is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams?

[Soonerjeepman]

Okay,
Just a discussion thread.

I keep reading how OU's talent is young, better, etc. I'll leave the stats up to someone else...I'm not so sure OU's talent is that much above all the other schools.

Not flaming, just throwing it out there.

I'd say equal, not below nor above.

[Sooner8th]

Okay,
Just a discussion thread.

I keep reading how OU's talent is young, better, etc. I'll leave the stats up to someone else...I'm not so sure OU's talent is that much above all the other schools.

Not flaming, just throwing it out there.

I'd say equal, not below nor above.

We have plenty of talent, it is the use of the talent that is the problem, striker not rushing the passer and being made to drop into coverage while we rush three guys letting the qb have all day is an example. Before ksu we were 107th in the country in pass defense, what we are doing is not working.

[BoulderSooner79]

I think our talent is a little better than other big12 teams, but not enough to dominate other contenders. And all it takes very good players at the skill positions to equal out a lot of other talent lapses. Trickett and White at WVU is a good example. They would be a very mediocre team if they were average at those positions. The reverse is true as well - look how badly we struggle if TK and our receivers are not producing even if we win in the trenches.

[aurorasooner]

We have plenty of talent, it is the use of the talent that is the problem, striker not rushing the passer and being made to drop into coverage while we rush three guys letting the qb have all day is an example. Before ksu we were 107th in the country in pass defense, what we are doing is not working.Heh, if it was 1998, I would have thought you were referring to the Boo Blake staff. That's bad, wow.

[East Coast Bias]

I agree, I think it is hard to know. The best indicator is head to head competition and in that department it seems we are not better. I am wondering about Perrine, at this point? He looked like the next AD (against WV) but what about now? Is he really that good and our line is the problem? Personally I think most of our players have been over-hyped, including Perrine. We all need to forget the preseason hype, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and make them earn the praise....

[SoonerorLater]

I think we are the most talented team in the Big 12 and most likely a top 5 type team nationally. Top 10 for certain. Unfortunately we seem to be sort of a hodge podge of working parts. If NCAA football worked like the NFL where you could trade players we would have excellent trade bait and be able to cut deals. As it is when we play to some players strengths we go away from other players. Our backs are ideally suited down hill running and a play action offense. Our QB is a prototype read option QB (Switzer would have loved TK for his 1980's teams). Our O line is sort of neither here nor there and has one foot in the road grader type player and another as pass blockers. Fairly good at both but not great at either.

We have an impact player like Eric Striker on defense but he becomes largely wasted when we go to a three man rush. He just isn't a difference maker in pass coverage. There is a lot of bagging on the safeties and rightfully so but they have the physical talent and I am confident they can be coached up. LB's, not so sure. I don't like it when I see the LB's holding on for dear life being dragged down the field. Frank Shannon is missed. Our D line has enough talent that if we are just going to waste Striker then we might as well go to a four man front. Again talent is there but just doesn't mesh together. The fact that we have no LBs on the recruiting horizon isn't very comforting.

[BoulderSooner79]

Perine is a very good back and mature beyond his years. But he is not the next coming of AD as he doesn't have the speed or cutting ability. He's also 30lbs heavier than AD, so there is no way he could have those attributes. And just because he is strong, does not mean he can move 280lb D-lineman or especially more than one 280lb D-lineman. There has to be a gap created or he can be stuffed like any other human being.

[East Coast Bias]

Perine is a very good back and mature beyond his years. But he is not the next coming of AD as he doesn't have the speed or cutting ability. He's also 30lbs heavier than AD, so there is no way he could have those attributes. And just because he is strong, does not mean he can move 280lb D-lineman or especially more than one 280lb D-lineman. There has to be a gap created or he can be stuffed like any other human being.

I agree. It brings up the old argument, does the line make the back great or vice versa? Do great receivers make the QB? I remember how great Landry looked at times , then Broyles went down and he looked pretty pedestrrian. I think Perrine would look a whole lot better with some better blocks or better schemes...

[birddog]

Perine is a true frosh that has filled in for Ford and mixon, assuming he is the real deal. Perine has 0 fumbles while averaging 25+ carries a game. I Love the kid. If Ford were healthy we'd be a lil more diverse in the run-pass game but you can't deny that perine is a td scoring machine when you look at his inexperience. We have some good young talent including kj young, miciah quick, perine, Stevie Parker, Ford, Ross, Jordan evans, etc. I think the talent is there and getting all this playing time now will help alot going into next season. We are weak and young at lb with no big play guys right now. I think the future looks great from a talent perspective, you just never know if they can put it all together

[TrophyCollector]

I think Perrine would look a whole lot better with some better blocks or better schemes...

I'd like to see what he could do running downhill from the I formation. Making him start from the play from a dead stop, 5-7 yards in the backfield , waiting to see where a gap opens seems more suited to a back like Quentin Griffin.

