Recruiting Class Rankings

[possumfat]

I know the rankings don't always determine the success of a team but I'm not used to seeing OU out of the Top 10........................is we in trouble??

[Scott D]

no

[badger]

I am not one to pay attention to recruiting too much, but I think there's a lot of politics and magazine/service subscriber money at play in recruiting rankings.

For example, every commit Texas gets suddenly is ranked higher than they should be. Garrett Gilbert? Five stars. Case McCoy and David Ash? Three stars each.

Besides... haven't you heard? Stoops is recruiting a guy that can flip over defenders while running the ball!
xqOCNp6OUHU
Note: Texas fans HATE this ad. They have griped about it a lot in threads on their boards I check out when scouting for meltdowns. Now THERE is some five-star material in Texas :mack:

[Curly Bill]

In all fairness guys get a bump when Texas, OU, or any major program signs them. Recruiting does interest me, and the rankings are fun to follow, even if they often don't transfer to actual football success. But yeah, we aren't exactly killing it in recruiting this year, at least not yet.

[Widescreen]

As long as we get the HELLO kid from the commercial, we should be good. Stoops looks like he's got the kid wrapped up.

[OkieThunderLion]

I know the rankings don't always determine the success of a team but I'm not used to seeing OU out of the Top 10........................is we in trouble??

No, not for one year.

OU has only gotten 14 commitments thus far. That is why they are lower on the list. The quality is still really strong. When they fill out the class the ranking will jump, because pretty much every kid offered by OU will be at least a 3-star.

[Curly Bill]

Oklahoma has a supposed bumper crop of high schoolers next year. Should help considerably in getting back into that upper echelon of recruiting.

[8timechamps]

OU is always slow, so the rankings don't mean much (not that they do anyway). The only thing that's a little surprising this year is the lack of success landing a good DT. The one kid that was supposed to be a "lock" is going to A&M. There's still some good one's out there, just takes time.

[SoonerNomad]

Cris Collinsworth told the DeMarco Murray recruiting story on NBC's Sunday Night Football the other night. The one about Coach Stoops going to Las Vegas to recruit Ryan Reynolds and Murray putting a show on in the gym that caught the coaches attention. I know we've all heard it, but Collinsworth was spreading it to the masses (although he didn't use Reynolds name).

[badger]

Cris Collinsworth told the DeMarco Murray recruiting story on NBC's Sunday Night Football the other night. The one about Coach Stoops going to Las Vegas to recruit Ryan Reynolds and Murray putting a show on in the gym that caught the coaches attention. I know we've all heard it, but Collinsworth was spreading it to the masses (although he didn't use Reynolds name).

Other part of the recruiting story: Pete "Win Forever" Carroll told DeMarco that if he came to USC as a cornerback, he could be a first round pick in three years. DeMarco's dad, noting that Pete had a good track record with sending players to the NFL, said to Demarco, "Do you want to run the ball, or do you want to play defense?"

Demarco answers:
MMcSq-tpRBs

He might not have gotten to the NFL in three years, but he did get there eventually:
0-kgMDZDSJk

[8timechamps]

Cris Collinsworth told the DeMarco Murray recruiting story on NBC's Sunday Night Football the other night. The one about Coach Stoops going to Las Vegas to recruit Ryan Reynolds and Murray putting a show on in the gym that caught the coaches attention. I know we've all heard it, but Collinsworth was spreading it to the masses (although he didn't use Reynolds name).

Yeah, that caught my attention too.

OUs done a great job of recruiting offensive players. It's the defense that's struggled (at least the front 7). I'm hoping that Mike can pick that up.

[Ruf/Nek7]

This class sucks in comparisons to others. I am getting pretty tired of watching some of these OU recruits commiting elsewhere (manning-a&m) and then we have to settle for some lower ranked guy. A guy that we were not originally looking at yet now have to take him because we missed elsewhere. I really don't have much hope for it to finish any better. Here is to next year.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

This class sucks in comparisons to others. I am getting pretty tired of watching some of these OU recruits commiting elsewhere (manning-a&m) and then we have to settle for some lower ranked guy. A guy that we were not originally looking at yet now have to take him because we missed elsewhere. I really don't have much hope for it to finish any better. Here is to next year.

Have you ever watched our recruiting closely? As a fan you WANT us to go with the lower ranked guy.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Have you ever watched our recruiting closely? As a fan you WANT us to go with the lower ranked guy.

I guess I'd better give some examples -> Higher/Lower Bold is who we went with
BJ Johnson/Mark Clayton
Ataleo Ford/Wes Welker
Selvin Young/JD Runnels
Josh Roberts/Trey DiCarlo luckily DiCarlo walked on
Bryan Pickryl/Calvin Thibodeaux Yes Thibs had a much better career

That is just through 2002, do we want to go on because guys like Iglesias and Sam Bradford are on this list as well

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Cris Collinsworth told the DeMarco Murray recruiting story on NBC's Sunday Night Football the other night. The one about Coach Stoops going to Las Vegas to recruit Ryan Reynolds and Murray putting a show on in the gym that caught the coaches attention. I know we've all heard it, but Collinsworth was spreading it to the masses (although he didn't use Reynolds name).I happened to catch that too. In the upcoming Cotton Bowl, we will be the only college game on TV that day, and it's the last game before the NC game. IF we can beat the eaTmes, it should help quite a bit, esp with Johnny Dangerously getting all the hype for Lassie.

[Widescreen]

I guess I'd better give some examples -> Higher/Lower Bold is who we went with
BJ Johnson/Mark Clayton
Ataleo Ford/Wes Welker
Selvin Young/JD Runnels
Josh Roberts/Trey DiCarlo luckily DiCarlo walked on
Bryan Pickryl/Calvin Thibodeaux Yes Thibs had a much better career

That is just through 2002, do we want to go on because guys like Iglesias and Sam Bradford are on this list as well
Not really a fair comparison because most of those guys went to UT where they were pretty much doomed from a development perspective.

