Best part about this season from a recruiting standpoint..

[gopherdiehard]

This season is very exciting to me from the recruiting side of things because of this little fact.. we are winning with "2" and "3" star guys and now kids more so the in state kids will start regretting getting lost on depth charts at bigger name programs because are coaching staff develops their players and you can start to see they are getting the most out of a lot of kids.. i feel we will continue to win no matter who the coaches bring in and that in itself is satisfying..

 

[froggopher]

This is certainly a huge credit to the coaching staff! Wait til we start getting those 4 and 5 star players!! Watch out Big Ten! Go Gophers!!!

 

[gophmeister]

What we need is couple of special players to go with what we already have. A dynamic running back or just a stud linebacker. Someone who can take over a game.

 

[t-docious]

im hoping or the stud LB. Even with a solid OL a decent RB can look really good. Stud LB can really take over a game by himself though. Wilson has done a really nice job, I hope someone steps up next year aloongside him.

 

[SJUgopher]

This is certainly a huge credit to the coaching staff! Wait til we start getting those 4 and 5 star players!! Watch out Big Ten! Go Gophers!!!

I don't think we'll ever get 4 and 5 star players consistently. Minnesota rarely produces them and there are only a few and there's a lot of competition for them from football factories.

 

[die hard gopher]

I don't think we'll ever get 4 and 5 star players consistently. Minnesota rarely produces them and there are only a few and there's a lot of competition for them from football factories.

i don't think we will ever get 5 star guys consistently but if we can consistently land guys like Jeff jones, Ragnow, Seth Green and then the occasional Jashon Cornell then that will be pretty good

 

[MaxyJR1]

im hoping or the stud LB. Even with a solid OL a decent RB can look really good. Stud LB can really take over a game by himself though. Wilson has done a really nice job, I hope someone steps up next year aloongside him.

We need the next Hageman. Stud defensive linemen keep blocks off the linebackers and pressure on the QB. Studs on the defensive line are really hard to find.

 

[husker70]

Well 8-2 certainly takes,
"I want to wait and see how they do this season goes before deciding."

Off the table.

 

[Ole]

It remains to be seen whether Kill and co will ever satiate the star watchers or be ranked highly by recruiting sites. I think it's more likely they follow their strategy of finding guys that they can develop and that fit their systems.
Why would they change now?
Honest question: If Kill continues to win more than he loses here, year after year posting solid B1G records, Does it matter at all if we're ranked dead last in the B1G recruiting rankings of rivals or scout or 247?

I'm amazed at the amount of impact recruits we have playing for us now that were 2 star or overlooked talents. Cobb/Thompson were signed well after signing day.
Wells, Cockran, Murray, Keith, Wilson, S. Ekpe, Lauer, and Leidner all were 2 stars the staff felt were underrated. Many others only got rated after we secured their commitment. Several of those guys could play for most B1G teams, and lots of BCS/FBS teams.

The staff has also "uncovered" or were on several high end talents that ended up getting signed away late in the process. Guys like Nate Andrews at FSU, Duke Riley at LSU, and Drew Davis at NC St.

You want an impact LB? Let's see what Deniro Laster looks like. A converted WR that can run at 6'4'' 230.
Impact RB? Anyone thinking about what type of runs Berkley Edwards would have had Sat if he had hit the holes Cobb did? Likely there would have been 2 carries over 80 yds.(Not a rip on Cobb, but Edwards has serious speed)
Next Hageman? Look no further than Cockran who's 6.5 sacks as a Soph are already at the top of the B1G.
I give absolutley no weight to the argument that we're still waiting on Kill to see if he can recruit at this level any longer. He can. He has. He will continue to do so, regardless of what some guy behind a computer at rivals says.
Over the past 3 seasons Kill's been right alot more than the recruiting sites have been.
What's more scary is what could happen now if Kill can start securing top end targets and plan A guys like Andrews instead of losing them to helmet schools at the end of the recruiting process.