[okiewaker]

Who knows,,,none of us are talent scouts. If there is one on the board, maybe he/ she could shed some light.

[Since71ASooner4Life]

All I know is that we have a 221lb. RB with home run speed, and we need to figure out how to get him more touches

[bluedogok]

More population means more talent available, scholarship limits means more talent available to be spread around to other teams. The fact that almost everyone is on TV every week means more exposure to those teams that never had exposure in the past. Even the acknowledge top program that gets the best talent every year in Bama loses games and games they aren't expected to lose. The days of having so much more talent than the other top half of teams is over.

[BoulderSooner79]

Who knows,,,none of us are talent scouts. If there is one on the board, maybe he/ she could shed some light.

That would be STEP.

[BoulderSooner79]

More population means more talent available, scholarship limits means more talent available to be spread around to other teams. The fact that almost everyone is on TV every week means more exposure to those teams that never had exposure in the past. Even the acknowledge top program that gets the best talent every year in Bama loses games and games they aren't expected to lose. The days of having so much more talent than the other top half of teams is over.

Parity is ruining college football ;) I think all those points are true, but I also think the skill factor has changed things. You just didn't see QBs that could put up these kinds of numbers even 15-20 years ago. An elite team could just load up recruits in the trenches and just run the ball and play defense and beat almost anyone. Now days, a fairly average team with a great QB and a couple of stud WRs can beat those blue bloods if they get clicking. I suspect it is from the huge spike in NFL salaries at the skill positions drawing the best athletes combined with HS teams passing more and all those 7 on 7 drills.

[Sooner8th]

Heh, if it was 1998, I would have thought you were referring to the Boo Blake staff. That's bad, wow.

That is my primary concern, numbers don't lie. What bothers me the most the is arrogance of big game to not admit when something is not working and then do what he has to do to fix it. That includes firing his brother.

[SoonerorLater]

That is my primary concern, numbers don't lie. What bothers me the most the is arrogance of big game to not admit when something is not working and then do what he has to do to fix it. That includes firing his brother.

How many points per game should the defense be allowed before the coach is fired?

[okiewaker]

That would be STEP.

Well......

[TrophyCollector]

How many points per game should the defense be allowed before the coach is fired?

One less than our team scores.

[Sooner8th]

How many points per game should the defense be allowed before the coach is fired?

I didn't say anything about points per game. I was talking about being 107th in the country in pass defense and i was talking about firing mike.

How many games do we have to lose before you think the coach is fired? How many loses to K-STATE do we have to endure before the coach is fired?

[Sooner8th]

One less than our team scores.

BINGO! SOMEONE GETS IT!

[8timechamps]

It's hard to say if OU's talent is better, because in this day and age, every team has talent. Prior to scholarship limits, it wasn't unheard of for a coach (like Switzer) to bring in guys just to keep them away from other teams. Now, that's not really possible.

Anymore, it's about what you do to develop the talent you bring in...and OU is pretty damn good at that.

We can certainly be better at bringing in kids (and I think the addition of the new coaches has us heading in that direction).

Right now, I'd say we are better than most of the teams in the conference overall. Baylor probably has better offensive talent, and Texas probably has better defensive talent. As a whole, I don't think there's a team as talented as OU, but as Bill Snyder just proved (again), talent is only part of the equation.

[BoulderSooner79]

I didn't say anything about points per game. I was talking about being 107th in the country in pass defense and i was talking about firing mike.

How many games do we have to lose before you think the coach is fired? How many loses to K-STATE do we have to endure before the coach is fired?

More than 2, it would seem.

[SoonerorLater]

I didn't say anything about points per game. I was talking about being 107th in the country in pass defense and i was talking about firing mike.

How many games do we have to lose before you think the coach is fired? How many loses to K-STATE do we have to endure before the coach is fired?

You were talking about the Defensive Coordinator. As far as I know you wouldn't knee jerk and fire a coordinator because you lost a few games if that particular coordinator was not the problem. I don't really care what rank we are in pass defense or run defense either as far as that goes. The numbers can be skewed because due to the type offense the other teams employ. We have played three top 25 scoring offenses. In each instance we held them to less than their average by a thumbnail estimate of about 25%. It's how many points you allow the other team to score. In that respect we are doing pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised if that number gets even better as the back half of our schedule looks easier (minus Baylor) than the first half.

Just because we lose a few games doesn't mean somebody should be fired. That's silly. If everybody did that there may not be a single employed coach left in the country by the end of the season. This is football. Half of the teams lose every week. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve but simply firing the defensive coordinator isn't likely to solve one thing and most likely would make things worse.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

That would be STEP.

What's the question again?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I would say the talent is above average but not elite..

I think the mix match of talent makes the sum of the units look bad..ie, Ahmed Thomas and Quentin Hayes..I think Hayes is very good, Thomas is not. Sanchez is good IMO, Wilson is not.

