Diwun Black WILL be attending UF....by his 30th birthday

YLGator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 14, 2016
1,430
3,719
Im not sold on Mullinz, especially his recruitng which thus fair is just a halfstep better than Butters.

However, he ended the season with things clicking and it at least gives us hope that it night be a direction change and not a fluke.
Completely agree. But you have to actually watch the games to pick up on a lot of that. Not sure how many actually do that these days.
 

gatorkev85

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,544
1,903
Im not sold on Mullinz, especially his recruitng which thus far is just a halfstep better than Butters.

However, he ended the season with things clicking and it at least gives us hope that it night be a direction change and not a fluke.
Couldn't agree more, he ended the season with things clicking. He did a good job but he didn't make you think we definitely got the right guy for this job. People are acting as if I said he did a terrible job. I think he did a good job but he didn't make me thing we got the right guy.

I
 

gatorkev85

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,544
1,903
So the only problem with your argument is that’s not what happened. Look, winners win and losers lose. He did a fair share of winning last year and it felt good. It also felt completely different than the fools gold we were served by the last two idiots. I’m far from sold on Mullen, but I have no doubt he can string a bunch of 9-3 seasons together. I just don’t know if he can get back to wining titles. Gonna need some players for that to happen.
Winning felt great I was thrilled every game we won. I agree I could see him staring together many 9-3 season with the occasional 11 win season. I also agree that if he could recruit at the level of Saban and Smart he could win those games because he's a good enough coach. I just worry he won't come close to those 2 in recruiting and he's not a good enough coach to overcome the talent difference year to year.
 

alcoholica

Founding Member
I'm what Willis was talking about
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
16,754
20,381
Founding Member
I don't, I think we lose to Michigan if they played everyone. Game changers on the DL and at LB, were out. LT too?
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
There are so many variables that go into ranking in HS that aren’t a level playing field. Overall talent, size of school they attended/competition they faced, camps attended, offer sheet (specifically if Bama or UGA offered), trouble in HS, grade problems, system they played in vs the system they’re going to, experience, etc. You can only “coach up” so much. At some point, talent limits what you can do. Its the coaches job to match those talent to their needs. Stars are a great starting point but we know more about a player after college is done. I bet Taylor would rerank as a high 4 star today but weight concerns dropped him.

And those variables are accounted for in the ranking system. it's a measure of raw talent, size and speed. A guy can kill it in high school competition, due to what he competes against and still only be a 1 star. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but comparing a ranking of raw talent verse the end product after what every coaching/coaching changes and environment when has the same variables as high school landscape is invalid. Now if you want to say who gets teams more ready for the next level by taking the ranking and where they fall in the draft rankings, that would be a valid argument.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
Exactly, hence the face palm for his earlier post. What if our secondary wasn’t decimated by injuries against UGA? Maybe we win? What if Reese was available against Kentucky? Maybe we stuff the run better and win?

Thought I think Mullen did an good job last year... injuries happen, suspensions happen. Whatif is just that whatif.. Fact is we were missing those guys and the schemes and players were not ready for those losses. That is on this staff and the previous staff due to roster management.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
I don't, I think we lose to Michigan if they played everyone. Game changers on the DL and at LB, were out. LT too?

Look at where those players went in the draft... they were talented and it's a different game with them in the game.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
The question we should ask, is what did you believe the record due to talent should have been in 2017 before Butters went full Butters. I believe most people had us at around 10 wins. Now you have a similar schedule, less depth on defense but replacing TA&M with MSU and replacing Michigan at the beginning of the season with a jabronie. Mullen did a good job, but based on talent and schedule we should have had 9/10 wins before the bowl with the talent on hand verse the talent we were facing on the schedule. He changed the mindset, but he did what any competent coach should have done with our roster and the schedule.
 

