I long subscribed to the idea we recruited qbs well, but failed remarkably in the development phase.. often explaining this to friends who don't follow recruiting at all. I stopped though a couple years ago. How many guys left the program to do well elsewhere at qb? Heck, at one point Rick Clausen left here then beat us in Death Valley. We see Rivers, Jennings, etc leave and struggle to do anything anywhere. Once in a while we hit on a Ryan Perrilloux or Mettenberger, but Ryan was behind Flynn and JaMarcus, had to take a redshirt and learned under Jimbo. Mett was developed at UGA then in JUCO and had the best tandem of receivers in SEC history to throw the ball to. The stars only tell us past success or overwhelming ability and the possibility of that translating into future, well, stardom if everything aligns. It doesn't mean you're a good quarterback. Think Gunner Kiel would have been better here? I don't. Think Kiel would have been better than what we had? That I do. Same thing with Zach Lee. Sometimes a kid overcomes poor development and has some success. Look at Shepard who has done pretty well becoming a wide receiver in the NFL whereas this staff had no idea how to use him. He was never a quarterback. Did anyone think he'd make the pros? Beyond maybe a couple years of special teams? I didn't. I think Lee would have been a decent qb for us as a more talented Etling, but he'd never have achieved his maximum potential here as a quarterback versus a more competent qb friendly staff even with less surrounding talent elsewhere. Development is as important as recruiting, but we've been fairly poor at both with the quarterback position.
Well with now no kiffin maybe this mistake might correct itself. All depends on who O gets as OC. This is one of his first critical moves.
Maybe it was tough for those guys to unlearn the rubbish taught here, which was why they never amounted to anything elsewhere. I wish someone would interview all those qb's and ask them tough questions about playing QB under Miles.
I kind of think that the data points you are bringing up help my point out. I do agree that stars don't necessitate future success, but nothing does at that point; in other words, there's no way we can know whether an individual QB will have success until after he gets into the game. I still think stars are relatively good at predicting who will be good and who won't. Jennings is hard to explain. I don't think Rivers was ever really a good QB, though, so his lack of success doesn't really surprise me. I think Jennings's confidence probably took a monster hit here since he was starting going into his sophomore season after a big bowl game and he ended up benched by his Junior season. That being said, we can also look at Mettenberger, who spent time developing elsewhere and who was actually let loose a little here. It seems like he did well because he was properly trained elsewhere, and then they actually let him throw the ball after he got here. The second interesting data point to me is Etling, actually. When he came in under Miles, he was actually pretty bad, even in the first game. But after the coaching change, he started routinely throwing over 200+ yards and even hit a 300 yard game. And Etling was not by any means a top notch recruit, which to me demonstrates that the much bigger problems were player development and offensive scheme. I will certainly admit that this is far from scientific, though, and is definitely open to interpretation.
First, on the bikini thing, people associate hawtness with bikinis. In truth, there are those fat-asses who need a quilt to cover their big ass but think they can pull off the bikini. Sooo, like every girl in a bikini is not hawt, not every 5* is a gem. Such a great analogy. You making me have to splain it really detracts from the quality but your grade in my class is going to reflect that you lil bastard. You didn't bring two knives to school today by any chance? If you really want to look at the value of star value you can look at Rivals.com's five-star recruits from 2002 (when their rankings started) through the 2010 class. There were 262 recruits given five-star status. The average number of five-star recruits in a class was 29.Of those 262, 116 were drafted (44.3 percent) and 42 went in the first round (16 percent); 38 percent of the five stars who were drafted were first-rounders. Then, it all gets turned on its head when you look at the Heisman finalists in the 2013 season where 3 of the top five finalists were 2 or 3 star recruits. Jodan Lynch 2* ;Andre Williams 3*; Johnny Manziel 3*. At the end of the day though, recruiting is like size, it matters. There's a reason consistent top 10 recruiting class finishes keep those programs in the mix for National Titles.
Stacey are you thinking what I am thinking? Is this thread about football or sex? Dont get me wrong I love sex but their minds tend to drift to bikinis and such need some industrial strenght Ritalin to keep them on football