By the way, did Josh Roberts ever go anywhere? That was one of the weirdest recruiting things I remember with him just not showing up or calling the coaches.

[BoulderSooner79]

This class sucks in comparisons to others. I am getting pretty tired of watching some of these OU recruits commiting elsewhere (manning-a&m) and then we have to settle for some lower ranked guy. A guy that we were not originally looking at yet now have to take him because we missed elsewhere. I really don't have much hope for it to finish any better. Here is to next year.

The chicks look hotter as closing time approaches.

[landrun]

.... I really don't have much hope for it to finish any better. Here is to next year.

There is no hope. The things we needed this year were DTs and LBs. Literally, there are no good ones left interested in OU. Most of them have chosen a school. Those who haven't are not interested in playing at OU. We dropped the ball on Manning who was our last chance to save this class. Too late now.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Recruiting classes aren't about rankings; they are about filling needs. At this time, OU hasn't filled their needs, but OU has had a number of slow starting recruiting classes that finish strong and have some surprises along the way come signing day.

[8timechamps]

There is no hope. The things we needed this year were DTs and LBs. Literally, there are no good ones left interested in OU. Most of them have chosen a school. Those who haven't are not interested in playing at OU. We dropped the ball on Manning who was our last chance to save this class. Too late now.

I think that's a little bit of "the sky is falling". If OU doesn't sign another recruit (and that's not going to happen), this class will still be a top 25 class. Look no further than last year to see how strong a class can finish. It looked bleak at this time last year, and the class finished strong.

We do have a stud linebacker committed (Jordan Mastrogiavanni). There are some left out there that are also very good that we still stand a legitimate shot at landing (E.J. Levenberry, who may be the best LB in the entire class is now in talks with Stoops).

So we didn't get Manning...big deal. We thought he was a lock, but it turned out he wasn't. So Stoops moves on to the next guy.

If any of you are feeling bad about this class, just remember, OU is still a top destination for most recruits. Fortunately, OU gets to pick who they want to recruit, not the other way around. So we have to sign a JuCo guy or *gasp* a 3 star DT. Oh well, we'll survive. I'd rather have a hard working 3 star kid that WANTS to be on the field, than a 4 stat premadonna that thinks everything is owed to him.

[OUster]

Pretty good story on the Justin manning angst on the OU Rivals front page. It's free but I can't copy and paste. Just to paraphrase...relax.

[Sabanball]

I think you guys have been hurt a little with everybody recruiting Texas now. Lots of low-hanging fruit and it used to be all for the taking for you guys and the whorns--not so anymore. You rely on this state too much, IMO. MIght have worked 10 yrs ago, I don't think it will now. Going forward I think you will need to sign more players from the Far West and California. Again, just my opinion.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think you guys have been hurt a little with everybody recruiting Texas now. Lots of low-hanging fruit and it used to be all for the taking for you guys and the whorns--not so anymore. You rely on this state too much, IMO. MIght have worked 10 yrs ago, I don't think it will now. Going forward I think you will need to sign more players from the Far West and California. Again, just my opinion.Translation: eaTme acquiring a black coach who is a good coach too, and whose team beat the #1 bamer elephants of the hallowed SEC SEC SEC, has made them RED HOT, coupled with the cows stepping on themselves for 3 years running, has allowed the eaTme lassies to have a banner recruiting year, at least so far.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think you guys have been hurt a little with everybody recruiting Texas now. Lots of low-hanging fruit and it used to be all for the taking for you guys and the whorns--not so anymore. You rely on this state too much, IMO. MIght have worked 10 yrs ago, I don't think it will now. Going forward I think you will need to sign more players from the Far West and California. Again, just my opinion.

This isn't the issue at all about Texas. The problem is that the "top players" out of Texas have been duds at the college level for the last 6-7 years.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

This isn't the issue at all about Texas. The problem is that the "top players" out of Texas have been duds at the college level for the last 6-7 years.

Dear God this...I went back 5 years to go through the top players from Texas and how they panned out...It's amazing how many of those guys just weren't that good.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I c&p'd this from the 2008 ESPN Top 150..Jermie Calhoun was the top rated player coming out of Texas..Bolded the guys we landed.

Players MatchingBack to search
NAME HOMETOWN POS STARS GRADE SCHOOL
Jermie CalhounVideo | Scouts Report
Van, TX
Van High School #1 RB 90 Signed

R.J. WashingtonVideo | Scouts Report
Keller, TX
Fossil Ridge High School #2 DE 87 Signed

Chancey Aghayere
Video | Scouts Report
Garland, TX
Garland High School #3 DE 86 Signed

D.J. Grant
Video | Scouts Report
Austin, TX
LBJ High School #5 WR 85 Signed

Dan Buckner
Video | Scouts Report
Allen, TX
Allen High School #6 WR 85 Signed

J.B. Shugarts
Video | Scouts Report
Spring, TX
Klein High School #3 OT 82 Signed

Jarvis Humphrey
Video | Scouts Report
Cedar Hill, TX
Cedar Hill High School #5 DT 82 Signed

David Snow
Video | Scouts Report
Gilmer, TX
Gilmer High School #2 OG 82 Signed

Stephen GoodVideo | Scouts Report
Paris, TX
Paris High School #7 OT 82 Signed

Derrick Hall
Video | Scouts Report
Beaumont, TX
Central High School #9 ATH 81 Signed

DeSean Hales
Video | Scouts Report
Spring, TX
Klein Oak High School #17 WR 81 Signed

Taylor Cook
Video | Scouts Report
Eagle Lake, TX
Rice High School #9 QB 81 Signed

Kendall Wright
Video | Scouts Report
Pittsburg, TX
Pittsburg High School #12 ATH 81 Signed

Justin JohnsonVideo | Scouts Report
Gilmer, TX
Gilmer High School #15 RB 81 Signed