SeabeeGator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 2, 2018
7,032
10,100
And those variables are accounted for in the ranking system. it's a measure of raw talent, size and speed. A guy can kill it in high school competition, due to what he competes against and still only be a 1 star. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but comparing a ranking of raw talent verse the end product after what every coaching/coaching changes and environment when has the same variables as high school landscape is invalid. Now if you want to say who gets teams more ready for the next level by taking the ranking and where they fall in the draft rankings, that would be a valid argument.
You’re missing the point. Recruiting/talent evaluation isn’t as simple as measureables, camp participation, and whether Bama/UGA offer (major factors in every ranking system). Rivals may rate a QB as a 5 Star but if that 5 Star is a pro style guy that can’t run he’d be no better than Trask in our system. However, an AR is a low 4 star but a great fit for our system. Is Mullen a bad recruiter if he takes the low 4 over the 5 Star in that situation? Of course not but not getting a 5 Star looks bad on paper. Another example: are the coaches at Wisconsin bad recruiters because they don’t have a highly rated OL or are they good recruiters because they know what type of OL prospect they need? Their OLs are consistently excellent so I’d lean towards the latter.

That said, I’m not arguing stars don’t matter. In the Wisconsin example, if they consistently settled for 3 Star “fits” when more athletically talented 4/5 Star “fits” were available then they’d be bad recruiters. In the Butters example, he needed Bama type talent to run his system and he consistently missed or settled for FIU talent. That’s a bad recruiter.

I’m happy to agree to disagree. I’ll never be convinced that a ranking system compiled on raw talent - a subjective measure - that doesn’t consider college system and current team needs is a better measure of a coaches recruiting ability than what a class looks like after 4 years (when those factors have played out). Development and leadership definitely factor in but both are limited by how a coach manages the roster from a talent and depth perspective.

And before anyone (@BMF, looking at you...) throws it out, I’m not arguing to “trust the coaches”, either. I didn’t trust Butters, at all. I don’t trust our OL, DL, LB, or safety recruiting. I believe there are more physically gifted prospects that fit our system out there that we are missing on.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,220
You’re missing the point. Recruiting/talent evaluation isn’t as simple as measureables, camp participation, and whether Bama/UGA offer (major factors in every ranking system). Rivals may rate a QB as a 5 Star but if that 5 Star is a pro style guy that can’t run he’d be no better than Trask in our system. However, an AR is a low 4 star but a great fit for our system. Is Mullen a bad recruiter if he takes the low 4 over the 5 Star in that situation? Of course not but not getting a 5 Star looks bad on paper. Another example: are the coaches at Wisconsin bad recruiters because they don’t have a highly rated OL or are they good recruiters because they know what type of OL prospect they need? Their OLs are consistently excellent so I’d lean towards the latter.

That said, I’m not arguing stars don’t matter. In the Wisconsin example, if they consistently settled for 3 Star “fits” when more athletically talented 4/5 Star “fits” were available then they’d be bad recruiters. In the Butters example, he needed Bama type talent to run his system and he consistently missed or settled for FIU talent. That’s a bad recruiter.

I’m happy to agree to disagree. I’ll never be convinced that a ranking system compiled on raw talent - a subjective measure - that doesn’t consider college system and current team needs is a better measure of a coaches recruiting ability than what a class looks like after 4 years (when those factors have played out). Development and leadership definitely factor in but both are limited by how a coach manages the roster from a talent and depth perspective.

And before anyone (@BMF, looking at you...) throws it out, I’m not arguing to “trust the coaches”, either. I didn’t trust Butters, at all. I don’t trust our OL, DL, LB, or safety recruiting. I believe there are more physically gifted prospects that fit our system out there that we are missing on.

I can't believe you put up a "trust the coaches" post! Amateur!
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
You’re missing the point. Recruiting/talent evaluation isn’t as simple as measureables, camp participation, and whether Bama/UGA offer (major factors in every ranking system). Rivals may rate a QB as a 5 Star but if that 5 Star is a pro style guy that can’t run he’d be no better than Trask in our system. However, an AR is a low 4 star but a great fit for our system. Is Mullen a bad recruiter if he takes the low 4 over the 5 Star in that situation? Of course not but not getting a 5 Star looks bad on paper. Another example: are the coaches at Wisconsin bad recruiters because they don’t have a highly rated OL or are they good recruiters because they know what type of OL prospect they need? Their OLs are consistently excellent so I’d lean towards the latter.

That said, I’m not arguing stars don’t matter. In the Wisconsin example, if they consistently settled for 3 Star “fits” when more athletically talented 4/5 Star “fits” were available then they’d be bad recruiters. In the Butters example, he needed Bama type talent to run his system and he consistently missed or settled for FIU talent. That’s a bad recruiter.

I’m happy to agree to disagree. I’ll never be convinced that a ranking system compiled on raw talent - a subjective measure - that doesn’t consider college system and current team needs is a better measure of a coaches recruiting ability than what a class looks like after 4 years (when those factors have played out). Development and leadership definitely factor in but both are limited by how a coach manages the roster from a talent and depth perspective.

And before anyone (@BMF, looking at you...) throws it out, I’m not arguing to “trust the coaches”, either. I didn’t trust Butters, at all. I don’t trust our OL, DL, LB, or safety recruiting. I believe there are more physically gifted prospects that fit our system out there that we are missing on.

You realize your rebuttal actually proves my argument. I agree, not all 5 stars are truly 5 stars to a particular team, but they are still a 5 star on that players raw athletic ability. Which is the whole point. There are specialized positions (ie Quarterback) where getting the top rated dual threat who is a 4* is better than getting the top rated 5* pro style guy for our offense. But do you think that truly is the case for most of your other positions. If Wisconsin could regularly recruit blu-chip linemen do you think they would settle for 3* linemen. They don't get 5* linemen because their is usually only about 25-30 5* star players evey year. Do you think they want to go to Wisconsin? Supply and Demand, the supply is limited so the demand is high.

Which is why judging a class 3/4 years down the road is inaccurate to the talent level/Output of that class. Take the classes amass by UF from 2010-2014, Florida went through 4 different offensive coordinator changes (Cheeseburger, Nuttlover, other douche, Butters) is it really fair to judge their talents after going through 4 different offensive changes?
 

SeabeeGator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 2, 2018
7,032
10,100
You realize your rebuttal actually proves my argument. I agree, not all 5 stars are truly 5 stars to a particular team, but they are still a 5 star on that players raw athletic ability. Which is the whole point. There are specialized positions (ie Quarterback) where getting the top rated dual threat who is a 4* is better than getting the top rated 5* pro style guy for our offense. But do you think that truly is the case for most of your other positions. If Wisconsin could regularly recruit blu-chip linemen do you think they would settle for 3* linemen. They don't get 5* linemen because their is usually only about 25-30 5* star players evey year. Do you think they want to go to Wisconsin? Supply and Demand, the supply is limited so the demand is high.

Which is why judging a class 3/4 years down the road is inaccurate to the talent level/Output of that class. Take the classes amass by UF from 2010-2014, Florida went through 4 different offensive coordinator changes (Cheeseburger, Nuttlover, other douche, Butters) is it really fair to judge their talents after going through 4 different offensive changes?
First paragraph: Wisconsin’s restraints don’t allow them to compete for 5 stars. What makes them good at recruiting is that they get the best fit available with the best potential for development - which is good recruiting. It looks mediocre on paper on NSD but great come graduation. Florida is in a much more difficult position: fans readily acknowledge that we are disadvantaged on most things recruits currently want but expect us to overcome that. Mullen isn’t helping that with some of his assistant coaches and staff hires.

