The sooner we come to terms that Charlie is an average recruiter..
- Thread starter AlpacaCorch
- Start date
I remember those "Average" recruits at Louisville kicking the $hit out of the Florida gators, with their 4 and 5 star recruits. Charlie is anything but average. Mack Brown left Texas in a deep crap hole and you think Charlie should automatically have us NC bound in 1 year. Come on!!
This is a very idiotic thread. He put tons of talent into the NFL from LOUISVILLE. You can't do that amd be an average recruiter. We were never going to get a top recruiting class with a 6-6 season. If we' re in the top 20 after this season, Stong will have done a fantastic job. Side note: we don't have to out recruit A&M for now. We need to be on par with our conference foes. I'm sick of these doomsday threads.
This post was edited on 12/19 5:32 PM by rtsland
This post was edited on 12/19 5:32 PM by rtsland
Louisville's recruiting rankings since 2011, Charlie Strong's first real class:
2011 (Strong): 29
2012 (Strong): 42
2013 (Strong): 52
2014 (Effectively Strong): 40
2015 (Petrino): 23
Strong had a nice first class in 2011, but the bulk of his classes were mediocre. Petrino appears to have upgraded recruiting at Louisville.
2011 (Strong): 29
2012 (Strong): 42
2013 (Strong): 52
2014 (Effectively Strong): 40
2015 (Petrino): 23
Strong had a nice first class in 2011, but the bulk of his classes were mediocre. Petrino appears to have upgraded recruiting at Louisville.
Charlie is never going to be a guy who is great at sales. It's just not his personality, and there's nothing that can be done that will change that. But, you don't have to be great at sales (or recruiting personally) to reel in big hauls. The greatest asset anybody in sales has is testimonials from inspired people who will go to bat for you. Charlie is laying a foundation with his players, and you will see in the coming year that they will absolutely go to war for that guy. That is going to filter down to the HS coaches, b/c you'd better believe the coaches keep up with a lot of their former star players. Once Charlie's selling points reach the coaches, he's going to have current & former players, as well as coaches selling him to recruits.
Beyond that, you err in thinking Charlie is getting destroyed simply b/c he doesn't have some of the big names on board. His approach is the antithesis of Mack. Mack would do a ton of research to decide which handful of kids he'd like to recruit & offer. Charlie uses offers to open doors to recruits (and in schools) he has no relationship with, then quickly decides if he's going to pursue that recruit or not. How many times has someone brought up the name of a recruit, only to find out he has a Texas offer despite no one having heard anything about Texas pursuing him? Charlie hasn't pursued all of the top kids, just like other schools haven't as well. He's looking for kids that fit his system with the character & makeup he feels he can shape & mold.
Further, a quick look at the Rivals 250 shows Texas is performing pretty well. Here are how many Top 250 recruits each school has committed.
14 - #1 Alabama (12-1)
11 - #2 Florida State (13-0)
10 - #18 Clemson (9-3)
9 - A&M (7-5)
8 - #5 Ohio State (12-1)
8 - Tennessee (6-6)
8 - #13 Georgia (9-3)
8 - #22 LSU (8-4)
7 - # 24 USC (8-4)
7 - Penn State (6-6)
6 - #3 Oregon (12-1)
6 - Notre Dame (7-5)
5 - Texas (6-6)
5 - #14 UCLA (9-3)
5 - Arkansas (6-6)
4 - #19 Auburn (8-4)
4 - Miami (6-6)
4 - #9 Ole Miss (9-3)
4 - South Carolina (6-6)
4 - Nebraska (9-3)
3 - Oklahoma (8-4)
Texas has more than Auburn, the same as UCLA, and within 1 of Oregon & Notre Dame. I'd say that's pretty good company. There is nothing about that that says he's "getting destroyed" on the recruiting trail. Heck, I'd say it's pretty impressive in light of the last 5 years! Look at that list. Only Tennessee, Penn State, Arkansas, and Miami have been as irrelevant the last half-decade.
Beyond that, you err in thinking Charlie is getting destroyed simply b/c he doesn't have some of the big names on board. His approach is the antithesis of Mack. Mack would do a ton of research to decide which handful of kids he'd like to recruit & offer. Charlie uses offers to open doors to recruits (and in schools) he has no relationship with, then quickly decides if he's going to pursue that recruit or not. How many times has someone brought up the name of a recruit, only to find out he has a Texas offer despite no one having heard anything about Texas pursuing him? Charlie hasn't pursued all of the top kids, just like other schools haven't as well. He's looking for kids that fit his system with the character & makeup he feels he can shape & mold.