Keanon Cooper
Video | Scouts Report
Dallas, TX
Skyline High School #12 OLB 81 Signed

Dravannti Johnson
Video | Scouts Report
Nederland, TX
Nederland High School #13 OLB 80 Signed

Joseph IbiloyeVideo | Scouts Report
Garland, TX
South Garland High School #17 OLB 80 Signed

Lamar HarrisVideo | Scouts Report
Gilmer, TX
Gilmer High School #30 WR 80 Signed

Jeff Fuller
Video | Scouts Report
McKinney, TX
McKinney High School #31 WR 80 Signed

Omarius Hines
Video | Scouts Report
Corsicana, TX
Corsicana High School #35 WR 80 Signed

James HannaVideo | Scouts Report
Flower Mound, TX
Flower Mound High School #11 TE 80 Signed

Riley Dodge
Video | Scouts Report
Southlake, TX
Carroll High School #17 QB 79 Signed

[stoops the eternal pimp]

2009- I bold and underlined the best player in this group because it was easy.

Russell Shepard
Video | Scouts Report
Houston, TX
Cypress Ridge High School #1 ATH 92 Signed

Craig Loston
Video | Scouts Report
Aldine, TX
Dwight D. Eisenhower High School #1 S 90 Signed

Garrett Gilbert
Video | Scouts Report
Austin, TX
Lake Travis High School #2 QB 86 Signed

Mason Walters
Video | Scouts Report
Wolfforth, TX
Frenship High School #1 OC 83 Signed

Paden Kelley
Video | Scouts Report
Austin, TX
Lake Travis High School #2 OT 83 Signed

Christine Michael
Video | Scouts Report
Beaumont, TX
West Brook Senior High School #4 RB 83 Signed

Jamarkus McFarlandVideo | Scouts Report
Lufkin, TX
Lufkin High School #6 DT 83 Signed

Chris Whaley
Video | Scouts Report
Madisonville, TX
Madisonville High School #9 RB 82 Signed

Steve Williams
Video | Scouts Report
Dallas, TX
Skyline High School #7 CB 82 Signed

Darius Jones
Video | Scouts Report
Marshall, TX
Marshall High School #4 ATH 82 Signed

Thomas Ashcraft
Video | Scouts Report
Cedar Hill, TX
Cedar Hill High School #5 OG 82 Signed

Marcus Davis
Video | Scouts Report
League City, TX
Clear Creek High #8 CB 82 Signed

Tom WortVideo | Scouts Report
New Braunfels, TX
New Braunfels High #3 ILB 82 Signed

Barrett Matthews
Video | Scouts Report
Houston, TX
North Shore High School #3 TE 81 Signed

Kevin BrentVideo | Scouts Report
Dallas, TX
South Oak Cliff High #13 S 81 Signed

Stavion Lowe
Video | Scouts Report
Brownwood, TX
Brownwood High School #7 OG 81 Signed

Tariq Allen
Video | Scouts Report
Irving, TX
MacArthur High School #4 ILB 81 Signed

Dexter Pratt
Video | Scouts Report
Navasota, TX
Navasota High School #15 RB 81 Signed

Alex Okafor
Video | Scouts Report
Pflugerville, TX
Pflugerville High School #12 DE 80 Signed

Dustin Hopkins
Video | Scouts Report
Houston, TX
Clear Lake High School #1 K 80 Signed

Knile Davis
Video | Scouts Report
Missouri City, TX
Thurgood Marshall High School #20 RB 80 Signed

Brandon Mahoney
Video | Scouts Report
Keller, TX
Fossil Ridge High School #13 OLB 80 Signed

Marquise Goodwin
Video | Scouts Report
Rowlett, TX
Rowlett High School #24 WR 80 List

Calvin Howell
Video | Scouts Report
San Antonio, TX
Earl Warren High School #13 DT 80 Signed

Josh Boyce
Video | Scouts Report
Copperas Cove, TX
Copperas Cove High School #28 WR 80 Signed

Jacob Karam
Video | Scouts Report
Friendswood, TX
Friendswood High School #17 QB 80 Signed

Anthony Fera
Video | Scouts Report
Houston, TX
St. Pius X High School #2 K 80 Signed

Chris Henderson
Video | Scouts Report
Dallas, TX
Carter High School #18 DT 80 Signed

Eryon Barnett
Video | Scouts Report
Euless, TX
Trinity High School #16 CB 79 Signed

Michael BrockersVideo | Scouts Report
Houston, TX
Cesar E. Chavez High School #24 DE 79 Signed

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I won't go through every year, but it's a virtual who's who of very average players outside of a few.

[CatfishSooner]

WE ARE F'd!!!!!!!!!

[PLaw]

I know the rankings don't always determine the success of a team but I'm not used to seeing OU out of the Top 10........................is we in trouble??

I don't know about all the stars stuff, but I do know a bad recruiting year will bite hard 3-4 years down range. Bottom line is you want the kids you sign to contribute and in a great way. Would you rather have 20 recruits that are 4-5 stars that wash out of the program or would you prefer 3 star kids that develop into all-conference type players.

It's really sad to me that we are relying more and more on the JUCO ranks to supplement our recruiting classes. There are some great opportunities there, but most of those kids will only be a contributor for 1-2 years and there is a reason they were at JUCO to begin with.

Boomer

[C&CDean]

I'll take a bunch of scrappy 2-star guys who wanna play at OU and win over all the 5-star primma donnas we've been getting. Recruiting? OVER RATED.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

OU's biggest problem hasn't been as much who they have signed, but who they have signed that is no longer on the team. The types of numbers OU has lost from either career ending injuries, players quitting or getting kicked off team the past few years has been reaching probation scholarship limit type years.

[cyclonesooner]

Did OU recruit Johnny Manziel ?

[8timechamps]

I'll take a bunch of scrappy 2-star guys who wanna play at OU and win over all the 5-star primma donnas we've been getting. Recruiting? OVER RATED.

