Mullen the talent develpoer

[cheewgumm]

Isn't it probable that Mullen and staff are reallly good at talent development, and are good at finding non-star talent, BUT that stars still do matter.

My theory is that if Mullen had a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys that he could develop themn as well, probably to even greater heights than he has developed the current guys we get.

My point is that it is not that all the star ratings are wrong, jsut that Mullen is good at developing talent at any star level and probably good at picking players regardless of star.

[Goat Holder]

No doubt. Look at Cam Newton, C.J. Johnson, Jermaine Whitehead (I know he has looked bad at times but he has started for 3 years at Auburn), Jeremy Liggins and others we missed on but clearly recruited. No lack of stars there.

For us to take the next step, we need to get those guys. Or either find a lot more 2 star wonders and keep them. We have to start signing that impact player every year, and we got the first one in Chris Jones, although he was really the 2 star wonder himself. I don't know what that would be THIS year, maybe Aeris Williams. Again, similar to the track Spurrier used at Carolina.

[gtowndawg]

but they just do.

I remember seeing something a few years back where someone tried to make a point there was just as many 2 and 3 star drafted in the first round than 5 stars.

But statistically, there are something like 100 5 star players every year but 2500 2 and 3 start players (something like that). Basically, your chances of having premium talent/NFL talent are 10x better with a 5 star player. And we need NFL talent if we ever hope to win the SEC.

///I realize we can all name 5 star bust and 2 star diamonds, but I'm just making the point I'd rather have 15-20 guys every year that Alabama, LSU, etc wanted as well. We will be more consistent and not hope for that one big year out of 10 when we do.

[Coach34]

It's actually more along the lines that the recruiting services rank players and these are guys that used to work for the Railroad or as waiters before deciding to become recruiting experts. Anybody can see the guys in HS that are the more mature, obvious talent. What moron cant go watch West Point play and figure out that Aeris Williams is a ****ing player?

But these guys dont talk to every HS coach in the state and see every school- or as a former accountant for the RR- they arent trained to notice a guy that has a ton of raw talent playing at a nowhere school in the Delta. Bernardrick McKinney has always been a 4-star or even a 5-star talent. But it was raw and he hadnt had much coaching. Mullen and crew have taught him how to play football and use that enormous talent he has.

In short, it's not so much that Mullen develops talent moreso than other coaches- but that Mullen finds raw, unpolished athletes with a shitload of talent and takes the time to teach them how to play football moreso than other coaches in the SEC. We are taking talented projects, being patient, and letting them develop as football players.

[The Croom Diaries]

It's actually more along the lines that the recruiting services rank players and these are guys that used to work for the Railroad or as waiters before deciding to become recruiting experts. Anybody can see the guys in HS that are the more mature, obvious talent. What moron cant go watch West Point play and figure out that Aeris Williams is a ****ing player?

But these guys dont talk to every HS coach in the state and see every school- or as a former accountant for the RR- they arent trained to notice a guy that has a ton of raw talent playing at a nowhere school in the Delta. Bernardrick McKinney has always been a 4-star or even a 5-star talent. But it was raw and he hadnt had much coaching. Mullen and crew have taught him how to play football and use that enormous talent he has.

In short, it's not so much that Mullen develops talent moreso than other coaches- but that Mullen finds raw, unpolished athletes with a shitload of talent and takes the time to teach them how to play football moreso than other coaches in the SEC. We are taking talented projects, being patient, and letting them develop as football players.

Well put. And in other words, we do a good job scouting. We don't have a very good staff in terms of recruiting because we don't win hardly any battles over SEC teams not named Ole Miss. It will stay that way until we bring in another Brewster type...who stole Fred Ross from Oklahoma State.

[Original48]

No lack of stars with Quay and Nick James. There is some validity to finding the 'right players' to fit what our coaches demand. But the four and five stars who fit that mold (Marlon Humprey immediately comes to mind) are really hard to pry away from Bama et al as they are the right player for EVERY program. It's good to see what we are doing recruiting wise as of late..particularly the 2015 class. If we could get a class of more highly sought after players with the drive and intensity of some of the under the radar players we've developed, then we will truly turn the corner.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Stars are only half the process, the other half is developing the players. We develope well but don't necessarily garner the star power. OM on the other hand gets the stars but doesn't appear to develope their talent as well.

I personally think developing the talent is more important to master than getting the stars because a) you can do more with less, and b) when you do more with less, it makes a nice and effective sales pitch to aquire better recruits.

It's also important to get the "right" guy for the program, which we seem to do very well.

