I think where the majority of the 'poor evaluation' showed up with along the lines. It's hard enough to gauge talent at those positions coming out of high school, but when you phone it in and let the stars dictate the recruiting, you're going to end up with a lot of attrition and players that never quite lived up to the hype. That's another reason why I'm interested to see how some of these 2 and 3 star recruits end up. I think both Montgomery and Bedenbaugh are being extremely studious in their evaluations, and if they are as good as their reputations, we should end up with a very good core group in the next few years.
This has been my whole point. Since 2002 when I first saw that "awesome" 2001 class on the field I have had an issue with us taking a lot of the higher rated kids that we did. The reason is that these kids need so much coaching to get to be a good D1 player. It was just not possible for us to give it to them with the limitation on practice time that got handed down that year. That is why in recruiting, I'm more for taking the best football player and not necessarily the best athlete. Give me Wes Welker (UR) over BJ Johnson (#1 WR in the nation) any day. A couple of things, Rivals tends to be more accurate on "athletic" positions than "growth" positions. So guys like Finch/Clay/Stills tend to be easier for them to get right. Lets look at the others: 1. Jefferson -> listed at a 4.5 40 but ran a 4.85 at the combine. Jefferson as a freshman was a good football and good athlete. Unfortunately Jefferson's frame was horrid for adding weight. He got slower and less athletic every year he was here making him a linebacker/safety tweener. 2. Milard was only a 4* because he was rated as a TE. Had he been rated as a FB, he'd have been guaranteed as a 3*. Don't believe me? http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/fo...s/rank-2392;_ylt=Agc1xmIOP8XeFgy5UB9vcanwOrF_ (to show the bias on rankings, look at the schools on the 4*s). He was also rated 8 places behind Austin Haywood. 3. Corey Nelson -> It has taken Nelson 4 years to become a good football player. He had zero instincts and was constantly standing flat footed trying to diagnose a play when a guard just slammed into him. Even when he diagnosed it correctly, he would chicken fight with the OL instead of getting clear and making a play. Alexander as a TR FR is as good of a football player as Nelson is as a SR, but he isn't as good of an athlete and is a step slow (at this point). Which goes back to my original point -> Is it better to have a position over a 3 year span be Weak, Weak, Very Strong or have it be Strong, Strong, Strong? Some other notables -> Hayes (3 star) -> Very good against the run, not good against the pass (specialist) Julian Wilson (3 Star) -> He is a better cover guy than the opponents 3rd receiver. He can't handle anything better (specialist) Geneo Grissom (4 Star) -> A little more flexible than Ndulae (3 star), but doesn't have as much upside in a growth position because he is a small framed dude. Ndulae could probably hold 300 lbs and still be a decent DE, Grissom though has Zach Latimer syndrome. For the record, Saban would have ran off like 80% of this class. Something that you need to consider is that these guys left a year early. As a coaching staff, you want to avoid early entrants if at all possible. It is better to have a slightly less talented guy out there who you can depend on for another year than to lose a player and have to replace him with someone who isn't ready. Since Bob Stoops has been here, we've had 3 5* early entrants, 8 4* early entrants, and 2 3* early entrants (3 if you count TGRW). Most of our good 3*s have stayed for their senior years even when they didn't have too (Calmus, etc).
