Recruiting, Offensive Systems, & Wins

[WarEagle231 52]

As I look at the list of top 25 teams I can't help but notice how many teams are listed, that are sub 25 in recruiting.

Teams like TCU, Iowa, Boise State, Cincinnati, GTech, Brigham Young, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas Tech, Central Mich, Clemson, West Virginia....

I know that some of these teams have had higher recruiting classes but many are typically terrible.  I believe that development of the Spread Offense and in GTech's case the triple option, has allowed these teams to compete against better athletes. Most of these teams will never get a chance to compete for a National championship due to a rigged system.  However it is great to see the underdogs do so well. 

This brings me to Auburn.  There is no doubt that Auburn can compete for a National Championship if we continue to recruit top 5-10 classes and get players that fit our system. I know there is a study that shows a correlation between top ranked classes and national championships, but having the #1 class is not a requirement. The key is finding the right recruits for your system.

So...with Auburn bringing in Cam Newton and I believe a QB that perfectly fits our System.  What position/s do you see this year that Auburn needs to target in order to run our Offensive/Defensive systems the way they should be run.  In other words do you see a gap in our players that is keeping AU from fully implementing our Offensive and Defensive schemes?  Or a position that would allow either scheme to really become dominate?

[guerra aguila 0]

As I look at the list of top 25 teams I can't help but notice how many teams are listed, that are sub 25 in recruiting.

Teams like TCU, Iowa, Boise State, Cincinnati, GTech, Brigham Young, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas Tech, Central Mich, Clemson, West Virginia....

I know that some of these teams have had higher recruiting classes but many are typically terrible.  I believe that development of the Spread Offense and in GTech's case the triple option, has allowed these teams to compete against better athletes. Most of these teams will never get a chance to compete for a National championship due to a rigged system.  However it is great to see the underdogs do so well. 

This brings me to Auburn.  There is no doubt that Auburn can compete for a National Championship if we continue to recruit top 5-10 classes and get players that fit our system. I know there is a study that shows a correlation between top ranked classes and national championships, but having the #1 class is not a requirement. The key is finding the right recruits for your system.

So...with Auburn bringing in Cam Newton and I believe a QB that perfectly fits our System.  What position/s do you see this year that Auburn needs to target in order to run our Offensive/Defensive systems the way they should be run.  In other words do you see a gap in our players that is keeping AU from fully implementing our Offensive and Defensive schemes?  Or a position that would allow either scheme to really become dominate?

I do agree that its important to find the right players for a specific system.

[Mikey 16,777]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

[WarEagle231 52]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

Unless Your TCU

[texastiger09 0]

Our recruiting will pay off and we will compete for a NC once we are firing on all cylinders on our defense, special teams and offense.  Step 1....recruit talented players and create depth. 

[Mikey 16,777]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

Unless Your TCU

TCU has talent superior to the opposition they play. If they were in a BCS conference their record wouldn't be so gaudy.

[rollsroyce5 0]

That's a very good question. On O I think we're already well on our way to having guys that perfectly fit our system. My main question is about the defensive personnel. I can't really get a feel for what type of defender coaches Chizik and Roof want as prototypical players for their scheme. When CGC started as our DC we had bigger LBs DBs & DLs that of course he didn't recruit. While our defenses were solid in '02 and '03 and had some better individual players, particularly at LB, the defense as a whole was not nearly as good as the simply dominant '04 team, where we started integrating smaller quick defenders. This trend towards smaller quicker defenders continued after CGC left AU for texas so I'm not sure of how much of the desire for smaller defenders was his vs. CTT.

Looking at last years class, it seems as though CGC might prefer bigger guys that are just phenoms as far as athleticism goes, but quite frankly everyone does. But getting back to the original question, I think we need more bodies at LB and elite DBs and DTs in order to run the system. Offense will be fine.

[PA Tiger 0]

Teams like Boise and TCU do not play hard games week in and week out, they get free wins week after week, get ranked high then complain how they are undefeated and cant play for the title.  Then they get up for one game and anybody can beat anybody once and claim they got shafted.  If they played in a major conference they would be 8-4 when in their current conference they would be undefeated, so they can get away with poor recruiting classes

[TerritorialTigers 0]

We have begun to recruit players who fit Chizik's football system.  We just have to add more depth in certain areas.  I am not worried about recruiting honestly, I know the coaches will get the players who make sense for AU.  They may not be the most decorated or highly sought after reruits but they are just as good.  I kind of like it that way.