Everyone wants the stars to come first when it comes to building a program, but I believe that if you're building your program for long term success, the stars will come last.

[ShotgunDawg]

but they just do.

I remember seeing something a few years back where someone tried to make a point there was just as many 2 and 3 star drafted in the first round than 5 stars.

But statistically, there are something like 100 5 star players every year but 2500 2 and 3 start players (something like that). Basically, your chances of having premium talent/NFL talent are 10x better with a 5 star player. And we need NFL talent if we ever hope to win the SEC.

///I realize we can all name 5 star bust and 2 star diamonds, but I'm just making the point I'd rather have 15-20 guys every year that Alabama, LSU, etc wanted as well. We will be more consistent and not hope for that one big year out of 10 when we do.

Nobody that I have seen debates that stars are important when it comes to 5 stars. The debate is between 3 stars and 4 stars, and the kids that are ranked an 87 vs the kids that is ranked a 91. This is the debate because the recruiting classes of teams that finish between 10 and 40 in recruiting are mostly made up of these type of players.

Nobody debates 5 stars, evaluation at the extremes isn't that difficult. Really good players are easy to spot and really bad players are easy to spot. It's the 3/4 star players that you have to fit to your system and develop that cause the debate.

[Barking 13]

It's actually more along the lines that the recruiting services rank players and these are guys that used to work for the Railroad or as waiters before deciding to become recruiting experts. Anybody can see the guys in HS that are the more mature, obvious talent. What moron cant go watch West Point play and figure out that Aeris Williams is a ****ing player?

But these guys dont talk to every HS coach in the state and see every school- or as a former accountant for the RR- they arent trained to notice a guy that has a ton of raw talent playing at a nowhere school in the Delta. Bernardrick McKinney has always been a 4-star or even a 5-star talent. But it was raw and he hadnt had much coaching. Mullen and crew have taught him how to play football and use that enormous talent he has.

In short, it's not so much that Mullen develops talent moreso than other coaches- but that Mullen finds raw, unpolished athletes with a shitload of talent and takes the time to teach them how to play football moreso than other coaches in the SEC. We are taking talented projects, being patient, and letting them develop as football players.



love it.. I was a bartender at Tuesdays with him before that...lol

[cheewgumm]

For instance, Sean Rawlings is one I'm really excited about.

I know NOTHING about recruiting, or talent evaluation. I mean I can see a guy is big and fast, but beyond the layman type stuff. However, he is big now, and looks thin. And, he moves well. If he is smart, then he will probably be not good, but great. Maybe I'm totally off, but he looks like one of our better recruits to me.

Just to add....so now I am worried aftger hearing now that he has Ole Miss ties or whatever. He is one I hope we keep!!!!

[maroonmania]

I think a GREAT example is Jameon Lewis. The dude is a great athlete but was raw as can be coming out of HS. YES, he has developed but its taken him really until his RS JR campaign to be highly productive at the SEC level as a WR. THAT is the difference. If you got the same type guy who was a 4 star with Lewis's athleticism but was ranked the 4 star because of being much more polished and requiring less development work he is probably contributing big time for you at LEAST by early in his RS SO year if not before. So I think by being a "development" program we are losing 1 to somtimes 2 years of production from a lot of guys because they just aren't ready for prime time yet even though they have what they need from an athleticism standpoint. Chris Jones, rated a 5 star, was super productive IN THE SEC for us by the 2nd month of his true freshman season. Now we may have him for only 3 years but he has been a force for us from almost day one.

[gravedigger]

Stars aren't wrong, they are the product of inductive logic and assessment by non coaches, but their greatest fallacy is that each team needs players in different degrees. One teams cornerback is another's qb. And the degree they need the position they can be best used changes by team.

How much was relf worth to us? What would he have been worth to Arkansas, lsu, usm. It changes based on the coach and the system.

[Todd4State]

That theory is correct assuming that the rankings are always 100% correct in their evaluation. While there is no question that most 5 stars pan out, there's also no question that their rankings are imperfect. Was Benardrick McKinney are "true" 2-3 star player? Was Tavese Calhoun a "true" 2-3 star player? Or are they really four star guys playing at small schools? We all know the answer to that now. I don't believe Dak was any higher than a 3 star guy and the same with Josh Robinson and Bear Wilson. Chris Jones would have been except for whatever reason the recruiting experts all of a sudden realized just how good he was and decided to turn him into a 5 star guy.

I also detect a degree of bias from the evaluators- Epps is a good example with his alleged 4.7 40 time. Whether he truly ran that time or not, you can't base your entire evaluation of a player off that one "red flag" and determine whether he is going to be successful or not.

