forums

Back to the talent topic

Calvin said:
People thought i was bullshatin back than when i would bring it up, but you know how this tad foote administration has always been, but once the double agents started coming in, it was a wrap for UM football, the biggest blow was after the peach bowl. Once that real UM coaching culture changed, i said back than, we wont see UM football again unless you got UM coaches. That's how UM ends up winning 1 bowl game in the last 13 years!
Click to expand...
True.

As I have been saying for nearly 20 years, our problems ain’t all a result of ‘bad luck.’
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
It was there words, not mine. I assumed it to mean work ethic.
Click to expand...
It’s easy to observe that bad work ethic is an inhibitor to success. But what we changed is different. We went away from ‘rough’ kids to an extent. That doesn’t have to mean bad results. There are nice kids who work hard. But when you change your filter, things can go against you if you’re not good at knowing what to look for, and where and how to course correct. Culture is also hard to shift, or fix once it’s gone off track.
 
Ethnicsands said:
The number of defeatist excuses in this thread is amazing.

The mathematical facts fly in the face of the excuses. It’s still 11 guys on each side. Roster limits mean there are fewer spots at major programs today than 40 years ago. Everyone claims technology changed recruiting blah blah. It did, but did it really make it so much more predictable? Where are the facts in support of that? The NFL is still full of guys who played at random places. Not just backups, either. NFL All Pro types. How does that happen? Meanwhile, Texas continues to suck because it identifies its targets too early, even if it keeps signing many of them.

It happens because projecting teenagers into college seniors or nfl picks is really uncertain and will always be. Maybe Alabama and Ohio State have the resources to sign enough low risk kids that they can be top teams year to year. But there are a LOT of kids each year who Alabama or Ohio State won’t take, because they’re less obvious for any range of reasons. And lower risk doesn’t always mean higher ceiling. Some kids they don’t take will end up better than anyone Alabama or Ohio State takes. And other kids they don’t take will end up being great in college, and good enough to support a title team. That’s what evals are about. Clemson is good at it. It beats them with high ceiling kids they miss on, with lower ceiling kids they pass on, and with a few kids they wish they had gotten. Most good teams EVALUATE well, and that means identifying which kids have the drive and traits that will translate. Not just which kids look good in 7-7 or HS all star games.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said. Lol that it's harder to find under the radar kids. lol.

The recruiting sites are only gassing up the top 300 kids. The top 300 kids are mostly based upon what they do on the field, these 7 on 7 AAU leagues, their measurable, AND camps. The more camps these kids go to, the more recognized they become. The other kids who don't go to camps fly under the radar. We're talking about literally 1000's of kids that are evaluated and most are missed upon by these sites....which is why all fans who check their pro teams football roster usually be like "how did (insert name) get overlooked?"

What set us apart from today was our evaluations. It's not just a matter of "Oooo, he's a 5 star, that means he's good." Yes it's important to have blue chips, but it won't matter if we don't properly evaluate to make sure they fit the culture. We used to ask: how's his attitude when adversity comes his way? What's his competition compared to his stats; are they pure or inflated? Does he have the respect of his teammates and do they follow his lead? How does he elevate his team? How do the coaches AND class teachers feel about this kid? How's his character? How's his football IQ? Is he a playmaker or opportunist?

I mean in talking to a former player several yrs ago, and getting in the mindset of our former coaching staff (JJ and Butch) to determine if a kid was Miami Caliber , that chit had me in awe. Imo, we don't scrutinize like this anymore which is why our classes have bottomed out year after year. We've been hearing the term "cancer" **** near every single year since Golden. So it's either our evals have been **** poor by relying too much on these sites, not thoroughly evaluating the kids we have, or we've hired some cancerous coaching staphs. I tend to think it's a combo of the two, along w/ a terrible track record of developing the kids that do meet the criteria of a Miami Guy.
 
Last edited:
Ethnicsands said:
It’s not all about information. Michael Irvin wasn’t that fast. Reggie Wayne wasn’t. Jerry Rice wasn’t.

Over-focus on information and measurables actually increases the opportunities for teams that can evaluate well on other traits.
Click to expand...

I think you are equating my use of "information" to mean exclusively "measurables." All measurables are certainly information, but not all information is measurables. I agree with you that our coaches should be evaluating for traits beyond pure athletic testing numbers. I happen to think things like productivity and level of competition are huge predictors of talent at the next level. Leadership traits, football smarts, and work ethic are also huge. But all of that is information that is just easier to get a hold of these days.

Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, and Reggie Wayne were all self-motivated, fierce competitors with strong hands and a passion for football. If a coach/analyst is looking for those traits in productive athletes, it's easier to find than ever before. That's what I mean when I say "the flatness of the recruiting world has significantly blunted UM's geographic advantage in recruiting."
 
Ed Reed was supposedly a 2 star.

Do you seriously think that would happen today?
 
Advertisement
Some just don't get it technology as good as it is can't do it all.some things still have to be done the old fashion way.every great player will tell you it took countless hours and a hard drive and work ethic to get there even had to work harder to stay there.good coaches find those players that have those traits and mold them into great players.
 
Yyy said:
Evaluations are much better now then in 1998. He’d probably be a 5 star now.
Click to expand...

Is he going to camps? Selected for major all-star games? Offers from all top 10 schools? Which school is he leaning towards? How many subscribers do they have? Lots of politics.

He'd at least be a 3*. Probably a 4*. Outside chance at 5*, but unlikely.

But overall, yes, recruiting services are still better now than they were 20+ years ago.
 
Advertisement
No_Fly_Zone said:
I think you are equating my use of "information" to mean exclusively "measurables." All measurables are certainly information, but not all information is measurables. I agree with you that our coaches should be evaluating for traits beyond pure athletic testing numbers. I happen to think things like productivity and level of competition are huge predictors of talent at the next level. Leadership traits, football smarts, and work ethic are also huge. But all of that is information that is just easier to get a hold of these days.

Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, and Reggie Wayne were all self-motivated, fierce competitors with strong hands and a passion for football. If a coach/analyst is looking for those traits in productive athletes, it's easier to find than ever before. That's what I mean when I say "the flatness of the recruiting world has significantly blunted UM's geographic advantage in recruiting."
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. Transparency runs more to measurable and kids who go to camps. Character is still harder to assess. And kids will always want to be the local here if they can. UM has had a trash approach to football for 2 decades. Kids noticed. For all our complaints about Alabama and UGA that’s a couple kids a year if that. Our problem is evaluating poor;y on who we take, not so much missing on a few kids.
 
A big part of the issue is that our stud players the past 15 years have not been at the most important position of the game, QB. ****, we haven't even had good QB play for much of the past 15 years, let alone great. All it takes is one great QB to transform an entire team. Our most impactful players play TE and DE.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Is he going to camps? Selected for major all-star games? Offers from all top 10 schools? Which school is he leaning towards? How many subscribers do they have? Lots of politics.

He'd at least be a 3*. Probably a 4*. Outside chance at 5*, but unlikely.

But overall, yes, recruiting services are still better now than they were 20+ years ago.
Click to expand...


Reed would have gotten more offers and been selected for camps. IDK if he’d have made all star games.

Yeah, 5 stars might be a bit of a stretch. I think he would have gotten 4 stars though.
 
Ethnicsands said:
Totally disagree. Transparency runs more to measurable and kids who go to camps. Character is still harder to assess. And kids will always want to be the local here if they can. UM has had a trash approach to football for 2 decades. Kids noticed. For all our complaints about Alabama and UGA that’s a couple kids a year if that. Our problem is evaluating poor;y on who we take, not so much missing on a few kids.
Click to expand...

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: Also, recruiting is not a 1-step process. Casting a wider net to scour the nation for productive players with good measurables is easier than ever. Technology, influx of capital, third-party vendors, camps, etc... make pooling this information easier than ever. E-mail, text messaging, VOIP, etc... all make maintaining relationships (not just with players, but with coaches) easier, too. It is harder than ever to hide productivity and athletic traits.

Poor recruiters stop their evaluations there. Agreed. But even for those taking a more holistic approach (i.e., looking for character traits beyond the measurables and film), they have a jumping off point for the deeper evaluation. And that's not even taking into account the added windows (albeit from afar) that coaches have today into players' lives because of social media.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
I know I have harped on talent evals around here for a long time. And I know people talk about ‘development’ as if our talent is all being held back.

So it’s interesting to look at the 1970s, when the program wasn’t known for much and didn’t have great coaching. Interestingly, some of the best Canes of all time played at Miami In this era. We had guys who were first team AAs, who had really good nfl careers.

Guys who were drafted between ‘73 — ‘85 are guys who came before the program achieved success. Many predated Schnelly, though you can clearly see the impact of his evals on the ‘83-‘85 groups. Here’s a selection of who came out by year:

’73- C. Foreman, B. Owens, M. Barnes
’75- D. Harrah, R. Carter
‘76- G. Dunn
’77- E. Edwards
’78- D. Lattimer, J. Turner
‘79- O. Anderson, D. Smith
’81- Swain
’82- L. Williams, F. Marion
‘83- Kelly, Cooper, Chickillo, Lippett
’84- Bentley, Dennison, Brophy, Bellinger, S. Neal
’85- E. Brown, Heffernan, Broughton

My biggest take-away is how far standards have fallen around here. We over-hype guys who aren’t first team all conference in many instances, and seem to forget that even before we were a ‘brand,’ many fantastic players suited up for Miami. Obviously you can go further back and pick up others. Just seems to me to highlight evals. Don’t complain about SEC. Find the right guys.
Click to expand...
Facts as always my boy
 
Ethnicsands said:
True.

As I have been saying for nearly 20 years, our problems ain’t all a result of ‘bad luck.’
Click to expand...

**** haw, this was a planned attack and a concentrated effort to bring this program down, now we left with agent james who's not as seasoned as the ones before him, but he's using the same playbook. Which is why coach diaz has to be careful bringing all these guys he knows nothing about on board, who they really working for. That's another reason coach richt dipped out, he understood first hand was he was up against, especially during and after that bowl game against wisconsin where he went off, that game was damyum near like watching " Remember the Titan's" ref's not throwing flags on obvious holds, not throwing pass interferences, that db used cager's jersey to pull himself in front of cager to make that pick, no flag. Now yabba dabo dont like coach richt cause he knows coach richt knows about that cheating **** they doing over there, but as long as diaz gets smart, we should be straight!
 
All the advances in hs recruiting have not made a fail safe system. There are 5* busts across cfb. We had two in Lingard and Pope.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
I know I have harped on talent evals around here for a long time. And I know people talk about ‘development’ as if our talent is all being held back.

So it’s interesting to look at the 1970s, when the program wasn’t known for much and didn’t have great coaching. Interestingly, some of the best Canes of all time played at Miami In this era. We had guys who were first team AAs, who had really good nfl careers.

Guys who were drafted between ‘73 — ‘85 are guys who came before the program achieved success. Many predated Schnelly, though you can clearly see the impact of his evals on the ‘83-‘85 groups. Here’s a selection of who came out by year:

’73- C. Foreman, B. Owens, M. Barnes
’75- D. Harrah, R. Carter
‘76- G. Dunn
’77- E. Edwards
’78- D. Lattimer, J. Turner
‘79- O. Anderson, D. Smith
’81- Swain
’82- L. Williams, F. Marion
‘83- Kelly, Cooper, Chickillo, Lippett
’84- Bentley, Dennison, Brophy, Bellinger, S. Neal
’85- E. Brown, Heffernan, Broughton

My biggest take-away is how far standards have fallen around here. We over-hype guys who aren’t first team all conference in many instances, and seem to forget that even before we were a ‘brand,’ many fantastic players suited up for Miami. Obviously you can go further back and pick up others. Just seems to me to highlight evals. Don’t complain about SEC. Find the right guys.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying but some of this sh*t be so subjunctive sometimes that you can’t even take any credibility of being a first team all conference meaning anything. How many times did our recent tight ends or dends get snubbed in that honor? **** look at pff not even listing greg Rousseau as a top 25 dlineman in the country in 2020.
 
brock said:
I get what you are saying but some of this sh*t be so subjunctive sometimes that you can’t even take any credibility of being a first team all conference meaning anything. How many times did our recent tight ends or dends get snubbed in that honor? **** look at pff not even listing greg Rousseau as a top 25 dlineman in the country in 2020.
Click to expand...
Eh, preseason predictions are meaningless. AA lists and all conference ones even are at least based on play, not hope. So no need to get upset about someone forgetting to list rousseau on a list or guys who will do well next year.

Bottom line is we gave not had many kids in ages who ever merited true AA consideration.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Is he going to camps? Selected for major all-star games? Offers from all top 10 schools? Which school is he leaning towards? How many subscribers do they have? Lots of politics.

He'd at least be a 3*. Probably a 4*. Outside chance at 5*, but unlikely.

But overall, yes, recruiting services are still better now than they were 20+ years ago.
Click to expand...

LOL, you sound crazy AF.

If Jaquan Johnson was a 4*, then Reed would've been an 8*!!! by today's standards...P...E...R...I...O...D...!...!...!:

 
A major factor in leveraging Miami’s talent was reducing the scholarship limit from 110 to 85.
This prevented UM from stacking talent while other teams cheated and used loopholes to stack more than 85.

Schools like Bama and Clemson have players’ parents sign adoption papers which made gifts unlimited and
several teams sign walk-ons whose tuition, room & boarding are really paid for by boosters or “friends of the program.”

But what hurt the most was planting insidious foes within the administration to strategically decimate UM’s dominance.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top