 

[WolfontheProwl]

At some point this team will need to land a larger number of better recruits. Mason did a nice job in his time of developing those under the radar recruits but he didnt bring in enough big time talents to mesh them together. When he did get a better recruit it usually showed on the field. We all know how it ended for Mason because he couldnt land enough of the top end talent and the program began to level off. For Kill to get beyond the Mason level he must bring in better recruits.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

When you have a program in a state like ours that doesn't produce a lot of D1 players yearly the feasibility of expecting 4* and 5* guys should be pretty low.

What we can do is develop an attractive "brand" or "identity" for football and become the best we can in that niche. Wisconsin doesn't produce a lot of instate players but got to where they are by becoming a mini "lineman U" of sorts. Oregon built their success by employing a fast break offense that gives skill position players who otherwise don't fit typical pro-style roles in offenses a system where they are highlighted. Carving out our niche is going to be key to winning future recruiting battles.

The football facilities help, the stadium was definitely and will continue to be a boost, and obviously a good coaching staff are essential. But the biggest thing a program needs is an overarching vision of what it wants to be known as. Barring massive demographic shifts (or the sport of hockey ceasing to exist) Minnesota will not be able to go toe-to-toe running a pro-style system when their are alternatives like USC. Kill and his staff have done a good job of injecting speed and skill where needed, especially in the secondary, while utilizing a lot of the recruits we have back home naturally (the big uglies up front).

People hated on Kill, and continue to frankly, with a lot of the recruiting misses that have happened thus far in his tenure. I have every confidence that the staff will be able to craft an identity for this program that fits our state and our team now and in the future.

 

[nsmike]

I look for the coaching staff to get a bigger percentage of high three star players. Thee star is from 5.5 to 5.7 I seem to remember that Pirsig was a 5.7 borderline four star. That's the type of player that we will get, the not quite good enough prospect, with a chip on their shoulder. The helmet schools will get the five star and more four stars this staff will get the high three stars. Those high three star and occasional four star will fit into the system with fewer busts than other schools.

 

[MaxyJR1]

At some point this team will need to land a larger number of better recruits. Mason did a nice job in his time of developing those under the radar recruits but he didnt bring in enough big time talents to mesh them together. When he did get a better recruit it usually showed on the field. We all know how it ended for Mason because he couldnt land enough of the top end talent and the program began to level off. For Kill to get beyond the Mason level he must bring in better recruits.

I think the difference in Mason and Kill is obvious, Defensive Coordinator. I think Kill will recruit and develop in similar ways, but Mason went through DC's and Kill has had the same guy for over 17 years. Claeys puts CB's on islands and attacks, Mason did not do that.

 

[Gold Vision]

How do you think a 3 game losing streak to end the season would look to the average fan? Would they still see the season as a success? I certainly would, but I worry recruits and casual fans may not see the incredible progress made through the year.

 

[MNVCGUY]

It remains to be seen whether Kill and co will ever satiate the star watchers or be ranked highly by recruiting sites. I think it's more likely they follow their strategy of finding guys that they can develop and that fit their systems.
Why would they change now?
Honest question: If Kill continues to win more than he loses here, year after year posting solid B1G records, Does it matter at all if we're ranked dead last in the B1G recruiting rankings of rivals or scout or 247?

I'm amazed at the amount of impact recruits we have playing for us now that were 2 star or overlooked talents. Cobb/Thompson were signed well after signing day.
Wells, Cockran, Murray, Keith, Wilson, S. Ekpe, Lauer, and Leidner all were 2 stars the staff felt were underrated. Many others only got rated after we secured their commitment. Several of those guys could play for most B1G teams, and lots of BCS/FBS teams.

The staff has also "uncovered" or were on several high end talents that ended up getting signed away late in the process. Guys like Nate Andrews at FSU, Duke Riley at LSU, and Drew Davis at NC St.

You want an impact LB? Let's see what Deniro Laster looks like. A converted WR that can run at 6'4'' 230.
Impact RB? Anyone thinking about what type of runs Berkley Edwards would have had Sat if he had hit the holes Cobb did? Likely there would have been 2 carries over 80 yds.(Not a rip on Cobb, but Edwards has serious speed)
Next Hageman? Look no further than Cockran who's 6.5 sacks as a Soph are already at the top of the B1G.
I give absolutley no weight to the argument that we're still waiting on Kill to see if he can recruit at this level any longer. He can. He has. He will continue to do so, regardless of what some guy behind a computer at rivals says.
Over the past 3 seasons Kill's been right alot more than the recruiting sites have been.
What's more scary is what could happen now if Kill can start securing top end targets and plan A guys like Andrews instead of losing them to helmet schools at the end of the recruiting process.