It's tough for me looking through everything with NFL eyes, but if you think we are that much more talented than everyone, I would like to know who the players are..

[Tear Down This Wall]

Okay,
Just a discussion thread.

I keep reading how OU's talent is young, better, etc. I'll leave the stats up to someone else...I'm not so sure OU's talent is that much above all the other schools.

Not flaming, just throwing it out there.

I'd say equal, not below nor above.

The new line coaches are out stealing two-star "diamond in the rough" recruits from North Texas and Houston...so, draw your own conclusions about where this thing might be in two to three years.

[BoulderSooner79]

The new line coaches are out stealing two-star "diamond in the rough" recruits from North Texas and Houston...so, draw your own conclusions about where this thing might be in two to three years.

I'd say North Texas and Houston are going to be hurtin' in the trenches.

[SoonerorLater]

I'd say North Texas and Houston are going to be hurtin' in the trenches.

I think it's unfair to single out these two teams. We seem to be winning recruiting battles with UT San Antonio, New Mexico St and UL Lafayette as well.

[8timechamps]

The new line coaches are out stealing two-star "diamond in the rough" recruits from North Texas and Houston...so, draw your own conclusions about where this thing might be in two to three years.

You need to get away from the recruiting services and their star rankings. Texas A&M has landed one of the best classes in the country the past two years (according to the services), and how are they doing? Same thing for Tennessee.

Stars (and the recruiting services) only get it right about half the time. I did a bunch of research in the offseason, and the data was pretty clear that they do a better than average job of identifying the elite players (that they rate 5 stars), but they do a (way) below average job of identifying excellent talent (that they rate a 3 star or lower). The easiest Sooner example is Eric Striker. He was a 3 star player, with very few offers.

When Matthew Romar and Charles Walker become starters (probably next year), it will once again show how often the services get it wrong.

Coaches recruit to their systems. Not to what the services say.

[Soonerjeepman]

When Matthew Romar and Charles Walker become starters (probably next year), it will once again show how often the services get it wrong.



until we get beat by someone we aren't suppose to! lol (just kidding...sort of~)

I started the thread because I just don't see OU's "talent" that much greater than anyone but ku...maybe isu in the big 12. Which is fine, but when folks go predicting a 40 point win over anyone BUT ku I get the feeling they really see OU as much more talented.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

until we get beat by someone we aren't suppose to! lol (just kidding...sort of~)

I started the thread because I just don't see OU's "talent" that much greater than anyone but ku...maybe isu in the big 12. Which is fine, but when folks go predicting a 40 point win over anyone BUT ku I get the feeling they really see OU as much more talented.

It's like anything..People look at single glimpses or because it's OU that the talent is better than anyone else.

[Eielson]

I would say the talent is above average but not elite..

I think the mix match of talent makes the sum of the units look bad..ie, Ahmed Thomas and Quentin Hayes..I think Hayes is very good, Thomas is not. Sanchez is good IMO, Wilson is not.

It's tough for me looking through everything with NFL eyes, but if you think we are that much more talented than everyone, I would like to know who the players are..

Judging by recruiting rankings, I'd imagine we have a lot more natural talent than K-State, or even TCU. Whether that natural talent is converted into becoming a good player is maybe a different story. KSU looked like trash when Snyder left, so I imagine it's a lot about coaching.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I think it's unfair to single out these two teams. We seem to be winning recruiting battles with UT San Antonio, New Mexico St and UL Lafayette as well.

My apologies to all Roadrunner, Aggy, and Rajun Cajun fans...if and wherever they can be found.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I'd say North Texas and Houston are going to be hurtin' in the trenches.

North Texas did lose by 35 to UAB a couple of weeks ago. So, you could argue their defense could use the Romar kid Montgomery stole from them a couple of signing periods ago.

Houston lost their home opener to Texas State two years ago...and, their brand new stadium grand opener this year to UT-San Antonio...so, again...yeah. Guys that could be starting for them are now part of our Occupy Bench group.

[Tear Down This Wall]

You need to get away from the recruiting services and their star rankings. Texas A&M has landed one of the best classes in the country the past two years (according to the services), and how are they doing? Same thing for Tennessee.

Stars (and the recruiting services) only get it right about half the time. I did a bunch of research in the offseason, and the data was pretty clear that they do a better than average job of identifying the elite players (that they rate 5 stars), but they do a (way) below average job of identifying excellent talent (that they rate a 3 star or lower). The easiest Sooner example is Eric Striker. He was a 3 star player, with very few offers.

When Matthew Romar and Charles Walker become starters (probably next year), it will once again show how often the services get it wrong.

Coaches recruit to their systems. Not to what the services say.

Ok. So, let's trade rosters with North Texas and Houston, because analyzing the kids out of high school doesn't work, right?

The "star" system isn't perfect. But, you certainly find that the teams who recruit more of the 4- and 5-star players tend to win a bunch.

