if Kill succeeds some folks will say it was Brewsters Boys.

[John Galt]

Generally, I agree with your point though, I think Kill's 2012 class is better than Brew's 2010 class. But, it's obviously way too early to tell.

This is my entire point. People can't say that Brewster was a "great" recruiter and that Kill is a "Mac-level" recruiter when Kill's 1st class was more impressive than Brewster's 2010 class. Brewster's recruiting prowess declined rapidly each year.

 

[FreakyDeke]

This is my entire point. People can't say that Brewster was a "great" recruiter and that Kill is a "Mac-level" recruiter when Kill's 1st class was more impressive than Brewster's 2010 class. Brewster's recruiting prowess declined rapidly each year.

Exactly right. I think Kill did great with the 2012 class and I hope he keeps it up, although this will be a smaller class and less MN high school talent.

 

[monk10]

If you want a membership pst me.

Unregistered User, I gotta up my game. Been taking too much time off. However I gots to admit that felt good posting that one.

 

[Go4Broke]

Exactly right. I think Kill did great with the 2012 class and I hope he keeps it up, although this will be a smaller class and less MN high school talent.

The only people who seem to agree with your assessment of Kill's 2012 recruiting class post in GopherHole. I think it might be better for you to wait before you pronounce the class a great success. The jury is definitely still out on it.

 

[FreakyDeke]

The only people who seem to agree with your assessment of Kill's 2012 recruiting class post in GopherHole. I think it might be better for you to wait before you pronounce the class a great success. The jury is definitely still out on it.

I know that the class wasn't rated highly, but it puzzles me. We have rarely gotten the Pirsig, Hayes, Nelson and McDonald type players to stay home. I think that's a success and hopefully they live up to their potential.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

This is my entire point. People can't say that Brewster was a "great" recruiter and that Kill is a "Mac-level" recruiter when Kill's 1st class was more impressive than Brewster's 2010 class. Brewster's recruiting prowess declined rapidly each year.

Well, I've never called Jerry Kill a MAC level recruiter. I just disagree with your point about Harbison and Hayes.

It's also really hard to judge right now because Brew's 2008 class (his first full class) had more big names than Kill's 2012 class. A lot of the ranking of them as pure recruiters needs to be done in a few years. Brew's 2009 class looks terrible now, but we signed some kids with really impressive offer sheets (more impressive than Kill's 2012 and Kill's 2013 so far). Now, that doesn't mean much if you can't develop or coach those players.

I think the idea that Brew recruited one supremely overrated class and a couple other terrible classes, is a really bad evaluation of how recruiting worked out. I actually think it's missing the entire point of why Brew was a failure here.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I know that the class wasn't rated highly, but it puzzles me. We have rarely gotten the Pirsig, Hayes, Nelson and McDonald type players to stay home. I think that's a success and hopefully they live up to their potential.

Sorry, but that's not true.

McDonald and Pirsig were coups for our program last year.

We recruit local kids like Nelson and Hayes to stay home every single year.
Garin, Hageman (he is more in the Pirsig/McDonald range), Edwards, Alipate, Tommy Olson (no other offers, but neither did Nelson), Maresh (closer to McDonald and Pirsig), etc. etc.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The part I bolded... that statement is exactly right, and it's also the exact same thing as saying Mason was a better recruiter than Brewster. Evaluator? Recruiter? Same thing. Brewster truly cared about the star ratings, Mason simply didn't. They had different recruiting philosophies, but Mason recruited better players here than Brewster did, and the records show that. Who cares if Brewster won more recruiting battles with other BCS programs than Mason did? Mason didn't try to engage much in those battles becuase he knew it was a waste of time, much like Kill believes. The talent level at Minnesota from 2003 thru 2005 was as high as we've seen here in a long time. Brewster's classes didn't bring even close to that type of talent here.

Again, if it wasn't for star ratings Brewster defenders would simply have NOTHING else.

Seriously?

It's not the star rankings, it's the other offers. It's not only Brew who you think is a poor evaluator but also guys like Urban Meyer (Brew landed 3 guys Meyer offered), Tressel, Bielema, etc. etc.

No one is looking at their star ranking. People are saying that Brew did a good job of pursuading athletes who were offered by Florida, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc., to come to Minnesota. That is why people are saying he was a good recruiter. It has nothing to do with star rankings. It isn't that complicated.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Of those five that are done and the five with one year left, could you list the "significant number of players" who played or will play in the NFL?