In answer to the part in bold it really depends on how much he is winning. If the team is finishing in the top half of the conference and is in the mix for the title every few years then of course no one is going to give a crap where the recruiting classes come in. If his record peaks out in the Mason range and the team appears to be struggling to get over the hump and become a true contender then the lack of high end recruiting remains a part of the story.

I think our definitions of impact recruits might vary a little as well. Of the guys you mentioned, Wells looked good last year, really hasn't done much this year due in large part to the injuries I would assume. Cockran, Wilson, Lauer and Murray are all having nice years and Murray looks like he could be a fixture in the secondary for the next few years. Not sure Keith, S. Ekpe, and Leidner would qualify as impact guys.

In regards to the guys they "uncovered" are you implying those schools that ended up with those guys only found them because our staff found them first?

The last section about the future remains to be seen. Guys like Lasiter and Edwards have not hit the field yet so tough to say if they really will cut it at this level. Hageman and Cockran play different positions and you have to wonder how much of Cockran's success is a direct reflection of having Hageman on the inside causing problems.

Much like Mason's (at least on offense), this staff is good at finding guys that fit their mold and system. Remains to be seen though if that will be enough to push things to the next level when the other teams are working with better overall talent. Time will tell.

 

[gopherdiehard]

i agree with all this but.. another thing that i have noticed is that the kids we get also seem to really be enjoying eachother and playing here.... that is very enticing to recruits.. the family feeling of a team that enjoys being here

 

[MaxyJR1]

How do you think a 3 game losing streak to end the season would look to the average fan? Would they still see the season as a success? I certainly would, but I worry recruits and casual fans may not see the incredible progress made through the year.

If Nebraska wins out and goes to Title Game against OSU things look differently. These last three games are huge. I think we will win 1-2 of them.

 

[Ole]

When you have a program in a state like ours that doesn't produce a lot of D1 players yearly the feasibility of expecting 4* and 5* guys should be pretty low.

What we can do is develop an attractive "brand" or "identity" for football and become the best we can in that niche. Wisconsin doesn't produce a lot of instate players but got to where they are by becoming a mini "lineman U" of sorts. Oregon built their success by employing a fast break offense that gives skill position players who otherwise don't fit typical pro-style roles in offenses a system where they are highlighted. Carving out our niche is going to be key to winning future recruiting battles.

The football facilities help, the stadium was definitely and will continue to be a boost, and obviously a good coaching staff are essential. But the biggest thing a program needs is an overarching vision of what it wants to be known as. Barring massive demographic shifts (or the sport of hockey ceasing to exist) Minnesota will not be able to go toe-to-toe running a pro-style system when their are alternatives like USC. Kill and his staff have done a good job of injecting speed and skill where needed, especially in the secondary, while utilizing a lot of the recruits we have back home naturally (the big uglies up front).

People hated on Kill, and continue to frankly, with a lot of the recruiting misses that have happened thus far in his tenure. I have every confidence that the staff will be able to craft an identity for this program that fits our state and our team now and in the future.

Our identity is becoming the Golden I supersize power running game. That's a good one for our state's recruiting base which always seems to have beefy TE's and offensive linemen. Our TE recruiting has been phenomenal under Kill, and the incoming guys will only add to that. We've gotten big time in state linemen to stay too.
Wait for 6'9'' Pirsig and 6'8'' Lauer to bookend the line that includes a 6'9'' TE and a 250 lb RB behind a fullback and a 265 lb Hback with speed.
That's Mn football under Kill.

I'm assuming by recruiting misses you mean in state guys leaving(Onowalu, Rucker, Brookins) because honestly the amount of recruits they've brought in that have made no impact is very minimal. Brewster and Mason had tons of guys who never made it on the field at all, Kill's done a great job in this respect.

