Recruiting Needs To Start Early!!!!

CharlesMincy

2 things need to change. #1) Recruiting needs to start a lot earlier. Kids are identifiable at early ages if they are paid attention to. #2) They need to keep whoever the Recruiting coordinator was on staff when old staffs turn-over. You want a true report and chance to recruit kids that the previous staff had on the hook. AD's should be involved in the process.
If you can brand kids when they are young, you have more of a chance of winning them later regardless of how "Big" a recruit they are. The fear the staffs have is that they will not be there long enough to take advantage of the investment into kids who are too young to play soon. But when you are a program "On the build" you need a way to compete. Make the kids loyal early.

PurpleReign

Earlier signing period could help with that. Maybe put a dent in kids flip-flopping commitments.

d2d

I'm all for branding children at an early age. It doesn't hurt a bit.

MisterEm

d2d said:

I'm all for branding children at an early age. It doesn't hurt a bit.

Not your best effort.

BennyBeaver

Interesting take.

What's your idea on "earlier" and "young?"

H_D

TheGlove said:

Interesting take.

What's your idea on "earlier" and "young?"

Swaye

TheGlove said:

Interesting take.

What's your idea on "earlier" and "young?"

BennyBeaver

H_D said:

TheGlove said:

Interesting take.

What's your idea on "earlier" and "young?"

The question is serious. I assume it's Charles' business to promote young athletes. What the definition of "early" and "young", at least in minds of the HH recruiting experts, Charles and Donald.

HFNY

I think this is why we're seeing the new staff being so aggressive with 2016 and 2017 offers compared to 2015 offers when they were still figuring out where the elevators and bathrooms were while settling into their offices.

This is also another reason why I hope Petersen is at U-Dub for 10-15 years. He and the new staff will develop relationships with recruits early and like the steak over sizzle he has to offer. With arguably our two best OL injured for most or part of the year (Riva and Charles), it really hurts not to have home-grown OL like Josh Garnett, Zach Banner, and Walker Williams on the roster. Garnett would be starting at 1 OG spot, Banner would be a RS-Soph at RT, and Walker Williams would be the 1st OT off the bench as a 6'7" 320 lbs RS-Soph instead of RS-Frosh Coleman Shelton (6'4" 281 lbs).

Stud RB Brandon Wellington is a great start to the 2016 class and Petersen/staff will continue to focus on building a Pac-12 Championship quality OL. To me, that's probably the most glaring issue we've had over the past 10-12 years is OLs that have varied from horrible - bad - subpar - average (at best).

CharlesMincy said:

2 things need to change. #1) Recruiting needs to start a lot earlier. Kids are identifiable at early ages if they are paid attention to. #2) They need to keep whoever the Recruiting coordinator was on staff when old staffs turn-over. You want a true report and chance to recruit kids that the previous staff had on the hook. AD's should be involved in the process.
If you can brand kids when they are young, you have more of a chance of winning them later regardless of how "Big" a recruit they are. The fear the staffs have is that they will not be there long enough to take advantage of the investment into kids who are too young to play soon. But when you are a program "On the build" you need a way to compete. Make the kids loyal early.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

HFNY said:

I think this is why we're seeing the new staff being so aggressive with 2016 and 2017 offers compared to 2015 offers when they were still figuring out where the elevators and bathrooms were while settling into their offices.

This is also another reason why I hope Petersen is at U-Dub for 10-15 years. He and the new staff will develop relationships with recruits early and like the steak over sizzle he has to offer. With arguably our two best OL injured for most or part of the year (Riva and Charles), it really hurts not to have home-grown OL like Josh Garnett, Zach Banner, and Walker Williams on the roster. Garnett would be starting at 1 OG spot, Banner would be a RS-Soph at RT, and Walker Williams would be the 1st OT off the bench as a 6'7" 320 lbs RS-Soph instead of RS-Frosh Coleman Shelton (6'4" 281 lbs).

