Recruiting Classes and Addazio's reputation

[NJM89]

I dont see all the hate that this guy gets about this years class. There is no star power but i believe that we did awesome in areas where everyone has bitched and moan on this board for the past few years at dline and dbacks (wilkins did suck though). In both his first few seasons he had to get full 25+ classes since Spaz sucked at finding talent and he was able to fill both classes even before the season started with his guys. Instead of dragging on year long with some star guys like Wilkins, he closed on a bunch of kids right away. Now that we actually have good depth in the program, I'll guarantee that the 2016 class will have more four star type kids since the class will be much smaller than these last two were and we can focus on the higher ranked guys. We'll be more selected instead of the grab as many guys as fast we can approach. Coach Daz has done an excellent job with recruiting the first two years.

[MattTheEagle]

I like the depth of the 2015, but we are lacking a few elite commits like we had in 2014.

Although I hope to see recruiting improve, I still give Addazio and his staff a lot of credit for some of the things he has done on the recruiting trail:
1) Local Talent: Addazio has so far landed local talent at an unprecedented level. In both 2014 and 2015 Addazio has landed four out of the top five Massachusetts prospects.
2) Retention: A few of our players, particularly in the 2014 class were recruited heavily by the powerhouses after committing to BC (notably, Landry, Outlow, and Wade). Landry decommitted after he was offered by several big schools. Most on these boards doubted he would ever step foot on BC. The staff deserves a ton of credit for getting Landry to sign with BC.
3) Transfers: Landing Patchan, Murphy, and Silberman was fantastic. Obviously this has to do with Florida connections, but still very impressive and a testament to the types of relationships Addazio builds. These guys made an immediate impact for BC.

Finally, I'm sick and tired of the we are what we are or we'll never compete for a National Title shit. Not long ago BC was in back-to-back ACC championships and ranked as high as #2 nationally. I think some have become out of touch with our potential after Spaz ran the program to the ground. Ordinarily a seven win season is very disappointing, but considering what Addazio has been able to do with this program so far in such a short time gives plenty of reason for optimism.

[HJS]

Finally, I'm sick and tired of the we are what we are or we'll never compete for a National Title shit. Not long ago BC was in back-to-back ACC championships and ranked as high as #2 nationally. I think some have become out of touch with our potential after Spaz ran the program to the ground. Ordinarily a seven win season is very disappointing, but considering what Addazio has been able to do with this program so far in such a short time gives plenty of reason for optimism.

The factories need elite talent. Their model is to pump-and-dump/use-and-abuse kids as much as possible to win the most games possible each and every year. There is no rebuilding... there is no player development and there sure as hell ain't any concern about their academic well-being. They need recruits who are ready to contribute immediately (which is really how these recruiting rankings judge kids). With very few exceptions, they are not going to waste time and resources developing a player (mainly because they recruited the one ahead of him and will recruit the one behind him to already be developed). I find these schools to have incredibly uneven results on a year-to-year basis.

As is not a surprise to anyone, BC has never lived and never will live in that space. BC's model is to get talented kids who are unfinished products. The hope is that, over time, they will develop into excellent players and that some will ultimately be even better than the elite players the factories celebrate on signing day. That development not only includes off-season training and on-field coaching... it also involves aspects of student life (the better they are adjusted off-the-field, the better they can perform on it). BC will certainly look to supplement these unfinished products with ready-made athletes (like Alston (who people selectively seem to forget out), Hilliman, Outlow, etc.). Ultimately, our most successful recruiting classes have had a healthy mix of both. Not many schools follow this model (Stan, NW, DU, ND, Vandy, WF). But, those who do can compete quite regularly (and occasionally at an elite level) when it works.

There is a third model that should be mentioned. That involves recruiting specific players to fit a system. This model actually works surprisingly well, but programs fail spectacularly when the coach leaves (unless a new coach with the same philosophy takes over).

[claver2010]

like Alston (who people selectively seem to forget out)

maybe that's because our old OC had a habit of doing the same thing

[twballgame9]

like Alston (who people selectively seem to forget out)

maybe that's because our old OC had a habit of doing the same thing

Not to mention that pretty much everyone has mentioned him in this thread. Which is the joke, I think.