Hell. Yes.

First, there are a **** load more 2-3 star guys out there, so there are plenty of them, and quiet a few end up to be pretty damn good.

Secondly, STEP hit it on the head. We've never had trouble signing 4 or 5 star guys out of Texas. The problem is that those guys haven't played like they were projected to play.

[8timechamps]

One more thing I was thinking about...

I think the in-house stuff that went on last year (and the years prior) combined with some coaching issues on defense have a lot to do with the current situation of our defensive personnel. I think Mike Stoops has a lot to rebuild, and I fully trust that he will.

Look at R.J. Washington. Last year, he admitted to basically phoning it in for his first couple of years. It wasn't until THIS year that he started to actually contribute, but the problem is you can't cram 4 years of development into 1 year. Too little, too late. Enter Chuka Ndule...he's already playing as good (if not better than) Washington as a sophomore. Hard work is the difference.

Again, give me a 3 star player that wants to see the field, wants to be at OU and (most importantly) wants to put in the work. I'll take those over a 5 star recruit that assumes he'll play and doesn't give the same effort.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Check back in 2016 to see how the 2013 recruiting class pans out

[Soonerwake]

Weren't all three of our senior DTs highly ranked by the recruiting sites? The same DTs that have given us possibly the softest inside defense in the last 10 years. Add to that the highly ranked LBs, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why our D is as bad as it is. I am hoping that some fresh eyes to evaluate talent will pay some dividends in the very near future.

[8timechamps]

Weren't all three of our senior DTs highly ranked by the recruiting sites? The same DTs that have given us possibly the softest inside defense in the last 10 years. Add to that the highly ranked LBs, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why our D is as bad as it is. I am hoping that some fresh eyes to evaluate talent will pay some dividends in the very near future.

They were. I think they were all in the top 10 DTs in the country.

[Collier11]

Recruiting is overrated, development is not.

[jkjsooner]

I think you guys have been hurt a little with everybody recruiting Texas now. Lots of low-hanging fruit and it used to be all for the taking for you guys and the whorns--not so anymore. You rely on this state too much, IMO. MIght have worked 10 yrs ago, I don't think it will now. Going forward I think you will need to sign more players from the Far West and California. Again, just my opinion.

Nice to have a Bama fan on our board spreading doom and gloom on a daily basis. Why are you here?

I don't care if you used to live in Oklahoma. You really have no business on this board. We don't care to hear your constant praising of Alabama or your doom and gloom about our program.

And you are wrong. Norman is closer to the Dallas metro than Austin is. Ther are lots of reasons a Texas kid might want to go to OU. Just because Bama or others play in Texas one game every two years isn't going to make Bama or other SEC school as appealing as OU to a Texas kid. Some will pick Bama because they're on a roll now but Texas will remain a lucrative recruiting ground for OU.

[Sooner70]

Seems like these HS recruiting rankings are certainly an inexact science. Hard to know how a highly rated HS player will pan out in college, seems.

Houston Chronicle did a piece Dec 6th on this, by Mike Finger. Kansas State led all Big 12 team selections with 11 honorees. According to Rivals, the Wildcats' national recruiting rankings the past 4 years were #92, #63, #68, and #58. During that same span, Mack Brown's recruiting efforts for UT Rival ranked #5, #3, #3, and #2. Maybe the coaches picking the all-conference teams isn't as good as the recruiting analysts at spotting talent? Doubt it, but go figure.

Anyway, interesting perspective.

[kevpks]

Seems like these HS recruiting rankings are certainly an inexact science. Hard to know how a highly rated HS player will pan out in college, seems.

Houston Chronicle did a piece Dec 6th on this, by Mike Finger. Kansas State led all Big 12 team selections with 11 honorees. According to Rivals, the Wildcats' national recruiting rankings the past 4 years were #92, #63, #68, and #58. During that same span, Mack Brown's recruiting efforts for UT Rival ranked #5, #3, #3, and #2. Maybe the coaches picking the all-conference teams isn't as good as the recruiting analysts at spotting talent? Doubt it, but go figure.

Anyway, interesting perspective.

I agree. Of course you want the Adrian Peterson type five star guys, but the most important thing is to get quality athletes who want to work hard under strong coaches who can develop their talent. In 2012, Aaron Colvin and Adam Shead were 3 star recruits. They've played well above that, particularly Colvin.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Recruiting is overrated, development is not.

The problem is that the only coach they see for more than 1/3 of the year is the S&C coach. This means 90% of the player's development is on his own which is why the lower ranked guys tend to be better players. Having a chip on your shoulder that you shouldn't be in D1 is a lot better motivation than handing someone a raincheck on the Heisman as a senior in high school.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I agree. Of course you want the Adrian Peterson type five star guys, but the most important thing is to get quality athletes who want to work hard under strong coaches who can develop their talent. In 2012, Aaron Colvin and Adam Shead were 3 star recruits. They've played well above that, particularly Colvin.

Skill position recruiting by stars is a lot lower risk than positions where you project weight gain (OL/DL/LB). If you get a guy who is fast at 192 and has great hands, that isn't going to change at the college level when he gains weight to 200. The problem is when you have a guy who is fast at 210 and isn't as explosive or fast at 245. Or a guy with great feet at 280 who has a frame that just can't handle 300 lbs (which normally ends in a back injury).

Which, btw, is why our DE recruiting over the last decade has been so amazing. The recruiting gurus regularly miss on DEs yet we have had one of the deepest stables of quality college DEs in the country. Are they pro types? Nope, but they are great college players.

[PLaw]

I'll take a bunch of scrappy 2-star guys who wanna play at OU and win over all the 5-star primma donnas we've been getting. Recruiting? OVER RATED.

Go ask Barry if recruiting is over rated. Like Barry said, "I beat Jimmy when I had better players and he beat me when he had the better players."

