• Attention: Register today to view CanesInSight Ad-Free for 7 days.

Shemar Stewart Perspective

bshaw28

Junior
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,987
I'd be curious to see your level of commitment here brother. So why don't we do this. Let's see the top 3 players each of those kids position coaches while with us had coached up at the college level. Signed them out of high school and coached up throughout college. I get underachievement. However I also know first hand how important it is to have teammates who hold you accountable(we haven't had a group of leaders here except a small handful forever) & coaches capable of getting the best out of you. As an administration and as a staff we've let down the kids who have signed with us for the last 18 years. Changing that,was the first step in getting the results out of the student athletes that we desire.

I think we're looking at this from 2 different perspectives - I think you're talking about development, and I'm looking at it purely from a numbers/math perspective.

Even if you look at Alabama (or any top team) - they're going to have plenty of top recruits over the years that didn't work out.

The difference - Miami gets 2-3 Top 100 players in each class (on average) - so we NEED a 100% hit rate to truly be competitive, and that will never happen. A 50% hit rate is more realistic - so we're getting 3-5 that work our over a 3 year period. Not near enough.

Alabama gets 8-10 Top 100 players in each recruiting class - so if only 50% hit, you don't remember the 12-15 that didn't work out - you just remember the12-15 that do. Because a majority of your starting players are big time guys that worked out.

My point was 1 single player doesn't tip the scales (for any team...except for Cam Newton) - it's how many top players you're signing, because some are bound to not work out no matter what. It's a numbers game.
 

Brooklyndee

We fuckin or wut
Premium
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
7,739
I think we're looking at this from 2 different perspectives - I think you're talking about development, and I'm looking at it purely from a numbers/math perspective.

Even if you look at Alabama (or any top team) - they're going to have plenty of top recruits over the years that didn't work out.

The difference - Miami gets 2-3 Top 100 players in each class (on average) - so we NEED a 100% hit rate to truly be competitive, and that will never happen. A 50% hit rate is more realistic - so we're getting 3-5 that work our over a 3 year period. Not near enough.

Alabama gets 8-10 Top 100 players in each recruiting class - so if only 50% hit, you don't remember the 12-15 that didn't work out - you just remember the12-15 that do. Because a majority of your starting players are big time guys that worked out.

My point was 1 single player doesn't tip the scales (for any team...except for Cam Newton) - it's how many top players you're signing, because some are bound to not work out no matter what. It's a numbers game.
I get your point. HOWEVER it's like baby steps. You walk before you run. You don't get those top recruits just because you wake up one day and wish them into existence. Unless there's other intangibles (i.e. ole piss,Nebraska,etc) than you get those top recruits because they see success at the position inside of your system. They see development that translates into something tangible. Early draft picks,NFL success,big contracts, endorsements etc. The whole theory of an ace recruiter is a crock of shyt. In people's eyes an ace recruiter is nothing but a snake oil salesman. An ace recruiter in reality is someone who can point to success at this level and the next and is able to relate to his demographic. That's why it fluctuates from one day to the next. All things being on the same level it's all about results. Unless the kids that failed came in as can't miss you think a position coach quotes them when discussing the reasons to play for him? Nah they are as quickly as possible pushed from peoples memories and replaced by the kids who have achieved something on the field. All recruiting that matters is simply who you developed. This somehow always seems lost on canes fans. Our programs success was never dependent on star whores and chasing after what y'all would consider a stud out of high school. It's been get kids that fit our blueprint and coach them up to be alphas...
 

bshaw28

Junior
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,987
I get your point. HOWEVER it's like baby steps. You walk before you run. You don't get those top recruits just because you wake up one day and wish them into existence. Unless there's other intangibles (i.e. ole piss,Nebraska,etc) than you get those top recruits because they see success at the position inside of your system. They see development that translates into something tangible. Early draft picks,NFL success,big contracts, endorsements etc. The whole theory of an ace recruiter is a crock of shyt. In people's eyes an ace recruiter is nothing but a snake oil salesman. An ace recruiter in reality is someone who can point to success at this level and the next and is able to relate to his demographic. That's why it fluctuates from one day to the next. All things being on the same level it's all about results. Unless the kids that failed came in as can't miss you think a position coach quotes them when discussing the reasons to play for him? Nah they are as quickly as possible pushed from peoples memories and replaced by the kids who have achieved something on the field. All recruiting that matters is simply who you developed. This somehow always seems lost on canes fans. Our programs success was never dependent on star whores and chasing after what y'all would consider a stud out of high school. It's been get kids that fit our blueprint and coach them up to be alphas...

I hear you & agree with what you're saying.

While both are important - I think the development (how you lean) vs raw talent (how I lean) will always be an ongoing and interesting debate.

I think Recruiters are Salesman - and some salesman are just better than others. So while I totally agree results won't come overnight, a good recruiting staff can get 2-3 more top players a year than what we've been getting. More talent = more wins = more high drafts picks - the results build on that. I just lean on getting more guys who are talented right off the bat being more important than coaching up lesser talents (but both are important and there is no right or wrong).
 

Brooklyndee

We fuckin or wut
Premium
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
7,739
I hear you & agree with what you're saying.

While both are important - I think the development (how you lean) vs raw talent (how I lean) will always be an ongoing and interesting debate.

I think Recruiters are Salesman - and some salesman are just better than others. So while I totally agree results won't come overnight, a good recruiting staff can get 2-3 more top players a year than what we've been getting. More talent = more wins = more high drafts picks - the results build on that. I just lean on getting more guys who are talented right off the bat being more important than coaching up lesser talents (but both are important and there is no right or wrong).
Ok. But when lesser talent is kids most teams in the country offered than in my eyes EVERYONE isn't making a bad evaluation. It's the kid hasn't been put in a good position to succeed. Luckily we have a staff now that checks off all of those boxes. I'm not gonna get too tough into our recruiting conversations. But I will say is rest easy. WERE DOING ALOT BETTER THAN MOST ON HERE SEEM TO THINK. With all this damn were missing on all our talent talk. For people who don't realize you will learn our announcements when it strategically makes the most sense for the program.
 

bshaw28

Junior
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,987
The real question have we had anybody as impactful as duke since he left ? The closest players I can think of is Ahmmon Richards on offense and defense Gerald Willis , jalen Phillips/GR15

I'd agree with those players you named and include King, TVD, Travis Homer, Shaq, Jaquan Johnson
 
Top