[tallsy]

This whole thing is a farce. I say we swoop in.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/fsu-scholarship-in-limbo-for-recruit-named-in-kend/nj36R/

[Logitano]

I have always been of the belief that the rankings are skewered towards the factories. For instance if Bc signs a kid who is a 3star, he will stay a 3 star. If ND signs him, a lot of those kids will get bumped to 4 stars, just because ND signed him. I usually look at a recruits other offers in evaluating where he should be ranked as an incoming freshman. The following is a review of other offers that our recruits had. It continues to stun me every year how many BC recruits have so few other power five offers: Here goes:

RECRUITS WITH MULTIPLE POWER 5 OFFERS:

1. Zach Allen: Great flip by Dazz. Other offers: UConn, NW, Pitt, Rutg, Syr, Ucla, UVA.

2. Mehdi El Attrach: Other offers: Duke, Louisville, NW, Rutg, Syr, Wake

3.Tanner Karafa: Other offers: Kentucky, UVA, VT

4. Wyatt Knopfke : Other offers: Kentucky, Miami, UCF

5. Jimmy Martin: Other offers: Cincy, Duke, S. Fla.

6. Wyatt Ray:(nice hold by Dazz) Other offers: Indiana, Louisville, Minny, Cincy, Syr, WF

7. Elijah Robinson: other offers: Cincy, UConn, MSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, UVA

8. Michael Walker: Other offers: Arizona, S. Fla, UCF.

9. Chris Garrison: other offers: Maryland, Syracuse


RECRUITS WITH ONE OTHER POWER FIVE OFFER:

10. Nolan Borgensen: Maryland. Also, Buffalo, Delaware, Maine, Monmouth, UNH, Temple

11. Jake Burt: UVA

12.Sharrieff Grice: Rutgers: Also, Fordham, Umass, UNH

13.Aaron Monteiro: Iowa: Also, UConn, Umass

14. Anthony Palazzolo: Pitt: Also, UConn.

15.Jeff Smith: Wisconsin, Also, Akron, Army


RECRUITS WITH NO OTHER POWER 5 OFFERS:

16. Lukas Denis: Holy Cross, Umass

17. Ben Glines: Akron, Toledo, W. Mich

18.Jordan Gowens: Stony Brook, Toledo

19. William Harris: UConn, Old Dominion

20. Davon Jones: no other offers

21. Chris Lidstrom: Old Dominion

22:Chase Pankey: Ball State, Marshall

23: John Philipps: no other offers

24: Ray Smith: SD St, Air Force, Navy

25: Taj Amir Torres: UConn, Umass.

It's worth mentioning that many people were extremely high on Gowins before his senior season. Said that the SEC would come calling with a strong senior season, but he got injured. There's a reason we took him in so early in the process and truly didn't recruit another.

EDIT: Found an example

Todderick Hunt ‏@TodderickHunt Apr 3

Congrats 2 Jordan Gowins @Destined_23 on his commitment 2 #BostonCollege. If he'd played in a football state, he'd have 20 offers by now.

This. Gowins is a beast and if he had played more this past season we would have sweated out a lot of interest from other power 5 schools.

[MF73-Eleazar]

possible that gowins redshirts, what with Willis, Rouse, Hilliman, Outlow and Wilson still listed as RBs?

[twballgame9]

TRE when do they have to declare that?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

TRE when do they have to declare that?

i can never remember whether redshirt declaration day is august 1 or august 15.

the rev had a good post about that... let me see if i can find it

EDIT - found it...viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14715&start=7

I'm pretty sure that as soon as daz took over, he stood on a specially constructed platform in the quad, unfurled an old-timey scroll and made the pronouncement:

"Yea and verily, on this day, in the presence of Vicar Leahy and the LORD, it shall be declared that hereafter, Sylvia's shirt shall be evermore considered red. And thusly, he shall don the red shirt from this day until the date is on year henceforth. Save for the wretched fire of Satan's burning touch, the red shirt of ineligibility should not and, forsooth, cannot be removed until the harvest returns and the tall grass is once again laid bare by the plowman's scythe. And lo, one year from this day, the red shirt shall be retroceded unto me, rendering said squire eligible for play on the foot-ball field. And pay heed, lest ye forget, gentle Bostonians, the words of Brother Myles: 'Ye have but five years to complete four.' Amen."

[eagletx]

Finally, I'm sick and tired of the we are what we are or we'll never compete for a National Title shit. Not long ago BC was in back-to-back ACC championships and ranked as high as #2 nationally. I think some have become out of touch with our potential after Spaz ran the program to the ground. Ordinarily a seven win season is very disappointing, but considering what Addazio has been able to do with this program so far in such a short time gives plenty of reason for optimism.