Boomer

[Okie35]

Coaching >>>> Recruiting

its a proven fact i wouldn't care if we got all 3 stars

[Okie35]

Go ask Barry if recruiting is over rated. Like Barry said, "I beat Jimmy when I had better players and he beat me when he had the better players."

Boomer

You can be a better player and not be a 5 star player. Look at the NFL most are 3 stars.

[EatLeadCommie]

It is pretty well established that the schools that get the better recruits have the better teams. There are exceptions, obviously, but you usually want the best recruits available, assuming that they aren't a headcase. If we start recruiting nothing but 2 and 3 star guys, Bob will be out of a job in a couple years.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Theres not a huge difference in a 3 or 4 star guy IMO

[One4OU]

Coaching >>>> Recruiting

its a proven fact i wouldn't care if we got all 3 stars

Please reference KSU and Bill Snyder..his system works, the players always play hard, and he can adjust to both his players and other teams.

[StoopTroup]

As bad as Landry sucked...we will be lucky to even recruit a blind kid in a wheel chair to run the meerkat.

[Collier11]

It is pretty well established that the schools that get the better recruits have the better teams. There are exceptions, obviously, but you usually want the best recruits available, assuming that they aren't a headcase. If we start recruiting nothing but 2 and 3 star guys, Bob will be out of a job in a couple years.

yea, it has worked well for usc and texas recently...its about the quality and how they develop...Stoops has turned a lot of 3 star guys into superstars

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It is pretty well established that the schools that get the better recruits have the better teams. There are exceptions, obviously, but you usually want the best recruits available, assuming that they aren't a headcase. If we start recruiting nothing but 2 and 3 star guys, Bob will be out of a job in a couple years.

What has been established is that the recruiting rankings tend to reflect the results of teams. What has NOT been established is the following:

1. That recruiting services inflate the grades of schools that tend to be good.
2. That teams without good recruiting rankings will NOT be good consistently (see boise state who got their FIRST 4* recruit recently)
3. That teams WITH good recruiting rankings will not be bad (see Dame, Notre & Tennessee over the last decade)

Going beyond that, think about the players at OU that make us good. Our higher ranked guys have tended to be role players for our lower ranked guys. I mean everyone uses Peterson as an example of the quintessential 5* we must have, but they forget that he missed 1/3 of the games he could have played in and the ones he did play in we only won 75% of our games.

[mainline13]

What has been established is that the recruiting rankings tend to reflect the results of teams. What has NOT been established is the following:

1. That recruiting services inflate the grades of schools that tend to be good.
2. That teams without good recruiting rankings will NOT be good consistently (see boise state who got their FIRST 4* recruit recently)
3. That teams WITH good recruiting rankings will not be bad (see Dame, Notre & Tennessee over the last decade)

Going beyond that, think about the players at OU that make us good. Our higher ranked guys have tended to be role players for our lower ranked guys. I mean everyone uses Peterson as an example of the quintessential 5* we must have, but they forget that he missed 1/3 of the games he could have played in and the ones he did play in we only won 75% of our games.

He sure was fun to watch, though, wasn't he?

What set AD apart (IMHO) wasn't being the epitome of a 5-star, but his work ethic. I would welcome any player with a similar work ethic. Even if he didn't have the talent to ever get on the field, he might embarrass a few of his teammates into working harder.

And before you say "Rudy," I'll admit it. I wouldn't give him a scholarship, but I'd welcome him as a walk-on. That's the real Rudy, not the hobbit.

[8timechamps]

It is pretty well established that the schools that get the better recruits have the better teams. There are exceptions, obviously, but you usually want the best recruits available, assuming that they aren't a headcase. If we start recruiting nothing but 2 and 3 star guys, Bob will be out of a job in a couple years.

I agree with most of what you're saying. Texas is always a great example of "having the best players makes you the best team" being inaccurate. Typically though, the schools that consistently recruit the best players, are the best teams. OU has always been part of that group.

I don't think there is any chance that Bob starts looking at 2 and 3 star guys as the answer year after year, but there will always be a couple of those guys in every class.

[8timechamps]

He sure was fun to watch, though, wasn't he?

What set AD apart (IMHO) wasn't being the epitome of a 5-star, but his work ethic. I would welcome any player with a similar work ethic. Even if he didn't have the talent to ever get on the field, he might embarrass a few of his teammates into working harder.

And before you say "Rudy," I'll admit it. I wouldn't give him a scholarship, but I'd welcome him as a walk-on. That's the real Rudy, not the hobbit.

AD was on a different level even in high school. I watched his high school film (before he committed) and knew he was special. He was in a very rare group of players, as he was one of the few I've ever seen that could have gone from high school to the NFL. He would have had a harder learning curve, but he was physically there. Those players are almost always skill position players, and are very, very rare.

[OkieThunderLion]

I mean everyone uses Peterson as an example of the quintessential 5* we must have, but they forget that he missed 1/3 of the games he could have played in and the ones he did play in we only won 75% of our games.
I count '05 Tech and '06 Oregon as wins. Making Peterson 81%. In one of the losses he played just one series.

One of the greatest players of all-time.

[Collier11]

well hell, if I had known that Soonerfans posters can change losses into wins in order to benefit arguments, Id been doing it all along

[8timechamps]

I was just going over this year's class versus last year's class, and it's funny because last year, we signed 8 four star recruits (according to ESPNU/Scouts, Inc). So far this year, we already have 7 four star commits. This year's class will be a better class overall than last year's, and people are calling this one a "bust" and "ugly" because we haven't signed a DT yet. I chuckled.

[jkjsooner]

I mean everyone uses Peterson as an example of the quintessential 5* we must have, but they forget that he missed 1/3 of the games he could have played in and the ones he did play in we only won 75% of our games.

Using Peterson as proof of how meaningless five star recruits is might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Nobody said that one guy can win games by himself. We were weak at QB and on the offensive line after his freshman year.

