Recruiting on fire!!!

[bullcocky101]

This class is very reminiscent of Holtz's classes. He banked on many diamond in the rough type players from all over the state and GA. Taggart focused in on getting the best kids in the bay area and surrounding counties and did pretty well with getting guys who had big time offers. What concerns me is that in one of the ESPN interviews, Strong conceded that USF is not going to be able to pull recruits away from the Big 3 programs and basically had to settle for the best of the rest. I'm not very comfortable with that answer. Even though it is very difficult for us to pull recruits from those programs, we shouldn't ever settle. Whose got it better than us? Noooooooobody!

Edited August 1, 2017 by bullcocky101

[WWMJD]

10 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I should have done a better job separating those two thoughts/sentences in my post. 

1) I love what we're doing so far, but feasting on 3 stars and filling up our class doesn't leave many (any?) openings for bigger targets down the road. If we have the season we're all hoping for, I'd like to think that brings us some better recruits as the season progresses.

2) I don't think its a great recruiting strategy to believe you're going to find a half dozen kids who can play at a high level that no one else knows about. The recruiting services are better at scouting guys than people like to give them credit for and in today's day and age of information, its REALLY hard to fly under the radar if you can play.

Two things, though:

This is Strong's first year. Hasn't conventional wisdom in the past been that these coaches need some time to really work on and develop the elite recruits? Making it hard to get that four or five star (for a team like USF) in that first year.

Second, I doubt they are planning to just not recruit for the rest of the year. You have to think that they will continue to shoot for the higher end guys, with the thought that we can make room if necessary. There will be attrition from the list as it stands now - hell, one of them even said his recruitment was open in the same paragraph he "committed" to us.

[Apis Bull]

Also, with early enrollees, if everyone sticks, we still have 6 schollies to give

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, WWMJD said:

Two things, though:

This is Strong's first year. Hasn't conventional wisdom in the past been that these coaches need some time to really work on and develop the elite recruits? Making it hard to get that four or five star (for a team like USF) in that first year.

Second, I doubt they are planning to just not recruit for the rest of the year. You have to think that they will continue to shoot for the higher end guys, with the thought that we can make room if necessary. There will be attrition from the list as it stands now - hell, one of them even said his recruitment was open in the same paragraph he "committed" to us.

I don't know, it always seems a little shady to take some of these less heralded recruits to fill up the class and then figure you can "make room" if someone better comes along. I know everyone does it and I know their commitment to us isn't binding, but I don't have to like it.

[JTrue]

3 minutes ago, Apis Bull said:

Also, with early enrollees, if everyone sticks, we still have 6 schollies to give

That would be pretty good. Then you get the best of both worlds, take a few risks and leave some spots open for bigger pick ups.

[BullyPulpit]

40 minutes ago, bullcocky101 said:

This class is very reminiscent of Holtz's classes. He banked on many diamond in the rough type players from all over the state and GA. Taggart focused in on getting the best kids in the bay area and surrounding counties and did pretty well with getting guys who had big time offers. What concerns me is that in one of the ESPN interviews, Strong conceded that USF is not going to be able to pull recruits away from the Big 3 programs and basically had to settle for the best of the rest. I'm not very comfortable with that answer. Even though it is very difficult for us to pull recruits from those programs, we shouldn't ever settle. Whose got it better than us? Noooooooobody!

Taggart did a terrible job recruiting LBs, which is why CCS has had to reach on a few to ensure depth. We can't risk holding out for elite level LB talent at this point. 3 of the 5 true reaches (not rated 3 stars) are linebackers. So yes, while Taggart's technique of holding out for the best possible talent may work, it also creates scenarios in which you miss 2 consecutive years on an entire field position. In fact, I went back and looked and in 2015 Taggart only received a commitment from 1 linebacker. So in 3 years he signed a total of 4 LBs, 1 of which outgrew the position and became a DT. 1 LB a year doesn't cut it. The urgency to reach on a few guys this year was created by Taggart. 

[thatBULL]

I think taggart knew he has to pick a side (offense/defense) and go all in on in order to right the ship.   

I think the momentum is great, but do think we are reaching a bit too early.  However, ill trust that the coaches know what they are doing and understand what we need for the early signing period.   Some kids are good and underrated, but there are a few that don't jump off the screen on film.  

Either way I hope they all turn into studs and prove any doubters wrong. 

[ToroDeFuego]

Heres' an interesting point. Strong's 2011 recruiting class was ranked 29th by Rivals. It had four 4-stars and the rest were 2 and 3-stars. Half of them were drafted. I know four 4-stars would be amazing here but this shows he's a pretty good judge of the medium ranked guys. Seven guys ranked 2 or 3 stars were drafted.

Also this: 

"Texas was ranked #3 in the country in recruiting that year.  Three of that 22 man class have been drafted. All in the late rounds."

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2015/7/22/9015491/strongs-2011-louisville-recruiting-class-ranked-29th-by-rivals-half

Edited August 1, 2017 by ToroDeFuego

[IBulleve]

2 hours ago, JTrue said:

I don't know, it always seems a little shady to take some of these less heralded recruits to fill up the class and then figure you can "make room" if someone better comes along. I know everyone does it and I know their commitment to us isn't binding, but I don't have to like it.

Making room doesn't necessarily mean pulling their schollie. It can be as simple as saying, "this is a commitable offer contingent on you enrolling early." Simple as that. We don't have all the information necessary to judge those type of decisions. 

[WWMJD]

2 hours ago, JTrue said:

I don't know, it always seems a little shady to take some of these less heralded recruits to fill up the class and then figure you can "make room" if someone better comes along. I know everyone does it and I know their commitment to us isn't binding, but I don't have to like it.

But they aren't even close to grey shirting anyone (although let's be honest, they'll do it if they can get away with it). We have 32 spots to fill, so we have tons of room to roll the dice on a couple kids. In addition to that, and what I really meant in the last post, is that people walk away voluntarily or fail to qualify. Of the list we have now, we can probably expect a good number of them to drop by the wayside - whether it's leaving for better offers or whatever else.

Regardless of all this other stuff, it seems awfully early in Strong's tenure to feel negative about recruiting, especially with all the good press flying around.