Currently 4 verbals from unranked players on Rivals

Donate To GopherHole
MNVCGUY

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
21,322
Reaction score
24,111
Points
113
We currently have 4 verbal commitments (if you believe rivals) from guys that have not been evaluated by them. I looked through the other verbals in the Big Ten and the only other team with any 0 star players was Northwestern and they only had 1.

I am sure Rivals will get a ranking on them at some point but will be interesting to see if Kill and his staff are really finding hidden gems or if there is a reason these guys have been overlooked to this point.

Based on the offer list on some of these guys they look like players that Kill and his staff would have been recruiting to NIU. Hard to say if that is a good thing or not. We have seen many times where MAC teams are competitive and even beat BCS schools but we don't really know how those same teams and players would fare playing the big schools on a weekly basis. I have been saying all along that Kill will be recruiting to his systems more then the rankings, and from the offer list on a lot of the guys he is targeting have not traditionally been offered B1G scholarships.

That can work as long as the guys they are getting are truly good enough to hold up against the higher level of competition. Unfortunately we won't know that for quite some time.
 

such provocative give & take writing here. sounding like a tv news anchor that always plays it right down the middle and doesn't really take a stance. just playing. ;-)
 

supadupafly said:
such provocative give & take writing here. sounding like a tv news anchor that always plays it right down the middle and doesn't really take a stance. just playing. ;-)
Click to expand...

You got me, I'm working on my next career figuring either TV or Politics. Pretty tough to take a stance on recruiting though because there is very little immediate payoff and you are really trying to project guys out a few years into the future.

The problem I have is that I really can see it from both sides. If you are good enough you can recruit the lower profile guys that fit your system and make it work. On the flip side of that stars are not everything but I don't think anyone is too shocked that the teams that typically finish at the top in recruiting also finish near the top of the standings.

Looking at the guys that are listed as verbals right now (I know some may be wrong and a lot can change between now and signing day) I see the kind of talent that could get us back to Mason levels. But like Mason I don't know that I see the talent on paper that would take us to that next level we are all dying to get to. I think that is about as much of a stance as I can take on it right now until we have more time to see if his guys really can cut it at this level. And by his guys I am referring to the coaches as well as the players they are recruiting.
 

Playing it down the middle

supadupafly said:
such provocative give & take writing here. sounding like a tv news anchor that always plays it right down the middle and doesn't really take a stance. just playing. ;-)
Click to expand...

You have certainly captured the quandary we are in. What is the data telling us? Or more correctly what data should be looking at? The data that would appear to lead one to conclude that we are destined to continue to struggle or the data that says Coach Kill is somebody very special? We each have our own take on this but I believe there is enough information to make an informed decision. If you don't believe that then you should probably say something brilliant like it is all about Big Ten wins and leave it at that.

My personal take on this is not that different than a turnaround situation in a stock. The information is out there but the market gurus aren't going to recognize it until after the buying opportunity has already past and the bandwagon will be full.

It is also clear to me that many of you seem to recognize the "buy signals" here but understandably want to see a few more quarters of data. Since I can't actually buy Gopher football stock I am going to sit back and enjoy my no cost purchase that I expect will pay big dividends in the future. My reasons for believing this is not based on hope but based on what it takes to turn an organization around. Jerry is truly an expert in doing this and is focused on doing it here. I doubt very much that he is worried about the four players with zero stars.
 

I got a peek at a site were some premium content was accidently linked into (Coaching by the Numbers). They have a listing for the rank of each coaching job. Part of that ranking was the 10yr average recruiting rank, we were ranked in the mid 40's and TCU wa in the low 70's. Seeing that Patterson and Kill, both share the same coaching tree, I'm hoping for similar results. TCU is now recruiting at a very high level but it took a few years of out preforming its recruiting ranking.
 


Is it possible that Kill is just being realistic about who he can get and instead of chasing stars like Brew did...Kill is focusing on players with skills and desire that fit his system and can succeed academically and will work towards a better record next year and better recruiting next year...and so on. Kill doesn't have a name like Meyer and the U isn't a helmet school like tOSU, so we have to build this thing differently.