[Josh99045 0]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

Love that quote, Mike. Absolutely correct. I don't feel you have to all of the 4 and 5 star players, but it's important to consider why they're rated that high.

[WarEagle231 52]

Teams like Boise and TCU do not play hard games week in and week out, they get free wins week after week, get ranked high then complain how they are undefeated and cant play for the title.  Then they get up for one game and anybody can beat anybody once and claim they got shafted.  If they played in a major conference they would be 8-4 when in their current conference they would be undefeated, so they can get away with poor recruiting classes

I can see this argument and I do believe that if Auburn was in the same conference as Utah or TCU they would dominate.  However, Utah did beat a very good Alabama team that went 12-0 in the regular season.  I believe saying they just "get up" for one game is a disservice to their program. TCU and Utah have both put players in the first round of the NFL draft the last few years...Just because these programs do not have the opportunity to prove themselves consistently doesn't mean they are just average teams.  Do you think Auburn would put TCU, UTAH, or Boise State on the schedule?  Not many top teams are willing to risk losing to these dangerous programs so in some ways the deck is stacked against them. 

[audodger 0]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

I have heard this several times, and I couldn't disagree more.  I wish it were true, but it just doesn't make sense mathematically.  If you were to graph the quality of recruiting classes vs. the ranking of recruiting classes, you would get an exponential curve.  In other words the difference between a class ranked 1st and 2nd is typically going to be much greater than the difference between a class ranked 24th and 25th.

[stealthyfan 124]

Blue chips are rated such for a reason, that being pass performance and PROJECTED abilities at the next level(s).

The difference is the staff preparation and game day coaching, besides league competition. Talent cannot make up for bad coaching - see Tennessee. On the other hand, Nutt was always an overachiever IMO.

[Magnolia and College 1]

Teams like Boise and TCU do not play hard games week in and week out, they get free wins week after week, get ranked high then complain how they are undefeated and cant play for the title.  Then they get up for one game and anybody can beat anybody once and claim they got shafted.  If they played in a major conference they would be 8-4 when in their current conference they would be undefeated, so they can get away with poor recruiting classes

I can see this argument and I do believe that if Auburn was in the same conference as Utah or TCU they would dominate.  However, Utah did beat a very good Alabama team that went 12-0 in the regular season.  I believe saying they just "get up" for one game is a disservice to their program. TCU and Utah have both put players in the first round of the NFL draft the last few years...Just because these programs do not have the opportunity to prove themselves consistently doesn't mean they are just average teams.  Do you think Auburn would put TCU, UTAH, or Boise State on the schedule?  Not many top teams are willing to risk losing to these dangerous programs so in some ways the deck is stacked against them. 

Although I agree that they aren't just average teams they still don't have to "show up" mentally and physically as much as some in other conferences week in and week out. Utah may have just been better that year than Alabama (I actually don't think that Boise team was better than the Oklahoma team in the bowl game), but I still think that's more of the exception than the rule. There's a difference in playing your equal once a week and playing someone you outmatch significantly almost every week. Our starters were resting most of the game against Furman (no offense Furman) but not at all against Alabama.

[Magnolia and College 1]

With regard to recruiting, I'd say whether a school finishes 1st, 5th, or 9th makes very little difference.

If a school consistently finishes 35th, there is a big difference between what they can accomplish and what a team with consistent top-ten finishes can accomplish.

"Nobody can win consistently without superior talent. Some can't win with it, but nobody can win without it."~~~John Wooden

I have heard this several times, and I couldn't disagree more.  I wish it were true, but it just doesn't make sense mathematically.  If you were to graph the quality of recruiting classes vs. the ranking of recruiting classes, you would get an exponential curve.  In other words the difference between a class ranked 1st and 2nd is typically going to be much greater than the difference between a class ranked 24th and 25th.

Even if that's true, I think the point is that #1 class may or may not beat #2. But #1, in a higher percentage of cases, will beat #24 and #25.