It's not about the stars. It's about development.

[Rockydawg]

I know it a has probably been addressed ad nauseum, but can anybody name me a national title champion in the last twenty years that didn't have a top five recruiting class? Not a rhetorical question. I'm just wondering if such exists. I still hear the "player development" argument from more fans than I care to (usually baby boomers). And honestly: I'm sick of it. If we don't learn how to get more than one blue chipper every three years, we'll never get there. Y'all know I'm telling the truth.

 

[msstate7]

In the last 20 years, there have also been a bunch of teams to have top 5 classes and not sniff a natty.

I think shooting for top 5 classes year-in, year-out isn't a reasonable goal. I think we need to keep knocking down classes like last year and RS... Hopefully having an advantage in age and experience will level the field some with superior talent. We've got work to do though... This year we have to finish strong recruiting (AJ, Simmons, jones, lashley, r. Davis, and gooden). We can't have off years in recruiting though... Gotta stay in the 15-20 range

 

[Rockydawg]

You did not answer my question.

All you've basically told me is that WITH a top 5 class there is no guarantee you'll win a title. And WITHOUT one, you are guaranteed you won't.

 

[aTotal360]

We are the KState of the SEC.

 

[WayboDawg]

A bit over 20 years, but I guarantee you the Washington Huskies of 1991, Colorado/Georgia Tech 1990, and BYU in 1984 didn't have top 5 recruiting classes during those years. Also, Boise State, Utah, and TCU have done a lot with a little over the past 10 years.

 

[57stratdawg]

You gotta have both.

 

[Rockydawg]

I'd be quite happy with both.

 

[Crayon_Eater]

Since 1998, every team that has won a national title, except for Oklahoma in 2000, has had at least 2 top ten classes in the 4 years prior to winning the NC.

So there's that.

 

[mcdawg22]

Auburn. No top 5 classes. Had a #6 in 2010.

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

Dave Bartoo with College Football Matrix bases just about all of his analysis on this. And he seems to be right on most of it.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Not disagreeing, but how do you propose we go about procuring Top 5 classes each year?

 

[Bulldogg31]

Again, how do you start pulling Top 5 classes? And keep in mind, nobody gets a prestige bump when they get a State offer, like they do when Bama, Florida, LSU, etc gives them an offer.

I agree we must upgrade talent in order to win games like yesterday, but how do you do it? I am CERTAIN that the staff we have in place is working their asses off to upgrade our recruits. I also believe we're doing the "gray area" work that has to be done to attract better talent...and I do believe our talent level is WAY beyond where we were 10 years ago.

But if you want Top 5, you're going to have to beat Bama and LSU for kids. We wanted Marlon Humphrey and gave him a run, but couldn't get him. We'd love a Derrick Henry or a Fournette, but we're not on their list.

How then?

 

[Beretta.sixpack]

yep. 80% of SEC games are won with the team with highest recruiting rankings.

Dave Bartoo with College Football Matrix bases just about all of his analysis on this. And he seems to be right on most of it.

That is what I heard him say....not sure on the time frame....but sounds about right.

 

[KeyserSoze1999]

At the current time we will need "player development" to compete with SEC teams, granted we won't beat the upper echelon teams. The key will be stringing together winning seasons and bowl games and building higher recruiting classes. These higher ranked classes will allow us the chance to knock off the LSUs and BAMAs.

I know this takes more time and I am not a patient person either---but I really believe if MSU tried to do the same awesome quick recruiting MAGIC$ that Ole Miss has done that the NCAA would give us the Death Penalty within 2 weeks time. So MSU is going to have to build it slowly.

 

[mcdawg22]

Then what are we done my in basketball?

 

[KeyserSoze1999]

Kinda different, in Football you can hide weaknesses better. Got a Bad secondary? Blitz, put pressure on the QB and play soft zones. Got a bad running game? Focus on the passing game and use screens and swing passes instead of inside runs.

But in Basketball with just 5 players on court at one time weaknesses are glaring. Slow on defense? Well give lots of space and hope they don't knock down tons of jump shots. Can't shoot 3 pointers well? Try to go inside and just pray they don't play a zone defense.

 

[BossDawg78]

It's about stars AND development.

 

[Sutterkane]

I think we can find a healthy medium between the two. We can continue to look for diamonds in the rough but we've got to land more top tier, near-guaranteed talent players. Mostly on the O-Line too.

The last REALLY good lineman we had was Derek Sherrod. And when we had him pushing people around, we got **** done, especially running the ball. Our problems while he was on the team were a lack of a true passer in 09-10 and Croom before that.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Wonder what would happen if we found the best O-line coach/recruiter in the country and just threw a bunch of money at him to come to Starkville. Someone with lots of connections. Sort of the Ben Howland of Offensive Line coaching.