My belief remains the same as the day Kill was hired...I have no doubt Kill & Co can get us back to where we were with Mason only with better academics...can they take us to the next level a la Iowa/Sconnie? i don't know...that is the question I think gets answered in year 4 or 5...but I am confident that we will be better next year and again the year after.
 

What this guy said:

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?q=articles/knowing-what-we-dont-know

Of this class, I'm more impressed by the Minnesota kids. Not just Pirsig, Nelson and Hayes, but Leidner, Rallis, and Maxx all have the potential to be quality starters as well. It's actually the out of state kids and the Jucos I'm less impressed by, and I'm usually not of that opinion. We'll see. Kill seems to recruit a body-type and a personality more than a player, and that's harder to see on film.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Based on the offer list on some of these guys they look like players that Kill and his staff would have been recruiting to NIU.
Click to expand...

I think for some of the players, it may be true. But the difference is we also have players like Pirsig, Nelson, Hayes, Harbison, and Hayes. He wasn't getting players with the offers these guys have at N. Illinois. The lower ranked guys have a better chance of succeeding because Kill is bringing in guys who fit his system (in theory anyways). You look at a guy like Nelson. Not only is a highly rated prospect, but he's a perfect fit for our offense.

Just because a guy is highly talented, doesn't mean he's a good fit for your program. Obviously, it's too early to tell for sure if this strategy will work for us.
 

In a conversation with a co-worker of mine a few weeks ago, he described the vexing nature of a career in research and the potential knowledge pitfalls that produce stumbles along the path towards solving often complex and arduous research projects. As he simply stated, “I’m more terrified of what I don’t know than what I do know. What I don’t know keeps me up at night.” Understanding the limits of our subject comprehension was a central focus of our discussion, as he asked me point blank, “Do you know what you don’t know?”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I have read that one definition of an educated person is someone who knows what they don't know. I think that what should keep us up at night are things that we think we know, but don't. If you know what you don't know, all is well.
 



Kill and staff have been here just over one year, on NSD 14 months. Last year they brought in 24 recruits, this year probably 28. 52 out of 85 scholarships will be basically his kids. He had to balance his squad very quickly. I would guess the next 52 kids he brings in will have more BCS offers, stars etc. I'm pleased on how he has done so far and have no doubt it will get better.

The State of Minnesota produced a very good and deep group of kids this year. I think the combination is going work out well in the future.
 

I believe it was MV who broke down recruiting a bit and formed some interesting conclusions based on statistical analysis done by an independent group.

The one main conclusion was that recruiting success is influenced more by team success on the field than by any other factor.

This data, in turn, supports why Patterson is now able to recruit at a high level to TCU. Top kids would not go there until he proved that he would have a successful program. Kill now has the same battle to fight. This is why being a good coach, in my mind, is so much more important than being a good recruiter. Patterson's coaching ability made TCU easier to recruit to because they won games; his recruits did not make him a better coach. Kill has shown that he will do the necessary recruiting work, but kids are going to want to see success before signing on to play here.

The best thing Kill can do now to eventually gain that recruiting edge is exactly what he is doing: 1.) Find the best kids possible who want to be at Minnesota and 2.) Find kids who fit his schemes

Here's why:

1.) Games are won, especially by "fringe bowl teams" like Minnesota (and, not surprisingly, by MAC schools), by senior-laden teams. By erring on the side of academically eligible kids who want to be at Minnesota, Kill ups the chances of those kids staying all 4/5 years and playing as seniors. This will win some games.

2.) Consistency. As we have seen, changing schemes constantly is not a recipe for success. By finding kids who already fit his schemes rather than having to mold the kids or mold the schemes, Kill will speed up the learning process and put kids in a position to succeed. Again, if done successfully, this will win some games.

Whether or not this will work will be determined over time. While we all like the idea of a James Franklin coming in a recruiting big names right away, I will remind everyone that initial recruiting success does not necessarily equal long-term success on the field. Look no further than Tim Brewster or Ron Zook. Given Kill's track record, however (similar to that of Patterson), and the last 50 years of Gopher football (Mason also recruited for his system and had the most success of anyone recently), I am willing to give Kill the benefit of the doubt.
 