I have long been critical of the fact that those rankings never take into accont a players character, work ethic, and the other intangibles that it takes to be a successful player. We can talk about how Alabama has all 4-5 star guys, but Saban values those traits in his players equally as much as pure football and athletic skill. And that's the real reason why they are so successful- they're getting the developed athletic talent along with the high intangibles.

[Todd4State]

For instance, Sean Rawlings is one I'm really excited about.

I know NOTHING about recruiting, or talent evaluation. I mean I can see a guy is big and fast, but beyond the layman type stuff. However, he is big now, and looks thin. And, he moves well. If he is smart, then he will probably be not good, but great. Maybe I'm totally off, but he looks like one of our better recruits to me.

Just to add....so now I am worried aftger hearing now that he has Ole Miss ties or whatever. He is one I hope we keep!!!!

I feel very good that Rawlings will be a Bulldog.

[dawgs]

Nobody that I have seen debates that stars are important when it comes to 5 stars. The debate is between 3 stars and 4 stars, and the kids that are ranked an 87 vs the kids that is ranked a 91. This is the debate because the recruiting classes of teams that finish between 10 and 40 in recruiting are mostly made up of these type of players.

Nobody debates 5 stars, evaluation at the extremes isn't that difficult. Really good players are easy to spot and really bad players are easy to spot. It's the 3/4 star players that you have to fit to your system and develop that cause the debate.

statistics show a higher rate of 4* pan out than 3*.

though i'd be interested to see the rates between the 4* and the corresponding number of high 3*. usually there's like 215-225 or so 4*, so say the top 225 3* so something? that would eliminate the 3* that are barely 3* and isolate they group you are really talking about. i don't know what the numbers would say in that case and i don't have the time to sit down and research nearly 500 former recruits across multiple recruiting cycles.

[dawgs]

Stars aren't wrong, they are the product of inductive logic and assessment by non coaches, but their greatest fallacy is that each team needs players in different degrees. One teams cornerback is another's qb. And the degree they need the position they can be best used changes by team.

How much was relf worth to us? What would he have been worth to Arkansas, lsu, usm. It changes based on the coach and the system.

the number of guys that have legit offers to play different positions for different programs are pretty negligible in the whole scheme of things.

[dawgs]

That theory is correct assuming that the rankings are always 100% correct in their evaluation. While there is no question that most 5 stars pan out, there's also no question that their rankings are imperfect. Was Benardrick McKinney are "true" 2-3 star player? Was Tavese Calhoun a "true" 2-3 star player? Or are they really four star guys playing at small schools? We all know the answer to that now. I don't believe Dak was any higher than a 3 star guy and the same with Josh Robinson and Bear Wilson. Chris Jones would have been except for whatever reason the recruiting experts all of a sudden realized just how good he was and decided to turn him into a 5 star guy.

I also detect a degree of bias from the evaluators- Epps is a good example with his alleged 4.7 40 time. Whether he truly ran that time or not, you can't base your entire evaluation of a player off that one "red flag" and determine whether he is going to be successful or not.

I have long been critical of the fact that those rankings never take into accont a players character, work ethic, and the other intangibles that it takes to be a successful player. We can talk about how Alabama has all 4-5 star guys, but Saban values those traits in his players equally as much as pure football and athletic skill. And that's the real reason why they are so successful- they're getting the developed athletic talent along with the high intangibles.

so basically you are saying the rankings tend to skew towards more polished players. well of course they do because a more polished player is easier to predict on the next level and likely to contribute sooner. that's not a shocker. guys who are less polished are tougher to project because there's a lot more unknown between being recruited as an unpolished prospect and being ready to contribute to a major conference program. think of the recruiting rankings as gambling odds, leonard fournette is a pretty sure bet, so he's a 5*. however josh robinson was less polished and not an ideal size coming out of HS, so by ranking him a 3*, they are effectively saying the odds of him panning out are pretty mediocre because there's so much that will happen between him being recruited and him being ready to contribute, that anything could go wrong or go right. that's not saying josh robinson can't be a great RB for us next year or even won't have a NFL future, it's saying that RBs with his pedigree AT THE TIME HE WAS BEING RECRUITED aren't good as good of bets to become good RBs for major conference programs and become NFL players as the guys that received 4* and 5* rankings. we've been pretty good at talent evaluation and development, i'd say it's probably the strongest trait for mullen and our staff, but i'd still prefer to land top 10 classes full of 4* and 5* talents because they are surer bets to become quality contributors.

understanding that stars are valuable evaluation tools when projecting future success and also understanding good evaluation, development, and schemes play a role in maximizing talent and can help a roster of 3* be more productive than a roster of 4* are not mutually exclusive.

