forums

Size

Advertisement
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
This isn't unique to us, though.
Every program in the country wants bigger guys. But they also want fast/athletic guys.

You know who's big AND fast? Higher ranked players!

We're not big and fast because we're not signing the big/fast guys, not because we don't want to be bigger.

Your team isn't gonna be big AND fast if you're relying on lower ranked recruits.
Lower ranked recruits are big but not fast...or fast but not big.
Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, etc...have big/fast guys because they SIGN big/fast guys. (not because that's their preference. that's everybody's preference)

We'll get bigger and faster across the board as we continue to sign better classes.
Click to expand...
I tried to say the same thing you just said, but couldn’t do it justice like you did.

Sign the best players. They will 90% of the time be bigger, stronger, faster and more talented.

Problem solved.
 
The Sphinx said:
I tried to say the same thing you just said, but couldn’t do it justice like you did.

Sign the best players. They will 90% of the time be bigger, stronger, faster and more talented.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
This is the important point. Do not chase measurables. Let that follow.

Ray Lewis wasn't the biggest or fastest LB. Ed Reed wasn't particularly big or fast at all for a safety. Warren Sapp was once a TE.

We need better evaluations. Yes, we should be in it for better athletes, whether that means bigger, faster or both. But bigger and faster are hard to find so it's natural that they come along with better brand and recruiting, but they're tail, not dog. The goal is to find the BEST players, not the best prototypes. That distinction is really important. If we go back to chasing measurables, we're going to be chasing our tail in a game of fail for another 2 decades.
 
The Franchise said:
Which one will fatigue first? You fellas have words galore in your fingertips.
Click to expand...
You know, just thinking about this topic, the important question is really avoided here.

Are we supposed to be building to compete with Alabama, or with the rest of CFB. Because if we think we are trying to recruit to beat 2020 Alabama, it's going to bias us in ways that may be counter-productive unless we're incredibly lucky on our evals. They're so talented you have to go for top athletes and hope they can play, while they're getting top athletes who they know can play. (Or enough of them that it works out.)

If you build for Clemson, however, it's a different battle. You need good, smart, tough players. A solid OL, top notch DL, smart LBs and safeties, cover corners. We can much more easily focus on building for Clemson, and then if we break through, worry about whoever replaces Saban/Alabama. It's not just theory in terms of recruiting. It's strategy. IMO.
 
Ethnicsands said:
You know, just thinking about this topic, the important question is really avoided here.

Are we supposed to be building to compete with Alabama, or with the rest of CFB. Because if we think we are trying to recruit to beat 2020 Alabama, it's going to bias us in ways that may be counter-productive unless we're incredibly lucky on our evals. They're so talented you have to go for top athletes and hope they can play, while they're getting top athletes who they know can play. (Or enough of them that it works out.)

If you build for Clemson, however, it's a different battle. You need good, smart, tough players. A solid OL, top notch DL, smart LBs and safeties, cover corners. We can much more easily focus on building for Clemson, and then if we break through, worry about whoever replaces Saban/Alabama. It's not just theory in terms of recruiting. It's strategy. IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm all about building in stages. I think aiming for Baga is dumb when you're so far behind them.

First step for me is building a team that can consistently win the Coastal. Do that enough times, and it will open up the eyes of the more elite recruits that they can come here and play in championship games with a shot at making the playoffs regularly. That's how you get to the point where you're landing more elite recruits.

With our location, it's not a Herculean task. We just need the right HC who is an excellent leader/evaluator. If we were in the middle of Nebraska or Iowa or even Pennsylvania, I'd realize we're dead as a national contender. With our location, we just need the right guy in charge.
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
I'm all about building in stages. I think aiming for Baga is dumb when you're so far behind them.

First step for me is building a team that can consistently win the Coastal. Do that enough times, and it will open up the eyes of the more elite recruits that they can come here and play in championship games with a shot at making the playoffs regularly. That's how you get to the point where you're landing more elite recruits.

With our location, it's not a Herculean task. We just need the right HC who is an excellent leader/evaluator. If we were in the middle of Nebraska or Iowa or even Pennsylvania, I'd realize we're dead as a national contender. With our location, we just need the right guy in charge.
Click to expand...
This is basically what I have been saying for ages. Alabama is a red herring. Focus on winning the Coastal, then the ACC, then worry about Alabama and OSU. 80% of the last mile is qurterback, anyhow. The other 20% is OL/DL.
 
@Ethnicsands @The Franchise

I agree about team building in stages. And I agree about not comparing the team to Alabama. But we do have to compare ourselves to UNC in the short term and Clemson (maybe Notre Dame) in the intermediate term and that leap to Clemson is nearly a leap to Alabama...so that stage needs to come sooner rather than latter, IMO.

We, unfortunately, don't have the benefit of having to stage up to some mid like Washington or Stanford or Oregon in the Pac12 or OU in the Big XII. We've got a significant level up in our own conference thats quite the mountain to climb.
 
BoxingRobes said:
@Ethnicsands @The Franchise

I agree about team building in stages. And I agree about not comparing the team to Alabama. But we do have to compare ourselves to UNC in the short term and Clemson (maybe Notre Dame) in the intermediate term and that leap to Clemson is nearly a leap to Alabama...so that stage needs to come sooner rather than latter, IMO.

We, unfortunately, don't have the benefit of having to stage up to some mid like Washington or Stanford or Oregon in the Pac12 or OU in the Big XII. We've got a significant level up in our own conference thats quite the mountain to climb.
Click to expand...
Break it into pieces. UNC. Then Clemson. Then others.

Clemson isn’t Alabama when it comes to talent. We’re far off from them but further far off from Alabama.
 
People want a slow build, but also want to fire the coach if he doesn't win right away or has a down year.

Those 2 seem to be at odds with each other.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top