As of now, the only one is Brock (who finished his college career at Belhaven College).

All of these guys have cashed in an NFL paycheck:

Tremaine Brock
Traye Simmons
Simoni Lawrence
Cedric McKinley

Guys with a chance:
Stoudermire
Gray
Jacobs
Tinsley would have had an outside chance.

 

[FreakyDeke]

Sorry, but that's not true.

McDonald and Pirsig were coups for our program last year.

We recruit local kids like Nelson and Hayes to stay home every single year.
Garin, Hageman (he is more in the Pirsig/McDonald range), Edwards, Alipate, Tommy Olson (no other offers, but neither did Nelson), Maresh (closer to McDonald and Pirsig), etc. etc.

Don't say "that's not true" and then agree with me in the next sentence.

 

[John Galt]

This thread needs to die. The biggest issue is that no one is even defining recruiting the same way. Above, Bob's says that its persuading athletes to choose your school. My definition a few pages back is that it also includes evaluating talent. Some think it also includes player development. This thread leads us nowhere if we can't even define the word the same way.

 

[wait!what?]

Bob has it correct. -Bob says that its persuading athletes to choose your school. Kill did get Bobek to come here.

 

[RodentRampage]

This thread needs to die. The biggest issue is that no one is even defining recruiting the same way. Above, Bob's says that its persuading athletes to choose your school. My definition a few pages back is that it also includes evaluating talent. Some think it also includes player development. This thread leads us nowhere if we can't even define the word the same way.

Recruiting consists of scouting talent and getting them to come to your school. The two go hand in hand. If you have good scouting you can recognize talent that is going under the radar or recognize that a highly regarded recruit might be overrated.

Developing talent is coaching, and has nothing to do with recruiting.

 

[John Galt]

Recruiting consists of scouting talent and getting them to come to your school. The two go hand in hand. If you have good scouting you can recognize talent that is going under the radar or recognize that a highly regarded recruit might be overrated.

Developing talent is coaching, and has nothing to do with recruiting.

I agree with your definition completely. Half the poster don't.

 

[Killjoy]

Starting to get the impression that you're either a BIT or a TROLL. Either way you act as though you have inside information when we all know you have never been to a game or a practice.

I don't know if being Kim Royston's father can be considered as having inside information but it does give Sportsfan24 a certain perspective, not necessarily right but certainly worth reading.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Don't say "that's not true" and then agree with me in the next sentence.

What?

Ok. . . If someone said "Monkeys, deer, walleye and shrimp are mammals." And then, I responded with "That's not true. A deer and a monkey are mammals but shrimp and walleye are not." That is NOT agreeing with the first statement..

Now, what you said is that we rarely get McDonald, Pirsig, Hayes and Nelson types to stay home.

It's somewhat rare to get players like McDonald and Pirsig (we do it every couple years) to stay home, but it is NOT true that we rarely get players like Hayes and Nelson to stay home. The fact that we get players of Nelson and Hayes caliber (in terms of recruiting) every single year, makes your statement false. Just like the fact that shrimp and walleye are not mammals makes the other statement false.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I agree with your definition completely. Half the poster don't.

I don't think that's true. I think in pursuading kids to choose your school, evaluating whether they are worthy of those offers is implicit in that process.

You're acting like Brewster saw these guys rivals ratings and offered them and he was the only coach to offer these guys scholarships. It's not just Brew who thought these kids could play, it was some of the most succesful BCS coaches in the entire country.

When it comes to recruiting, Brew was better at getting guys that they offered who were also offered by some of the most succesful coaches / programs in the country.

Mason was better at getting the diamonds in the rough and making them into good football players. That's probably a combo of being able to develop players and being able to evaluate those players.

 

[FreakyDeke]

What?

Ok. . . If someone said "Monkeys, deer, walleye and shrimp are mammals." And then, I responded with "That's not true. A deer and a monkey are mammals but shrimp and walleye are not." That is NOT agreeing with the first statement..

Now, what you said is that we rarely get McDonald, Pirsig, Hayes and Nelson types to stay home.

It's somewhat rare to get players like McDonald and Pirsig (we do it every couple years) to stay home, but it is NOT true that we rarely get players like Hayes and Nelson to stay home. The fact that we get players of Nelson and Hayes caliber (in terms of recruiting) every single year, makes your statement false. Just like the fact that shrimp and walleye are not mammals makes the other statement false.