You'd be much better off using Bomar.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Using Peterson as proof of how meaningless five star recruits is might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Nobody said that one guy can win games by himself. We were weak at QB and on the offensive line after his freshman year.

You'd be much better off using Bomar.

Petersons running style didn't mesh well with the college game. In the pros, having a game where 18 of your runs average 1 ypc and 2 average 65 wins you the game. In college, it means a lot of stalled drives unless you have a QB that can convert 3rd and 9 all day long. We had that his freshman year and he had a ton of yards. We didn't have it his sophomore/junior years and we had a ton of stalled drives.

Even at the time, we were making arguments that we were a more effective offensive team with Allen Patrick in the game than Peterson. Does that mean that Patrick was better than Peterson? No. What it means is that for whatever strange reason, the team had better results with the less talented player because Patrick's style meshed much better with the college game (lots of 3 and 4 yard runs with the semi-frequent 10 yard run compared with lots of 0 and 1 yard runs with the infrequent 65 yard run).

[OkieThunderLion]

Petersons running style didn't mesh well with the college game. In the pros, having a game where 18 of your runs average 1 ypc and 2 average 65 wins you the game. In college, it means a lot of stalled drives unless you have a QB that can convert 3rd and 9 all day long. We had that his freshman year and he had a ton of yards. We didn't have it his sophomore/junior years and we had a ton of stalled drives.

Even at the time, we were making arguments that we were a more effective offensive team with Allen Patrick in the game than Peterson. Does that mean that Patrick was better than Peterson? No. What it means is that for whatever strange reason, the team had better results with the less talented player because Patrick's style meshed much better with the college game (lots of 3 and 4 yard runs with the semi-frequent 10 yard run compared with lots of 0 and 1 yard runs with the infrequent 65 yard run).
Right, and Q Griffin was better than Peterson. LOFL

[Collier11]

probably better for what we were doing, not better overall

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Right, and Q Griffin was better than Peterson. LOFL

The problem here is that you are looking at the individual players to determine better. I'm looking at the primary thing which people on this board measure whether a team is good -> 1) National Titles 2) Wins

Q -> 38-6, 2 Big 12 Titles, 1 National Title -> Missed Zero Games

AD -> 21-5, 1 Big 12 Title (+1 he didn't play in) -> Missed 13 Games

You tell me which career was better?

[8timechamps]

Petersons running style didn't mesh well with the college game. In the pros, having a game where 18 of your runs average 1 ypc and 2 average 65 wins you the game. In college, it means a lot of stalled drives unless you have a QB that can convert 3rd and 9 all day long. We had that his freshman year and he had a ton of yards. We didn't have it his sophomore/junior years and we had a ton of stalled drives.

Even at the time, we were making arguments that we were a more effective offensive team with Allen Patrick in the game than Peterson. Does that mean that Patrick was better than Peterson? No. What it means is that for whatever strange reason, the team had better results with the less talented player because Patrick's style meshed much better with the college game (lots of 3 and 4 yard runs with the semi-frequent 10 yard run compared with lots of 0 and 1 yard runs with the infrequent 65 yard run).

I've seen this a lot at the collegiate level. For whatever reason, sometimes the less talented player fits the scheme the team plays better.

[OkieThunderLion]

The problem here is that you are looking at the individual players to determine better. I'm looking at the primary thing which people on this board measure whether a team is good -> 1) National Titles 2) Wins

Q -> 38-6, 2 Big 12 Titles, 1 National Title -> Missed Zero Games

AD -> 21-5, 1 Big 12 Title (+1 he didn't play in) -> Missed 13 Games

You tell me which career was better?

So what you are saying is that you rank players based on luck.

[OkieThunderLion]

Trip back to 2006 (reality)

Team Stats
7 games with Peterson...
398 yards per game
34 points per game

5 games with Patrick...
302 yards per game
23 points per game

2 games both were out (Tech and Baylor) and Chris Brown was primary ball carrier.

Individual Stats
Peterson - 188 carries, 1012 yards, 5.4 per carry, 12 TD, 2 fumbles, 1 lost
Patrick - 169 carries, 761 yards, 4.5 per carry, 4 TD, 4 fumbles, 4 lost

[SoonerorLater]

The problem here is that you are looking at the individual players to determine better. I'm looking at the primary thing which people on this board measure whether a team is good -> 1) National Titles 2) Wins

Q -> 38-6, 2 Big 12 Titles, 1 National Title -> Missed Zero Games

AD -> 21-5, 1 Big 12 Title (+1 he didn't play in) -> Missed 13 Games

You tell me which career was better?

Baseball is more a game of stats, football not as much. I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying Griffin was a better back than Peterson I would say you are incorrect.

[mainline13]

I guess the reading comprehension problem is worse than I thought. JKM couldn't be much clearer. He is saying that as good as Peterson is, and as good as he was when at OU, he didn't fit college ball very well. Although he didn't say it, he implied that with a QB that was pretty fair at converting 3rd and long, it may have been a better mesh. He said almost precisely that about the pro game, but I feel that the implication was that it would have been the case in any case, as it were.

One other point he made was that - measured strictly by wins and titles - Q had a better college career than AD. And he provided the data that backed it up. That should have made it really easy to understand. Yet someone reads that and thinks that it says that Q is "better" than AD. No, it doesn't.

[OkieThunderLion]

Even at the time, we were making arguments that we were a more effective offensive team with Allen Patrick in the game than Peterson. Does that mean that Patrick was better than Peterson? No. What it means is that for whatever strange reason, the team had better results with the less talented player because Patrick's style meshed much better with the college game (lots of 3 and 4 yard runs with the semi-frequent 10 yard run compared with lots of 0 and 1 yard runs with the infrequent 65 yard run).
2006
Peterson gained 2+ yards 66% of carries
Patrick gained 2+ yards 65% of carries

Peterson gained 3+ yards 55%
Patrick gained 3+ yards 51%

Peterson gained 4+ yards 46%
Patrick gained 4+ 44%

Peterson gained 5+ 38%
Patrick gained 5+ 36%

Peterson gained 10+ 16%
Patrick gained 10+ 13%

Peterson gained 20+ 6%
Patrick gained 20+ 2%

But one of your premises was correct, regarding negative plays, Peterson had slightly more 0 or -, runs 22% to 21%.

