Official 2019 Recruiting Updates Thread: Links, Tweets, Videos, Stories, Rumors, etc.

Donate To GopherHole
PoockItInfor6 said:
I respect Kill/Claeys for building us to the point they got us (I also happen to think that an 8-4 record was the limit on a 4 year average record was going to be with the way they did business, which is certainly respectable, but not as good as I believe we’re going to be with Fleck)... But are we really going to pretend Coughlin didn’t recruit most of that class?
Click to expand...

Why would you think 8-4 was the limit? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm genuinely interested in this opinion. I've seen it floated around by a number of people, and I don't really get it.

As far as CC recruiting that class, I think that's an insane opinion. I can't think of a single player that we weren't in on prior to CC. That said, would you say ZA recruited Faalele and Dunlap?
 

Gophers_4life said:
But ... Fleck not getting the national ranking up into the 30’s isn’t necessarily a failure anyway. Wins are what matters.
Click to expand...

I find it pretty interesting how this narrative has moved recently. I agree that wins matter. 4-6 missed opportunities for wins in the last two years has probably impacted this class.
 

Face The Facts said:
For the answer to that, either go and read one of the numerous threads that argue over how important recruiting rankings are to on-the-field results, and pick a side.
Or
Wait and see.

Those are the best two options I can give you to try and answer your question.
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting an answer anytime soon. I think that's just the big question that everyone is debating. We won't know the answer for at least 10 months.
I think our recruiting currently is good enough to get us into the 8-9 win range quickly. I think we'll need to do better than 10-12th in the Big Ten if we want to take the really big jump of competing on a regular basis for a Big Ten West title.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Why would you think 8-4 was the limit? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm genuinely interested in this opinion. I've seen it floated around by a number of people, and I don't really get it.

As far as CC recruiting that class, I think that's an insane opinion. I can't think of a single player that we weren't in on prior to CC. That said, would you say ZA recruited Faalele and Dunlap?
Click to expand...

CC committed early, brought the top MN kids up to his cabin, was active on social media recruiting the other top MN kids in an exceptionally strong MN class... I don’t see how you can deny his impact on that class.

As for 8-4 being approximate ceiling... Kill/Claeys/Sawvel did a nice job developing mostly under recruited kids. The problem with the brick by brick approach is their brand of football was so defined by the time they got to 8-4 seasons that the playmakers needed in the passing game to exceed that threshold were never going to commit to that style of play.
 

OddStack said:
Why not ask the question about Annexstad recruiting the IMG kids? smh
c'mon...kids in both classes are here; thus, it doesn't matter how.
Click to expand...

I certainly think Annexstad had an impact on those two commitments.
 


Rankings Rankings Rankings

Would I love to see Minnesota boast recruiting classes in the top 25 of the nations? Of course, we all would. I think we can all agree that Minnesota will always have to find a few hidden gems, after all, we are one of just a few power 5 teams to have never recruited a five star player. I will take all the Winfield Jr kind of players we can get.

Next season is going to be very important for the program and the quality of players we can get going forward. If we really have a great season, I think the floodgates open up for us in the recruiting world. I hope so at least.
 


PoockItInfor6 said:
CC committed early, brought the top MN kids up to his cabin, was active on social media recruiting the other top MN kids in an exceptionally strong MN class... I don’t see how you can deny his impact on that class.

As for 8-4 being approximate ceiling... Kill/Claeys/Sawvel did a nice job developing mostly under recruited kids. The problem with the brick by brick approach is their brand of football was so defined by the time they got to 8-4 seasons that the playmakers needed in the passing game to exceed that threshold were never going to commit to that style of play.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying any impact. I'm saying this happens for every class for every school in the country.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
I certainly think Annexstad had an impact on those two commitments.
Click to expand...

You attempt to discredit CC's class by giving him credit (not the coaches) for "most" of the class which is laughable. However, you attempt to applaud last year's class by omission of Annexstad's likely contribution with Dunlap and Faalele which are also the 2 highest rated recruits in the Fleck era.

