethic to improve, he's be sub 4.7 at some point and likely an upgrade from what we have.
1. We had an All Canadian running back who is now playing in the CFL and was at one time, on a NFL practice squad. He was extremely highly recruited here in Canada and had some mid level interest in the U.S. among D1 schools. The reason he didn't have more interest was his 40 time, which was 4.81 laser-timed at a combine coming out of high school. The first time I saw him test his 40 time it was evident he was a brutal starter. He was "overtrained" in his Olympic lifts and although he was an impressive looking ball of muscle, his hip flexers and his core muscles were not flexible and it made him a rigid, slow starter. Not that he was a rigid athlete, but he needed to loosen up that region of his body. We got him hooked up with a personal trainer in Toronto, the winter before he reported to our training camp. That guy worked a lot on his flexibility and his explosiveness and basically made him put down the heavy weights. He kept his strength up, but also limbered him up and worked on his running technique and the bio mechanics of running. He can to our camp and on testing day he ran 4.73, nearly .1 of second faster. We redshirted him as a freshman and our strength coach worked with him tirelessly to continue to loosen up his core, his hips and his gluts. Our strength coach worked at one time with the Canadian Olympic Gymnastic team and had keen understanding of how to increase flexibility and durability in athletes. He was great improving functional strength By time he tested his 40 in his second season with us, he was 5'11, 194lbs, he had really good lifts numbers and he was infinitely more flexible than he had been. That second testing day he ran 4.66 and every year he improved. When he went to the CFL combine, 3 years later, he was incredibly flexible, over 200lbs and ran 4.58... There is so much more to it than simply looking at a guy's time at 18 years old and saying "he's slow".
2. We signed a 6'4, 205lb wide receiver, who had played 1 year of football. We were the only team to offer him a scholarship. He was a very good basketball player, but played as a power forward his who life and stopped growing around age 16 and eventually he knew that he wasn't going anywhere with basketball because he didn't shoot well enough to be a guard, but would be dwarfed at the collegiate level as a forward. His senior year of high school he switched to football and he was physical, fluid athlete. All the years of playing basketball made him a much more limber, flexible athlete and he wasn't bulky and muscular, but rather, he was a lean, toned athlete, with strong, naturally developed legs and he was use to sprinting. He actually ran his first ever laser timed 40 at our summer camp and clocked a 4.47. He's had a great beginning to his career at the university and I expect him to be a really good player down the road. He hasn't gotten much faster, but instead, he's focused on getting stronger. He still runs sub 4.5, but he's now about 215lbs and solid.
Definitely don't live-and-die on speed of 18 year olds... Consider this. Would you want Zibby or Bruton at safety, or Max Redfield? Because I guarantee you that on paper and at a combine, Max blows those two guys away in the athleticism department, but those guys are fast enough and smart enough, to not only be impact players in college, but also went on to play a little bit of ball in the NFL.
If Devin Studstill runs 4.76, but has great instincts, a nose for the ball, the desire to get off the hash, and the work ethic to improve, he's be sub 4.7 at some point and likely an upgrade from what we have.
Just saw an update on the stud LB McCollough outta Texas. Seems his A&M visit for this week got cancelled or postponed. Either way, Wilfong says ND is in good position here. Mom likes ND and academics are important to him.
Also Caleb Kelly sent a text to Tom Loy saying "this place(ND) is nuts". Visit going very well.
Also Caleb Kelly sent a text to Tom Loy saying "this place(ND) is nuts". Visit going very well.
Your right the reason they get paid that money is to put together 90 players better than the other guy --you think urban meyer knows more plays than 100 other coaches in the country ?? If you do you might try having a discussion with some football coaches -- talent rocks
Did you ever notice that they have recruiting threads- websites - rankings re recruiting --I haven't seen any schematic blogs recently . It's all about players
Kellyheroes...my post that prompted your assigning percentages to the import of coaching versus talent, was to the effect that coaching and player development differentiates between the top programs. What part of this do you disagree with?