I have no idea who that might be, or if such a person exists, but I agree that is the missing piece.

 

[mcdawg22]

I'd say Gabe Jackson was a REALLY good lineman.

 

[RebelBruiser]

It's about stars AND development.

I've been on the anti-development argument bandwagon for a while. I think the base talent a player has is the largest determining factor in how good he will be, and I don't think the difference between good development and bad development is all that much.

Let's put it in video game terms, where 100 is the max a player can be. If you get a player with potential to be a 100 and a desire to get there, he's probably going to be a 90 even with the worst development, a 95 with average development, and a 100 with great development. In other words, he'll be a great player wherever he goes with only marginal difference based on difference in development.

I say that not using the star system as the basis. When you see a 2 star like a Patrick Willis or Bernardrick McKinney become an All-American, it's not because he was developed into an All American. It's because the star system missed on him. In ANY program in the country, he would've been a great player.

The majority of what makes a player great is his God-given athletic ability, followed by his work ethic and his desire to be great. Adding to that, on the development front, I think the biggest impact coaches have is not on the physical/technique development, so much as it's on the psychological side, whether they can motivate a guy to want to be the best he can be. At any program, the weight training and technique development is not going to be that much different from the others. The biggest differences are the base talent and how well a staff can get a guy to want to succeed (much of which again is based on the player's natural desire to succeed).

That said, I do think there is something to be said for getting a player who has the natural ability but was underrated. Those 2 stars that really have 5 star talent that wasn't discovered are more likely to have that chip on their shoulder to try to succeed and not just take it for granted. Problem is, those players are really hard to find.

 

[dawgstudent]

We are fine expect for 2-3 teams every year in the SEC. That's where we have to hope we beat them with something else.

LSU game is that Miles is an idiot. We should have beat them this year.

 

[RebelBruiser]

We are fine expect for 2-3 teams every year in the SEC. That's where we have to hope we beat them with something else.

LSU game is that Miles is an idiot. We should have beat them this year.

Ha, this is true. Miles is squandering that talent.

They want to run a pro-style offense, but he hasn't signed a pro-style QB in years. The only one he's picked up was the Mettenberger transfer. He keeps going for these QBs that would be better in a spread option offense, and then tries to make them run pro style, play-action offense.

If they'd get smart with their QB recruiting, they'd be hell to deal with. As it stands, he's going to give you a chance most years simply by under-coaching his talent.

Unfortunately, Saban doesn't do that. The best thing you can do to get Bama is simply be the style of team (spread hurry up) that makes his teams somewhat uncomfortable. Even then you still need some breaks. If you tally up his losses the last 5 years, this is what you get:

Spread hurry up (and needed some breaks, big plays, or an unreal performance):
2012 A&M
2013 Auburn
2013 Oklahoma (close to a talent match up too)
2014 Ole Miss
2015 Ole Miss

Matched Bama in talent:
2011 LSU
2014 Ohio State (uses spread too)

Basically, if you aren't recruiting like LSU or Ohio State, you have to style them and take advantage of big plays. I thought you did that on Saturday. The big plays just went Bama's way. They hit you with 3 big ones, and you failed to capitalize on your scoring opportunities. Flip the big plays your way, and capitalize on your scoring opportunities, and that's a win.

 

[aTotal360]

Gabe was an anomaly. You have to go through 20 crappy lineman before a GJ shows up. Counting on "diamonds in the rough" make you 5 and 50 against ranked teams.

 

[Sutterkane]

Fair enough; how about this; we need better tackles. We've struggles against very good defenses/defensive ends since Sherrod. It's the most important position on the offensive line if you have a right handed passer.

 

[dawggrad08]

We are playing guys out of position imo

Fair enough; how about this; we need better tackles. We've struggles against very good defenses/defensive ends since Sherrod. It's the most important position on the offensive line if you have a right handed passer.

Desper was an under armor all american center coming out of HS, gets here and all of a sudden can't snap the ball?? so we play him at guard
Clayborn was billed as the next Gabe, and showed flashes of that his FR year, didn't play much at all last year..then moved to center
Malone looked okay early on...but has either regressed...or maxed out his talent his SO year..but is built like an OT, so of course he isn't an SEC road grater..still play him at guard


All this foolishness of moving guys around to get the "best 5" on the field is just that...foolishness. Get a guy in the program...give him a position and let him develop the technique necessary to succeed at that position. If we are such a developmental program...each time you change a guy's position it resets their development cycle...because he has to learn what to do at a new position...

No one really believed we would beat Bama this year anyway...but everyone saw this OL struggle vs USM and thought it would be a long season...