The difference for me at least is that Tom Herman has the gift. He has that something you can't describe, but you can recognize it. He's just destined for greatness. I didn't see that in Charlie Strong.
How would you grade the recruiting class?
- Thread starter Bwilk55
- Start date
The difference for me at least is that Tom Herman has the gift. He has that something you can't describe, but you can recognize it. He's just destined for greatness. I didn't see that in Charlie Strong.
Let's not go overboard, Fletch has the gift, Herman is merely a good coach. As I've said all along, I think Herman will do much better than Strong did.
What got me po'd about recruiting early in the MB era was how they presented players like Chris Simms, Roy Williams and the rest of the 4* receivers from that class, and Cedric Benson. Imo, those were the lemons.
CS was too fragile mentally
I mentioned Bill Little. Little called Roy Williams the legend because he made a couple of impressive catches in his first practice at TX. He also said that RW was 6'5" when in truth Williams was 6'2 and a half. It might be unfair of me but a measuring stick for me is how good did they do against OK. RW was no legend against OK matter of fact he didn't have one td catch in his RRR career neither did the rest of those receivers, and neither did CS. Cedric Benson had one td. I mean someone as limited as Case McCoy can beat OK and those guys couldn't?
I'm sorry I do get fired up thinking about those days. I'm not the kind of guy who wont be happy if TX doesn't win every time. But underachieving angers me. All those players who went on to the NFL, all of those players who started for SB champions and MB only had two Big XII titles to show for it. And he darn near choked winning one of those games. And to top it off Art Briles won as many Big XII titles as Mack Brown.
wth?
Bobby Burton, Publisher
Well, if a grade of C is supposed to be average, then that's the grade I'd give them. Outside of Tom Herman's willingness to address obvious needs - like placekicker - I saw nothing from the staff's recruiting acumen or ability that would lead me to believe they deserve a grade any higher than that. Herman hired a largely inexperienced staff when it comes to recruiting at a big-time level. There are really only three assistants with any lengthy, tangible experience recruiting at a major college level. I'm talking about guys who have competed against the OUs, LSUs, etc., on an annual basis. And only one of those guys has ever been considered an elite recruiter. As for the start to 2018, I think it's way too early to even think about giving them a substantive grade at this time. But this Texas staff needs to show they can compete and win on the recruiting trail sooner rather than later.
Jeff Howe, Senior Writer
The grade should probably be “incomplete” based on there not being a big enough sample to evaluate. However, for the purpose of this exercise I’d give the current regime a solid B based on what I’ve seen to this point. Missing out on guys like Javelin Guidry and Elijah Gardiner shouldn’t bug Longhorns fans, but there’s no way to sugarcoat coming up empty on K’Lavon Chaisson. That one hurt and would’ve left everyone feeling better about the staff’s recruiting efforts. The way the staff offered some 2017 prospects in December and January didn’t seem ideal. With that said, it’s borderline irresponsible to pass judgement for a time when the staff is basically drinking from a fire hose. I liked some of the evaluations the staff made to finish off the class, namely Marqez Bimage, Derek Kerstetter and Daniel Young, and getting Toneil Carter and Gary Johnson were huge coups. There’s a lot that went right in the compressed cycle, but there’s a lot Tom Herman and Co. have to fix to maximize 2018. Texas isn’t the brand it used to be and winning football games is only part of the battle. It’s about relationships and a vision for the program, things Herman has to develop and sell in order to put together classes on the same level as Mack Brown (1999) and Charlie Strong (2015) finish with in their respective first full cycles.
EJ Holland, Lead Recruiting Reporter
I would give the staff an A for effort. They've hit the recruiting extremely hard since arriving in Austin, have been active on social media and are rebuilding bridges with Texas high school football coaches. However, the staff gets a C+ for results. There were too many key misses in the 2017 class and not enough battles won the stretch. The 2018 class should be better but it all comes down to this fall.