3rd/4th and short (2 or less)...
Patrick only converted 1 on the entire season, 7 attempts. Peterson was 7-for-12, including 4-for-4 on 4th downs.

[OkieThunderLion]

I guess the reading comprehension problem is worse than I thought. JKM couldn't be much clearer. He is saying that as good as Peterson is, and as good as he was when at OU, he didn't fit college ball very well. Although he didn't say it, he implied that with a QB that was pretty fair at converting 3rd and long, it may have been a better mesh. He said almost precisely that about the pro game, but I feel that the implication was that it would have been the case in any case, as it were.

One other point he made was that - measured strictly by wins and titles - Q had a better college career than AD. And he provided the data that backed it up. That should have made it really easy to understand. Yet someone reads that and thinks that it says that Q is "better" than AD. No, it doesn't.

Reading comprehension isn't a problem. The problem is he's wrong. As backed by facts.

Then Johnny Walk-on from 2000 must've had a better career than Sam Bradford?

He has said in the past that Griffin was a "better player" than Peterson.

[SoonerorLater]

I guess the reading comprehension problem is worse than I thought. JKM couldn't be much clearer. He is saying that as good as Peterson is, and as good as he was when at OU, he didn't fit college ball very well. Although he didn't say it, he implied that with a QB that was pretty fair at converting 3rd and long, it may have been a better mesh. He said almost precisely that about the pro game, but I feel that the implication was that it would have been the case in any case, as it were.

One other point he made was that - measured strictly by wins and titles - Q had a better college career than AD. And he provided the data that backed it up. That should have made it really easy to understand. Yet someone reads that and thinks that it says that Q is "better" than AD. No, it doesn't.

Let me make myself clear so you can understand. Q WAS NOT a better back at any time since the creation of the universe than AD. not in HS, not in college, not in pros, not ever.

[OU_Sooners75]

How in the hell can anyone even suggest this class sucks?

1. This class hasn't been signed yet.
2. We won't know if this class sucks for at least 3 years.
3. This class is being put together slow. But we saw something very similar last year when it came to WRs. But that class turned out pretty good on paper.
4. The greatest area of need always takes a long time to fill in any class. Last year it came to the 11th hour in getting WRs. In 2010 it was the. OL.

My point, have some faith. While its frustrating right now. I would say that this class ends well. And I won't be at all surprised if OU actually changes Mannings mind. But I hope they don't use too much energy to do so and go after some JUCOs that can come in and immediately help!

That said, let's hold off until at least after NSD to judge this class!

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Both AD and Murray are better in the NFL than at the collegiate level because Patton's run-blocking philosophy/scheme sucks. I have never seen an offensive line coach so adversely opposed to pulling linemen or really doing anything with them. Great pass blockers though!

[thecrimsoncrusader]

What will be interesting about this class though despite it more than likely being lower ranked than many of the recruiting classes in the Bob Stoops era when it is all said and done with, it will be interesting to see if this class remains intact over the long haul unlike a number of the more highly ranked classes.

There seems to be an issue a little too frequently where personnel from the high ranked classes don't cut it and leave the team whether it be they were incorrectly rated at the prep level and leave due to lack of playing time or quite simply, not being able to meet the demands of Jerry Schmidt's mental and physical requirements.

Oklahoma has lost enough players from defections, suspensions and injuries the past few recruiting classes, that it was effectively like having scholarship limitations imposed those years as if Oklahoma was on probation. With today's scholarship limits, those departures start to add up in terms of impacting overall experience and talent levels and in turn, negatively impacting the performance of the team.

[PLaw]

You can be a better player and not be a 5 star player. Look at the NFL most are 3 stars.

Saw some stats last year - the percentage of 5-stars that make the league is signaficantly higher than the percentage of 3-stars. That said, there are many more 3-stars than 5-stars coming out of HS.

Boomer

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Saw some stats last year - the percentage of 5-stars that make the league is signaficantly higher than the percentage of 3-stars. That said, there are many more 3-stars than 5-stars coming out of HS.

Boomer

While true, it seems that OU has had better luck with 3 star personnel performing better than their 3 star rating than 5 star personnel even performing at a 4 star rating per se from a standpoint of injuries, not panning out or whatever other reason.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

2006
Peterson gained 2+ yards 66% of carries
Patrick gained 2+ yards 65% of carries

Peterson gained 3+ yards 55%
Patrick gained 3+ yards 51%

Peterson gained 4+ yards 46%
Patrick gained 4+ 44%

Peterson gained 5+ 38%
Patrick gained 5+ 36%

Peterson gained 10+ 16%
Patrick gained 10+ 13%

Peterson gained 20+ 6%
Patrick gained 20+ 2%

But one of your premises was correct, regarding negative plays, Peterson had slightly more 0 or -, runs 22% to 21%.

3rd/4th and short (2 or less)...
Patrick only converted 1 on the entire season, 7 attempts. Peterson was 7-for-12, including 4-for-4 on 4th downs.

So I don't have easy access to any stats and verifying your stats is going to take 2 hours that I just don't want to spend. Therefore I concede that you are correct...

What I DID look up before I got bored:

1. This to me was a typical Peterson game against a decent run defense (read 50 or below)

http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=262800201&period=0

2. The defenses that Patrick faced were marginally better than the ones that Peterson faced though Peterson faced the best D (Texas) and Patrick didn't do squat against his best D (Nebraska)

3. Peterson racked up a little over a quarter of his 5-10 yard games against UAB and MTSU

[Ruf/Nek7]

I just posted this on the recruiting forum but Caleb Benenoch has committed to UCLA. Another one come and gone.