The factories need elite talent. Their model is to pump-and-dump/use-and-abuse kids as much as possible to win the most games possible each and every year. There is no rebuilding... there is no player development and there sure as hell ain't any concern about their academic well-being. They need recruits who are ready to contribute immediately (which is really how these recruiting rankings judge kids). With very few exceptions, they are not going to waste time and resources developing a player (mainly because they recruited the one ahead of him and will recruit the one behind him to already be developed). I find these schools to have incredibly uneven results on a year-to-year basis.

As is not a surprise to anyone, BC has never lived and never will live in that space. BC's model is to get talented kids who are unfinished products. The hope is that, over time, they will develop into excellent players and that some will ultimately be even better than the elite players the factories celebrate on signing day. That development not only includes off-season training and on-field coaching... it also involves aspects of student life (the better they are adjusted off-the-field, the better they can perform on it). BC will certainly look to supplement these unfinished products with ready-made athletes (like Alston (who people selectively seem to forget out), Hilliman, Outlow, etc.). Ultimately, our most successful recruiting classes have had a healthy mix of both. Not many schools follow this model (Stan, NW, DU, ND, Vandy, WF). But, those who do can compete quite regularly (and occasionally at an elite level) when it works.

There is a third model that should be mentioned. That involves recruiting specific players to fit a system. This model actually works surprisingly well, but programs fail spectacularly when the coach leaves (unless a new coach with the same philosophy takes over).

Interesting post. Just curious: which programs would you include in the "use and abuse" grouping? Ultimately, that is a slam of the coaching (or more to the point, lack of coaching) at such places. Would it follow therefore that such places would lag behind in supplying ready talent to the NFL?

[HJS]

Finally, I'm sick and tired of the we are what we are or we'll never compete for a National Title shit. Not long ago BC was in back-to-back ACC championships and ranked as high as #2 nationally. I think some have become out of touch with our potential after Spaz ran the program to the ground. Ordinarily a seven win season is very disappointing, but considering what Addazio has been able to do with this program so far in such a short time gives plenty of reason for optimism.

The factories need elite talent. Their model is to pump-and-dump/use-and-abuse kids as much as possible to win the most games possible each and every year. There is no rebuilding... there is no player development and there sure as hell ain't any concern about their academic well-being. They need recruits who are ready to contribute immediately (which is really how these recruiting rankings judge kids). With very few exceptions, they are not going to waste time and resources developing a player (mainly because they recruited the one ahead of him and will recruit the one behind him to already be developed). I find these schools to have incredibly uneven results on a year-to-year basis.

As is not a surprise to anyone, BC has never lived and never will live in that space. BC's model is to get talented kids who are unfinished products. The hope is that, over time, they will develop into excellent players and that some will ultimately be even better than the elite players the factories celebrate on signing day. That development not only includes off-season training and on-field coaching... it also involves aspects of student life (the better they are adjusted off-the-field, the better they can perform on it). BC will certainly look to supplement these unfinished products with ready-made athletes (like Alston (who people selectively seem to forget out), Hilliman, Outlow, etc.). Ultimately, our most successful recruiting classes have had a healthy mix of both. Not many schools follow this model (Stan, NW, DU, ND, Vandy, WF). But, those who do can compete quite regularly (and occasionally at an elite level) when it works.

There is a third model that should be mentioned. That involves recruiting specific players to fit a system. This model actually works surprisingly well, but programs fail spectacularly when the coach leaves (unless a new coach with the same philosophy takes over).

Interesting post. Just curious: which programs would you include in the "use and abuse" grouping? Ultimately, that is a slam of the coaching (or more to the point, lack of coaching) at such places. Would it follow therefore that such places would lag behind in supplying ready talent to the NFL?

I don't follow where you are going. The pump-and-dump schools are generally the factories. The coaches there are all about coaching to win games (just like the NFL). They don't want to be bothered teaching football or babysitting the players. But, since they get the freak athletes, they tend to continue to be freaks that the NFL drools over in the combines. Some examples... Jameis Winston, Vic Beasley, Jadeveon Clowney, Mario Edwards, Jr... these guys were all top 5 overall recruits. All were very good in college and were (or will be) top NFL draft picks. However, NONE of them got better while in college. In fact, you could argue that each regressed the longer they were on campus.

[twballgame9]

I'm actually 100% with HJS on this one. Makes perfect sense.

[eepstein0]

Louisville has graduated to this level with the character of athlete they recruit

[eagle9903]

Louisville has graduated to this level with the character of athlete they recruit

Louisville isn't capable of getting these kind of players the first time around, they need to wait for the felony and then recruit as a transfer.

[eepstein0]

Louisville has graduated to this level with the character of athlete they recruit

Louisville isn't capable of getting these kind of players the first time around, they need to wait for the felony and then recruit as a transfer.