Garrett Callahan, Managing Editor
After seeing what happened at the end of the 2017 cycle and the offers already on the table for 2018, I have to give the staff a B- that is closer to a C+ than a solid B. That includes both the results it received and the effort it put in. After three losing seasons and the uncertainty surrounding most of this past season, there were a lot of hardships that were out of the hands of Tom Herman and his staff. When they got to Austin, they put a big focus on making relationships, recruiting hard and keeping the six recruits already committed on board. However, there were too many misses, especially on National Signing Day, that put a sour feeling on the 2017 class. There were no excuses to miss on targets such as Stephan Zabie, who played right in Texas' backyard and had a former Longhorn as a coach, and K'Lavon Chaisson, who had a relationship with the staff dating back to its time at Houston. Those are missed that will be remembered until Texas proves it can win on the recruiting trail, and the field, in the coming months.
Well, if a grade of C is supposed to be average, then that's the grade I'd give them. Outside of Tom Herman's willingness to address obvious needs - like placekicker - I saw nothing from the staff's recruiting acumen or ability that would lead me to believe they deserve a grade any higher than that. Herman hired a largely inexperienced staff when it comes to recruiting at a big-time level. There are really only three assistants with any lengthy, tangible experience recruiting at a major college level. I'm talking about guys who have competed against the OUs, LSUs, etc., on an annual basis. And only one of those guys has ever been considered an elite recruiter. As for the start to 2018, I think it's way too early to even think about giving them a substantive grade at this time. But this Texas staff needs to show they can compete and win on the recruiting trail sooner rather than later.
Jeff Howe, Senior Writer
The grade should probably be “incomplete” based on there not being a big enough sample to evaluate. However, for the purpose of this exercise I’d give the current regime a solid B based on what I’ve seen to this point. Missing out on guys like Javelin Guidry and Elijah Gardiner shouldn’t bug Longhorns fans, but there’s no way to sugarcoat coming up empty on K’Lavon Chaisson. That one hurt and would’ve left everyone feeling better about the staff’s recruiting efforts. The way the staff offered some 2017 prospects in December and January didn’t seem ideal. With that said, it’s borderline irresponsible to pass judgement for a time when the staff is basically drinking from a fire hose. I liked some of the evaluations the staff made to finish off the class, namely Marqez Bimage, Derek Kerstetter and Daniel Young, and getting Toneil Carter and Gary Johnson were huge coups. There’s a lot that went right in the compressed cycle, but there’s a lot Tom Herman and Co. have to fix to maximize 2018. Texas isn’t the brand it used to be and winning football games is only part of the battle. It’s about relationships and a vision for the program, things Herman has to develop and sell in order to put together classes on the same level as Mack Brown (1999) and Charlie Strong (2015) finish with in their respective first full cycles.
EJ Holland, Lead Recruiting Reporter
I would give the staff an A for effort. They've hit the recruiting extremely hard since arriving in Austin, have been active on social media and are rebuilding bridges with Texas high school football coaches. However, the staff gets a C+ for results. There were too many key misses in the 2017 class and not enough battles won the stretch. The 2018 class should be better but it all comes down to this fall.
Garrett Callahan, Managing Editor
After seeing what happened at the end of the 2017 cycle and the offers already on the table for 2018, I have to give the staff a B- that is closer to a C+ than a solid B. That includes both the results it received and the effort it put in. After three losing seasons and the uncertainty surrounding most of this past season, there were a lot of hardships that were out of the hands of Tom Herman and his staff. When they got to Austin, they put a big focus on making relationships, recruiting hard and keeping the six recruits already committed on board. However, there were too many misses, especially on National Signing Day, that put a sour feeling on the 2017 class. There were no excuses to miss on targets such as Stephan Zabie, who played right in Texas' backyard and had a former Longhorn as a coach, and K'Lavon Chaisson, who had a relationship with the staff dating back to its time at Houston. Those are missed that will be remembered until Texas proves it can win on the recruiting trail, and the field, in the coming months.