[Todd4State]

so basically you are saying the rankings tend to skew towards more polished players. well of course they do because a more polished player is easier to predict on the next level and likely to contribute sooner. that's not a shocker. guys who are less polished are tougher to project because there's a lot more unknown between being recruited as an unpolished prospect and being ready to contribute to a major conference program. think of the recruiting rankings as gambling odds, leonard fournette is a pretty sure bet, so he's a 5*. however josh robinson was less polished and not an ideal size coming out of HS, so by ranking him a 3*, they are effectively saying the odds of him panning out are pretty mediocre because there's so much that will happen between him being recruited and him being ready to contribute, that anything could go wrong or go right. that's not saying josh robinson can't be a great RB for us next year or even won't have a NFL future, it's saying that RBs with his pedigree AT THE TIME HE WAS BEING RECRUITED aren't good as good of bets to become good RBs for major conference programs and become NFL players as the guys that received 4* and 5* rankings. we've been pretty good at talent evaluation and development, i'd say it's probably the strongest trait for mullen and our staff, but i'd still prefer to land top 10 classes full of 4* and 5* talents because they are surer bets to become quality contributors.

understanding that stars are valuable evaluation tools when projecting future success and also understanding good evaluation, development, and schemes play a role in maximizing talent and can help a roster of 3* be more productive than a roster of 4* are not mutually exclusive.

There's a very good chance that we land more 4 star guys in our 2015 class than any other MSU football class in modern recruiting history. The thing about Dan getting 4 star guys is I feel like I trust Dan with the evaluation of those players intangibles because of Dan's track record. It also means that Dan is probaby getting in that class more "known" players as opposed to "unknown" guys. Which is probably at least somewhat conincidence because I don't think Dan cares about how many stars are by a guys name all that much. If he thinks you are a good player, he is going to recruit you.

Personally, I feel like if Dan and his staff relied a lot on stars, I would be worried. That's a sure way to miss people. There are always going to be Tavese Calhoun's every single year and we need to find them. They won't help our star rating- but that's fine with me.

[gravedigger]

What is the difference between an illigitimate offer and a legit one?

[dawgs]

What is the difference between an illigitimate offer and a legit one?

i mean a committable offer from a major conference program. there just aren't that many guys getting highly recruited at 2 completely different positions by different major programs.

[gravedigger]

And the number of teams that need each player equally? Fact is ratings are relative due to need. They can be inflated or deflated due to the same thing. That is why the great c j fiasco was overblown. We have plenty of linebackers doing the same or better job than him that we're rated lower.

Every player is capable at more than one position. Talent is developed based on what the team needs. Relf could have been a one star or a three star or a four star that he was for us.

This whole wringing of hands is a joke. So is the difference between legit offers and illigit ones. Each team has pieces of a puzzle to complete it. Rarely are they the same. Ergo rarely are ratings relevant.

[Jack Lambert]

Isn't it probable that Mullen and staff are reallly good at talent development, and are good at finding non-star talent, BUT that stars still do matter.

My theory is that if Mullen had a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys that he could develop themn as well, probably to even greater heights than he has developed the current guys we get.

My point is that it is not that all the star ratings are wrong, jsut that Mullen is good at developing talent at any star level and probably good at picking players regardless of star.

I think the state of Mississippi has many more potential 4 and 5 stars. They get over looked by the magazines due to the school they attend, lower standard of coaching and facilities. I have heard Mullen speak several times and I have heard him say that he pays no attention to Scouts or Rivals. I like hearing that. Why relied on someone who is trying to sell subscriptions about how good a kid is. Go out and evaluate for yourself and find the rough diamonds yourself.

[dawgs]

I think the state of Mississippi has many more potential 4 and 5 stars. They get over looked by the magazines due to the school they attend, lower standard of coaching and facilities. I have heard Mullen speak several times and I have heard him say that he pays no attention to Scouts or Rivals. I like hearing that. Why relied on someone who is trying to sell subscriptions about how good a kid is. Go out and evaluate for yourself and find the rough diamonds yourself.

well of course he isn't paying attention to "stars", but let's get real, he'd love to land a class full of the players bama and lsu and usc and florida are all going hard after. not coincidentally, those guys usually have 4 or 5 * behind their name. so yeah, mullen isn't a slave to the stars, no coach is, but they all still want the most talented, sought after players in the country, who generally happen to be the same guys with offers from the best programs in the country.