Once again, who cares how they're here, but dont' bash one class's process to a resulrt and ignore the other class's process to a result when both processes appear to have at least some attempt at player influence. Bash both or ignore both. Newsflash...today's environment of social media is leading to more recruit--->recruit contact than ever before!!!
 
Last edited:



OddStack said:
You attempt to discredit CC's class by giving him credit (not the coaches) for "most" of the class which is laughable. However, you attempt to applaud last year's class by omission of Annexstad's likely contribution with Dunlap and Faalele which are also the 2 highest rated recruits in the Fleck era.

Once again, who cares how they're here, but dont' bash one class's process to a resulrt and ignore the other class's process to a result when both processes appear to have at least some attempt at player influence. Bash both or ignore both. Newsflash...today's environment of social media is leading to more recruit--->recruit contact than ever before!!!
Click to expand...

I’m not bashing anyone. I thank Kill/Claeys for building us to the point they got us to. I just didn’t see a path from that point to the top of the West. And although I think ZA influenced Faalele and CDJ... I don’t think his influence would have gotten them here without Fleck.

I also don’t think Fleck gets top 25 classes to Minnesota unless he wins 10+ games in one of the next 3 years. That said, I think we get 10+ wins one of the next 3 years and we do start landing top 25 classes.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
And although I think ZA influenced Faalele and CDJ... I don’t think his influence would have gotten them here without Fleck.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait...Carter Coughlin single-handedly recruited the entire 2016 recruiting class, despite probably never knowing or even speaking to any of those guys prior to their being recruited. But Zack Annexstad, who actually went to school with Dunlap and Faalele for 2 years (I believe even roomed with one or both of them), couldn't pull them in without Fleck's recruiting wizardry? I mean, Fleck has increased our recruiting ranking all the way up from 46th to 43rd in a mere 3 years - and at the low, low cost of more than double the previous coach's salary to do it. I can see why you'd be smitten.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
I’m not bashing anyone. I thank Kill/Claeys for building us to the point they got us to. I just didn’t see a path from that point to the top of the West. And although I think ZA influenced Faalele and CDJ... I don’t think his influence would have gotten them here without Fleck.

I also don’t think Fleck gets top 25 classes to Minnesota unless he wins 10+ games in one of the next 3 years. That said, I think we get 10+ wins one of the next 3 years and we do start landing top 25 classes.
Click to expand...

I think Annexstad(with Faalele and Dunlop) come here regardless of who the coach would have been between Kill or PJ. Doubt they would have come with Claeys as HC, because his offensive philosophy with Jay Johnson as OC was for a running QB and that is not Zach.

I also believe the Athletes Village would have helped JK/Claeys start to bring in better athletes that would have pushed them to the top of the BIG West. They had established a path to win the West and with the addition of the new facilities would have accomplished it.
 

Claeys gets full credit for the 2016 class. A lot of the recruits initially committed to Kill, but they didn't leave when Claeys took over, so he gets credit for keeping the class together.

My only issue is with the posters who think the improvement in the 2016 class was a signal that recruiting was going to improve dramatically under Claeys. 2016 was an anomaly for a Kill/Claeys class that had the advantage of one of the strongest crops of in-state recruits that we've seen. They don't have to apologize for it, it could have been a disaster after Kill left. But it's doubtful we were going to see any long-term sustained improvement, unless you think Claeys was a better recruiter than Kill.
 




John Galt said:
My only issue is with the posters who think the improvement in the 2016 class was a signal that recruiting was going to improve dramatically under Claeys.
Click to expand...

Prove that it wasn't. Claeys had one recruiting class - a data set of one can't prove or disprove anything.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Why would you think 8-4 was the limit? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm genuinely interested in this opinion. I've seen it floated around by a number of people, and I don't really get it.

As far as CC recruiting that class, I think that's an insane opinion. I can't think of a single player that we weren't in on prior to CC. That said, would you say ZA recruited Faalele and Dunlap?
Click to expand...