Further, a quick look at the Rivals 250 shows Texas is performing pretty well. Here are how many Top 250 recruits each school has committed.
14 - #1 Alabama (12-1)
11 - #2 Florida State (13-0)
10 - #18 Clemson (9-3)
9 - A&M (7-5)
8 - #5 Ohio State (12-1)
8 - Tennessee (6-6)
8 - #13 Georgia (9-3)
8 - #22 LSU (8-4)
7 - # 24 USC (8-4)
7 - Penn State (6-6)
6 - #3 Oregon (12-1)
6 - Notre Dame (7-5)
5 - Texas (6-6)
5 - #14 UCLA (9-3)
5 - Arkansas (6-6)
4 - #19 Auburn (8-4)
4 - Miami (6-6)
4 - #9 Ole Miss (9-3)
4 - South Carolina (6-6)
4 - Nebraska (9-3)
3 - Oklahoma (8-4)
Texas has more than Auburn, the same as UCLA, and within 1 of Oregon & Notre Dame. I'd say that's pretty good company. There is nothing about that that says he's "getting destroyed" on the recruiting trail. Heck, I'd say it's pretty impressive in light of the last 5 years! Look at that list. Only Tennessee, Penn State, Arkansas, and Miami have been as irrelevant the last half-decade.
Coach Strong is a very good recruiter. He recruited lights out as DC at UF. However, as a HC he has more restrictions, and needs his staff to kick ass in recruiting. Have a more successful season next year and recruiting will start improving. If they would have beaten at least 2 out of OU, UCLA, and TCU, I believe it would have created some positive vibes around the program. Just got to start wining more and things will start to turn.
Let's look a little closer at the top 30 in Texas.
1-10...
1. Jefferson we want him, but he loves Sumlim, even with no DC and 11-2, then 9-4, then 7-5 and no defense NFL
2. Thompson ALA committed before Strong even started
3. Sheffield
4. Teuhema LSU decommitted before Strong started
5. Lodge
6. Murray A&M legacy, were never in picture
7. Mack A&M early
8. Boyd Texas lean?
9. Stidham Baylor ? Never considered us.
10. Jamabo
11-20
11 Silverand A&M
12. Evans OKLA before Strong came on board
13 Weatherby
14 Ronald Jones II
15 Pryor A&M
16 Humphrey OKLA did not offer
17 Davis A&M don't want douchbag TE
18 H. Hill
19 Strickland TT
20 Mbanasor OKLA no early offer, feelings hurt
21-30
21 Anderson OKLA did not offer
22 Warren Texas lean?
23 Newsome Texas lean?
24 President BAYLOR did not offer, already committed when Strong came
25 Lockhart A&M backed off him
26 Daniels
27 Elam early to A&M
28 Grey
29 Stevenson WIS decommited from us
30 McKinney ND did not offer
So in the top 10, of the six commited, Thompson and Teuhema were aready commited, Murray and Stidham were never considering UT, and Mack was A&M early. Malik loves Scumlin, what can we do? That's six out of ten gone before Strong even got started.
11-20...Evans commited to OKLA before Strong arrived. Didn't offer Jones II, Humphrey (OKLA), or Strickland. Didn't offer Mbanasor early enough, got pissed and commited to OKLA. Silverand, Pryor, and Davis commited to A&M early. Weatherby decommited from us. Still, that is eight out of the ten that were already gone in first month or we never offered. We're still recruiting Hill and we lost Weatherby.
21-30...President commited to BAYLOR before Strong came. Did not offer Anderson, Grey or McKinney. Backed off of Lockhart and Daniels. Stevenson decommited from us. Elam was A&M early.
Thus, we were only able to seriously recruit 4 of the top 10, only two of 11-20 (Hill and Weathersby), and only three of 21-30 (lost stevenson, Warren and Newsome are UT leans). So Strong only had a chance at 9 out the top 30 by March. Less than a third available to actually recruit by end of March. So, yes 0-30 so far, but really 0-9 with three leans. If we get those three, and Cherry would be top 30, we would finish with 4 out of 30, the same as OKLA. A&M has 7.
pprhorn - you're overthinking. Zero for 30 at this point in the recruiting cycle has no defense; it is probably unprecedented in UT football history. Granted, we still have decent shots at 3 or 4 before February but it is an underestimate to say that we are not gaining traction in recruiting...and I am a Charlie Strong fan.
we're also the only team not allowed to flip recruits apparently. yes some players committed elsewhere, but that means as much as the ones that commit to us then flip
I'd like to point out that I've never felt as dumb on this site as I do right now. I can't believe I got him and Butch Davis mixed up and didn't figure it out for two years. Every once in a while, we all get something really, really wrong. This one is mine, and I'll own up to it. Yikes, what an epic miss.