I didn't agree or disagree the point in my post was that recruiting is the most important part of the job BY A LOT -ie there is not a 3 star recruit who runs a 4.7 40 who will keep Will Fuller from blowing by him that would be one of a thousand examples.
Also what " separates " Sabin - Meyer - Kelly is talent not scheme .
Kelly...think we're talking at cross purposes here. To be specific to your point, I agree that talent trumps scheme, with some exceptions. That said, I view the value and impact of the head coach in much broader terms than scheme. The really good coaches bring discipline and process and organization and motivation and they attract good assistants and they in turn help recruit great talent, etc... Good coaches build programs that breed success, and coaches like Saben and Kelly and Carroll, etc... Are difference makers for that reason.
Tex -
I understand the importance of all the bullet points you mentioned and agree with you . What I am saying is if any of the top coaches in country play another top coach in the country and has inferior talent he will lose the majority of the time . The ND Ala game is a classic example of what I am referring to . Also when Urban Meyer has a 7-5 team what do you think the difference is between that season and one where he wins 11 games .
Another example was last season when we started 7-0 and then lost half the defensive starters -- some nit wits on this board assumed Kelly all of a sudden forgot how to coach .
I understand the importance of all the bullet points you mentioned and agree with you . What I am saying is if any of the top coaches in country play another top coach in the country and has inferior talent he will lose the majority of the time . The ND Ala game is a classic example of what I am referring to . Also when Urban Meyer has a 7-5 team what do you think the difference is between that season and one where he wins 11 games .
Another example was last season when we started 7-0 and then lost half the defensive starters -- some nit wits on this board assumed Kelly all of a sudden forgot how to coach .
Made the top 5 for for LB McCollough. For some reason I actually feel pretty good about this. His mom being high on ND and him being high on academics makes me think if its really between us, the texas schools, Florida and Stanford we're in good position. Supposedly deciding at the Under Armour game on Jan 2nd and possibly taking visits after that (which I don't like the sound of). Would be a BIG get for our class.
Tex - Coaching is very important just not as important as recruiting 65 -35 is about right and that percentage goes up in re to baseball and basketball where it is 80-20
You can't coach most of what Will Fuller and Jaylon Smith do - see speed
You can't coach most of what Will Fuller and Jaylon Smith do - see speed
Last edited:
if that's all it took there would be track stars all over. if you don't think coaching has refined will fullers skill set from when he entered nd you're crazy. NO ONE forsaw the player he has developed into. of course the ability has to be there to start with but it's the staff that brings it out and refines it.
Wow, just unreal he thinks that.
So apparently coaching college football is all about recruiting? I am very certain that Charlie Weis proved this to be incorrect and Mark Dantonio just obliterated that theory.
java: recruiting is the lifeline to the programs. Even the best coach has to have talent, both from players and staff coaches!
Sure it's vital but it's not the only thing. As I pointed out Weis recruited great but couldn't develop talent and we saw what happened.
Mark Dantonio's recruiting classes finish 25 and below nearly every year. Miami is almost always in the top 15 yet their program is terrible. I could provide dozen of examples of teams that recruit well and the results on the field don't match. I could also provide a lot of examples where teams results on the field is much better than their recruiting.
Weis in truth did not recruit great; nor nearly as well as most fans believe. His recruiting plans were always poorly thought out and lacked balance. That and the recruiting 'experts' admittedly over valued Weis commits based upon percieved reputation.
Weis did land some big names but you need a complete roster, that is his failing.
recruiting fills the cupboard but the coaches still have to make the meal. A quote talking about Bear Bryant says..."He could take his and beat yours, then take yours and beat his." That being said talent counts but development counts more.
OH, also I'm confused by the OP's -lack of recruits in the title. If I'm not mistaken we've got 19 good commitments, don't we?
I could not disagree more. Weis simply could not develop players, he could recruit them but that's it.
I will never forget being concerned about Weis in year 2 specifically because of Ryan Harris and John Sullivan. I couldn't understand how these 2 guys could actually regress.
Also, there are too many examples of teams that recruit great but the product on the field is not so great.