I think 8 regular season wins was their limit. Primarily because it's the most regular season wins they had in 6 years. It would take a pretty big leap of faith to think that things were shaping up for an improved 2017 and beyond.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Prove that it wasn't. Claeys had one recruiting class - a data set of one can't prove or disprove anything.
Click to expand...

I mean the counter is “prove that it was” and you can’t do instead you guys just argue over something with no purpose or possible outcome that can be obtained when both groups have differing opinions and that’s all that there is to go off
 


Wins is what drives EVERYTHING. If you win:
- you must be great at coaching your players
- your way of running business must be genius
- regardless of anything, if you win enough for long enough, your recruiting will get better, because players want to play for winners.


Baylor I think proves this. As I’m sure a lot of schools do, too. RGIII and Briles started a machine rolling there. Because they were winning a lot. Of course it all collapsed with the scandal.
 

I read an article about the time Coach Kill got here, that compared recruiting rank over five years, with conference rank at the end of the season. In almost every case the teams would finish the season within three spots of their conference recruiting rank. While coaching has an effect the ultimate determinant is recruiting, you can survive one year of tenth place recruiting, but in the end, you have to average top three to win big.
 

upnorthkid said:
I mean the counter is “prove that it was” and you can’t do instead you guys just argue over something with no purpose or possible outcome that can be obtained when both groups have differing opinions and that’s all that there is to go off
Click to expand...

John Galt said:
Prove that it was.
Click to expand...

You guys are proving my point. It can't be proven either way, and yet someone who leans one way or the other is clearly an idiot.
 

John Galt said:
I think 8 regular season wins was their limit. Primarily because it's the most regular season wins they had in 6 years. It would take a pretty big leap of faith to think that things were shaping up for an improved 2017 and beyond.
Click to expand...

Well, they had one year - not six. There is just as much reason as not to believe that things would improve in 2017 and beyond. Because you don't think so, someone who does is an idiot, right?
 

nsmike said:
I read an article about the time Coach Kill got here, that compared recruiting rank over five years, with conference rank at the end of the season. In almost every case the teams would finish the season within three spots of their conference recruiting rank. While coaching has an effect the ultimate determinant is recruiting, you can survive one year of tenth place recruiting, but in the end, you have to average top three to win big.
Click to expand...

Does winning follow recruiting, or does recruiting follow winning?? Chicken. Egg.
 

What’s one thing EVERYONE can agree to??

You look at: Mason, Brewster, Kill, Fleck ...... which had(will have) the least amount of impact on the future success of Goohers football?? I think we can all say, without doubt, Brewster.

So at least there’s that.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You guys are proving my point. It can't be proven either way, and yet someone who leans one way or the other is clearly an idiot.
Click to expand...

I do t have a dog in the fight, I’m just pointing out exactly what you’re also saying that this is a boring old argument that leads to both parties sitting in the same spot
 

John Galt said:
I think 8 regular season wins was their limit. Primarily because it's the most regular season wins they had in 6 years. It would take a pretty big leap of faith to think that things were shaping up for an improved 2017 and beyond.
Click to expand...

Not a big leap at all. They were consistent in their recruiting. Like I have said before in this thread and others, the addition of the Athletes Village would have improved their recruiting.

PJ is a great recruiter, but he would have been limited in his ability to bring in better talent if he didn't have the Athletes Village.
 

Groundhog Day has come and gone, but here we are - with the same learned individuals having the same arguments
 


PhillyGopher said:
Groundhog Day has come and gone, but here we are - with the same learned individuals having the same arguments
Click to expand...

Well, it had been about what, like 2-3 weeks since people had the same exact fight? We were due for the usual suspects to jump in and have the same, tired argument

Good work everyone!
 

dpodoll68 said:
Prove that it wasn't. Claeys had one recruiting class - a data set of one can't prove or disprove anything.
Click to expand...

The class he had lined up when he was let go seems like proof to me.

EDIT: There are good players in the class and I’m sure some were in tow before the Claeys dismissal. Claeys is a wonderful coordinator and helped build positive momentum here. That said I know that class was not shaping up as another top 45 class.
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom