World Herald: Kill's recruiting strategy is certainly homespun

[BleedGopher]

"On to the Big Ten recruiting front, Michigan grabbed Ohio State's top commit, offensive lineman Kyle Kalis, in the wake of the Buckeyes' NCAA troubles. The Wolverines have 20 commits for the 2012 class — including five offensive linemen and five defensive backs — and they probably won't stop until they hit 27 or 28. Unlike the departed Rich Rodriguez, Brady “Michigan Man” Hoke should get the chance to fully develop that recruiting class.

Minnesota is No. 2 in the commit parade with 15. New coach Jerry Kill is sticking with a recruiting method that he thought served him well at Southern Illinois and Northern Illinois: Supplement so-so in-state talent with third-tier Florida prospects (five so far) in an effort to inject ownership (the in-state kids) and speed (the Florida guys) into the roster.

Kill bemoaned the Gophers' depth and speed this spring, which was surprising, because recruiting was the one thing former head coach Tim Brewster did well. Kill is popular with the media because he puts on no airs. This recruiting strategy is certainly homespun. Will it work when “character” programs like Iowa and Wisconsin serve as the Gophers' main rivals?"

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110713/BIGRED/707139761

Go Gophers!!

 

[dpodoll68]

Way to generalize. I'm sure speed was at the forefront of his mind when he recruited a TE, DT, and two LB.

Florida does produce something besides skill players.

 

[DMB123]

I can't believe the author of that article thinks Brewster recruited well.

 

[dpodoll68]

I can't believe the author of that article thinks Brewster recruited well.

By the most objective measures available - yes, he absolutely did.

Again, for the 1,000th time - there is plenty to rip Brewster about. Recruiting is actually the one thing he did well. You will see just how well over the next 2 years, when his first key recruits are all juniors and seniors.

 

[imthewalrus]

Well, dopodoll: the number of Big Ten wins vs. Big Ten losses will tell us how well..

that brewster recruited...isn't that what you are implying with your comment about brewster's recruiting when you stated:

"...Again, for the 1,000th time - there is plenty to rip Brewster about. Recruiting is actually the one thing he did well. You will see just how well over the next 2 years, when his first key recruits are all juniors and seniors..."

We will see dopodoll. They will have the opportunity to finally play for a real coach. I want to see a LOT of Big Ten wins! That would be just great. Will you go on the record as stating that since you believe brewster's recruits to have been so darn good, that you feel they will win a lot of Big Ten games when they are juniors and seniors?

That would be a good thing. I am certain that Kill will get more out of those who remain than brewster ever would have. Will they be good for 4 Big Ten wins in the conbined 2011 and 2012 seasons? 6 Big Ten wins? 8 Big Ten wins? More than 8 Big Ten wins total in those two seasons?

Coach Kill must Run a good, clean program. Graduate ever increasing numbers of student athletes. And he must win a LOT of Big Ten football games. The results of the Big Ten Contests will tell us exactly what kind of recruiting was done during the brewster era and will also shed light on exactly how well Kill and his staff are recruiting and coaching "UP" the players that they have. There will be no guesswork. Big Ten wins vs. Big Ten losses tells the WHOLE story!

; 0 )

 

[DMB123]

By the most objective measures available - yes, he absolutely did.

Again, for the 1,000th time - there is plenty to rip Brewster about. Recruiting is actually the one thing he did well. You will see just how well over the next 2 years, when his first key recruits are all juniors and seniors.

I actually watch the players and how they perform on the field rather than counting how many stars they had by some recruiting service who never even saw them play. But that's just me.

 

[calminnfan]

Lets say Brewster recruited much better then Mason...He did raise the athletic level...though he probably made it seem better than it really is.

 

[RodentRampage]

I actually watch the players and how they perform on the field rather than counting how many stars they had by some recruiting service who never even saw them play. But that's just me.

Coaching does affect how good the players appear on the field.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Kill will show us the worth of Brewster's recruiting and coaching ability. I believe the next two years will show that Brewster was a good recruiter and terrible coach. Brewster will then be able to apply for a recruiting gig and/or position coaching position again.

 

[dpodoll68]

I actually watch the players and how they perform on the field rather than counting how many stars they had by some recruiting service who never even saw them play. But that's just me.

You're right. It's not like I watched every single second of every single game during the Brewster tenure or anything. Are you familiar with concepts such as "player development"? Do you think perhaps it was lacking the last four years?

Also, you're saying the recruiting services never saw them play? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? How do you think they evaluated them? Just went by the schools that offered them, slapped on a rating, and called it a day?

 

[DMB123]

You're right. It's not like I watched every single second of every single game during the Brewster tenure or anything. Are you familiar with concepts such as "player development"? Do you think perhaps it was lacking the last four years?

Also, you're saying the recruiting services never saw them play? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? How do you think they evaluated them? Just went by the schools that offered them, slapped on a rating, and called it a day?

Pretty much, yeah.

When Rivals gave Eric Decker a 2 star rating do you think they actually sent someone out to Cold Spring, MN to evaluate him? Not a chance. I guarentee no one at Rivals ever saw Decker play a down.

Recruiting rankings are a total joke once you get outside the top 100 or so players. I refuse to pay any attention to a service that says Hayo Carpenter and Paris Hamilton are 4 star players while at the same time Marion Barber, Eric Decker, Bob Sanders, and Dallas Clark are 2 star (or worse) players.

 

[scools12]

Lets say Brewster recruited much better then Mason...He did raise the athletic level...though he probably made it seem better than it really is.

this is probably the truth with regards to Brewster's recruiting. The steady decline in the recruiting classes proves that. though many want to forget that and just live off the #17 ranking he did achieve as proof he was this great recruiter.

 

[KD6-3.7]

By the most objective measures available - yes, he absolutely did.

Again, for the 1,000th time - there is plenty to rip Brewster about. Recruiting is actually the one thing he did well. You will see just how well over the next 2 years, when his first key recruits are all juniors and seniors.

sorry, that makes no sense. you tell me that by the most objective measures he recruited well and then you tell me to wait and see in the next two years. if it is going to take two years to see the result of his recruiting, then there is no objective measurable right now that proves your assertion that he absolutely did. what are these objective measures?

rivals is not objective, scout is not objective, espn is not objective. talent scouting is not objective.

 

[dpodoll68]

When Rivals gave Eric Decker a 2 star rating do you think they actually sent someone out to Cold Spring, MN to evaluate him? Not a chance. I guarentee no one at Rivals ever saw Decker play a down.

So your contention is that you must see a recruit play, in person, in order to evaluate them? Since you're so up on recruiting, I'm sure you're aware that most coaches (head coaches especially) never see their players play in a game in person before they offer them, due to scheduling, geography, recruiting rule restrictions, etc., etc. What do you suppose are the odds that Bobby Bowden watched Joe Mauer play a game, in person, before he tendered a scholarship offer? I suppose that means the coaches don't know what they're doing when they evaluate a player on tape? Since, you know, that is the method by which 99% or more of recruits are discovered and given an initial (many times full) evaluation.

Recruiting rankings are a total joke once you get outside the top 100 or so players. I refuse to pay any attention to a service that says Hayo Carpenter and Paris Hamilton are 4 star players while at the same time Marion Barber, Eric Decker, Bob Sanders, and Dallas Clark are 2 star (or worse) players.

I have yet to see anyone claim that recruiting rankings are infallible. However, they get it right far, far more often than they don't. It's simple statistics.

And why is 100 the cut-off? Why not 250? Why not 500? You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that, on average, the #150 ranked player in any given year doesn't turn out much, much better and more impactful than the average 2-star in any given year?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

There is so much more that gets plugged into winning football games than merely recruiting.

There are a bunch of factors that made Brew a decent recruiter but do a terrible job coaching here. Most of them were his creation.

#1: We never established an identity - - his own fault, he doesn't have a coaching identity.
#2: Strange decisions with RS - - partially his fault, but partially walking into a bad situation (because of Maturi, off the field issues and partially a couple bad classes left by Mase).
#3: He had major issues with attrition. This definitely plays into recruiting but I think it also plays into not having control of a program.

However, lets look at that 1 great class from Brewster, that class is STILL one of the better all around classes at the U.

Lets assume our program was normal and we could have RS those players....
In 2012:
Gray
McKnight
Lair
Rallis
Stoudermire
Kirksey
Eskridge
Edwards
Tinsley
Cooper
Rallis
Wilhite

Would all be decent players, while guys like McKnight, Lair, Stoudermire, Tinsley and possibly Gray and Cooper would be good players.

Brewster's inability to manage his roster and develop an identity did him in. I think his recruiting will prove to be fairly decent (I think we'll have better SR classes the next couple years than we have had). He was just a terrible coach at the other facets of the game.

 

[dpodoll68]

sorry, that makes no sense. you tell me that by the most objective measures he recruited well and then you tell me to wait and see in the next two years. if it is going to take two years to see the result of his recruiting, then there is no objective measurable right now that proves your assertion that he absolutely did. what are these objective measures?

Actually, it makes perfect sense. We are talking about two different metrics. In the former case, we are talking about the recruiting services. They all thought very highly of Tim Brewster, especially when compared to his predecessor and when compared to Minnesota's on-field performance. Anytime someone consistently finishes #7 or better in the conference in recruiting rankings, while the on-field performance is nowhere near that, how can anyone say that, by recruiting service rankings, he is not a good recruiter?

The second metric is actual on-field performance. Since not a single HS recruit from Tim Brewster's full first class has graduated college, how can we judge him as a recruiter? People say, "Well, good recruits are evident immediately". It doesn't take very long to realize the ridiculousness of this statement, especially since we're talking about Minnesota, not Florida, Texas, or USC. The full results will begin to be seen over the next two years, partially from the fact that they are now finally upperclassmen, and partially from the fact that they will finally have a real staff coaching them.

rivals is not objective, scout is not objective, espn is not objective. talent scouting is not objective.

I never said they were. They are the closest available thing we have to objectivity, however. Do you disagree?

 

[CrocShots]

Where this thread went:

 

[dpodoll68]

this is probably the truth with regards to Brewster's recruiting. The steady decline in the recruiting classes proves that. though many want to forget that and just live off the #17 ranking he did achieve as proof he was this great recruiter.

More coaches than not have steadily declining recruiting rankings, for a variety of factors including the new coach bump, the inability to offer immediate playing time as their tenure continues, their decreasing job security, etc.

Also, by recruiting service rankings, Tim Brewster's worst class (2010) was better than every Mason class except 2003. Actually, his worst class was still better than Mason's best in average star ranking, but worse in Big Ten finish. That's proof that he was a great recruiter.

 

[KD6-3.7]

Actually, it makes perfect sense. We are talking about two different metrics. In the former case, we are talking about the recruiting services. They all thought very highly of Tim Brewster, especially when compared to his predecessor and when compared to Minnesota's on-field performance. Anytime someone consistently finishes #7 or better in the conference in recruiting rankings, while the on-field performance is nowhere near that, how can anyone say that, by recruiting service rankings, he is not a good recruiter?

The second metric is actual on-field performance. Since not a single HS recruit from Tim Brewster's full first class has graduated college, how can we judge him as a recruiter? People say, "Well, good recruits are evident immediately". It doesn't take very long to realize the ridiculousness of this statement, especially since we're talking about Minnesota, not Florida, Texas, or USC. The full results will begin to be seen over the next two years, partially from the fact that they are now finally upperclassmen, and partially from the fact that they will finally have a real staff coaching them.



I never said they were. They are the closest available thing we have to objectivity, however. Do you disagree?

i do.

in your first paragraph, you said that according to the metric laid down by the recruiting services, brewster recruited well. i say that the recruiting services are highly subjective. the recruiting services are in business to make money by selling subscriptions. i know for a fact that rivals was in the habit of handing out stars without evaluating players. that is subjective. even if your want to put your faith in the analysts (retired mailmen, as loon would say) and put aside the inherent biases rivals, scout andd espn have and then put your faith in the ability of those analysts to tell the difference between a 5.5 three star and a 5.4 two star by watching amateur film, there is no way that these analysts have spent the time need to properly analyze all all the recruits outside of the top 200 to 300 recruits. now, i am not saying that because the primary purpose of the recruiting service is to make money and they haven't properly analyzed every player they have graded and the very act of grading a recruit itself is by no means a hard science, that they must be rejected. certainly, a lot of the times they are correct. but what rivals, scout and espn are putting out is not objective.

in the second paragraph you state that brewster's players still have time to develop. this is where i agree with you and i have high hopes for brewster's recruits. however, hoping that they develop is not an objective metric. let's meet back here in two years and then we can use that metric to judge brewster.

 

[DMB123]

More coaches than not have steadily declining recruiting rankings, for a variety of factors including the new coach bump, the inability to offer immediate playing time as their tenure continues, their decreasing job security, etc.

Also, by recruiting service rankings, Tim Brewster's worst class (2010) was better than every Mason class except 2003. Actually, his worst class was still better than Mason's best in average star ranking, but worse in Big Ten finish. That's proof that he was a great recruiter.

I hope you're kidding.

Mason recruited better than Brewster did. He had more talent than Brewster had, so how can anyone claim that Brewster recruited better than Mason? Mason had better players here than Brewster did, more talent, more all-americans, etc. Glen Mason recruited better talent here than Brewster did, I don't care how many freaking stars were by the kids name on the day they signed their LOI.

 

[dpodoll68]

He had more talent than Brewster had, so how can anyone claim that Brewster recruited better than Mason?

Because Mason could coach? It's not that difficult. And no, Mason did not recruit better talent. He was able to extract the maximum out of what he did get, and use it to fit a very specific system. If they were talented players, their natural talent would rise to the top, and they would be great pros, right? The only Mason recruit to do anything at all in the NFL is Barber III.

Seriously, the irony of the thing is that you hate Brewster so much that you can't see the forest for the trees. In order for your proposition to be true (that Brewster couldn't recruit), you have to assume that the players were being trained, developed, and utilized to their full capacity. Assuming that Brewster couldn't train, develop, or utilize anyone to their full capacity, then we really don't know how good any of these players can be, do we?

 

[Monty519]

Recruiting is so gray, to some it's the simple going out there and signing kids and just get them in the door, while some include their actual on-field production when considering a coaching staff's ability to recruit. If you look at it from pure ability to get recruits in the door here, I don't think anyone can possibly argue that Brewster didn't recruit "well", considering our recent history. Even forget the "rankings" and let's just talk about the amount of recruiting battles Brewster won over some quality BCS teams compared to previous regimes in the past. That alone should be enough to prove his chops as a recruiter. Whether he was recruiting the right players or coaching them up correctly is another issue, but his ability to go to recruits and sell the program and get them to commit to this school was undoubtedly better than we had seen any time recently.

Now, when it comes to getting recruits and then bringing out the production and success on the field, Brewster did not get that done during his time here. He clearly didn't produce better players than Mason had during his good years, but it remains to be seen what a lot of these kids he brought in have to offer, since the vast majority of the high school players he recruited are just now juniors.

It's time to move on, Kill's here, he's clearly got a different strategy about his recruiting than either of the previous two coaches did, so let's just sit back and watch this one play out, see if Kill can mold the type of team he's looking to field out there.

 

[DMB123]

Because Mason could coach? It's not that difficult. And no, Mason did not recruit better talent. He was able to extract the maximum out of what he did get, and use it to fit a very specific system. If they were talented players, their natural talent would rise to the top, and they would be great pros, right? The only Mason recruit to do anything at all in the NFL is Barber III.

Seriously, the irony of the thing is that you hate Brewster so much that you can't see the forest for the trees. In order for your proposition to be true (that Brewster couldn't recruit), you have to assume that the players were being trained, developed, and utilized to their full capacity. Assuming that Brewster couldn't train, develop, or utilize anyone to their full capacity, then we really don't know how good any of these players can be, do we?

I don't hate Brewster at all, just think he's a terrible coach.

I never said Brewster couldn't recruit, I just don't think he's the great recruiter you think he is. He was average at best in my opinion.

 

[Off-GridTNgopher]

I hope you're kidding.

Mason recruited better than Brewster did. He had more talent than Brewster had, so how can anyone claim that Brewster recruited better than Mason? Mason had better players here than Brewster did, more talent, more all-americans, etc. Glen Mason recruited better talent here than Brewster did, I don't care how many freaking stars were by the kids name on the day they signed their LOI.

mason recruited kids that fit his system, brewster had a new system every year.. you cant do that and expect to win.. however, brewster bar none brought in more talented kids than mason... the problem was after they got here brewster had a whole different philosophy... they no longer fit the system he was running... a good coach adjusts his system to the tallent he has brewster just kept adjusting his system..

ive been called an idoit numerous times on here for posts... it is now my turn... you sir are an idiot if you think the tallent level kill is inheriting is worse off than when brewster came....

 

[Formo]

I don't hate Brewster at all, just think he's a terrible coach.

I never said Brewster couldn't recruit, I just don't think he's the great recruiter you think he is. He was average at best in my opinion.

I think he was a bit higher than you say he is.. Given he's pulled some recruits out of the hands of such upcoming programs like Oregon/MSU (Gray) and snagged a highly recruited home state kid (LB from Champlin Park).

