2018 National 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.

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
14,970
3,547
1,743
Oklahoma City
#81
I'm not one of those who thinks that star rankings are the bible and I know there are many 4-5 star busts. I agree that Gundy has made OSU into a household name and he has done wonders with the average classes he brings in. I just figured that after years of success, he would be pulling in more top players. If he only signs kids who are "character" players then props to him, but not every Top 100 kid is a bad apple.
We have signed some ESPN top 300 kids recently in Tylan Wallace- you'll see him more at WR this year. He just couldnt' shine cuz of depth. Tylan was highest rated WR commit since Dez Bryant. ESPN had tylan rated as #11 best WR in nation. Stud recruit. We signed CJ Moore who everybody in the country wanted.

Signed Spencer Sanders who nearly everybody wanted-- Gatorade Texas High School player of year. Consensus 4 star. Flanagan was a 4 star safety by some services and 3 by others. Those are all great players and we sign good offensive players and 4 WR's every year. Rudolph was 4 star- so was Sanders 4 star.

It should only be time before we get some 4 stars on D like Flanagan. We certainly are quietly improving quality of depth on our roster and it shows in games against OU and others.
 
Nov 25, 2009
1,630
524
743
Kedah Malaysia
#82
We have signed some ESPN top 300 kids recently in Tylan Wallace- you'll see him more at WR this year. He just couldnt' shine cuz of depth. Tylan was highest rated WR commit since Dez Bryant. ESPN had tylan rated as #11 best WR in nation. Stud recruit. We signed CJ Moore who everybody in the country wanted.

Signed Spencer Sanders who nearly everybody wanted-- Gatorade Texas High School player of year. Consensus 4 star. Flanagan was a 4 star safety by some services and 3 by others. Those are all great players and we sign good offensive players and 4 WR's every year. Rudolph was 4 star- so was Sanders 4 star.

It should only be time before we get some 4 stars on D like Flanagan. We certainly are quietly improving quality of depth on our roster and it shows in games against OU and others.
Skill positions were usually given more stars than the LOS players.

We can offer and sign more stars and win the recruiting race by signing more than QBs and RBs, but we only need one of them at a time.

We need more bodies at LOS and LOS bodies especially the OLs need 2 or 3 years maturity to fill into their projections thus making them lower stars rating.

I am happy with the OL that we signed this year regardless of total stars we are getting considering our barren years recently.
 
Jun 4, 2014
845
647
143
Dallas, TX
#83
Skill positions were usually given more stars than the LOS players.

We can offer and sign more stars and win the recruiting race by signing more than QBs and RBs, but we only need one of them at a time.

We need more bodies at LOS and LOS bodies especially the OLs need 2 or 3 years maturity to fill into their projections thus making them lower stars rating.

I am happy with the OL that we signed this year regardless of total stars we are getting considering our barren years recently.
This guy gets it. Star rankings for skill positions (rb and wr) are a dime a dozen. Defense and LOS players are where they make the impact because of the nature of those positions. Everything is about reaction time and superior athleticism.

Scheme can get the skill players in space as long as they are marginally athletic.

Most times someone brings up a counter argument to the star system, they use a skill player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

PontiacPoke717

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Nov 24, 2014
3,645
3,233
243
29
Lavon, TX
#84
Recruiting is such a chicken and egg thing. Half the arguments are about how OSU can't compete for the NC because we sign higher ranked players. Then the other half argue that we can't sign ranked players because we don't win championships. Notice I said "signed" , because we certainly are recruiting them.
I'm willing to wager that a lot of people would have said (or did say) that when we were winning 7-8 games a year. Recruiting will improve greatly when OSU starts wing 10 games a year consistently. Well we have, but class rankings have not improved as much as most would have thought. In 2011 we had a great year and MOST everyone expected the 2012 class to be awesome.

I guess the bottom line, there is no quick fix or solution. I think it is a slow progression that I really feel will get better over more time. At least that is my hope
Just cheat like Baylor - not a price I want to pay.
 

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
14,970
3,547
1,743
Oklahoma City
#85
I'm by no means saying OSU should be in the Top 10 and they are fighting an uphill battle with OU in state. I just think that it should be better than middle 30's and middle of the pack in the Big 12. From the posts I've read on here, it seems like OSU doesn't care to improve because of budget allocation and personality traits. It's no skin off our back.
I'm with you on this Boomer. We don't always agree but we should be getting around 25 anyway. Just 8 or 9 spots higher. I will say the way Gundy recruits we tend to get 8 or 9 highly rated 3 star guys that tons of program want and do a great job evaluating that they play like 4 star. Then throw in the 3-- 4 star guys we get each class and boom. However, we agree that Gundy needs to improve recruiting some. I'm hopeful that on D- where it doesn't happen much that begins happening. We have had a bunch of 4 star WR's (Ateman, Wallace, Tyron Johnson is a 5 star transfer, Greenwood, CJ Moore, Curry) I could do on the number of 4 star WR's we do actually sign. At QBs 4 stars (Rudolph, JW Walsh, Kolar, Reid etc) 4 star RBs (Randle, Hubbard, Sims - 5 star) not to mention guys that really should have been 4 stars like Justice Hill and Kendall Hunter and Dantrell Savage.

