2013 Class thoughts (so far)

[8timechamps]

Looking at the past decade of recruiting, this class is starting to look similar to the 2007 class. Not in positions particularly, just an overall feel.

In 2007, our highest ranked recruit was Austin Box. He was the only member of that class that Scouts, Inc. considered a top 150 prospect. That class made up a lot of seniors that went into the 2011 season as the pre-season #1 team. (That class has 6 players that are in the NFL).

It's going to be interesting to see how this class pans out. Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a lot of concern that this may end up the worst class of the Stoops era, and now it's pretty far from that. We'll see how the class closes out, but I'm really liking a lot of these guy.

If I had to pick one guy that stands out to me in this class, it's Dominique Alexander (the 3 star LB that flipped from Arkansas). I love this guy's motor, and he's got the kind of attitude you wish every player the Sooners recruited had.

[Curly Bill]

Pretty underwhelming is my main thought. Not to say that these guys won't all be great, but for most of em its not like we're competing against the other "big boys" for their services. Ultimately I trust our coaches know what they're doing and we genuinely want these guys and not just settling for them because we can't land our main targets.

[One4OU]

It feels to me that this class is being filled by default rather than signing those that are at the top of our target list.

We are doomed...the next 3 years are going to be rough if we dont get a true recruiter on the staff.

[possumfat]

Seems obvious to me we can't or didn't get the first choice of players on the list so now we are settling for the best of the rest that are left. This doesn't mean we won't be good but it also means we may not be spectacular either. 12 - 0 or 10 - 3, guessing more of the latter is coming.

[vtsooner21]

I don't buy into this 4 or 5 star recruiting thing. I've seen big time recruits play like sissies with ego problems and kids that were ranked 1 or 2 stars play with both ability and heart. Can't and won't say there is doom and gloom out there. I've asked Santa for both D linemen and LB's and also a dual threat QB to lead the Sooners next year. I might add that I've been good all year and hoping that Santa pulls through for me...

Boomer

[Jacie]

Well, it appears my "finishing strong" comment (or was it just a desparate wish?) in another thread about OUr 2013 class appears to be coming true.

As of today, OU has the 10th ranked class (it was 33rd when I first commented), which includes six 4-star recruits, 18 overall.

Nice to see that Oklahoma passed Vanderbilt (tied for 14th), sa*et (16th), Illinois (24th and reported here due to how bad they were in 2012), and pokey state (29th).

The Sooners will continue to field a great team.

[picasso]

It feels to me that this class is being filled by default rather than signing those that are at the top of our target list.

We are doomed...the next 3 years are going to be rough if we dont get a true recruiter on the staff.

I laughed at this.

[Sabanball]

Looks like you guys have made up a lot of ground the last several weeks/months. Rivals now has you in their top 10.

[Scott D]

oh boy

[OUInformant]

I started to question the whole recruiting rankings thing a long time back. The recruiting rankings thing via the web has made the recruiting process seem more black and white than it really is. The most important thing I've found in recruiting is to bring in good players at the positions you need in sufficient quantity. Then you let that talent compete when they are here. Recruiting Rivals 100 players at every position is not necessary. Unless a really highly-rated guy commits reasonably early or shows great interest in being at OU, I wouldn't waste my time since our chances of landing these guys is usually slim (due to their offer list). Meanwhile you miss out on a lot of other comparable talent.

[OU_Sooners75]

This class is coming along nicely, as I had a feeling it would.

People were all in an uproar or in panic mode because Texas and other schools were getting the big named recruits.

That hasn't ever been OUs MO. The Sooners have always gone after the best fit and those that genuinely shown an interest in being at OU. And it has always worked.

You'll get more production out of anyone if they want to be somewhere with their heart in it.


This class will only get more solid as national signing day approaches.

[8timechamps]

It feels to me that this class is being filled by default rather than signing those that are at the top of our target list.

We are doomed...the next 3 years are going to be rough if we dont get a true recruiter on the staff.

This class is no different than any other class Stoops has recruited. The only "big name" player that surprisingly didn't commit to OU, was Justing Manning. And it's not a done deal that he's going to end up at A&M.

Regardless, your concerns are unfounded.

[vtsooner21]

"You'll get more production out of anyone if they want to be somewhere with their heart into it"...

Amen, OU_Sooners75, Amen!!!