Second paragraph: that’s an extreme example and does more to highlight the program’s instability than anything else - another disadvantage in recruiting. In fact, kind of makes my argument... if our 2010 class was truly one of the best since they started rating (which was said repeatedly by analysts) wouldn’t they have overcome many of those disadvantages in coaching based on raw skill? That 2010 class was a failure overall but we only knew that after the fact.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,719
Founding Member
First paragraph: Wisconsin’s restraints don’t allow them to compete for 5 stars. What makes them good at recruiting is that they get the best fit available with the best potential for development - which is good recruiting. It looks mediocre on paper on NSD but great come graduation. Florida is in a much more difficult position: fans readily acknowledge that we are disadvantaged on most things recruits currently want but expect us to overcome that. Mullen isn’t helping that with some of his assistant coaches and staff hires.

Which still proves my point, class rankings are based on individual rankings which are just on raw talent. Wisconsin does a decent job of recruiting within their lane. But no one is expecting them to routinely be in the top 5 either. But if you take their class and then compared to Alabama's class whom has the most talented athletes coming in? Wisconsin isn't expected to compete with the Alabamas, UF's, etc.. of the world. So if they get a 15th ranked class, that is a great class for them. UF is supposed to compete, and due to previous regimes and management is having to raise back up to that competition. This is why your Wisconsin argument doesn't really fit the UF argument. You are saying Wisconsin does a good job with what they can, which we both agree... but they also are staying in their lane. UF is currently well below their lane in recruiting to the point where 3 blue chip athletes is a blow to our roster/standing especially compared to whom we are competing against.

Second paragraph: that’s an extreme example and does more to highlight the program’s instability than anything else - another disadvantage in recruiting. In fact, kind of makes my argument... if our 2010 class was truly one of the best since they started rating (which was said repeatedly by analysts) wouldn’t they have overcome many of those disadvantages in coaching based on raw skill? That 2010 class was a failure overall but we only knew that after the fact.

Admittedly an extreme example, but needed to show the flaws in a post career rankings. The post career ranking shows the failure or the successes of the staffs over all. There is only so much a player(s) can over come. Should a pro-style quarterback (recruited to be a pro-style) deals with a coaching change that switches to the a spread-option offense. How is it fair to judge a class of pro-style athletes if half way through their careers they switch to completely different styles. A kid that blows out their knee was still a 5* when they started school, but injuries happen should that be counted against the perceived value before their injury?
 

SeabeeGator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 2, 2018
7,032
10,100
Which still proves my point, class rankings are based on individual rankings which are just on raw talent. Wisconsin does a decent job of recruiting within their lane. But no one is expecting them to routinely be in the top 5 either. But if you take their class and then compared to Alabama's class whom has the most talented athletes coming in? Wisconsin isn't expected to compete with the Alabamas, UF's, etc.. of the world. So if they get a 15th ranked class, that is a great class for them. UF is supposed to compete, and due to previous regimes and management is having to raise back up to that competition. This is why your Wisconsin argument doesn't really fit the UF argument. You are saying Wisconsin does a good job with what they can, which we both agree... but they also are staying in their lane. UF is currently well below their lane in recruiting to the point where 3 blue chip athletes is a blow to our roster/standing especially compared to whom we are competing against.



Admittedly an extreme example, but needed to show the flaws in a post career rankings. The post career ranking shows the failure or the successes of the staffs over all. There is only so much a player(s) can over come. Should a pro-style quarterback (recruited to be a pro-style) deals with a coaching change that switches to the a spread-option offense. How is it fair to judge a class of pro-style athletes if half way through their careers they switch to completely different styles. A kid that blows out their knee was still a 5* when they started school, but injuries happen should that be counted against the perceived value before their injury?
Think we are talking past each other. I’m saying that I don’t think a raw talent assessment is a good way to rate a recruiting class. You seem to be saying you think it is. I’m not sure we resolve that. I see Watkins last year and Jones this year - tons of raw talent but bad recruiting efforts because we knew they were very risk and were bitten by that. You see that we brought in the raw talent but it didn’t pan out, for whatever reason, right? Answer probably combines both.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.