[mainline13]

Let me make myself clear so you can understand. Q WAS NOT a better back at any time since the creation of the universe than AD. not in HS, not in college, not in pros, not ever.

Nobody has made that claim in this thread (although I am informed that JKM has made that claim in the past).

[8timechamps]

What will be interesting about this class though despite it more than likely being lower ranked than many of the recruiting classes in the Bob Stoops era when it is all said and done with, it will be interesting to see if this class remains intact over the long haul unlike a number of the more highly ranked classes.

There seems to be an issue a little too frequently where personnel from the high ranked classes don't cut it and leave the team whether it be they were incorrectly rated at the prep level and leave due to lack of playing time or quite simply, not being able to meet the demands of Jerry Schmidt's mental and physical requirements.

Oklahoma has lost enough players from defections, suspensions and injuries the past few recruiting classes, that it was effectively like having scholarship limitations imposed those years as if Oklahoma was on probation. With today's scholarship limits, those departures start to add up in terms of impacting overall experience and talent levels and in turn, negatively impacting the performance of the team.

You're post makes a ton of sense, but will be lost on casual recruitniks. There has been a fundamental shift recently in the way OU recruits. It started last year (and maybe even the year prior). I don't know if it was because of the losses OU was seeing, but I would suspect that was the reason. That's why I didn't freak out when Manning committed to A&M over OU. I'm not sure how high we were on Manning. I know OU wanted him, but we were one of the last to offer the kid. I think there is a reason for that.

Whether it's a good reason, or not...we'll know in the next couple to three years.

[OU_Sooners75]

Both AD and Murray are better in the NFL than at the collegiate level because Patton's run-blocking philosophy/scheme sucks. I have never seen an offensive line coach so adversely opposed to pulling linemen or really doing anything with them. Great pass blockers though!

Well I would agree, but Patton wasn't here when AD was here.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Nobody has made that claim in this thread (although I am informed that JKM has made that claim in the past).

My criteria for what constitutes a good college back hasn't changed. Anything over 5 ypc is a "good" back, after that it comes down to how well you mesh with the offense. That criteria I laid out above. It is just amazing to me that Landry is a horrible QB because he can't win every game, yet Peterson was an AMAZING college player when he didn't.

[sooneron]

Well I would agree, but Patton wasn't here when AD was here.

I almost always agree with you...
http://www.soonersports.com/school-bio/james_patton.html

I could be wrong, I guess Patton could have been hired in Dec 06...

[picasso]

So what you are saying is that you rank players based on luck.
Did you ever watch Griffin play?

[jkjsooner]

While true, it seems that OU has had better luck with 3 star personnel performing better than their 3 star rating than 5 star personnel even performing at a 4 star rating per se from a standpoint of injuries, not panning out or whatever other reason.
Common sense would tell you that there is a better chance for a 3 star kid to perform better than his ranking. It's impossible for a 5 star kid to perform better than his star ranking. We and everyone else also bring in more 3 star guys so by numbers you're going to have some surprises.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Well I would agree, but Patton wasn't here when AD was here.

True, but Wilson was the run-game coordinator at the time and things weren't much different and he was responsible for bringing Patton in. :-/

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Common sense would tell you that there is a better chance for a 3 star kid to perform better than his ranking. It's impossible for a 5 star kid to perform better than his star ranking. We and everyone else also bring in more 3 star guys so by numbers you're going to have some surprises.

OK, I will put it another way then, outside of AD, Murray and Harris, OU has had VERY bad luck with 5 star rated prep players. :) Most of the 5 stars not only don't perform better than their ranking, they perform significantly less than their rating and in many cases, not at all.

[jkjsooner]

OK, I will put it another way then, outside of AD, Murray and Harris, OU has had VERY bad luck with 5 star rated prep players. :) Most of the 5 stars not only don't perform better than their ranking, they perform significantly less than their rating and in many cases, not at all.

I'd bet if you look though the five star guys perform on average better than the three star guys.

Of course the five star guys are more likely to be busts as it's hard to meet expectations when you have five stars by your name.

We also have a lot of three star guys who never make the field but we just don't talk about those guys much. In addition if you rank our 10 best players many of them won't be five star but that isn't surprising since we sign so many more three star guys than we sign five star guys.

I think you're just examining five star guys with much more scrutiny than three star guys. I'd bet if we could sign 20 five star guys a year we would end up with a lot more talented team.


If someone wants to do this analysis it can't be too hard. Let's use first round draft choices as a measuring stick. How many five star guys made the first round? How many five star guys did we sign? How many three star guys made the first round? How many three star guys did we sign? I'd bet our outcome is better percentage wise from five star guys even if we had worse outcomes than one would expect from these five star guys.

[Scott D]

this thread is giving my deja vu some deja vu.

[cherokeebrewer]

this thread is giving my deja vu some deja vu.

It's deja vu all over again...

[OU_Sooners75]

I almost always agree with you...
http://www.soonersports.com/school-bio/james_patton.html

I could be wrong, I guess Patton could have been hired in Dec 06...

Yeah he was here in 2006. But Patton had very little to do with the OL when Wilson was here. He was more of an assistant to Wilson when it came to the OL.

Either way, I would hardly say anything great has came directly from Patton without Wilson here.

[OU_Sooners75]

I almost always agree with you...
http://www.soonersports.com/school-bio/james_patton.html

I could be wrong, I guess Patton could have been hired in Dec 06...

Yeah he was here in 2006. But Patton had very little to do with the OL when Wilson was here. He was more of an assistant to Wilson when it came to the OL.

Either way, I would hardly say anything great has came directly from Patton without Wilson here.

[Collier11]

funny thing, Patton has received a lot of praise for his work with our interior line this year...interesting how fans perceive things vs those who are involved