Your mammal example is more clear cut than what we are talking about. I don't think that we do get a National Sleeper of the year QB to pick us over their childhood favorite school every year. You may be right about Hayes,but he still picked us over VaTech, which seems rare to me. The fact that you agreed with 2 and (imo) undervalued the 3rd of my 4 example recruits doesn't seem like "you are wrong" material.

 

[Wouldn't You like to Know]

I don't know if being Kim Royston's father can be considered as having inside information but it does give Sportsfan24 a certain perspective, not necessarily right but certainly worth reading.

Obviously I was being sarcastic and IMO pretty much every reasonable gopher fans perspective is worth reading as long as it has a foundation. Frankly I don't care if he was coach Kill anybody that thinks Tom freaking Parish should start over MG in my opinion that is a terrible take that being said debates and arguments are are always fun when in good nature.

For me it's interesting to see how many varying opinions there are on what recruiting is by definition and which coach was the best recruiter. That's a tough debate since there are so many variables. Recruiting to me is attracting top end talent that fit your particular system, scheme, need and overall program.

IMO Brew's problem was that he didn't know how to run a program as a whole and relied heavily on his assistant coaches for scheming and play calling. There is no question that he was quite the salesman and was very audacious in his attempts to recruit against the helmet schools landing some highly sought after recruits. However, I don't think he knew how to recruit for scheme, system or for what kids fit in with his program he basically just went after the best athletes and high profile kids and thought they would fit in.

Example Brew's thought process (IMO) "That's a hell of a RB a lot of other teams are after him let's go get him." What he didn't do and what Mason did was to look at how this player would fit his system and program as a whole.

The jury is still out on Kill as he only has 1 class of his own the 2011 class is mainly Brew's since Kill honored all commitments.

Final Say

Brew: The most audacious, best closer and salesman of the group however lacked on finding kids to fit the system.

Mason: Great at finding kids that fit his system and finding diamonds in the rough.

Kill: So far, recruiting well against the helmet schools with Pirsig, McDonald, Harbison and Hayes. Also, has found at least one diamond in the rough (M. Jones) and seems good at finding players to fit in with the program. THE JURY IS STILL OUT (way too early to tell).

 

[HavaGo4]

Hey guys, long time lurker. Great discussion you got going. Got a question for the board about recruiting battles and offer lists. Some on the board have claimed that Brewster was a good/great recruiter because he beat out other BCS schools who had also offered kid. My question is, do you think the other schools feel like they lost? Would an Urban Meyer be that upset that a kid he offered chose to sign with the gophers? (I only using Meyer as an example because he was mentioned in a previous post) Does an offer list really matter, or is it the equivalent of a verbal commitment? I don't really know how many offers coaches toss out on a regular base but I would guess that factors into the equation.

 

[Sportsfan24]

His posts don't impress me at all, and he seems to come off as a crybaby for some reason. He sounds like a crazy hockey parent. And his take on Parrish is laughable. Parrish was given a fair shot, he was never good enough to see the field. It's that simple.

Cry baby? Because I believe Parrish wasn't given a fair shot to win the starting position? No, I'm a cry baby because I have a knowledge based opinion that's different from your "pull it out your ass" opinion and you don't like it.

Crazy hockey parent? I have no idea how you arrived at that but if it makes you feel better about yourself....cool I will be a crazy hockey parent.

My take on Parrish? Like folks with good sense said; it's only my opinion, one that could be agreed with or disagreed with. All I was trying to convey is that it's not always black and white on who starts or plays (the best guy). My guy Brewster approached it that way and in my opinion (along with staff/system changeover) this is one of the biggest reasons that led to his demise and one of the reasons why I believe Kill will be successful here. Kill is experienced and understands this (balancing the classes).

Kill is also smart enough not to say, hey I'm going to bypass some guys so I can get this thing lined up right. Hard/tough decisions have to be made to get the program back on track. All I'm saying is, Parrish was a victim of this. Not that he would have beaten Gray out...just that he was never given a fair shot....IMO. The deciding factor for my arrival at that opinion was how Parrish was leaped by Shortel
once Shortel arrived on campus.

Hopefully this is not to deep for you.

 

[Wouldn't You like to Know]

All I'm saying is, Parrish was a victim of this. Not that he would have beaten Gray out...just that he was never given a fair shot....IMO.

Ok, this makes a lot more sense as I was under the impression from reading your earlier posts that you thought Parrish was better than Gray.