The 12th Man said:
I believe it was MV who broke down recruiting a bit and formed some interesting conclusions based on statistical analysis done by an independent group.

The one main conclusion was that recruiting success is influenced more by team success on the field than by any other factor.

This data, in turn, supports why Patterson is now able to recruit at a high level to TCU. Top kids would not go there until he proved that he would have a successful program. Kill now has the same battle to fight. This is why being a good coach, in my mind, is so much more important than being a good recruiter. Patterson's coaching ability made TCU easier to recruit to because they won games; his recruits did not make him a better coach. Kill has shown that he will do the necessary recruiting work, but kids are going to want to see success before signing on to play here.
Click to expand...

I have not seen the article you mentioned but like the one linked earlier in this thread MV usually puts out good stuff. The only issue I would have with using Patterson as an example is that while I am sure that his success on the field helped his recruiting he is also located in a hotbed for talent. You look at his classes and they are dominated by kids from Texas. Sure there is a lot of competition for players down there but there are also a ton of players to be had. One high school team in Texas might produce as many legit division 1 recruits as the entire state of Minnesota in a given year.
 

The 12th Man said:
I believe it was MV who broke down recruiting a bit and formed some interesting conclusions based on statistical analysis done by an independent group.

The one main conclusion was that recruiting success is influenced more by team success on the field than by any other factor.

This data, in turn, supports why Patterson is now able to recruit at a high level to TCU. Top kids would not go there until he proved that he would have a successful program. Kill now has the same battle to fight. This is why being a good coach, in my mind, is so much more important than being a good recruiter. Patterson's coaching ability made TCU easier to recruit to because they won games; his recruits did not make him a better coach. Kill has shown that he will do the necessary recruiting work, but kids are going to want to see success before signing on to play here.

The best thing Kill can do now to eventually gain that recruiting edge is exactly what he is doing: 1.) Find the best kids possible who want to be at Minnesota and 2.) Find kids who fit his schemes

Here's why:

1.) Games are won, especially by "fringe bowl teams" like Minnesota (and, not surprisingly, by MAC schools), by senior-laden teams. By erring on the side of academically eligible kids who want to be at Minnesota, Kill ups the chances of those kids staying all 4/5 years and playing as seniors. This will win some games.

2.) Consistency. As we have seen, changing schemes constantly is not a recipe for success. By finding kids who already fit his schemes rather than having to mold the kids or mold the schemes, Kill will speed up the learning process and put kids in a position to succeed. Again, if done successfully, this will win some games.

Whether or not this will work will be determined over time. While we all like the idea of a James Franklin coming in a recruiting big names right away, I will remind everyone that initial recruiting success does not necessarily equal long-term success on the field. Look no further than Tim Brewster or Ron Zook. Given Kill's track record, however (similar to that of Patterson), and the last 50 years of Gopher football (Mason also recruited for his system and had the most success of anyone recently), I am willing to give Kill the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Knock-out punches. I agree with 12th Man on these two points to the nth degree. I would add (and a lot of other posters have mentioned this) that I think the primary problem the program has had over the past two decades is a lack of depth. A lot of Mason's success (and he did have success--no one can argue that convincingly that he didn't) came through what I call "cycled" teams. He would take a group of kids, toss them in the starting line-up and ride them through until they were seniors. I can't think of too many QBs he had that had considerable experience before they became the full-time starter. In going that route, you don't build up the depth that you need to stay consistent.

The other problem is that the team has leaked players like crazy over the past few decades. So many scholarship kids who just seem to disappear. I think what Kill is trying to do is get solid kids in the program and make certain they stay through their eligibility. While winning on the field is, as MV points out, the likely #1 recruiting tool, having guys stay through their eligibility is a sign to recruits that the program is solid and that the guys in the program have not "voted with their feet (and remaining eligibility)" and left the program.

As for the "no-star" kids. I would argue that three of them have flown below the radar to some extent (Boddy, Keith, and Plsek) and the fourth (Johnson) simply hasn't been evaluated (although I think Scout has him as a 2-star).