It's defensively that we are limited on 4 stars (Richetti Jones, Justin Gilbert, Shaun Lewis, Markelle Martin, Xavier Lawson Kennedy, and some others but the number of 4 stars on D is more limited.

We did sign a 4 star safety by some services and stole at CB from TCU that is well thought of and signed some great athletes on D. I actually like this secondary class which is a start. That said again, I agree we need to start getting some more 4 star athletes on D, not just offense like we have been.
 
Last edited:

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
14,970
3,547
1,743
Oklahoma City
#86
Skill positions were usually given more stars than the LOS players.

We can offer and sign more stars and win the recruiting race by signing more than QBs and RBs, but we only need one of them at a time.

We need more bodies at LOS and LOS bodies especially the OLs need 2 or 3 years maturity to fill into their projections thus making them lower stars rating.

I am happy with the OL that we signed this year regardless of total stars we are getting considering our barren years recently.
Yes we signed a good line class. I like our oline class and it was needed. However, let's not act like there aren't 4 star O-lineman. There are. WE don't get many of them but that might start to change under Henson.
 

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
14,970
3,547
1,743
Oklahoma City
#88
Exactly some on here make excuses. I will say even though the 5 o-lineman we signed this year are all 3 stars. I really like them. Solid recruiting job by Henson. This might be the best total class of lineman we have signed in quite a while. Great size and have ability. Lots length and size. We did sign Tramonda Moore- bigtime lineman but he never made to campus. I think Henson will start to land a 4 star lineman in the next class or two.

Henson is our best o-lineman recruiter ever in my opinion. Wickline was not a great recruiter but good evaluator and could really develop lineman.
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
6,426
5,856
1,743
OKC
#90
Considering on a normal recruiting cycle most teams are looking at four to five guys, there are enough o-linemen in the top 300 to fill about 7 teams worth. That really doesn't seem like a lot.
No one team is going to get all top recruits at one position. The same could be said for WR, CB, etc. I'm just disputing the comment that the top rated recruits are skill players verses trench guys.
 

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
14,970
3,547
1,743
Oklahoma City
#91
This guy gets it. Star rankings for skill positions (rb and wr) are a dime a dozen. Defense and LOS players are where they make the impact because of the nature of those positions. Everything is about reaction time and superior athleticism.

Scheme can get the skill players in space as long as they are marginally athletic.

Most times someone brings up a counter argument to the star system, they use a skill player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No they aren't a dime a dozen. Bull. Some are 4 star guys. Most are 3 star guys. It's fine if you want to downplay stars. No issue with that was they don't mean everything as we have had guys like Kendall Hunter, Justice HIll who are 3 stars that are bigtime and obviously underrated, like James Washington - 2 star. We have gotten guys like that but most that turn out are better are 3 star guys who are good, solid recruits and that's mainly what we get.
That said, JW Walsh, Dez Bryant, Richetti Jones, Markelle Martin, Joseph Randle, Justin Gilbert, Perrish Cox, and I could go on and on were all 4 stars. Yes we have recruited alot of 3 star guys like Okung and others that turn out to be bigtime and we are good at that, I agree.

However, it's equally foolish to pretend that star rankings have no bearing on team success. I try to be fair about it. Granted most 3 star players out of high schools are really good high school players and well thought of. Which of course is what we mostly get, Sprinkled in with a few 4 star highly rated guys each recruiting class.

Just need to keep improving that number, especially on Defense.
 
Jun 9, 2008
403
95
1,578
The Water
#93
No they aren't a dime a dozen. Bull. Some are 4 star guys. Most are 3 star guys. It's fine if you want to downplay stars. No issue with that was they don't mean everything as we have had guys like Kendall Hunter, Justice HIll who are 3 stars that are bigtime and obviously underrated, like James Washington - 2 star. We have gotten guys like that but most that turn out are better are 3 star guys who are good, solid recruits and that's mainly what we get.
That said, JW Walsh, Dez Bryant, Richetti Jones, Markelle Martin, Joseph Randle, Justin Gilbert, Perrish Cox, and I could go on and on were all 4 stars. Yes we have recruited alot of 3 star guys like Okung and others that turn out to be bigtime and we are good at that, I agree.