[BoulderSooner79]

Ok. So, let's trade rosters with North Texas and Houston, because analyzing the kids out of high school doesn't work, right?

The "star" system isn't perfect. But, you certainly find that the teams who recruit more of the 4- and 5-star players tend to win a bunch.

A bit simplistic. North Texas and Houston have players we don't offer in general. And they offer players they know they won't land if they also get offers from P5 schools. Similarly, we offer 4 and 5 star players we know we won't land if those guys get offers from their favorite regional school.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Ok. So, let's trade rosters with North Texas and Houston, because analyzing the kids out of high school doesn't work, right?

The "star" system isn't perfect. But, you certainly find that the teams who recruit more of the 4- and 5-star players tend to win a bunch.

That is because the stars are heavily biased towards those schools. Generally speaking, recruits are rated based on who offers them. If it is a "good" school, they will be skewed up. If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Remember that 66% of the players drafted in the last 4 years have been 3* or lower (including super stars like JJ Watt). It isn't that there are bad players in those groups, it is that for whatever reason their potential isn't evaluated correctly.

OG is the most biased towards 3* and lower at 86%
RB is the most baised towards 4* and higher at 54%

Which just coincidentally mirrors our recruiting. The second problem is that just because someone is bad one year does not mean they are going to be bad the next year. We've had several situations in the secondary where someone who was horrid one year came back at the same or a different position the next year and was absolutely rock solid.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I would say the talent is above average but not elite..

I think the mix match of talent makes the sum of the units look bad..ie, Ahmed Thomas and Quentin Hayes..I think Hayes is very good, Thomas is not. Sanchez is good IMO, Wilson is not.

It's tough for me looking through everything with NFL eyes, but if you think we are that much more talented than everyone, I would like to know who the players are..

The bigger problem is that it only takes 2 guys not playing well to create a mismatch than an offense can exploit.

We currently have 2 weak pieces on defense -> Dominique Alexander and Thomas. Both of these guys just look lost out there which is something that should improve over the spring which doesn't do us any good right now.

We also have a slacker on defense -> Jordan Evans. When he decides he wants to make a play, the guy is amazing. Then there are the other 40 plays where he decides he can't make the play and just dogs it. The question is whether he can ever get to the point where he believes he can make every play (like our 2000 linebackers).


It is tough to stop anyone when you are playing 11 on 8 on any single series.

[Tear Down This Wall]

That is because the stars are heavily biased towards those schools. Generally speaking, recruits are rated based on who offers them. If it is a "good" school, they will be skewed up. If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Remember that 66% of the players drafted in the last 4 years have been 3* or lower (including super stars like JJ Watt). It isn't that there are bad players in those groups, it is that for whatever reason their potential isn't evaluated correctly.

OG is the most biased towards 3* and lower at 86%
RB is the most baised towards 4* and higher at 54%

Which just coincidentally mirrors our recruiting. The second problem is that just because someone is bad one year does not mean they are going to be bad the next year. We've had several situations in the secondary where someone who was horrid one year came back at the same or a different position the next year and was absolutely rock solid.

That's only true to a point. If I get dragged to a high school football game, I can tell you whether any one of them on the field is good enough to play at OU, Texas, Bama, or whomever.

It isn't rocket science. High school film of Adrian Peterson looks a hell of a lot different than high school film of whomever North Texas signed in 2004.

I think it's safe to say that most of us have watched DI/FBS football the entirety of our adult lives. If you grew up near a pro team, you've seen that for decades as well. I grew up near Dallas. Between following Oklahoma since I can remember and being inundated with Cowboys all these years....

In the vast majority of cases, you can watch a high school football game - which I loathe doing because the games/execution is so slow - you can see whether there are any men among boys, which is what the 4- and 5-star guys are.

Yes, some develop later. But, realistically, the coaching staffs watch plenty of film of these kids - especially these days - to know the best players. And, their conclusions are not far from the recruiting services. As thin as the margin of error is in these judgements, it doesn't make sense to take flyers on a bunch of two-star guys...especially on the offensive and defensive lines.

[Tear Down This Wall]

That is because the stars are heavily biased towards those schools. Generally speaking, recruits are rated based on who offers them. If it is a "good" school, they will be skewed up. If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Remember that 66% of the players drafted in the last 4 years have been 3* or lower (including super stars like JJ Watt). It isn't that there are bad players in those groups, it is that for whatever reason their potential isn't evaluated correctly.

OG is the most biased towards 3* and lower at 86%
RB is the most baised towards 4* and higher at 54%

Which just coincidentally mirrors our recruiting. The second problem is that just because someone is bad one year does not mean they are going to be bad the next year. We've had several situations in the secondary where someone who was horrid one year came back at the same or a different position the next year and was absolutely rock solid.

Yes. That's my point. The teams signing more 4- and 5-star players do end up having better records over the long haul that the North Texases and Houstons of the world.

I think in rare cases have you had schools who took a ton of 2-3 star players and done well. I can think of two: TCU and Kansas State.

Some would argue Boise State as well. Fine. But, these was a time when Boise State was in a conference where you could sign guys who didn't qualify to go to Pac-10 schools. Fresno State did well with that as well.

Boise/Fresno's conferences then tightened up their recruiting policies, and suddenly they aren't stories anymore.

We will probably agree to disagree. But, from what I've seen so far, Bedenbaugh and Montgomery aren't lighting up the recruiting world with a bunch of stud OL and DL-signees. To me, they've been caught with their pants down at the end and lifted recruits who should be starting at AAC/C-USA level schools today, but will likely never start here.

[SoonerorLater]

If it is a bad school, they will be pushed down. It just kind of turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?

In general, kids who commit or are heavily interested in top tier* schools will have their rankings skewed up 3-4 rivals scale points depending on when they commit (that scale goes from 5.0 to 6.1). Early commits seem to show the most upwards bias. Ratings 5.6 (highest 3*) and 5.7 (lowest 4*) have the highest year over year variation and seem to be catchall buckets for those rising up and those falling down. In a lot of respects, the rankings work a lot like preseason college football polls.

*top tier defined as schools who have highest paying websites (for example, Texas is/was the #1 rivals site in the network. So even though they haven't had much talent in a while they will still have decently ranked classes).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That's only true to a point. If I get dragged to a high school football game, I can tell you whether any one of them on the field is good enough to play at OU, Texas, Bama, or whomever.

It isn't rocket science. High school film of Adrian Peterson looks a hell of a lot different than high school film of whomever North Texas signed in 2004.

Yet somehow lower tier programs end up with guys like LaDanian Tomlinson and JJ Watt (remember he transferred to Wisconsin from Western Michigan). You can win in college sports if you can evaluate better than anyone else. We saw that for years at DE where we turned a bunch of 3* guys into college superstars. The problem is that evaluation takes a lot of work and somewhere along the line the guys who put in the work stopped.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Is it truly self-fufilling or more of a "which came first the chicken or the egg" thing. In other words are top flight schools recruiting these guys because they are 4/5 * players or are they 4/5* because the number of offers from top tier schools is a valid rating metric?

Lets take our own classes as an example:

2010 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010

9 out of 16 4*s were starters superstars (stills, millard), good (grissom, bell, williams, jefferson, clay), meh (finch, nelson)
5 out of 13 3*s were starters superstars (colvin), good (ndulue), meh (franks, wilson, peterson)

2011 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/oklahoma-24

Both 5*s are busts
1 out of 7 4*s is a starter superstars (none), good (phillips)
2 out of 8 3*s is a starter superstars (none), good (kasitati), meh (shannon)

3 out of 20 guys started.

2012 https://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2012/oklahoma-24
5* was counted before
6 out of 10 4* is a starter - superstars (striker, sheperd, ross (ST)), good (knight, darlington, neal)
5 out of 14 3* is a starter - superstars (sanchez, tapper), good (bester, williams, everett (ST))


In general, we've gotten just as many upper end players from the 3* ranks as the 4* ranks.

[8timechamps]

until we get beat by someone we aren't suppose to! lol (just kidding...sort of~)

I started the thread because I just don't see OU's "talent" that much greater than anyone but ku...maybe isu in the big 12. Which is fine, but when folks go predicting a 40 point win over anyone BUT ku I get the feeling they really see OU as much more talented.

Because it's not. That's not necessarily a knock on OU's recruiting, it's just that parity is part of college football now. Every team has talent, and every team has a player or two that are exceptional. Look at the current NFL team rosters and you'll see guys from all over the country, big schools and small schools. You don't see a huge talent gap between OU and other teams because there isn't one.

There was a time when the gap was obvious, but those days ended with scholarship limits. It's more about what you do with what you have, and not so much about getting the best/highest rated guys in the country.

[8timechamps]

Ok. So, let's trade rosters with North Texas and Houston, because analyzing the kids out of high school doesn't work, right?

The "star" system isn't perfect. But, you certainly find that the teams who recruit more of the 4- and 5-star players tend to win a bunch.

I think you're missing my point.

It's not about the 4 and 5 star players, those guys typically pan out (not all of them, but probably more do than don't). Since OU isn't in a recruit heavy state (and we are the only perennially successful program that isn't), we depend more on the 3 and star guys. Our roster isn't full of 3 star kids from top to bottom, but we do take our share. So does just about every other team in the country. There's aren't enough "elite" players, year in and year out, to continually fill a class with nothing but 4/5 star kids.

My point is that there are plenty of excellent players that the services get wrong. I use Striker, because he's an obvious example, but nobody was excited when he committed to OU. Don't you think the coaches may have a better idea what they're looking for than a recruiting service or fan?

If I had the time, and could view film on all of the high school kids out there, I could come up with a rating system that probably looks like the ones the services provide. I'm not a professional analyst, nor do I have any unique skill that allows me to see things that others can't. That should tell you how 'good' the services are at what they do. Fortunately, our coaches know much more about the game and what they look for in a player. And I can tell you, without question, they could care less what a service rates them...and that's true for just about every FBS school in the country.

[8timechamps]

That's only true to a point. If I get dragged to a high school football game, I can tell you whether any one of them on the field is good enough to play at OU, Texas, Bama, or whomever.

It isn't rocket science. High school film of Adrian Peterson looks a hell of a lot different than high school film of whomever North Texas signed in 2004.

I think it's safe to say that most of us have watched DI/FBS football the entirety of our adult lives. If you grew up near a pro team, you've seen that for decades as well. I grew up near Dallas. Between following Oklahoma since I can remember and being inundated with Cowboys all these years....

In the vast majority of cases, you can watch a high school football game - which I loathe doing because the games/execution is so slow - you can see whether there are any men among boys, which is what the 4- and 5-star guys are.

Yes, some develop later. But, realistically, the coaching staffs watch plenty of film of these kids - especially these days - to know the best players. And, their conclusions are not far from the recruiting services. As thin as the margin of error is in these judgements, it doesn't make sense to take flyers on a bunch of two-star guys...especially on the offensive and defensive lines.

You make it sound like we take 15 two-star rated players every class. We don't.

I will add one more thing: I have long believed that rating high school linemen is the hardest, most often misidentifying thing the services do. I could write a long dissertation as to why I feel this way, but it boils down to two things:

1. What did the player's high school run (in terms of offense/defense) - A lineman can get 'lost' if a school runs a scheme not geared toward fitting the players strengths.
2. Coaching - Most of the big time high school programs have decent line coaching, but many more do not. The difference in a big body taking up space and a road grading lineman is coaching. It's rare to find excellent line coaching at the high school level, and more times than not they assign positions based only on body size.

There is much more to it, but that's the quick list. Linemen (especially O-linemen) suffers more attrition at the college level than any other position, because it's very hard to identify a good lineman. If it were me, I'd take JUCO linemen over high school linemen 9 out of 10 times, but then you're dealing with a completely separate set of issues.

Anyway, there is virtually no difference in a 2 star lineman and a 3 star lineman. Many times it boils down to the level of competition the recruit saw in high school, or he may not be the tallest kid. There's lots of factors, but in the end none of them compare to getting in front of the kid and watching him play (or watching hours of film).

[BoulderSooner79]

Just as an aside, I think folks are underrating 3 star players a bit and probably mean 2 star. You look at smaller schools and they are not loading up on 3 star players - those are the big fish they hope don't get an offer from a P5 conference school.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Just as an aside, I think folks are underrating 3 star players a bit and probably mean 2 star. You look at smaller schools and they are not loading up on 3 star players - those are the big fish they hope don't get an offer from a P5 conference school.

When you look at the NFL draft, the most likely 2 or 0 star position to be taken is cornerback. Out of 90 cornerbacks taken from 2011 to 2013, 40 were 2* or 0*. There were actually more guys drafted that weren't in the top 75 of the position rankings than there were in them. Basically, it was the guys at the top and the guys not rated that tended to be drafted.

Ranked 1-3 -> 100% drafted
Ranked 4 or 5 -> 16% drafted
Ranked 6 -> 100% drafted
Ranked 7-14 -> 25% drafted
Ranked 15-19 -> 40% drafted
Ranked 20-55 -> 4% drafted
Ranked 56-60 -> 30% drafted
Ranked 60-75 -> 8% drafted

Given how the recruiting services work

1-3 extreme athleticism, varying skill
4-10 extreme to great athleticism but no skill
7-14 great athleticism, varying skill
15-19 good athleticism, high skill

[Tear Down This Wall]

When you look at the NFL draft, the most likely 2 or 0 star position to be taken is cornerback. Out of 90 cornerbacks taken from 2011 to 2013, 40 were 2* or 0*. There were actually more guys drafted that weren't in the top 75 of the position rankings than there were in them. Basically, it was the guys at the top and the guys not rated that tended to be drafted.

Ranked 1-3 -> 100% drafted
Ranked 4 or 5 -> 16% drafted
Ranked 6 -> 100% drafted
Ranked 7-14 -> 25% drafted
Ranked 15-19 -> 40% drafted
Ranked 20-55 -> 4% drafted
Ranked 56-60 -> 30% drafted
Ranked 60-75 -> 8% drafted

Given how the recruiting services work

1-3 extreme athleticism, varying skill
4-10 extreme to great athleticism but no skill
7-14 great athleticism, varying skill
15-19 good athleticism, high skill

Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

Embarrassing.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

Embarrassing.

Okay we'll do DL first (it will take me a bit as DL is really weird)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

DT - 49 drafted only 28 were rated as DTs by the recruiting services. 13 were rated as DEs, 2 as TEs etc

Of the guys rated as DTs,

Ranked 1 -> 100%
Ranked 2-5 -> 7% (only 1 guy and he was drafted in the 7th)
Ranked 6-9 -> 25%
Ranked 10-20 -> 21%
Ranked 21-60 (max) -> 4% (5 guys out of 120)

For DE that was drafted as a DT
Ranked 5-10 as a DE -> 33%

Top States
FL - 6
CA - 4
PA - 4
OH - 3
AL - 3
GA - 3
7 states (including TX) - 2

DE - 73 drafted, 47 with recruiting services predicting they were DEs (7 DT, 5 TE)
DE Rankings
1-3 -> 66%
4-5 -> 0%
6-10 -> 50% (rather amazing when you look at the DT numbers. All but 2 guys in the 6-10 range were drafted at some position)
11-15 -> 33%
16-22 -> 8%
23 -> 100% (well isn't that a geographical oddity)
24-30 -> 7%
31-41 -> 7%
42 -> 66%
43-60 (max) -> 3%

DT Notes
#13, #28, #65 each were taken in the first round as a DE

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Also, the top state for DEs was easily TX with 10. Given our propensity for being undersized I think you can see why.

TX 10
SC 6
FL 6
CA 5
GA 4
OH 4
LA 4

[Tear Down This Wall]

Uh-huh. So, what is that supposed to be telling me, that NFL rosters are overflowing with two-star offensive and defensive linemen?

[8timechamps]

Okay, but I never said anything about the secondary coaching. We are talking offensive and defensive linemen, the current state of recruiting them, and the current state of coaching them.

And, no one ever said we took 15 2-star players a year. But, if 2 out of the 3 you sign on the lines are 2-star players...that's going to show up in future seasons. We, supposedly, like to rotate eight or nine DLs during games because of the "scary" offenses the Big 12 schools run (but, which fail to produce national titles...but, that's a different discussion).

The depth is crap now, it seems. And, getting crappier.

Anyway, as that dipf*ck Howard Schnellenberger said about his self-assured success at OU, "The only variable now is time." Yes, Howard. Yes. And, now we wait to see whether one of Leach's proteges can miraculously coach the 2-star signees to something resembling what we had in the early 2000s.

Ditto the DL coach from ever-faltering Michigan. I can't even do this. Getting our butts handed to us three games in a row (and, luckily escaping the Texas disaster due to special teams and defensive touchdown)...it's ridiculous.

But...we deserve this football hell in many ways. You let too much mediocrity into your conference and it will become mediocre. As it stands, the leaders of our conference are three teams who should be in Conference USA, or whatever the hell conference houses Tulsa now.

They haven't risen to our level - we have sunk to theirs.

Embarrassing.

I'm going to let the season play out before making any declarations. I think you're too close to the cliff, but I may be wrong. You may be listening to too much media hype, or maybe you're one of those guys that is only happy with an undefeated national title year. Either way, you're overreacting.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Uh-huh. So, what is that supposed to be telling me, that NFL rosters are overflowing with two-star offensive and defensive linemen?

Lets do last year's pro bowl to see (this will be the first time i've ever looked at this data and thought it might be a good test)

OT
Trent Williams - 3* OG
Duane Brown - 3* TE
Branden Albert - 2*
Jordan Gross - played for Utah in 1999 so you can assume he would have been 2* or 3* given Utah's rankings from 2002
Joe Thomas - 4*
Tyron Smith - 5*

OG
Logan Mankins - Played for Fresno State in 2000 so you can assume 0* or 2*
Marshall Yanda - 3*
Kyle Long - 3*
Ben Grubbs - 4*
Evan Mathis - Played for Alabama in 2000 so assume 4*
Jahri Evans - 0* (attended Bloomsburg University on an academic scholly)

OC
Mike Pouncey - 4*
Alex Mack - 2*
Ryan Kalil - 3*
Nick Mangold - 4*

So basically, a 3rd of the OL in last year's pro bowl was a 2* recruit or lower. Another 3rd were 3*s and the rest of higher rankings. So not quite swimming, but a lot higher than anyone on this board would have guessed.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I'm going to let the season play out before making any declarations. I think you're too close to the cliff, but I may be wrong. You may be listening to too much media hype, or maybe you're one of those guys that is only happy with an undefeated national title year. Either way, you're overreacting.

Watching our lines be dominated three games in a row is overreacting to the question posed in the thread title - "is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams"?

I don't think so.

