Well it'd be interesting if you adopted the system and published it with your rankings. Because what you're saying makes a lot of sense.
Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (Texas must fix this or else...)
- Thread starter Ketchum
- Start date
I remember seeing a few fans wearing HERMAN 2017 shirts at the OU game. Now, he might be on the hot seat already? It's pretty clear he didn't have a ton of talent to work with when he got here. And yes, his coaches were....well.... suspect. The men we have now are 3 years in and the new kids committed are young so let's hope for the best. I think they can win 9-11 games if all goes well. Hook em
@Ketchum What makes you think the ACC doesn’t have the same issues as the PAC12? Questionable teams Virginia, VT, Syracuse, Pitt, BC. 50/50 NC teams. Everyone else in conference plays.
With that logic above the Big 10 could also have problems. Questionable teams, University of Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, Michigan State, Maryland, Illinois, Rutgers. I won’t do questionable here because I think most of the other schools are above 50% chance of returning.
This logic is all based on how the states Governors/governments are handling the current state of Coronavirus. I just don’t see how it’s just the PAC12 that currently has this issue. Non of this will be in focus I assume till July. I’m not trying to start a fight or political debate on regions of the U.S. I have genuinely been interested in this topic for a while.
With that logic above the Big 10 could also have problems. Questionable teams, University of Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, Michigan State, Maryland, Illinois, Rutgers. I won’t do questionable here because I think most of the other schools are above 50% chance of returning.
This logic is all based on how the states Governors/governments are handling the current state of Coronavirus. I just don’t see how it’s just the PAC12 that currently has this issue. Non of this will be in focus I assume till July. I’m not trying to start a fight or political debate on regions of the U.S. I have genuinely been interested in this topic for a while.
While I agree that NFL development is a goal for the program, it's a tertiary goal.
The #1 (primary) goal is to field a winning football team. We need to win games. Having the better players in each game helps, but we sure as hell have lost a lot of games in the last decade to teams with worse talent. So talent helps, but winning is primary.
The #2 (secondary)goal is to develop good college players. This directly supports goal #1, but it doesn't guarantee it. We need to develop our players at all positions so that when they walk out on the field they can do their job, which is to help us win ball games. This development may or may not make them NFL-ready, but we need to develop the guys without an NFL ceiling just as much as the others. They are the vast majority of our players.
The NFL is a tertiary goal - for the program, if not for the kids. Getting a bunch of guys drafted means we have done a great job of developing our college players, which should help us win a lot of games. However, it's an "after the fact" barometer of our success: it correlates with success, but does not get us a single win.
So while I agree that developing guys for the NFL is important, and I really enjoyed the analysis, it's also a measure that we won't be able to judge (for this staff and this team) for at least a few years.
The #1 (primary) goal is to field a winning football team. We need to win games. Having the better players in each game helps, but we sure as hell have lost a lot of games in the last decade to teams with worse talent. So talent helps, but winning is primary.
The #2 (secondary)goal is to develop good college players. This directly supports goal #1, but it doesn't guarantee it. We need to develop our players at all positions so that when they walk out on the field they can do their job, which is to help us win ball games. This development may or may not make them NFL-ready, but we need to develop the guys without an NFL ceiling just as much as the others. They are the vast majority of our players.
The NFL is a tertiary goal - for the program, if not for the kids. Getting a bunch of guys drafted means we have done a great job of developing our college players, which should help us win a lot of games. However, it's an "after the fact" barometer of our success: it correlates with success, but does not get us a single win.
So while I agree that developing guys for the NFL is important, and I really enjoyed the analysis, it's also a measure that we won't be able to judge (for this staff and this team) for at least a few years.
I agree, but if we still need Sam to carry the team in season 4 then our coordinator hires (and CTH) have been failures. We were utterly predictable and fundamentally unsound at times on both sides of the ball last year. I'm hoping for a big step forward this season, but not holding my breath.
Bingo, we've landed on the other equally significant point about our program: Texas doesn't have nearly as many elite recruits as other programs.
In the past 4 recruiting classes, Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, LSU and tOSU collectively have signed over 60% of the national top 70 players. In the past 3 playing seasons, that's an average of 25.2 national top 70 players on each of their rosters. UT had only 1.
It's going to take more than just greatly improved player development if the Longhorns want to become one of the elite playoff regulars..
Last edited:
Caden Sterns might eventually make the NFL, but 2 years in he hasn't come close to showing 5 star ability on any sort of consistent level.
This times 1,000,000!!! Been asking for this for some time. It's logical that if you continually recruit high 4* and 5* kids then your draft record is going to logically be better. It's a somewhat chicken and egg scenario: Yes, we need to develop our kids now so they overachieve and we CAN WIN, NOW. Then the higher star-rated recruits will come and we will win even more and have better drafts. It's not necessarily about developing our kids so that more get drafted.
LSU had a number of lowly recruited guys that turned out to big time players. It wasn't just Jefferson.
It can't be on his shoulders each week to such a degree.
Big part of my musical journey. She signed an album cover for me when I was 16
The NFL metrics merely give us something tangible from a metric standpoint to point to along the way.
Getting drafted isn't the goal, but the goal sure seems to go hand in hand with it.
Coaching complacency and/or incompetence, Entitlement and lack of player development have been UT's bane for over a decade.
It's no wonder they took off like a rocket ship.
Grant Delpit - 6.0 high 4
Kistrian Fulton - 6.0 high 4
Damien Lewis - 5.6 low 3
Lloyd Cushenberry - 5.4 2 star
Jacob Phillips - 6.1 5 Star
Saadhiq charles - 5.8 low 4
Rashard Lawrence - 5.9 mid 4
Blake Ferguson - 5.4 2 star
Stephen Sullivan - 5.8 low 4
So sobering that I couldn't give you a "like". I think we need a 2 step plan: evaluate and develop players better so we can start winning big, and then start recruiting a lot more 5 and high 4 stars.
