3rd highest rated signing class of the CGP era

[SuperTFrog]

I've never heard a single person say anything remotely close to that.

You wouldn’t say Froglaw’s post is anything remotely close to that? You don’t think his comment indicates that recruiting high star players isn’t important? If you read my posts on this thread that is the only thing I’m trying to communicate. Recruiting high stars matter tremendously to the success of a program. Many on our board don’t believe that.

“Give me talent, good work ethic, coachable, and purple Drive to win for TCU.

I have never seen a "stars catagory" on our scoreboard.

Stars are for those schools that can't beat the frogs on the field.”

 

[Moose Stuff]

You wouldn’t say Froglaw’s post is anything remotely close to that? You don’t think his comment indicates that recruiting high star players isn’t important? If you read my posts on this thread that is the only thing I’m trying to communicate. Recruiting high stars matter tremendously to the success of a program. Many on our board don’t believe that.

“Give me talent, good work ethic, coachable, and purple Drive to win for TCU.

I have never seen a "stars catagory" on our scoreboard.

Stars are for those schools that can't beat the frogs on the field.”

Well that's ONE poster, not MANY. And Froglaw doesn't know [ Finebaum ] about recruiting so I'd avoid using him as support for your argument.

 

[CountryFrog]

You wouldn’t say Froglaw’s post is anything remotely close to that? You don’t think his comment indicates that recruiting high star players isn’t important? If you read my posts on this thread that is the only thing I’m trying to communicate. Recruiting high stars matter tremendously to the success of a program. Many on our board don’t believe that.

“Give me talent, good work ethic, coachable, and purple Drive to win for TCU.

I have never seen a "stars catagory" on our scoreboard.

Stars are for those schools that can't beat the frogs on the field.”

Maybe you're confusing the idea of "recruiting doesn't matter" with people's varying levels of confidence in internet recruiting rankings. But you keep saying that people don't think recruiting matters and that's simply not true.

 

[SuperTFrog]

Maybe you're confusing the idea of "recruiting doesn't matter" with people's varying levels of confidence in internet recruiting rankings. But you keep saying that people don't think recruiting matters and that's simply not true.

I think you are in the wrong. There are many that want our roster full of low star guys chalked full of Frog Factor (try real hard, first guy to practice, watch film all the time, etc). I want super athletic guys like Clemson, Bama, Ohio State, etc. nobody at those schools gives a [ Finebaum ] about “Tiger Factor” or “Tide Factor” or “Buckeye Factor”. They fill their roster with crazy athletes and go from there.

 

[CountryFrog]

I think you are in the wrong. There are many that want our roster full of low star guys chalked full of Frog Factor (try real hard, first guy to practice, watch film all the time, etc). I want super athletic guys like Clemson, Bama, Ohio State, etc. nobody at those schools gives a [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ] about “Tiger Factor” or “Tide Factor” or “Buckeye Factor”. They fill their roster with crazy athletes and go from there.

Ok. Well next time you see someone who says that then please alert me.

Even the post from Froglaw you referenced doesn't come close to what you're saying. He listed talent as his very first trait.

 

[Despite the odds Frog]

I think you both can be right. Any team would want the top 300 recruits those are players that are like Zach Evans and can play right away at a high level. But CountryFrog is also right. These subscriber sites can't evaluate all and they have to please their subscribers and make them hungry to recommend others to their site.
So they wait to see who goes for who. I have seen TCU recruit 2 star kid that Bama then offers, the kid goes to Bama, and he becomes a four star athlete by signing day. These sites had no clue, they have never seen the talent but the offers tell them this kid is good or really good. Maybe after the kid gets these offers the website talks to the coaches and gets the lowdown. Then on to the next kid.

The reason why Clemson, Ohio State, Bama are so good is their offensive and defensive lines are so much better quality as these freak athletes are hard to evaluate except at the top which are pretty sure things. As you get lower down the chain those evaluations are not so clear. Those top teams get the sure things in the trenches.

 

[4th. down]

It's an open book on this subject IMO, you can argue both ways. In the recruiting years of '17, '18, and '19, we signed a total of 12 4* per 247. Out of those 12, 7 were bust, so about half.

 

[BleedNPurple]

It’s not just about signing day. We have also been able to transfer in good talent. I’m counting on seeing some new lineman join the team through the transfer portal.

 

[Frognosticator]

There seems to be a strange disparity in the 2021 Big 12 recruiting rankings.

Rivals ranks our recruiting in 3rd place in the Big 12. While, 247 Sports and

some others rank us in 9th place. Quality, like beauty is apparently in the eyes

of a beholder.

That's quite a bold statement.

 

[Froggish]

I think you both can be right. Any team would want the top 300 recruits those are players that are like Zach Evans and can play right away at a high level. But CountryFrog is also right. These subscriber sites can't evaluate all and they have to please their subscribers and make them hungry to recommend others to their site.
So they wait to see who goes for who. I have seen TCU recruit 2 star kid that Bama then offers, the kid goes to Bama, and he becomes a four star athlete by signing day. These sites had no clue, they have never seen the talent but the offers tell them this kid is good or really good. Maybe after the kid gets these offers the website talks to the coaches and gets the lowdown. Then on to the next kid.