 

[gophers141]

Even without a concrete definition of what a "good recruiter" is it was still pretty clear that Brew was in over his head. He was a salesman and a cheerleader but he wasn't a coach, I hope most of us can agree on that. He sold our AD and sold part of Gopher Nation.

To get back to what this thread was intended to be about, if Kill is successful in the next 2-3 years the credit should not go to Brew. He was not a developer of talent, yes he did get big name kids that Mason wouldn't have, but he had no idea how to coach them up. We are all hopeful and optimistic that Gray will be improved this coming year at QB but that wouldn't have been the case with Brew still at the helm. Gray is improving because of the consistent and experienced coaching he is getting from Kills staff.

As far as Kill being a good recruiter, it has been said already, we aren't even through year 2 so it is still way too early to tell. We can bring this up again in 2014-2015.

 

[Golden Elephant]

gophers141 is correct about the original point of this thread - Kill will get the credit if he's successful in the next 2-3 years, and Brewster will get a small amount of credit only if key players on the team are his recruits (i.e. if we have a big year this year, and Gray is a big part of it).

That said, I think as Bob and others have pointed out, most of the disagreement on whether or not Brewster was a good recruiter comes from the definition of a good recruiter. Some have basically said it boils down to whether or not you beat out other BCS schools for guys or not.

I'd disagree with that definition because the consensus opinion is not always right. I don't like to pick on any one guy but I'll make an exception here to make my point. Hayo Carpenter was a 4* guy who Brew actually beat out Florida for. I'm gonna say Hayo shouldn't have been rated that high and Florida never should've offered the guy. You can argue he had bad coaching, a bad system, etc., etc here, but I think his poor record here shows the evaluations of him were just wrong. Have you ever seen the movie Moneyball? The consensus can be wrong about a guy.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I'd disagree with that definition because the consensus opinion is not always right. I don't like to pick on any one guy but I'll make an exception here to make my point. Hayo Carpenter was a 4* guy who Brew actually beat out Florida for. I'm gonna say Hayo shouldn't have been rated that high and Florida never should've offered the guy. You can argue he had bad coaching, a bad system, etc., etc here, but I think his poor record here shows the evaluations of him were just wrong. Have you ever seen the movie Moneyball? The consensus can be wrong about a guy.

Yes - the concensus on a player can be wrong - but AT THE TIME he was being recruited, he was widely thought to be a quality player. If that makes Brewster a "bad' recruiter, then everyone who offered Carpenter must be a bad recruiter, too. When Carpenter signed with the U, I don't remember anyone coming on and saying "yes, he's a highly-rated recruit, but I can see into the future, and I know he's not going to develop." It's easy to second-guess decisions when you already know the outcome. Shoot, if I had a time machine, I could go back to 2007, and advise everyone to sell their stocks short before the recession, and be hailed as the greatest stock analyst of all time.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Ok, this makes a lot more sense as I was under the impression from reading your earlier posts that you thought Parrish was better than Gray.

To be honest, at the time the decision was made on who starts I thought Gray offered more upside but Parrish was further along (IMO). The whole ceiling floor thing.

I sided with those from the previous staff (not all of them) who believed the team would be better with Gray, Mcknight at receiver and Lair at TE and Parrish at QB. Of course they all got fired and nobody is paying me 25 cents for what I think (lol).

 

[GophersInIowa]

Final Say

Brew: The most audacious, best closer and salesman of the group however lacked on finding kids to fit the system.

Mason: Great at finding kids that fit his system and finding diamonds in the rough.

Kill: So far, recruiting well against the helmet schools with Pirsig, McDonald, Harbison and Hayes. Also, has found at least one diamond in the rough (M. Jones) and seems good at finding players to fit in with the program. THE JURY IS STILL OUT (way too early to tell).

I would say it was more that we didn't really have a system. We changed our offense and defense way too much to have a system.

 

[RodentRampage]

I would say it was more that we didn't really have a system. We changed our offense and defense way too much to have a system.

I agree, Brewster didn't have a system. He made radical changes too often. With his lack of experience, he may have been better off keeping Mason's offense intact and working on the defense.

 

[50PoundHead]

Even the greatest chef in the world can't make a winning entre out of sub-par ingredients and vice-versa in that the finest ingredients become bad goulash in the hands of an amateur.

depends on if you are hungry or are you starving. had to do it.

True dat. And I kind of like goulash. LOL.

 

[Tully55]

I would find it very comical if people were to complain saying ,"but it was with Brewster's boys." Brewster couldn't' win with them.