 

[Ole]

Most of those guys mentioned are underclassmen who played as true freshmen.
I certainly am projecting, which is what all recruiting is, but a guy like Keith, Ekpe, or Leidner in 2 years is going to belong and be a nice player just given what we've already seen as underdeveloped freshmen or soph.

 

[killme]

I did a little digging... Looked a Rivals and ESPN. Jordan Lynch was a 2-star recruit like Nelson and Leidner. Devin Gardner was a 4-star. Who would you rather have?

All of you make some good points, too. I haven't seen them, but have heard the football facilities (other than TCF Bank Stadium) are sub-par. That makes a difference. The state doesn't produce a lot of 4-5 star recruits. The cold weather can deter warm-weather kids, along with decades of mediocrity and irrelevance. But, this staff has built relationships and a reputation. Even Brady Hoke said "Kill is the kind of coach you'd want your son to play for."

Landing a 4-5 star player or two will make it easier, but if not, we'll just do it the hard way.

 

[t-docious]

Who does scout and rivals and 247 employ really? who are giving these stars? nice guys i am sure but not nearly that good at talent scouting otherwise you would think that they would have been picked up as a recruiting coordinator somewhere? Hell Ryan Burns is in College for christ sake. I, for one, do not buy into stars at all.

 

[Maverick]

I think Coach Kill and his staff look at each of their recruits on their own "star" scale. And my guess is that each offered recruit is at minimum a 4 or 5 star on their private rating scale! Who gives a flying fart what other people think!!!

 

[Ski U Master]

Recruiting rankings have been shown to be very good predictors on a macro level. You can always try to attack the ratings with a player by player comparison, but that is a narrow way of viewing the rankings. Linked below is a statistical analysis of recruiting rankings that shows strong correlation between having a highly ranked classes and winning performance. Also speaks to coaching effect on surpassing or under-performing versus the recruiting rankings. Interesting read, and leads me to believe that we can achieve Mason-like results with current recruiting, but if we want to surpass that ceiling we will need more talent.

LINK

Of course, I'm sure many won't read this due to it being "too much math" as evidenced by the conversations surrounding the Models and Bottles articles written on The Daily Gopher.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Recruiting rankings have been shown to be very good predictors on a macro level. You can always try to attack the ratings with a player by player comparison, but that is a narrow way of viewing the rankings. Linked below is a statistical analysis of recruiting rankings that shows strong correlation between having a highly ranked classes and winning performance. Also speaks to coaching effect on surpassing or under-performing versus the recruiting rankings. Interesting read, and leads me to believe that we can achieve Mason-like results with current recruiting, but if we want to surpass that ceiling we will need more talent.

LINK

Of course, I'm sure many won't read this due to it being "too much math" as evidenced by the conversations surrounding the Models and Bottles articles written on The Daily Gopher.

Interesting link even if it did make my head spin some trying to make sense of it all. Bottom line with recruiting rankings is too many people look at them as all or nothing. Of course you can't recruit just off the rankings but to pretend they are worthless is also foolish. The hard core Kill supporters dismiss the rankings because they don't look good for us in the big picture so clearly those people have no clue what they are talking about. The thing they choose to ignore is that Kill and his staff are recruiting many of these higher rated prospects they just are not landing them at this point. It is not like they are consistently faced with a choice between a 4 star player and a 2 star player and are picking the 2 star guy.

 

[Sparlimb]

In answer to the part in bold it really depends on how much he is winning. If the team is finishing in the top half of the conference and is in the mix for the title every few years then of course no one is going to give a crap where the recruiting classes come in. If his record peaks out in the Mason range and the team appears to be struggling to get over the hump and become a true contender then the lack of high end recruiting remains a part of the story.

I think our definitions of impact recruits might vary a little as well. Of the guys you mentioned, Wells looked good last year, really hasn't done much this year due in large part to the injuries I would assume. Cockran, Wilson, Lauer and Murray are all having nice years and Murray looks like he could be a fixture in the secondary for the next few years. Not sure Keith, S. Ekpe, and Leidner would qualify as impact guys.

In regards to the guys they "uncovered" are you implying those schools that ended up with those guys only found them because our staff found them first?

