Recruiting 4* DT Kyree Campbell commits to Florida

[BMF]

Weve been tryimg to sign 32+ kids since Mac arrived. 5 OL and 4 DL is always the goal. We need to add more due to past failures but even w adding depth 10-13, that still leaves 20-ish for the other positions.

Well, that's what I've been saying to Doug (IF...key word, "IF") we had a competent coaching staff we'd only need between 7 and 9 OL's/DL's per cycle (3-5 OL's and 4 DL's). But instead, we need about 46 this cycle to get even. :D

 

[BMF]

So lets say 10-12, of the starting 22 that is roughly 10 players. So it goes with what we would be having in a given start set. Now if you assume a good staff would be able to redshirt your freshmen (which is not where we are). Now you have to eliminate the kids you are going to lose to not being able to play at the college level, practice bodies, kids that aren't going to be handle the weight, injury and leaving early. If you assume they will always be healthy and none will leave early it is too many, but that isn't going to be the case. The jump from HS to NCAA is huge, and that is where the 10-12 comes from.

Doug, not trying to argue w/ you....but there aren't many CFB programs w/ 20+ scholarship OL's on their roster. It just doesn't happen. Like I've said, IF we had a competent staff, 7-9 OL's/DL's per class is plenty. That would give us 8 DE's, 8 DT's, and around 16 OL's.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Doug, not trying to argue w/ you....but there aren't many CFB programs w/ 20+ scholarship OL's on their roster. It just doesn't happen. Like I've said, IF we had a competent staff, 7-9 OL's/DL's per class is plenty. That would give us 8 DE's, 8 DT's, and around 16 OL's.

That's my point, you are not recruiting due to retention, your recruiting due to attrition. The OL and DL position have the most wear and tear on the body.

 

[BMF]

That's my point, you are not recruiting due to retention, your recruiting due to attrition. The OL and DL position have the most wear and tear on the body.

Doug, find me a D1 program that has more than 20 OL's on scholarship.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Doug, find me a D1 program that has more than 20 OL's on scholarship.

I guess in your opinion all linemen who come from High School have bodies that can handle the wear and tear of NCAA SEC football and never break down. We have started all five starting linemen every year for every game, and never had a player leave due to his body breaking down. Never recruited a player who couldn't handle the weight, and never had players on OL or DL that left early for a variety of reasons. There is a reason that Offensive Linemen and Defensive Linemen are considered some of the hardest positions to recruit, because you don't know how the body is going to handle the jump from HS to College. They also have the highest rate of attrition (players leaving or cut) for not being able to handle the jump.

 

[BMF]

I guess in your opinion all linemen who come from High School have bodies that can handle the wear and tear of NCAA SEC football and never break down. We have started all five starting linemen every year for every game, and never had a player leave due to his body breaking down. Never recruited a player who couldn't handle the weight, and never had players on OL or DL that left early for a variety of reasons.

No. In my mind....and almost every College Football Coach in America, they don't have 20+ OL on scholarship. What's hard to understand? Why am I the one being hard headed? It's a fact: Most CFB teams DO NOT have 20+ OL's on scholarship. So, again (and again, and again) IF we had a competent coaching staff (like they do at Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, and many, many other programs) we'd only need 7-9 OLs/DL's per cycle. Not sure why that's being hard headed. You are right, in the current situation we are in because we DON'T have a competent coaching staff. But if things leveled out and we hired a competent coaching staff, 7-9 each class is just fine.

 

[TheDouglas78]

No. In my mind....and almost every College Football Coach in America, they don't have 20+ OL on scholarship. What's hard to understand? Why am I the one being hard headed? It's a fact: Most CFB teams DO NOT have 20+ OL's on scholarship. So, again (and again, and again) IF we had a competent coaching staff (like they do at Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, and many, many other programs) we'd only need 7-9 OLs/DL's per cycle. Not sure why that's being hard headed. You are right, in the current situation we are in because we DON'T have a competent coaching staff. But if things leveled out and we hired a competent coaching staff, 7-9 each class is just fine.

Neither one of us saying they have 20+ OL on scholarship do... that is where you having the issue..... Recruiting 10-12 a year, and retaining every single one of them is your fallacy in logic. Not all 10-12 will have bodies to handle NCAA Football or SEC Football. We have done two things poorly the last 8 year, under recruited linemen and had bad luck with the bodies we had. You have to over recruit the position, to take into account all the players you are going to lose to the fact their bodies can't handle the strain at this level (which gets you back to the numbers you are referring to). If we hit on all our recruits then the numbers you suggest work, but as the last 8 years have shown us... we won't. You are recruiting due to attrition not retention... you keep coming back to recruiting for retention.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Exactly, if you sign too many at certain positions someone gets lost in the Frosh shuffle. I never like signing 6 OL, because one of them does not get developed. It is not quite as bad with DL, but still signing 3 D-tackles or 3 DEs can leave one not getting developed.