LOL, nah, I think I'll let that one go. I was genuinely wondering why you and a few others found that argument so puzzling.Originally posted by 1JTB6806:
Does that still mean you think he was the closest thing to a splash hire at Tennessee?
Naturally, this begs the question: how is it that officially-non-splash-hire Butch Jones can put together two straight Top-5 classes at Tennessee, while we struggle to stay in the Top-15?
This post was edited on 12/16 2:23 PM by SkullSplitter
Strong sucked at recruiting in Louisville, too, at least according to Rivals. But he won. 23-3 in year 3 & 4. Final AP rankings of #13 and #15. Louisville doesn't seem to lack talent. They are putting guys in the League. They just had a guy win the Thorpe.
2010: #48
2011: #29
2012: #42
2013: #52
What a bunch of crybabies. All you people who are overly fascinated by Rivals numbers need to re-evaluate yourself. It's different now. Your passion for recruiting rankings just doesn't matter so much anymore. Sorry.
For 16 years, we had a staff that consistently fielded teams that performed below their recruiting rankings. We had to bring in top 5 classes and out-talent everyone or we were fukked.
Now we have a guy who has a track record of performing FAR ABOVE his recruiting rankings. It's a new concept for you people, I know. But I think Strong will do just fine with a #16 class, especially a #16 class of all Charlie Strong-type competitors.
I for one am glad of the change. Wasted talent is sickening. At least this staff will get the most out of who they do get. It's a refreshing thought. And the classes will improve as we start winning more.
2010: #48
2011: #29
2012: #42
2013: #52
What a bunch of crybabies. All you people who are overly fascinated by Rivals numbers need to re-evaluate yourself. It's different now. Your passion for recruiting rankings just doesn't matter so much anymore. Sorry.
For 16 years, we had a staff that consistently fielded teams that performed below their recruiting rankings. We had to bring in top 5 classes and out-talent everyone or we were fukked.
Now we have a guy who has a track record of performing FAR ABOVE his recruiting rankings. It's a new concept for you people, I know. But I think Strong will do just fine with a #16 class, especially a #16 class of all Charlie Strong-type competitors.
I for one am glad of the change. Wasted talent is sickening. At least this staff will get the most out of who they do get. It's a refreshing thought. And the classes will improve as we start winning more.
truth is usually in the middle somewhere...
I think it will become evident that you need a mixture of top talent and Strong type recruits that love football and the program, maybe not a top 3 class but you do need a few studs in there at key positions. Oregon is a great example.
I think it will become evident that you need a mixture of top talent and Strong type recruits that love football and the program, maybe not a top 3 class but you do need a few studs in there at key positions. Oregon is a great example.
To win a national title, yes. But that's not something we need to be worried about at the moment. It's not going to happen in the next 4 years regardless.
Our goal right now needs to be a step below that. 9-10 wins. Competing for conference championships. Ranked in the top 15 every year. If we can get back to that - and I think Strong can certainly get us there with top 15-20 recruiting classes - THEN the Vince Young's of the world will start knocking on our door again. And THEN we will be in a position to rejoin the nation's elite.
I know it sucks, but we just have to be patient. Another year of rebuilding. Then 2016 we need to start making our move. We have to fix the QB and OL positions first, which were an unmitigated disaster when Strong got here and are like an anchor dragging the team down. Neither of those positions are recruit, plug and play... developing them will take time.
I am ready for guys who love football, whether they are 3 or 4 stars, to get better. We used to have top 5 classes that got us nowhere. If it weren't for VY, we never would have won our last NC. True, it was full of great players, but he was the straw that stirred the drink. Player development is more important than rankings.
I would be more worried if the rest of the Big 12 and A&M were getting most/all of these top Texas recruits and Coach Strong was not getting any OOS top recruits. That's not the case yet, and all we need is 1 very good QB recruit who pans out to make our team a lot better. Look at what happened when Mack had top-10 classes after Colt's class and the top-rated or good QB recruits (Gilbert and Ash) don't pan out. As long as he fixes the OL and gets at least 1 good QB recruit that pans out, we should be pretty good. As Aaron Rodgers said: "R-E-L-A-X."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
You cannot make up stories about this level of stupidity- Latest: Republic of Texas
-