How those kids did/will turn out is a different story.. but with where we were at as a program it was pretty amazing what Brew was able to reel in.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It's as simple as this:

Brewster did a good job recruiting.
He failed at establishing an identity. He failed coaching the kids. He failed running a program. He failed at pretty much every other facet there is to coaching. However, he did recruit well.
-This isn't just from looking at rivals and scout rankings. Brewster outrecruited kids who were offered by other good programs at a rate we've never seen at the U. He wasn't able to coach these kids well once they got here or plug them into a consistant system, but the process of making these kids who were being wooed from several other good schools, choose the U...he was succesful more than any other coach we've had.
-I can't really understand why this is so disputed. I know we live in a world where it's all or nothing, but it really is possible to think Brewster did a terrible job as a coach but a decent job as a recruiter.

Brewster will be hired again (as an assistant) at sometime for his ability to recruit (no doubt) and he will likely do a good job of getting kids to go to whatever school he is employed. The simple fact is that he can recruit. He's done an impressive job everywhere he has been at recruiting. He failed, miserably, as a coach.

 

[Formo]

It's as simple as this:

Brewster did a good job recruiting.
He failed at establishing an identity. He failed coaching the kids. He failed running a program. He failed at pretty much every other facet there is to coaching. However, he did recruit well.
-This isn't just from looking at rivals and scout rankings. Brewster outrecruited kids who were offered by other good programs at a rate we've never seen at the U. He wasn't able to coach these kids well once they got here or plug them into a consistant system, but the process of making these kids who were being wooed from several other good schools, choose the U...he was succesful more than any other coach we've had.
-I can't really understand why this is so disputed. I know we live in a world where it's all or nothing, but it really is possible to think Brewster did a terrible job as a coach but a decent job as a recruiter.

Brewster will be hired again (as an assistant) at sometime for his ability to recruit (no doubt) and he will likely do a good job of getting kids to go to whatever school he is employed. The simple fact is that he can recruit. He's done an impressive job everywhere he has been at recruiting. He failed, miserably, as a coach.

I've always been one that thought we should have kept Brew on board, but only as a head recruiter and that's it. Not sure if his ego would have allowed that.. but at least we know we'd have a recruiter that would pour his heart into it for 60 minut-.. Err for however long he would have been here. =D

 

[DMB123]

mason recruited kids that fit his system, brewster had a new system every year.. you cant do that and expect to win.. however, brewster bar none brought in more talented kids than mason... the problem was after they got here brewster had a whole different philosophy... they no longer fit the system he was running... a good coach adjusts his system to the tallent he has brewster just kept adjusting his system..

ive been called an idoit numerous times on here for posts... it is now my turn... you sir are an idiot if you think the tallent level kill is inheriting is worse off than when brewster came....

I must have missed all those all-americans Brewster coached while he was here.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this because unlike most people on this board I completely ignore the stars by a kids name, it means nothing to me. The people who claim Brewster recruited better than Mason have ONE thing to point at, and that's the # of stars a kid had when he signed his LOI. I, on the other hand, only look at the kids themselves and what kind of football players they are. Odd I know, to actually watch players play to determine how good they are rather than basing it off the amount of stars a recruiting service gives them. I guess I'm weird like that.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I've always been one that thought we should have kept Brew on board, but only as a head recruiter and that's it. Not sure if his ego would have allowed that.. but at least we know we'd have a recruiter that would pour his heart into it for 60 minut-.. Err for however long he would have been here. =D

I think Brew would be a very good head recruiter type for a lot of programs but I don't think it could have worked here. I don't think his ego would have allowed it (can't really blame him). I don't think a lot of people could go from head coach to a smaller role.

I also don't think a new coach would love the idea of keeping the coach he is replacing on his staff. However, I do agree that Brew will be an asset as a recruiter wherever he ends up.

 

[Monty519]

I must have missed all those all-americans Brewster coached while he was here.

Who knows, they might still be here. There are plenty of guys on this team with potential to be at least all-conference type performers before their time is done here, and most have at least two more seasons to play. It'll be interesting to see how this team looks when they come into Saturdays organized and prepared. I don't think we'll be seeing the South Dakotas of the world screen passing us to death again, I'll say that much.

But what I've seen from this team recently isn't a lack of physical "talent". I've see a lot of guys in the wrong place, taking poor angles, using poor technique, etc. You can recruit great players to your program, but if they aren't picking up the nuances of becoming a great college football player, they're not gonna see great results on the field, no matter how much physical talent they may have. What's the point in being able to run a 4.5, but then you're always having to use that 4.5 speed to chase down an RB from behind cause you weren't in position to stop him at the line of scrimmage?