However, it's equally foolish to pretend that star rankings have no bearing on team success. I try to be fair about it. Granted most 3 star players out of high schools are really good high school players and well thought of. Which of course is what we mostly get, Sprinkled in with a few 4 star highly rated guys each recruiting class.

Just need to keep improving that number, especially on Defense.
I think you missed his point. What he is saying it’s easier to find diamond in the rough in skill players opposed to dline and oline. The game is won in the trenches and the best teams Bama, Clemson, Georgia have 5 star lineman on both sides. Skill player wise I think OSU matches up well with almost any team.
 
Jun 4, 2014
845
647
143
Dallas, TX
#94
I think you missed his point. What he is saying it’s easier to find diamond in the rough in skill players opposed to dline and oline. The game is won in the trenches and the best teams Bama, Clemson, Georgia have 5 star lineman on both sides. Skill player wise I think OSU matches up well with almost any team.
Exactly. Defense and linemen are affected by strength and athleticism more than any of the skill positions. The star system mostly measures athleticism, not football IQ and the ability to run a playbook.

Any good OC can get his guys the ball in space. A DC can’t make his guys run faster and jump higher. Strength and conditioning will only get you so far, at some point the genetics take over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jobob85

Alcoholistic Sage
A/V Subscriber
Mar 11, 2009
20,434
26,199
743
#95
No one team is going to get all top recruits at one position. The same could be said for WR, CB, etc. I'm just disputing the comment that the top rated recruits are skill players verses trench guys.
Nope but
Alabama
Texas
Clemson
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
FSU
Michigan

You get the picture. Doesn’t take that many top tier teams to deplete the cupboards.
 
Nov 25, 2009
1,630
524
743
Kedah Malaysia
#96
At the top of the list. there are 13 five stars players

Only 1 OL make the cut and he is last at 13th.
No DT listed as 5 stars. Many DEs, the most glamorous position on the LOS to showcase speed. rushing skills and athleticism

Top of the list are the two QBs accompanied by skill positions WR and CBs in between the aforementioned DEs

The ranking are somewhat skills and athleticism bias,
 
Aug 21, 2009
586
406
613
Edmond
#97
The fact is there are a lot more 5'10 to 6'2 guys between 165lbs and 210lbs on the planet than there are 6'2 to 6'7 300lbs guys. It is simply a numbers game.

Finding a guy that is 6'5 300lbs that likes football more than video games, can make grades, isn't a troublemaker, and can walk and chew gum is a challenge.
 
Jun 9, 2008
403
95
1,578
The Water
#98
The fact is there are a lot more 5'10 to 6'2 guys between 165lbs and 210lbs on the planet than there are 6'2 to 6'7 300lbs guys. It is simply a numbers game.

Finding a guy that is 6'5 300lbs that likes football more than video games, can make grades, isn't a troublemaker, and can walk and chew gum is a challenge.
The games always been about who’s better and more physical in the trenches. OU wasn’t that superior than OSU this year. The close game itself proved it but OU is light years ahead of OSU on the o-line. OU gets better players in the trenches. Just look at their o-line class this year. OSU o-line class is great but OU’s is still better. Until OSU can get 5* lineman on both sides I believe OSU has hit it’s peak and until that happens OSU will have to rely on turnovers by the better teams.
 
Aug 21, 2009
586
406
613
Edmond
#99
The games always been about who’s better and more physical in the trenches. OU wasn’t that superior than OSU this year. The close game itself proved it but OU is light years ahead of OSU on the o-line. OU gets better players in the trenches. Just look at their o-line class this year. OSU o-line class is great but OU’s is still better. Until OSU can get 5* lineman on both sides I believe OSU has hit it’s peak and until that happens OSU will have to rely on turnovers by the better teams.
I agree with most of what you said until you refer to 5* and "lightyears" is a little bit of a stretch. We don't need stars we need football players.
 
Jun 9, 2008
403
95
1,578
The Water
I agree with most of what you said until you refer to 5* and "lightyears" is a little bit of a stretch. We don't need stars we need football players.
I agree with most of what you said until you refer to 5* and "lightyears" is a little bit of a stretch. We don't need stars we need football players.
OSU needs 5* players. You can have “football players” in some areas but against elite teams with 5* lineman on both sides of the ball you aren’t going to win many games. Talent will always win out. There’s a reason Bama, Clemson, and Ohio State have always been in the playoffs or contending. Look at Georgia’s recent success in wins and recruiting. Do you honestly believe UGA is going to just take “ball players” and say no to 5* recruits? Everyone loves a feel good story about an under recruited successful college player but recruiting rankings matter and they always will. Fancy schemes and relying on turnovers will only get you so far.