Originally Posted by
dawgs
OM doesn’t really have more talent than we do even by star ratings now that the nkemdiche/treadwell/tunsil class is gone. Tennessee, a&m, and Florida haven’t recruited significantly better than us over the previous 4-5 years and are definitely within some reasonable range of volatility where 1 or 2 guys underperforming/overperforming can swing the perception of the class.
If we could keep our QB and coaching staff (and assuming lsu’s front 7 is healthy), I’d swap the rest of the roster with lsu’s. Fortunately for us, QB, coaching, and lsu’s lack of health in the front 7 let us dominate that game. A bad QB and a shit head coach can definitely sink an otherwise great roster.
Right now the sec recruiting talent can be tiered:
Tier 1: bama
Tier 2: lsu, uga
Tier 3: a&m, Florida, auburn, Tennessee, usce, MSU, OM (pre-NCAA trouble at least)
Tier 4: Arkansas, Kentucky
Tier 5: Missouri, vandy
The problem is so many of y’all look at the trees you miss the forest. Is the difference between a 88 and a 89 rated player significant? Nope. If your coach prefers the 88 rated guy then let the coach get the one he likes better with complaining about choosing the lower rated guy, even if it slightly hurts your recruiting rankings. A 2* turning into a stud doesn’t mean the recruiting rankings are bullshit, it means that they aren’t perfect. That’s just how it is.
But you literally can’t look at the meta-data and tell me there’s no difference in signing a bunch of 4-5* players and a bunch of 2-3* players. The math proves that 4-5* players become college starters, all conference players, and nfl draft picks at a much higher rate than 3* players, and likewise 3* guys succeed at a higher rate than 2* guys. That’s just a fact.
Now can a coach with superior player evaluation and development skills nail the right 2-3* guys at a higher rate than average? Sure they can, and some have made a great career out of it. Mullen, ferentz, gundy, Beamer, snyder, whoever coaches Wisconsin (since it doesn’t seem to matter), etc. have done it. But most of those guys also hit a ceiling and seem to come up 1 or 2 players short when they have a shot at making a natty run. Not that a 10 or 11 win season isn’t awesome, but it’s also not an undefeated season or playing for a natty.
Our starters may be on par with bama or usc or Ohio st or Oklahoma or Clemson, but what happens if Simmons gets hurt? We don’t have a stud waiting behind him to pick up the slack. It will really hurt our defense. Bama is more prepared to lose a guy like that and keep rolling because behind their starters they have another 4 or 5 * ready to get his shot. We have a development 3* guy not ready to take on a full time role.
This is rambling because it’s not a black and white issue and there’s lots that go into discussing recruiting rankings besides claiming they mean everything or they mean nothing. But simply go look at the teams that have played for the national title in the last decade. Almost every one of them averaged a top 10 recruiting ranking the previous 4 season cycles. The ones that didn’t were still top 15 and had a transcendent QB (cam, mariota, Watson) and/or coach ahead of his time (chip Kelly). I’m not saying it’s impossible to win a natty with our talent, but our margin of error is very very thin. We’d need to avoid injuries, fitz would need to continue to develop into a heisman contender, and Mullen would need to resist the urge to tuck his wiener in upcoming big games, and then we’d have to still execute at a high level.
So yeah, stars matter. QB, coaching staff, and health are the 3 things that can lead to overachieving or underachieving. Fortunately we have 2 of the 3 right now that are key to overachieving.