Thats crazy, especially on DL bc you can, actually must, rotate them. Its also wrong bc Saban's defense calls for 3 "DTs" on first and second down.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Most CFB teams DO NOT have 20+ OL's on scholarship... Not sure why that's being hard headed

Signing 5 a year does not mean you have 20 on scholarship. The injury/failure to develop/transfer rate is very high with linemen. It approaches 50 percent.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Signing 5 a year does not mean you have 20 on scholarship. The injury/failure to develop/transfer rate is very high with linemen. It approaches 50 percent.

Which is my point, thank you Law for also seeing it.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

I'm not 100% sure, but it may be because he went to prep school. Rivals may not consider him under the ranking?

And yet they used him to factor into the star average counting him as 0 stars. That's kinda f'd cuz our average should have gone up.
Before signing him we had
4*s 7 (7x4=28)
3*s 6 (6x3=18)
28+18=46; 46/13= 3.53
Now they are giving the kid no stars but counting his body
46/14=3.28
In reality if they did it right:
4*s 8 (8x4=32)
3*s 6 (6x3=18)
32+18=50; 50/14= 3.57

This is all just fun with math but that would put us around 10th average. And a 4 star, as near as I can guess, would add about 40-60 points putting us around 19th ranked. Woot woot, We're 19th! we're 19th!

 

[T REX]

What is different about the new formula?
Unlike the old formula, the new formula uses a prospect's Rivals Rating (RR), not the prospect's star rating, as the key factor in the formula to compute the point totals.

The main part of the formula is now a point scale reflecting the average Rivals Rating of a team's top 20 signees.

The second part of the formula is a bonus point scale for prospects ranked in the Rivals250. This applies to all commitments in a team's class.

JUCO and Prep School national rankings do not have bonuses. Only those prospect's RR rating will be considered in the point calculation.

 

[BMF]

Neither one of us saying they have 20+ OL on scholarship do... that is where you having the issue..... Recruiting 10-12 a year, and retaining every single one of them is your fallacy in logic. Not all 10-12 will have bodies to handle NCAA Football or SEC Football. We have done two things poorly the last 8 year, under recruited linemen and had bad luck with the bodies we had. You have to over recruit the position, to take into account all the players you are going to lose to the fact their bodies can't handle the strain at this level (which gets you back to the numbers you are referring to). If we hit on all our recruits then the numbers you suggest work, but as the last 8 years have shown us... we won't. You are recruiting due to attrition not retention... you keep coming back to recruiting for retention.

I agree to a point Doug. And I do agree not all will make it...and not all are SEC caliber. I just think if we have a "competent" staff we won't have as many issues, they will pull in more blue-chippers (who have a higher chance of succeeding), and they will develop the talent we do get better (all things that are NOT happening w/ this staff). I think in some years we'd need 5 or more OL's, but in most years as few as 3 would be fine and upwards of 5, especially if we were like Alabama and Ohio State where the top OL's are begging to come play - even if there's freshman 5-star starters in front of them.

 

[TheDouglas78]

I agree to a point Doug. And I do agree not all will make it...and not all are SEC caliber. I just think if we have a "competent" staff we won't have as many issues, they will pull in more blue-chippers (who have a higher chance of succeeding), and they will develop the talent we do get better (all things that are NOT happening w/ this staff). I think in some years we'd need 5 or more OL's, but in most years as few as 3 would be fine and upwards of 5, especially if we were like Alabama and Ohio State where the top OL's are begging to come play - even if there's freshman 5-star starters in front of them.

Alabama (Rivals)

2017 projected class 5 - OL
2016 class 5- OL
2015 class 5 - OL
2014 class 6 - OL
2013 class 4 - OL
I guess if we were more like Alabama were the top OL were begging to play, we get what we can.

Ohio State (Rivals)
2017 projected class 2-OL
2016 class 5- OL
2015 class 7 - OL
2014 class 4 - OL
2013 class 2 - OL
2012 class 5 - OL
2011 class 5 - OL

 

[BMF]

Alabama (Rivals)

2017 projected class 5 - OL
2016 class 5- OL
2015 class 5 - OL
2014 class 6 - OL
2013 class 4 - OL
I guess if we were more like Alabama were the top OL were begging to play, we get what we can.

Last year's Bama OL: #1 OL, #2 OL, & #18 OL. It's unbelievable. I don't understand why they keep lining up to play there.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Alabama (Rivals)

2017 projected class 5 - OL
2016 class 5- OL
2015 class 5 - OL
2014 class 6 - OL
2013 class 4 - OL
I guess if we were more like Alabama were the top OL were begging to play, we get what we can.

They dont know what they are doing. Take 2 linemen then grab every three star db and rb you can find, thats the championship formula.

 

[BMF]

We really seem to have the market cornered when it comes to D-Linemen from Wyoming!

With that said, regardless of his offer lists, etc., I will hold out hope b/c our 3 position coaches on the defensive side of the ball have shown "some" ability to develop individual players. Now having SideHat over them kind of negates things, but if it were an offensive player, I would have no confidence that he would develop b/c our position coaches are offense are quite "offensive"!

Good story on Campbell.

First off, he's from northern Virginia, not Wyoming.

Went to the same hs Tony Lily.

http://www.insidenova.com/sports/wo...cle_1987f058-bf4b-11e6-8ff2-137cbb910893.html