There is a ton more that goes into being a successful CFB HC than just recruiting.
you need to go back and review his recruiting. (and accept the admission by the recruiting experts, that theybwere infuenced gy Weis's reputation when arriving at ND)
I have looked and I do know that the problem was player development.
When 1 or 2 players that have offers from almost every college in the land fail you can chalk that up to being overrated. When every single recruit that has offers from every college in the country fail you have to accept the fact that the coaches could not develop players.
Aldridge, Sam Young, Wenger, Kamara, Romine, Hughes, Neal, Brian Smith, Gray, Ethan Johnson... the list goes on of recruits that had offers from some of the biggest programs in the country that Weis couldn't develop.
18 year old kids are not magically going to improve without proper coaching.
Coaching matters. It's at least 50-50 percentage wise IMO. If you take a bunch of 5* coming out of HS and played them against a team of 3* with coaches? I put my money on the team with the coaches. If those talented kids didn't have direction, assignments, or just winging it on responsibilities etc., It would be like watching a pick-up game on Sunday afternoons. That's the extreme example to make my point that both matter equally.
Plus, there is very little difference nowadays between 3, 4, and 5*'s. Many are mis-rated or grey areas for differentiating the talent, many don't get the attention for a variety of reasons. But go on to NFL careers. Not all NFLers are 5*. In fact it is probably the inverse percentage wise of 65-35 in 5* vs. 3-4*. Football skills as opposed to athleticism, desire, loving contact. 5* are great to have and coaches help to fine tune that natural ability. Both matter equally is my point.
Plus, there is very little difference nowadays between 3, 4, and 5*'s. Many are mis-rated or grey areas for differentiating the talent, many don't get the attention for a variety of reasons. But go on to NFL careers. Not all NFLers are 5*. In fact it is probably the inverse percentage wise of 65-35 in 5* vs. 3-4*. Football skills as opposed to athleticism, desire, loving contact. 5* are great to have and coaches help to fine tune that natural ability. Both matter equally is my point.
Well of course there is going to be a much larger percentage of 3*-4* v. 5* in the NFL... there its like 50:1 regarding how many exist in general.
Congratulations Einstein, but that wasn't the gist of the point I was making. Leave it to a simpleton to pick that point as germane.
You use that example as the basis for why there isn't a really a difference between 3/4*'s and 5* so I think it is actually very critical to your post.
I stated TWICE the main point I was making. You agreed sarcastically with my lesser point which is the typical way you post here. You can't help yourself but to be a douchebag.
Also, I didn't say that there wasn't really a difference between 3,4,and 5*. There is, but it is becoming lesser and lesser of a difference and more and more of a grey area differentiating.
the biggest issue weis had was that he hired a staff of very good recruiters who were sub par position coaches. weis was just a lousy administrator. incapable of running a competent program.
So engaging you in a discussion makes me a d-bag? You said there is "very little difference" between the two groups, my bad I didn't directly quote that and paraphrased by saying you said "there isn't really a difference".
Exceptions to every rule. But be assured there is a mountain of difference between most 5 star and most 3 star players.
And I agree that there are more 3/4 star players than 5 star players on rosters in the NFL simply because the pool of 3/4 players available is significantly larger.
i don't think there is. they're high school kids. the "stars" are projections on development. some kids peak early. by the time any of them get to the nfl the difference in talent is very small. it's just that at the highest level the margin of difficulty is that much greater. as you climb the ladder the talent weeds itself out. millions of kids play high school football. thousands get scholarships. only 250 or so even get drafted. they are the elite.
Teams with better players win a preponderance of the time. Teams recruiting at the top of the class generally get the better players. Better players are generally identified by the evaluators with 'star' system being the identifying tool.
All 3,4,5 stars are not yhe same. All 4 stars are not the same.
All 3,4,5 stars are not yhe same. All 4 stars are not the same.
If you take a team of five stars and play a team of 3 stars with similar level coaches the winner is ?
JMO of course but anyone who thinks getting high level talent isn't the most important part of the job does not know much about college football or basketball.
Last edited:
