No. The top programs get the best NFL results by design. They purposefully recruit players who have the physical tools to make the NFL. That's what Butch did when he was here. There's a reason every recruiting service ranks players based on NFL criteria.
Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia and LSU aren't recruiting "program guys" in any meaningful quantity. They target players who can play on Sundays and sell that vision. Clemson was an exception, and they got away with it because they recruited elite QBs, WRs and DLs. And now they've started to recruit all premium guys.
This answer is some mix of wrong and misleading and uninformed. None of us know what each of these programs is recruiting for. You're just speculating and projecting. You already note Clemson hasn't recruited entirely for NFL traits, and they've been a top 2 program the past 5 years. You claim they don't do this any longer, which I don't know how you know that, but it's neither here nor there because you acknowledge they did it while they were winning 2 titles recently.
Additionally, you're avoiding the entire point of this exchange. Is our problem just NFL kids? Or is there a different issue that your NFL focus doesn't illuminate? I say 'there is.'
Additionally, we're not yet in a position to compete with Alabama or Ohio State for all top kids. We need to evaluate and find kids that can help us get there. Clemson got to where they are by astutely evaluating kids who weren't NFL prototypes. You already admit this. Our goal is to get there, not debate what we might do once we're there. You've conceded a path to getting there is the Clemson path.
Yes, and it's obvious. We've had schemes that did not fit our personnel. Last year, our offense went from horrible to good in one season. The same thing happened with our defense in 2016. The players didn't really change. The other issue has been at QB.
It's no coincidence every move Manny has made is directed at these three problems. He attacked the QB room. He changed our schemes. And he restructured the staff/recruiting department to avoid another American Heritage '18 debacle. Identifying problems and solving them are two different things, but he's spotted them pretty clearly.
We've already been through schemes and it's a distraction here. I am not defending our past ****** schemes.
We've had a lot of debates on the topic of roster talent. I've consistently pointed out that lack of depth, experience and position group capabilities has been a big issue separate from overall talent. You've consistently posted lists of 'nfl kids' as if those kids were all ready to go when we had them on the field. Go back and look at our exchanges - I specifically pointed out during Zion Nelson's frosh year that he may well end up a 'nfl kid', but saying so in retrospect won't make him any more capable as a true frosh.
You're talking about Manny and making this about more than we're discussing here. It's really indisputable that depth, experience and position group capabilities (no gaping holes) is important to being competitive and a part of the reason we haven't been good enough despite your 'nfl kids' lists. Not sure why you can't just agree with me on that.
When you sign talent for the top level, everyone moves down a notch. This naturally improves the middle class. We're already producing Day 3 picks at the highest rate in the country. The best programs in football are right behind us. The difference is for the top teams, those are the common clay supporting the Day 1-2 picks. That's the missing link, not getting more "program guys."
This thinking is pure speculation and not at all necessarily true. It's easy enough to sign a class full of kids with high ceilings and low floors. Heck, you yourself used that evaluation framework in a recruiting summary thread, IIRC. (Not saying you advocated for that, just used those metrics to score kids we signed.) Imagine two teams, once leans in on 'nfl types' -- kids with high ceilings but who knows on floor. The other team puts more priority on finding kids with high floors and is less worried about 'nfl ceilings.' It's easily possible, and perhaps likely, that the second team will have a better overall roster than the first team, despite having fewer future pros on it. They'll certainly have fewer busts/wasted roster spots, all else being equal. This is even moreso the case when you're not picking cream of the crop entirely like Alabama or Ohio State.
You seem to think that optimizing the probability of a NFL future is somehow the best way to rank recruits. I completely disagree with this. Evaluations require much more in the way of inputs than that. Our staff's job is to make the best team
at Miami, not optimize the number of marginal pros we produce.
What you call 'program guys' sure helped Clemson win big. I really don't get why you're diminishing the importance of the middle of the roster kids or the evaluations that go into them.