The last section about the future remains to be seen. Guys like Lasiter and Edwards have not hit the field yet so tough to say if they really will cut it at this level. Hageman and Cockran play different positions and you have to wonder how much of Cockran's success is a direct reflection of having Hageman on the inside causing problems.

Much like Mason's (at least on offense), this staff is good at finding guys that fit their mold and system. Remains to be seen though if that will be enough to push things to the next level when the other teams are working with better overall talent. Time will tell.

Exactly right. Come one, the same arguments were being made during the Mason years about findin under the radar guys who turned out to be stars. Now the story is he didn't find enough. Well the same folks will do the same whining about Kill. If we peak at Mason levels, then the recruiting will "suck". If he gives us an Outback and/or Capital One Bowl, then he'll be a great recruiter. I am actually at the point where I don't care much about recruiting anymore. The coach brings the kids in, I cheer for them no matter what.

 

[EE_Gopher]

When it comes to rankings, I would have to say that the most under ranked player on the Gophers has to be Maxx Williams. It's not just that he's playing well, it's that it really almost looks too easy. He blocks well and when it comes to catching passes, he's able to adjust like he's a wide receiver. I see Kent Taylor of Florida was the top ranked Tight End for 2012. Maxx has 30 lbs. on him.

 

[Ole]

Recruiting rankings have been shown to be very good predictors on a macro level. You can always try to attack the ratings with a player by player comparison, but that is a narrow way of viewing the rankings. Linked below is a statistical analysis of recruiting rankings that shows strong correlation between having a highly ranked classes and winning performance. Also speaks to coaching effect on surpassing or under-performing versus the recruiting rankings. Interesting read, and leads me to believe that we can achieve Mason-like results with current recruiting, but if we want to surpass that ceiling we will need more talent.

LINK

Of course, I'm sure many won't read this due to it being "too much math" as evidenced by the conversations surrounding the Models and Bottles articles written on The Daily Gopher.

Interesting read. I wonder what Kill's coaching effect is this year for that model?
Maybe MV could stat nerd it up to demonstrate how good/bad of a job Kill and Co have been doing this year. Kill's effect might be astronomical in a few years if the 08 class is removed from the formula so in essence a 09-15 model.

 

[Iceland12]

Recruiting rankings have been shown to be very good predictors on a macro level. You can always try to attack the ratings with a player by player comparison, but that is a narrow way of viewing the rankings. Linked below is a statistical analysis of recruiting rankings that shows strong correlation between having a highly ranked classes and winning performance. Also speaks to coaching effect on surpassing or under-performing versus the recruiting rankings. Interesting read, and leads me to believe that we can achieve Mason-like results with current recruiting, but if we want to surpass that ceiling we will need more talent.

LINK

Of course, I'm sure many won't read this due to it being "too much math" as evidenced by the conversations surrounding the Models and Bottles articles written on The Daily Gopher.

Still whining huh?

Minnesota's listings:

2006 Minnesota 2.29 -18% 195.6 203.2 4% 0.33 Mason
2008 Minnesota 2.46 -12% 201.2 187.7 -7% (0.56) Brewster
2009 Minnesota 2.57 -8% 205.0 190.5 -7% (0.59) Brewster
2012 Minnesota 2.49 -11% 202.2 185.1 -8% (0.71) Kill
2007 Minnesota 2.28 -18% 195.3 171.9 -12% (1.00) Brewster
2010 Minnesota 2.58 -7% 205.2 179.2 -13% (1.06) Brewster
2011 Minnesota 2.61 -6% 206.1 169.5 -18% (1.49) Kill

 

[dpodoll68]

Hell Ryan Burns is in College for christ sake.

Ryan Burns doesn't do evaluations. He's a writer.

I, for one, do not buy into stars at all.

Do you buy into 2 plus 2 equaling 4?

 

[dpodoll68]

The hard core Kill supporters dismiss the rankings because they don't look good for us in the big picture so clearly those people have no clue what they are talking about.

Not accurate. I am as hardcore of a Kill supporter as anyone while simultaneously being as staunch of a defender of the recruiting rankings as anyone. Kill can still succeed because of the rule of small sample sizes, and because the rankings are not 100% infallible.