Stud RB Brandon Wellington is a great start to the 2016 class and Petersen/staff will continue to focus on building a Pac-12 Championship quality OL. To me, that's probably the most glaring issue we've had over the past 10-12 years is OLs that have varied from horrible - bad - subpar - average (at best).

CharlesMincy said:

2 things need to change. #1) Recruiting needs to start a lot earlier. Kids are identifiable at early ages if they are paid attention to. #2) They need to keep whoever the Recruiting coordinator was on staff when old staffs turn-over. You want a true report and chance to recruit kids that the previous staff had on the hook. AD's should be involved in the process.
If you can brand kids when they are young, you have more of a chance of winning them later regardless of how "Big" a recruit they are. The fear the staffs have is that they will not be there long enough to take advantage of the investment into kids who are too young to play soon. But when you are a program "On the build" you need a way to compete. Make the kids loyal early.

I was going to mention this as well. I was under the impression from doogman that this staff would be slow to offer players. Thus far they have offered a great deal of 2016 players and even seem to be focusing on those players pretty hard as several have made unofficial visits in season this year. 2017 has also been somewhat similar to the 2016 class, several offers and several visits already done.

HeretoBeatmyChest

I'll pile on…

According to Lars Hansen, UW is off to a great start with the 2016 class. Like Coke said, apparently they've been very aggressive with those offers.

CharlesMincy

d2d said:

I'm all for branding children at an early age. It doesn't hurt a bit.

Well Oregon will Tattoo Nike symbols on them if we don't so lets have at it.

CharlesMincy

In the recruiting game 2015 kids are "Old News". 2015 kids that are good and not on the radar at this point are looked upon like 5th year senior basketball players in the NCAA. They figure if there was no interest in them before, they must not be that good. That is NOT accurate, but that is the sentiment. And it is also a SELF-PRESERVING stance that the coaches are taking. Position coaches are NOT hired to "Coach" football. They are hired to RECRUIT. And the more "Big Name" players they get, the better. They are trying to land NAMES to bolster their portfolios. So finding the diamond in the rough is a MAJOR risk for them...
...And so goes the PROBLEM with recruiting.

CharlesMincy

Schools have offered 8th grade kids. It makes a big splash and they have found that the "prodigy" kids are not impossible to identify at that age. So why not take a chance? It's not written in stone. It's good publicity. And you may get lucky and make the best player of the future feel obliged to attend your school.

DonaldJones

Guess whose son may be the best 8th grade football in the nation. Check out his highlight video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7TGSOPb244

PurpleBaze

A chip off the old block...

RaceBannon

DonaldJones said:

Guess whose son may be the best 8th grade football in the nation. Check out his highlight video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7TGSOPb244

Oregon lean?

FremontTroll

CharlesMincy said:

In the recruiting game 2015 kids are "Old News". 2015 kids that are good and not on the radar at this point are looked upon like 5th year senior basketball players in the NCAA. They figure if there was no interest in them before, they must not be that good. That is NOT accurate, but that is the sentiment. And it is also a SELF-PRESERVING stance that the coaches are taking. Position coaches are NOT hired to "Coach" football. They are hired to RECRUIT. And the more "Big Name" players they get, the better. They are trying to land NAMES to bolster their portfolios. So finding the diamond in the rough is a MAJOR risk for them...
...And so goes the PROBLEM with recruiting.

So are you saying there is a market inefficiency created by this type of resume building competition? An ineffeciency that could be exploited by coaches that don't care about ratings and hype?

CharlesMincy

Yes, coaches that know how to find kids or are working hard enough to find the GEMS can really take advantage of the laziness of the other schools. But they will have to do some real "Digging".

HuskyJW

This whole thread doesn't reek of nepotism at all

whatshouldicareabout

CharlesMincy said:

Yes, coaches that know how to find kids or are working hard enough to find the GEMS can really take advantage of the laziness of the other schools. But they will have to do some real "Digging".

Do you see any recruits like this from Petersen's two classes?

For example, Pettis and Dissly had 0 BCS offers when they signed with UW, but both have exceeded expectations this year and look to have bright futures with the program.