Boomer

[cleller]

If we can get them ready to play like Snyder does, we'll do pretty good.

Still concerned about the tendency for all the biggest baddest D-lineman to run for the SEC, though.

[Sabanball]

You can recruit all the top players, but if you don't develop them,as both players and student athletes, then what have you really accomplished? That's why I agree that the rankings themselves really don't tell the whole story. It's just a way to compare what you are initially bringing in vs other programs. If recruiting rankings were all that mattered, Texas and FSU would have about 15 NC's combined in the last 25 yrs. Instead, they have only 3....

[8timechamps]

You can recruit all the top players, but if you don't develop them,as both players and student athletes, then what have you really accomplished? That's why I agree that the rankings themselves really don't tell the whole story. It's just a way to compare what you are initially bringing in vs other programs. If recruiting rankings were all that mattered, Texas and FSU would have about 15 NC's combined in the last 25 yrs. Instead, they have ony 3....

Exactly. See Mack Brown at Texas.

I never get worked up over the star rankings the services put on recruits, because Texas has been landing top 10 classes forever, and only mediocre results to show for them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You can recruit all the top players, but if you don't develop them,as both players and student athletes, then what have you really accomplished? That's why I agree that the rankings themselves really don't tell the whole story. It's just a way to compare what you are initially bringing in vs other programs. If recruiting rankings were all that mattered, Texas and FSU would have about 15 NC's combined in the last 25 yrs. Instead, they have ony 3....Domer and usuc, too. Since the days of Granny Holz at ND, only one NC among those 2 schools as well, for a total of 4 among those 4 top recruiting teams, in the last 20ish years.(I wouldn't put the Criminoles into the "guaranteed recruiting success" league that the other 3 schools are in, however)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Exactly.

I never get worked up over the star rankings the services put on recruits, because Texas has been landing top 10 classes forever, and only mediocre results to show for them.However, that is not Mack's fault. He is a damn fine coach, and needs to be given all the support in the world.

[8timechamps]

However, that is not Mack's fault. He is a damn fine coach, and needs to be given all the support in the world.

LOL, for sure!

USuC was another good example, this year's collapse was worse than ours last year. At least we can look at the injuries and see where the season went south, USuC just flat out blew it.

[BoulderSooner79]

LOL, for sure!

USuC was another good example, this year's collapse was worse than ours last year. At least we can look at the injuries and see where the season went south, USuC just flat out blew it.

USC did have some critical injuries early in the year on defense and it really exposed their lack of depth. I also kept seeing that their other big time WR (Woods?) was fighting a bad ankle all season. Not to make excuses for them, but Barkley + Lee/Woods were their biggest weapons. Now that they lose Barkley and Woods and many other seniors, I see their depth problems kicking into high gear. They are still reeling in the 5 stars as usual, but they can't afford many busts and it will be a real test for Kiffen.

[8timechamps]

USC did have some critical injuries early in the year on defense and it really exposed their lack of depth. I also kept seeing that their other big time WR (Woods?) was fighting a bad ankle all season. Not to make excuses for them, but Barkley + Lee/Woods were their biggest weapons. Now that they lose Barkley and Woods and many other seniors, I see their depth problems kicking into high gear. They are still reeling in the 5 stars as usual, but they can't afford many busts and it will be a real test for Kiffen.

They did suffer some defensive losses, but if you look at the 5 games they lost, it was more on the offense than the defense (with the Oregon game being the lone exception). They really didn't miss a beat when Barkley went down. I know Woods was dealing with a bad ankle, but really, aren't most D-1 players? I think that was an overblown excuse because he was expected to be so good all year (and, for the most part, he was).

I think it comes down to Kiffen. He's just not a very good coach. He's a great recruiter, but something is happening between the time he lands a recruit and the time they become a starter. USC had way too much talent to go 7-5. They didn't lose their starting running back and slot receiver either.

[Scott D]

They did suffer some defensive losses, but if you look at the 5 games they lost, it was more on the offense than the defense (with the Oregon game being the lone exception). They really didn't miss a beat when Barkley went down. I know Woods was dealing with a bad ankle, but really, aren't most D-1 players? I think that was an overblown excuse because he was expected to be so good all year (and, for the most part, he was).

I think it comes down to Kiffen. He's just not a very good coach. He's a great recruiter, but something is happening between the time he lands a recruit and the time they become a starter. USC had way too much talent to go 7-5. They didn't lose their starting running back and slot receiver either.

they have no depth because they're really too expensive for most walk-ons. it's easy to forget that they're down 20 scholarships or so, and they've had to be more selective in recruiting because of it. that's where being a private school hurts them in comparison to other schools where walk-ons can make a bigger contribution.

[BoulderSooner79]

They really didn't miss a beat when Barkley went down...


The only game Barkley missed was ND and it hurt them alot. The cameras followed the WR Lee on many plays and he was often wide open, but their backup QB couldn't get him the ball. I'm not saying they beat ND with Barkley, but it changed the game significantly. Having Barkley get hurt in the last minute of an already decided UCLA game was just another example of how it takes luck to make the BCS final and ND had it this year.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

USC did have some critical injuries early in the year on defense and it really exposed their lack of depth. I also kept seeing that their other big time WR (Woods?) was fighting a bad ankle all season. Not to make excuses for them, but Barkley + Lee/Woods were their biggest weapons. Now that they lose Barkley and Woods and many other seniors, I see their depth problems kicking into high gear. They are still reeling in the 5 stars as usual, but they can't afford many busts and it will be a real test for Kiffen.He's up to it. he's a great coach. you're fine, Lane. Don't you worry!

[8timechamps]

they have no depth because they're really too expensive for most walk-ons. it's easy to forget that they're down 20 scholarships or so, and they've had to be more selective in recruiting because of it. that's where being a private school hurts them in comparison to other schools where walk-ons can make a bigger contribution.

I know they are razor thin. I guess what surprises me is with the talent they have, they couldn't even win their own division in a less-than-stellar conference.

[8timechamps]

The only game Barkley missed was ND and it hurt them alot. The cameras followed the WR Lee on many plays and he was often wide open, but their backup QB couldn't get him the ball. I'm not saying they beat ND with Barkley, but it changed the game significantly. Having Barkley get hurt in the last minute of an already decided UCLA game was just another example of how it takes luck to make the BCS final and ND had it this year.

Good point, the absence of Barkley was noted in the ND game. Although, to be fair, I don't think they would have won with Barkley in the game.

[Scott D]

I know they are razor thin. I guess what surprises me is with the talent they have, they couldn't even win their own division in a less-than-stellar conference.

the gameplan was pretty easy. Once it was established you could run on them, it became obvious that you could easily wear their defense down. That's why Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA were all able to beat them pretty soundly.

[8timechamps]

the gameplan was pretty easy. Once it was established you could run on them, it became obvious that you could easily wear their defense down. That's why Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA were all able to beat them pretty soundly.

Stanford also exposed their horrid offensive line. One game is all it took for every opponent left on their schedule to exploit that weakness.

Until Kiffen actually wins consistently somewhere (anywhere), I'll continue to think he's fraud, that got his name in the coaching fraternity because of his dad.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Stanford also exposed their horrid offensive line. One game is all it took for every opponent left on their schedule to exploit that weakness.

Until Kiffen actually wins consistently somewhere (anywhere), I'll continue to think he's fraud, that got his name in the coaching fraternity because of his dad.leave him TF alone, please. he is doing fine, and is right where he needs to be. He will turn the usuc program around, just you watch and see. And, it won't take him forever to do it, either. If he could do it in say 12-15 years, i would be fine with that, and I think he can.

[Seamus]

Lane Kiffen is a great recruiter.

He is a shyte game day coach and relies heavily on assistants to hide his weaknesses. He's also of questionable character. I'll lay money Haden excises his arse withing five years.

[OU_Sooners75]

Kiffin is far from a great recruiter. The guy is as crooked as a college coach can get.

Of course he learned from one of the best in Pete Carroll in how to skirt the rules.

[Soonermagik]

You can recruit all the top players, but if you don't develop them,as both players and student athletes, then what have you really accomplished? That's why I agree that the rankings themselves really don't tell the whole story. It's just a way to compare what you are initially bringing in vs other programs. If recruiting rankings were all that mattered, Texas and FSU would have about 15 NC's combined in the last 25 yrs. Instead, they have only 3....

I agree... recruiting rankings don't hold a lot of water. I know you need talented players on your roster, but some guys get too worked up over losing or gaining kids. Plus, many kids are lost due to grades, drugs etc..