The reason why Clemson, Ohio State, Bama are so good is their offensive and defensive lines are so much better quality as these freak athletes are hard to evaluate except at the top which are pretty sure things. As you get lower down the chain those evaluations are not so clear. Those top teams get the sure things in the trenches.

I’ll maintain forever that that you can win with 2 star RBs, WRs, TEs, LBs, and Safeties if you have high level talent in the OL/DL and QB/CB positions the reverse is not true. If you look at teams who’s classes typically rank in the 18-30 range, TCU included, you’ll find that most of them get 4-7 4 star players a year but very very few are in the trenches or at CB.

Any school hoping to ascend into that consistent B12 contender and playoff hopeful will have to recruit and field dominant OL/DL every year. So far nobody has been able to do that outside OU. Even UT, while better than others, hasn’t been able to field dominant OLs.

 

[Eight]

It's an open book on this subject IMO, you can argue both ways. In the recruiting years of '17, '18, and '19, we signed a total of 12 4* per 247. Out of those 12, 7 were bust, so about half.

go back and look at the prospects tcu signed from 1999 (first class list available on 247 with free access) and note the rate at which the frogs missed on their general recruiting classes

froggish was on point when he said the biggest difference is not the hit and miss rate based upon the star ratings, but the celing of the talent

 

[Eight]

I’ll maintain forever that that you can win with 2 star RBs, WRs, TEs, LBs, and Safeties if you have high level talent in the OL/DL and QB/CB positions the reverse is not true. If you look at teams who’s classes typically rank in the 18-30 range, TCU included, you’ll find that most of them get 4-7 4 star players a year but very very few are in the trenches or at CB.

Any school hoping to ascend into that consistent B12 contender and playoff hopeful will have to recruit and field dominant OL/DL every year. So far nobody has been able to do that outside OU. Even UT, while better than others, hasn’t been able to field dominant OLs.

this, the biggest mistake people make is they focus on the skills positions and not the lines in the recruiting classes and i will say that linemen are often underrated by the services because their part of the game doesn't translate well in the combine style workouts and 7-on-7 most services use as their baseline for evaluating talent

if you can't control the line of scrimmage you are not going to be able to compete

 

[Froggish]

this, the biggest mistake people make is they focus on the skills positions and not the lines in the recruiting classes and i will say that linemen are often underrated by the services because their part of the game doesn't translate well in the combine style workouts and 7-on-7 most services use as their baseline for evaluating talent

if you can't control the line of scrimmage you are not going to be able to compete

So if you're not one of those 8-12 Bluebloods who are going to get most all of the 4-5 star OL/DL every year, than IMO your only option is TO HAVE "options"...You have commit a high volume of scholarships to the trenches. The answer is to never slow down bringing in 3-5 every year on both sides of the ball. If development is the play, than great evaluating and huge depth is the most critical component to bridging the gap between the haves and the have nots. You need lots of bodies.

Out of 85 scholarships on a roster as much as 50% should be committed to 4 position groups OL/DL/QB/CB. IMO those are the absolute most program defining positions on the field and they require the most skill and depth. I'll take my chances all day that I can find all the other players.

 

[Eight]

So if you're not one of those 8-12 Bluebloods who are going to get most all of the 4-5 star OL/DL every year, than IMO your only option is TO HAVE "options"...You have commit a high volume of scholarships to the trenches. The answer is to never slow down bringing in 3-5 every year on both sides of the ball. If development is the play, than great evaluating and huge depth is the most critical component to bridging the gap between the haves and the have nots. You need lots of bodies.

Out of 85 scholarships on a roster as much as 50% should be committed to 4 position groups OL/DL/QB/CB. IMO those are the absolute most program defining positions on the field and they require the most skill and depth. I'll take my chances all day that I can find all the other players.

agree completely and in my simple, uneducated mind places a huge emphasis on having a definitive idea what you want to be on the offensive side of the ball and not a little bit of this and that

decide, recruit, develop and teach but that might be too simple

 

[Prince of Purpoole]

I think you are in the wrong. There are many that want our roster full of low star guys chalked full of Frog Factor (try real hard, first guy to practice, watch film all the time, etc). I want super athletic guys like Clemson, Bama, Ohio State, etc. nobody at those schools gives a [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ] about “Tiger Factor” or “Tide Factor” or “Buckeye Factor”. They fill their roster with crazy athletes and go from there.

C’mon man.

 

[PO Frog]

Not what I meant to imply. Look at UT with all their starsies, and so little player development or accomplishment. Just because the player has innate talent doesn't make them a guaranteed great college player. They have to want it, which is hard to measure in a HS kid.

Tom Herman has a better record at Texas than Gary Patterson over the same time period. Not sure either coach is getting everything out of their players.

 

[FrogAbroad]

Quality, like beauty is apparently in the eyes
of a beholder.

And at last call beauty is sometimes found only in the eyes of the beerholder...

 

[Pure Purple]

And at last call beauty is sometimes found only in the eyes of the beerholder...

touché’......

 

[Jefffrog1993]

I like five star players like Evans. I just wish we went after those players Nationally. I know we would lose most battles, but to not try is sad. Why not offer the top players in the country?

 

[Putt4Purple]

I like five star players like Evans. I just wish we went after those players Nationally. I know we would lose most battles, but to not try is sad. Why not offer the top players in the country?

How do you know we don't? Maybe because in most instances, nationally we'd be wasting time and money? Just food for thought.