I have gathered bits and pieces from various threads, but it doesn't add up...

When the previous coach was here, he was big on redshirting freshman as a means of conditioning / maturing them up. That was given as an explanation as to why his first year or two were going to be struggles, while the program developed sufficient depth to manage having significant numbers of redshirts out of the incoming classes.

I have also seen threads discussing back and forth the strength of his recruiting classes. From what I recall from various threads, his recruiting classes were not rated significantly different (worse) from our typical recruiting classes under other HC's.

So.... how has that left us with such a depleted roster? Were his recruiting classes weaker than what they were rated? Did his classes suffer from increased numbers of recruits who never made it to campus, or were kicked off due to legal or academic issues?

If he truly was taking the hit early on by redshirting a lot of freshman, shouldn't they be here contributing now?

The kids he recruited don't have the mindset anymore of a winning program. It's a matter of tearing down the culture and starting over.

He also didn't recruit position groups well, like the OL.

Just strictly team rankings for each recruiting class per 24/7

Class of 2011 - 47th (Jones)
2012 - 51st (Jones)
2013 - 60th (Jones/Tubs)
2014- 65th (Tubs)
2015- 68th (Tubs)
2016 - 74th (Tubs)
2017 - 63rd (Tubs/Fick)
2018 - 42nd (Fick) * as of 10/9/17

The trends are clear . And that 63rd for the class of 2017 was brought up quickly in the month or two Fickell was on it.

(10-09-2017 12:03 PM)namrag Wrote:  I have gathered bits and pieces from various threads, but it doesn't add up...

When the previous coach was here, he was big on redshirting freshman as a means of conditioning / maturing them up. That was given as an explanation as to why his first year or two were going to be struggles, while the program developed sufficient depth to manage having significant numbers of redshirts out of the incoming classes.

I have also seen threads discussing back and forth the strength of his recruiting classes. From what I recall from various threads, his recruiting classes were not rated significantly different (worse) from our typical recruiting classes under other HC's.

So.... how has that left us with such a depleted roster? Were his recruiting classes weaker than what they were rated? Did his classes suffer from increased numbers of recruits who never made it to campus, or were kicked off due to legal or academic issues?

If he truly was taking the hit early on by redshirting a lot of freshman, shouldn't they be here contributing now?

Going into the season, I was of the (hopeful) opinion that the previous regime had actually left us a whole bunch of talent that just needed to "be coached up" (those red-shirts the previous HC didn't burn last season). I even went so far to predict a 9-3 or better season...before the APSU game.

I was wrong. Just plain wrong.

It appears that:
1) The "type" of recruit the previous Coaching staff signed was just not of the qualities and talents that we are looking for. This happens with every Coaching staff change, FWIW... The previous Coach always looks for a "type" of kid, both physically but also mentally, that matches the Coach's "system." So, the previous regime obviously looked for, and recruited, a different "type" of kid than the current Coach will.

2) The overall general quality of the recruits that the previous Coaching regime got was simply not up-to-par. Recruiting services "Rank" a kid on a subjective list of criteria. We saw this work in the positive in terms of Mark Dantonio, who recruited "Diamond In the Rough" recruits who were under the radar but could be developed. Regardless of "stars," the previous HC simply did not recruit the talent level that would grow.

3) The Recruiting Services rankings are like the ACT/SAT score: an indicator of potential. The previous regime did not develop the potential they recruited. "Stars" not withstanding, the "potential" either wasn't there or hasn't been brought out.

That's my take on it. Maybe the previous staff looked for and brought in kids who are not compatible with the current system. Maybe they didn't actually find the "talent" they thought they had found. Maybe they just didn't develop the talent they did have and so all the "Redshirt" years in the world wouldn't help because nobody was bringing the kids along. And probably it's a case of "All of the above."

(10-09-2017 12:36 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:03 PM)namrag Wrote:  I have gathered bits and pieces from various threads, but it doesn't add up...

When the previous coach was here, he was big on redshirting freshman as a means of conditioning / maturing them up. That was given as an explanation as to why his first year or two were going to be struggles, while the program developed sufficient depth to manage having significant numbers of redshirts out of the incoming classes.

I have also seen threads discussing back and forth the strength of his recruiting classes. From what I recall from various threads, his recruiting classes were not rated significantly different (worse) from our typical recruiting classes under other HC's.

So.... how has that left us with such a depleted roster? Were his recruiting classes weaker than what they were rated? Did his classes suffer from increased numbers of recruits who never made it to campus, or were kicked off due to legal or academic issues?

If he truly was taking the hit early on by redshirting a lot of freshman, shouldn't they be here contributing now?

Going into the season, I was of the (hopeful) opinion that the previous regime had actually left us a whole bunch of talent that just needed to "be coached up" (those red-shirts the previous HC didn't burn last season). I even went so far to predict a 9-3 or better season...before the APSU game.

I was wrong. Just plain wrong.

It appears that:
1) The "type" of recruit the previous Coaching staff signed was just not of the qualities and talents that we are looking for. This happens with every Coaching staff change, FWIW... The previous Coach always looks for a "type" of kid, both physically but also mentally, that matches the Coach's "system." So, the previous regime obviously looked for, and recruited, a different "type" of kid than the current Coach will.

2) The overall general quality of the recruits that the previous Coaching regime got was simply not up-to-par. Recruiting services "Rank" a kid on a subjective list of criteria. We saw this work in the positive in terms of Mark Dantonio, who recruited "Diamond In the Rough" recruits who were under the radar but could be developed. Regardless of "stars," the previous HC simply did not recruit the talent level that would grow.

3) The Recruiting Services rankings are like the ACT/SAT score: an indicator of potential. The previous regime did not develop the potential they recruited. "Stars" not withstanding, the "potential" either wasn't there or hasn't been brought out.

That's my take on it. Maybe the previous staff looked for and brought in kids who are not compatible with the current system. Maybe they didn't actually find the "talent" they thought they had found. Maybe they just didn't develop the talent they did have and so all the "Redshirt" years in the world wouldn't help because nobody was bringing the kids along. And probably it's a case of "All of the above."

I normally only look at what schools are talking to a kid to evaluate talent...not stars or #'s assigned by a guy in his basement who may never have seen a kid in person, either. Diamonds in the rough depends on the ability to do an excellent job of evaluating potential talent. Dantonio's staff did a great job of that. Best I've ever seen. Kelly's staff did very well at certain positions as well such as converting guys to OL based on potential.

TT tended to take easy pickings of guys who had a lot of small school offers since our staff had connections there. He refused to fight for recruits or put in lots of effort, IMO. Especially in our own region. Ended up settling on lots of "under the radar" guys from the south in areas that had been thoroughly picked over by dozens of programs already - guys who were easy to close since we were often the biggest and best suitors for the kid. That can work but only a small percentage of time. We built nearly entire classes on these types of players for multiple years. Viola.

Player development was the biggest issue under Tubs. Very few cases of guys who got better over the course of their careers, even ones who showed some promise early on. The reality is that most of our conference mates haven't been knocking the cover off the ball on the recruiting trail and making a living off of 3 star players (and many teams with as many 2 stars as 3 stars). Tubs brought in guys and let them sit early on and now we have plenty of upperclassmen on the field but they never really developed in a meaningful way.

Tuberville preached size and speed. UCF showed us the type of players Tuberville said he wanted. The quickness of some of the UCF players was stunning as they repeatedly made our tacklers miss.