We obviously don't have better talent. And, all I did was point out that it's likely a shortfall in coaching as well. Then, went ahead a reminded everyone that the two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Defense
DT
Suh - 4*
Dontari Poe - 2*
Gerald McCoy - 5*
Kyle Williams - 4*
Jason Hatcher - Played at Grambling in 2000 so assume 0* or 2*
Marcell Dareus - 3*

DE
Cameron Wake - Played at PSU in 1999 so assume 4*
Robert Quinn - 4*
Cameron Jordan - 3*
Greg Hardy - 3*
Mario Williams - 4*
JJ Watt - 2*

So I figured this would be a little weird. Basically 1/2 are assumed to be 4* or above and 1/2 3* or under.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Watching our lines be dominated three games in a row is overreacting to the question posed in the thread title - "is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams"?

I don't think so.

We obviously don't have better talent. And, all I did was point out that it's likely a shortfall in coaching as well. Then, went ahead a reminded everyone that the two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here.

Well, to be fair, our DTs are better now than they were when Shipp was here. Yes we spun down some DEs (Tapper and Nduluae) to do it, but they aren't being pushed back 5 yards on every play like they were before. Unfortunately better doesn't necessarily mean we are where we need to be.

On the OL, we are better at consistently getting hats on men, but we aren't as good at winning those battles (much less winning them decisively).

All in all, at this point, we look like we've traded one set of problems for a different set of problems.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

TCU's receivers suck, but Meacham made them not suck. Boykin sucked at QB, but Cumbie made him not suck. OU doesn't have a talent issue, OU has a coaching issue.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

TCU's receivers suck, but Meacham made them not suck. Boykin sucked at QB, but Cumbie made him not suck. OU doesn't have a talent issue, OU has a coaching issue.

You do realize that:

a) this is cumbie's first year
b) Boykin's stats are the same as his FR stats 2 years ago?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Just from the NFL perspective..

I have 9 guys from FSUs offense and 4 guys from their defense getting drafted in 2015. That is a team that can out talent others to a win.

I would probably say that TCU has as many guys as we do that I think are NFL caliber..Haven't completed TCU or Kstate evals fully, but I would say they have as many as OU does.

[BoulderSooner79]

Just from the NFL perspective..

I have 9 guys from FSUs offense and 4 guys from their defense getting drafted in 2015. That is a team that can out talent others to a win.

I would probably say that TCU has as many guys as we do that I think are NFL caliber..Haven't completed TCU or Kstate evals fully, but I would say they have as many as OU does.

And yet they can still be beaten at home by ND if 1 flag stays in a ref's pocket. CFB parity is ruining CFB :sour:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

It was a lot easier when only elite programs were put on TV and received attention..Not to mention the limits, but I think it has more to do with the 1st than the 2nd.

[Sooner91ATL]

It's hard to measure the "want to" in a kid. If the desire and dedication are there, most guys on D1 scholarship at conference heavyweights are able to play at comparative levels. Some athletes outshine all others, of course, some glaringly at the college level. Unless one team has amazing talent, I think it comes down to the desire to win, as evidenced by the Sugar Bowl last year. For sure, Bama had more talent across the board than we did. Same can be said for Texas year in and year out, if you go by recruiting services and stars, which is what those people who issue stars do for a living - evaluate talent. Kstate has far less talent than we do - on paper. My observation is that teams reflect the personality of their coaching staff, in general. Some teams have high energy and play loose and take chances, and other teams play a tighter, more conservatively, and not to lose rather than win. Sometimes those teams that play loose and take chances are the teams that win big games and gain a lot of momentum, while the latter teams can go stale and sputter without innovation and adjustment.

[8timechamps]

Watching our lines be dominated three games in a row is overreacting to the question posed in the thread title - "is OU's "natural talent" above, the same or below, the other teams"?

I don't think so.

We obviously don't have better talent. And, all I did was point out that it's likely a shortfall in coaching as well. Then, went ahead a reminded everyone that the two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here.

I don't know exactly what you're looking at during each game, but our lines haven't been "dominated" three games in a row. Have there been times that our line was moved around? Of course. Just like every football game ever played. Texas' defensive line did a good job of controlling the LOS, but their offensive line did not dominate the day. In both the TCU and KSU games, there were times that the lines were pressed, but not dominated at all.

As for the "two line coach geniuses are not bringing in a ton of high quality talent to replace the "average league"-type talent already here." comment, they've had one year under their recruiting belts (at OU). I'm not sure what you were expecting, but so far, the guys they have brought in seem pretty solid. I guess I'm just not sure what you're looking at, or how you're evaluating talent (although I suspect it's all based on how many stars they had in high school).

[8timechamps]

It was a lot easier when only elite programs were put on TV and received attention..Not to mention the limits, but I think it has more to do with the 1st than the 2nd.

Very true. There was a time when a program could sell a kid with the "you'll be playing on TV!" line. Nowadays, that hardly registers on their interest meter...everyone plays on TV.

[cvsooner]

Also, I'd say the defensive line at Michigan is one of its few bright spots this season, and the offensive line at WVU seems to be doing okay. So there's that.