Precisely

[Corporal Funishment]

I don't follow where you are going. The pump-and-dump schools are generally the factories. The coaches there are all about coaching to win games (just like the NFL). They don't want to be bothered teaching football or babysitting the players. But, since they get the freak athletes, they tend to continue to be freaks that the NFL drools over in the combines. Some examples... Jameis Winston, Vic Beasley, Jadeveon Clowney, Mario Edwards, Jr... these guys were all top 5 overall recruits. All were very good in college and were (or will be) top NFL draft picks. However, NONE of them got better while in college. In fact, you could argue that each regressed the longer they were on campus.

This is the definition of a false dichotomy and I can't believe people are agreeing instead of calling you out. First of all, "coaching to win games" would include "teaching football," wouldn't it? I'll accept the weak argument that to some degree allowing younger players to learn on the job could be teaching at the expense of winning, but you are basically arguing that a staff chooses to do one or the other, as if the goal is either to develop players or win games. Every team wants to do both. Developing your players leads to winning games. If somebody like Clowney didn't get better in college it isn't because the coaches didn't bother teaching him how to play football, and especially not because teaching and developing players is somehow a subordinate goal or inimical to winning games.

[twballgame9]

I don't follow where you are going. The pump-and-dump schools are generally the factories. The coaches there are all about coaching to win games (just like the NFL). They don't want to be bothered teaching football or babysitting the players. But, since they get the freak athletes, they tend to continue to be freaks that the NFL drools over in the combines. Some examples... Jameis Winston, Vic Beasley, Jadeveon Clowney, Mario Edwards, Jr... these guys were all top 5 overall recruits. All were very good in college and were (or will be) top NFL draft picks. However, NONE of them got better while in college. In fact, you could argue that each regressed the longer they were on campus.

This is the definition of a false dichotomy and I can't believe people are agreeing instead of calling you out. First of all, "coaching to win games" would include "teaching football," wouldn't it? I'll accept the weak argument that to some degree allowing younger players to learn on the job could be teaching at the expense of winning, but you are basically arguing that a staff chooses to do one or the other, as if the goal is either to develop players or win games. Every team wants to do both. Developing your players leads to winning games. If somebody like Clowney didn't get better in college it isn't because the coaches didn't bother teaching him how to play football, and especially not because teaching and developing players is somehow a subordinate goal or inimical to winning games.

This is all you HJS. You're still right though.

[HJS]

I don't follow where you are going. The pump-and-dump schools are generally the factories. The coaches there are all about coaching to win games (just like the NFL). They don't want to be bothered teaching football or babysitting the players. But, since they get the freak athletes, they tend to continue to be freaks that the NFL drools over in the combines. Some examples... Jameis Winston, Vic Beasley, Jadeveon Clowney, Mario Edwards, Jr... these guys were all top 5 overall recruits. All were very good in college and were (or will be) top NFL draft picks. However, NONE of them got better while in college. In fact, you could argue that each regressed the longer they were on campus.

This is the definition of a false dichotomy and I can't believe people are agreeing instead of calling you out. First of all, "coaching to win games" would include "teaching football," wouldn't it? I'll accept the weak argument that to some degree allowing younger players to learn on the job could be teaching at the expense of winning, but you are basically arguing that a staff chooses to do one or the other, as if the goal is either to develop players or win games. Every team wants to do both. Developing your players leads to winning games. If somebody like Clowney didn't get better in college it isn't because the coaches didn't bother teaching him how to play football, and especially not because teaching and developing players is somehow a subordinate goal or inimical to winning games.

This is all you HJS. You're still right though.

It's not a false choice. It's not that coaches who pump-and-dump are forbidden to develop players. It's just an observation that they generally do not. They seem to feel much more comfortable grabbing a Mario Edwards, Jr. than spending 4 years growing an otherwise CMU-level recruit into JJ Watts.

That doesn't mean they are trying not to win. It means that they feel they have a better chance to win with a ready-made player than they do hoping that a raw player reaches his untapped potential. Further, from their perspective, they may prefer the enhanced production over the course of the first 3 years of a Vic Beasley than the one final insanely dominant year of a Kiwi.

Nonetheless, the point remains that certain teams are historically much better at developing players (just like certain programs are much better at graduating players). It is their (perhaps only) path to success. As such, they put a premium on the player development side (while others put a premium on player performance). It probably best translates as to what they look for in their coaches (teachers or tacticians).