I hate to give Wisconsin credit for anything (and it's not about the coaches or players--it's about their ridiculous fan base), but that's the model we have to aspire to. And let's remember Alvarez didn't hit it out of the park in his first at-bat. It will take awhile, but the more I watch Kill, the more I am impressed.
 



MNVCGUY said:
I have not seen the article you mentioned but like the one linked earlier in this thread MV usually puts out good stuff. The only issue I would have with using Patterson as an example is that while I am sure that his success on the field helped his recruiting he is also located in a hotbed for talent. You look at his classes and they are dominated by kids from Texas. Sure there is a lot of competition for players down there but there are also a ton of players to be had. One high school team in Texas might produce as many legit division 1 recruits as the entire state of Minnesota in a given year.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I think that advantage is lessened significantly by playing in a non-BCS conference. Most Texas kids, for example, would rather play here than at North Texas. Now that TCU has started winning, however, and now that they are moving to a BCS conference, things get easier. Don't forget, though, that Baylor has been pretty bad in recent years also, despite their location and Big 12 presence. They couldn't recruit because they were bad on the field.
 

There is a track record, albeit a short one with some of these under-recruited types and Kill bringing them here. his Northern Illinois team beat BCS teams/played above their "recruited talent level" quite often.
Last years class provided several freshmen starters, many freshmen contributors, and a few JUCO starters/contributors.
Amaefula was a late add, Jones was under-recruited, Cobb, Goodger, Wells, Levine, and Thompson all played and contributed, many were absolutely off the radar.
Supposedly Cockran and Bush are future players, neither had much for offers.
Moulton started as a JUCO, Rabe too. Honestly the biggest disappointment was probably Geshun Harris not playing much.

Kill has a very different way of recruiting than we are used to. It's obvious he's looking for things other than BCS offer sheets and highlight tapes.
IMO he's looking at:
1)Academic/character "staying power", he needs kids here for 4-5 years.
2)Speed/athleticism COMBINED with growth potential and position flexibility, he's getting alot of guys who could slide into new positions or outgrow them and be a developmental type.
3)Immediate help from JUCOs. Obvious lack of talent/depth in the secondary, a feature back, and a big tough WR. JUCO numbers offset by our class imbalances, I'd expect less JUCOs down the road.

I've enjoyed this recruiting cycle, it's a new direction than we're used to and it's fun to try and read tea leaves with Kill and see why he's doing certain things and where he's taking the program.
 

This may be simplistic, but let's just take NIU as the level of talent they are recruiting as a straw man (we know that is too conservative because they were not getting Nelson, Pirsig, Hinojosa, or Hayes rated recruits at NIU, but just go with it).
How many teams in the B1G have been better than NIU the last two seasons? 1)Wisconsin, 2) Nebraska, 3)MSU, 4) PSU, 5)Michigan this year and OSU last year.
I think NIU was about the equal of Iowa, and NW and better than Illinois, Purdue Indiana or Minnesota. I also think they might have beaten one or two of the "better" teams if they played them.
So if they can get us to the middle of the BigTen with the players they have been getting, we can move up form there when we have some credibility.
They improved the defense this year playing a 160 lb safety who was in danger of getting killed on every playand playing two freshmen DEs for much of the year. They got an offensive line to improve with a new starting lineup weekly made up mostly of freshmen.
I am assuming our recruiting will have to improve to eventually win a BigTen title, but just having the same kids in the program being well coached for four years will make us a lot tougher team, and we will improve from there. Secondly, mason proved one can build good offenses here, but he never got the speed to field good defenses. I think these guys can solve that problem.
 

I laid out a chart a while ago for an ideal recuriting class when you look at it the numbers aren't real imposing.
MN 6-8
Upper Midwest 4-7 (includes MO)
JUCO 3-4
TX/LA 4-6
FL/SE 4-6
 

I think Kill and his staff have worked together long enough and developed an Offense and defense to know the type of talent they can build a successful team with.

And BTW - Mason was all right, but personally given Coach Kill's success at every level he has coached at, I see no reason to cap his success at Mason level. If how they played against Illinois is an indicator, I look for a lot more stronger team with far less 4th quarter collapses. Personally I suspect the Gophers are going to be a consistently strong team and one game even the top B1G teams are going to have a very hard time overlooking.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom