Signing Day

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,279
1,551
1,743
39
Sand Springs, OK
#61
This was pretty telling. Not much outreach in general.

So I've thought that our coaches have done really well in recruiting. AND...I hate that stat. We should be busting our backsides to get the best players in. That statistic makes it look like we've become lackadaisical due to our success. The only reason I'm okay with that stat is if we simply had less spots to fill than most teams.
 
Apr 20, 2013
266
127
593
34
Bakersfield, CA
#64
This is the most underwhelming signing day thread ever. We have so many guys where we were their best offer. I know our coaches take a certain approach but it almost feels nonchalant and a lack of care some of the kids we pulled in. Not trying to offend anyone but with our previous 15 yrs, we are not winning more than 1 or 2 recruiting battles vs teams in the top 50 classes. I expect to beat Baylor and Tech and Arkansas. I personally think we need new recruiters
This was pretty telling. Not much outreach in general.
So you don't make even twice as many offers and not even half as many as the highest team. Also Texas is barely above us. I think this just shows that there are teams who are very picky with their offers and don't just throw them out to everybody that visits campus.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
I get they are selective, but you're essentially sending out four to five offers for every position you're looking to fill assuming a 25 man class. That seems very light to me.
 
Oct 12, 2006
648
179
1,593
#67
Looks like we might be ready for Western Illinois in 2020 unless we have a Central Michigan day. Our coaches should get raises for a great recruiting job!
 
Nov 3, 2004
75
47
1,568
#68
So here is my question - is the level of athlete that we have been recruiting the level of athlete that we need to win conference championships?

If the answer is no, then it needs to improve.

If the answer is yes, then what coaches (on the field and development) need to be shown the door?
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2007
130
80
1,578
Denver, CO
#69
I for one am so glad that all of you guys have traveled widely and observed all of the talent available, evaluated same and decided who OSU should offer and how they fill the teams needs rather than looking at star rankings. The blue bloods don't, and don't have to, recruit as hard or evaluate as effectively to fill classes. I personally don't think that our coaches just settle. Their livelihoods depend on getting the best recruits they can.
I agree. We need better coaches/recruiters or 6-6 seasons will become the norm.
 
Mar 8, 2010
1,512
956
1,743
#70
The point everybody seems to be missing when ripping the star system, is that our brand is still not highly thought of by the top recruits in the county. Gundy said that our brand was rising several years ago. Haven't heard that lately from him and his sub par recruiting proves it's not where we all hoped it would be. Holder was right, he just shouldn't have said it publicly. With Riley now at uo, the gap is getting even wider between us and the gooners. These programs seem to be going in opposite directions right now.
 
Jun 11, 2016
597
369
113
Oklahoma City
#71
So hear is my question - is the level of athlete that we have been recruiting the level of athlete that we need to win conference championships?

If the answer is no, then it needs to improve.

If the answer is yes, then what coaches (on the field and development) need to be shown the door?
You lost me at "hear", but I think recruiting can improve yes. However, I think development is just as important. It would be nice to get more 4-5* kids we can "develop" as opposed to the 3* guys. You have to love the guys like James Washington that are 2-3* and end up busting their ass.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,991
6,003
1,743
32
Keller, Texas
#72
I don't believe our losing is a result to that much difference in on the field talent. I believe the coaches and game plan are the biggest issue. We are competitive in most every game. Honestly i'd rather have a 3* guy who feels he was disrespected by not getting a 4* or 5* who's hungry to prove others wrong that he is the best at his position than a 5* guy who is lazy and just wants to wait his 2 years to go to the NFL.
 
Dec 21, 2008
1,084
579
1,743
#73
My two cents:
1) Gundy has brought in coaches who have similar personality to him. Guys that won't rattle the cage like Wickline and Holgerson would do. He got sick of replacing the "up and comer" coach so he learned to settle for lesser known personalities to keep continuity. This has created somewhat of a dull coaching staff image
2) I think this lack of fiery personalities is the opposite of what elite recruits are. A majority of these high star prospects want limelight, notoriety, NFL promise, a guarantee at early playing time which we don't give. We always do the "come and compete" and "we don't play freshmen because they usually aren't ready and get hurt". WTF is this reasoning? You keep that sh!t to yourself not put in public
3) Stars want blue blood programs because of national notoriety and NFL pipeline. Besides Dez and maybe Okung, who do we have/had in the NFL that piques interest to recruits? Barry retired before these kids were born, even though they know his name
4) Lincoln is writing a textbook on how to recruit. Energy, fun, novel ideas, NFL guys tweeting at prospects, having NFL legends back in town, big booster celebration last night etc etc. Our commander of the sidelines continues to HO HUM every interview and bash twitter.
5) Our creativity has gone down the sh!tter. Couple years ago we lead the nation in photo edits. It piqued a lot of interest. Well now all the big dogs have caught up and passed us. While OU is producing mini videos when they signed, we pop up a generic photo put into a video game template. It was a cool look and garned natl attention as to the template but still not much creativity.
6) Facilities and uniforms are not attracting elite players. Need to find new strategies. Lincoln is popping up all kinds of new stuff, while we sit and ponder
7) His smart ass answers and snappy media interviews are bullets other coaches are using against us. I mean all a team has to do is show Spencer's mom tweeting at Gundy and his smart ass comments regarding that. Who would want to come here?

Not a fan of his theatrics but I am a fan of these men coming in to compete!
 
Nov 3, 2004
75
47
1,568
#74
You lost me at "hear", but I think recruiting can improve yes. However, I think development is just as important. It would be nice to get more 4-5* kids we can "develop" as opposed to the 3* guys. You have to love the guys like James Washington that are 2-3* and end up busting their ass.
If you have no reasonable argument then attack a typo. That’s a good strategy. Doing so in a sentence with its own grammatical error is classic.

My point was, if this is the level of athlete we need to develop and win championships, then the coaches aren’t doing their job in developing the athletes. Either the athletes are the problem, the development is the problem, or the X’s and O’s are the problem.
 
Sep 23, 2018
1,181
342
163
38
Memphis
#76
Offensively: Yes
Defensively: No
Yeah. Knowles' mettle is going to be tested for the next two years, at least.

At this point, I am perfectly fine with, just for one season, totally pushing offensive priorities to the side and going for some defensive home runs. We HAVE to improve on that side of the ball. I'm sick of getting no better than three star guys (generally speaking). Give us at least some four star secondary guys, for the love of all things holy.
 
Jun 11, 2016
597
369
113
Oklahoma City
#77
If you have no reasonable argument then attack a typo. That’s a good strategy. Doing so in a sentence with its own grammatical error is classic.

My point was, if this is the level of athlete we need to develop and win championships, then the coaches aren’t doing their job in developing the athletes. Either the athletes are the problem, the development is the problem, or the X’s and O’s are the problem.

Relax. OSU really doesn't have the national brand that other teams do. Not even close. Personally, I think if we have a year where we can get over that 10 win hump, then we will see some improvement. 10 wins is nothing to scoff at, but it's not making the playoff like Bama, Clemson, OU, Ohio St, etc. are.
 
Sep 23, 2018
1,181
342
163
38
Memphis
#78

Relax. OSU really doesn't have the national brand that other teams do. Not even close. Personally, I think if we have a year where we can get over that 10 win hump, then we will see some improvement. 10 wins is nothing to scoff at, but it's not making the playoff like Bama, Clemson, OU, Ohio St, etc. are.
I can't agree that we don't have a "national brand". Maybe as a *program*, we don't, but I always run into people who mention some of our past stars like J. Blackmon, Dez, Weeden, etc. People definitely know that we put out some really good players.

The problem applies more to the Big 12 as a whole. Nationally, I think it's generally looked at as a weak conference, save for OU.

Here in Memphis, on 92.9, which is the ESPN radio affiliate, at 4:00 p.m. a dude named Gary Parrish (he is a college bball writer for CBS Sports, I think) has a two-hour radio show. Last week, one day, they were talking about the potential for Mike Norvell to take the K-State job (before they settled on the N. Dakota guy). They got into talking about expansion, and basically said it was:

OU and Texas here..........................................................and the rest of the teams over here, to fend for themselves, if a bigger conference were to poach OU and Texas (like the Pac12, for instance).

That's the problem right there, and it has aggravated me for so long. We have had demonstrably better success in the last 10-ish years than Texas has, we have beaten Texas the majority of the time, yet still, people view them as the second best program in the Big 12, over us.
 
Apr 14, 2008
1,058
617
1,743
Texas
#79
So I actually tend to agree that much of the star system is tainted with bias and does not take into account how much better the team that each player played on was than their opponents. However, what you need to to is look at the ratio of 4/5 star players on the All Pro team vs the number of total 4/5 star players drafted. And then compare that to 2/3 star players. In other words there are MANY more 2/3 star players out there than there are 4/5 star players. So naturally the numbers of 4/5 star players drafted might still be less than 2/3 star players....and as a result also less than on the All Pro team.
I believe the original point was that the star rating system coming out of HS is flawed as a system to identify elite talent coming out of HS and correlate it as elite talent at end of college. Proof is evident with the Pro Bowl roster. Out of an annual draft pool of some 3500 players, only ~250 selections are made. If the 'cream' really rose to the top and there was correlation, then those 250 selections should only be 4*/5* guys. Another inherent flaw is that some of those 4* and 5* kids in HS may have peeked, while other 3*/2* kids might bloom late and take off in college.

The star ratings are an imperfect but necessary gap to bridge the lack of equivalent stats available on HS kids. You'll have kids from private schools that may not release info to public, meanwhile others are football factories that recruit, measure, and market everything (IMG Academy). The stars are completely subjective but give kids a common grade. Our coaches obviously don't put much stock in stars, and do a great job at developing talent.

I'd love to see us higher in recruiting rankings too, but only for selfish reasons such as bragging around the water cooler.
 
Nov 3, 2004
75
47
1,568
#80
Personally, I think if we have a year where we can get over that 10 win hump, then we will see some improvement. 10 wins is nothing to scoff at, but it's not making the playoff like Bama, Clemson, OU, Ohio St, etc. are.
But something about our approach has to change to make this happen. That may be in recruiting, development, or strategy. It may be different players or different coaches. We can’t do the same thing and get different results. In fact with some of the improvement from other conference teams I doubt we will be able to do as well as we have in recent years.