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

well - based on mo'j's not oversimplified position on this... i say we go out and recruit football ready guys that don't need to be developed so that we can have a really good team right now. we should immediately stop recruiting the kids that need to be taught/developed.

it's so easy, it should be a firable offense that daz hasn't adopted this model already

[twballgame9]

well - based on mo'j's not oversimplified position on this... i say we go out and recruit football ready guys that don't need to be developed so that we can have a really good team right now. we should immediately stop recruiting the kids that need to be taught/developed.

it's so easy, it should be a firable offense that daz hasn't adopted this model already

The whole reason that this is not a false dichotomy is that it is really not a choice for schools that develop players. They do so because they have to, as it is their only path to success.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

well - based on mo'j's not oversimplified position on this... i say we go out and recruit football ready guys that don't need to be developed so that we can have a really good team right now. we should immediately stop recruiting the kids that need to be taught/developed.

it's so easy, it should be a firable offense that daz hasn't adopted this model already

The whole reason that this is not a false dichotomy is that it is really not a choice for schools that develop players. They do so because they have to, as it is their only path to success.

so are we a mario edwards jr or a jj watts? i think daz should choose to be a mario edwards jr

[twballgame9]

well - based on mo'j's not oversimplified position on this... i say we go out and recruit football ready guys that don't need to be developed so that we can have a really good team right now. we should immediately stop recruiting the kids that need to be taught/developed.

it's so easy, it should be a firable offense that daz hasn't adopted this model already

The whole reason that this is not a false dichotomy is that it is really not a choice for schools that develop players. They do so because they have to, as it is their only path to success.

so are we a mario edwards jr or a jj watts? i think daz should choose to be a mario edwards jr

More like Cole Beasley

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

well - based on mo'j's not oversimplified position on this... i say we go out and recruit football ready guys that don't need to be developed so that we can have a really good team right now. we should immediately stop recruiting the kids that need to be taught/developed.

it's so easy, it should be a firable offense that daz hasn't adopted this model already

The whole reason that this is not a false dichotomy is that it is really not a choice for schools that develop players. They do so because they have to, as it is their only path to success.

so are we a mario edwards jr or a jj watts? i think daz should choose to be a mario edwards jr

More like Cole Beasley

as long is he's not a steve aponavicius

[Corporal Funishment]

So Florida State grabs Mario Edwards, then what? He's exempt from all practices and film study because Florida State doesn't want to take time developing him? Here's a thought for you: maybe you see more improvement from players at non-factory schools because they're recruiting players that are less of a finished product to begin with. Any school you have in mind that you think prefers to develop its players, I can assure you would be happy to take all of Florida State's ready-made players. They don't get kids like that because they are unable to recruit them.

[twballgame9]

So Florida State grabs Mario Edwards, then what? He's exempt from all practices and film study because Florida State doesn't want to take time developing him? Here's a thought for you: maybe you see more improvement from players at non-factory schools because they're recruiting players that are less of a finished product to begin with. Any school you have in mind that you think prefers to develop its players, I can assure you would be happy to take all of Florida State's ready-made players. They don't get kids like that because they are unable to recruit them.

So, what HJS said.

[Corporal Funishment]

So, what HJS said.

My contention is with the argument that teams which recruit good players aren't interested in developing them and teaching them football, especially in the context that they are, instead, interested in winning.

[twballgame9]

So, what HJS said.

My contention is with the argument that teams which recruit good players aren't interested in developing them and teaching them football, especially in the context that they are, instead, interested in winning.

I don't care enough to bite, sorry. I'm deferring to HJS

[NotoriousOrange]

So, what HJS said.

My contention is with the argument that teams which recruit good players aren't interested in developing them and teaching them football, especially in the context that they are, instead, interested in winning.

HJS and Teddy.

Are Nick Saban or Urban Meyer poor at teaching fundamentals or offensive/defensive schemes? Do they forbid their coaches from teaching them, you know, just because they have ready made kids?

Addazio (and his staff ) has been strong at developing offensive lineman at BC,Syracuse, Indiana and Temple. Was he forbidden to teach/develop at Fla and ND because they got the ready made kids? Or did he just say "fuck it - the kid's ready made - I ain't teaching that kid shit" Were the Pounceys, who were 2 star recruits entering Florida, ready made or did they develop?

Is Ndamukong Suh a good example of a kid who declined all 4 years he was in college?

[twballgame9]

So, what HJS said.

My contention is with the argument that teams which recruit good players aren't interested in developing them and teaching them football, especially in the context that they are, instead, interested in winning.

I don't care enough to bite, sorry. I'm deferring to HJS