Cooper McDonald, 2020 3* LB, Justin (Northwest), TX (Committed)
Comments
-
Bi-polar much?NLdawg said:
Cool man. Let’s hire Adrian Klemm. If we’re going to get nasty in the middle of a perfectly civil discussion, let’s start with your behavior toward our recruits on Twitter.LaMichael_Corleone said:
Sorry man I usually don’t downvote stuff but this is just such a reach that it can’t go without acknowledging how stupid this is.NLdawg said:
So I guess this is where we differ. To me, talent evaluation is a huge part or one’s ability to recruit. Every dude in the bar can spot the hot chicks. The Bruce Wayne we want closes the one that isn’t going to steal all his money and be on meth after 4-5 years.LaMichael_Corleone said:
It’s really not that relevant tho. That’s moving the goalposts. If Skinny turns out to be a stud for us for two years even, does that mean we did a good job recruiting him? Of course not. Just because BBK has a good year doesn’t mean you did a good job of recruiting LB’s in 2015.NLdawg said:
I agree to an extent. But if you’re saying we can’t evaluate the quality of a coach’s recruiting work relative to how that player turns out, I think that’s wrong. A big (maybe the biggest) part of recruiting is projecting how a guy will develop after 2-3 years in the program. That’s where we’ve separated ourselves from most programs.LaMichael_Corleone said:
No I got you. I just wanted to show examples of how people can read what you posted and then make the jump to equate: if a player is good = the job of recruiting by the coachFirePete said:
Ohh I understand that the coach is not doing their part.LaMichael_Corleone said:FirePete said:
I think he is going to be good,Tequilla said:I’m going to laugh if this guy turns out to be really good
@NLdawg this is an example of what I meant by evaluating the process of recruiting isn’t about grading the player, it’s about grading the coach.Tequilla said:I’m going to laugh if this guy turns out to be really good
No one thinks Cooper McDonald or Mason West are going to be bad players. At least I don’t and I really try not criticize abilities and projections of HS kids. Differentiating a player’s abilities and how well of a job a coach did recruiting isn’t really a “strawman argument” when people often blur the lines by saying stuff like this or saying that UDUB did a good job of recruiting LB’s in 2017 just because Joe Tryon is good.
But I am looking at from a roster point of view he has the tools to be a good player. So he is not Kyler many who is eating up roster spot
The counter to this is the thought that nearly everyone will develop to their potential in our program so we need to go after the highest ceiling guys bc our program is sure to get them to that ceiling. While it’s certainly true that our program can be gas on the fire for the most talented guys, the buy in we expect is extraordinary. There are guys who lack the make up to handle it and flame out. If a coach fails to project in that regard and we waste a scholly, that’s as bad or worse than missing on targets or process failures.
TLDR: How a player turns out is relevant to evaluation of the recruiting job.
Nick Harris is a good player who didn’t have ANY other D1 offers. Good job on evaluating, horrible job selling your program to the other guys the coaches themselves had ranked higher. Just because Nick Harris is good doesn’t mean we must retroactively go back and say Strausser did a better job recruiting than we thought.
Talent evaluation =\= ability to recruit.
Huff deserves eval credit for Gaard but everyone and their mother have offered Murao, Hatchett, Rosengarten. Huff sold those guys and didn’t need to be a great evaluator of hidden talent in order to close the best class possible.
Jimmy Lake offering Esteen early is a great example of evaluating. Jimmy Lake offering and whiffing on every other guy out west until he offered Jacobe way later than the rest of his top schools an example of poor recruiting sales/management.
If that comment got you like that, you might need to take a walk to get some perspective and to also ensure you can handle this place.
I’ve taken many walks. -
The late 80s were shit by and large. 89 we finally showed some life. The Freedom Bowel announced we were for real, and everything else flowed from that.FirePete said:
race does the current state of the program feel like the late 80 again?RaceBannon said:77 Rose Bowl we trick whipped Michigan and held on to win
81 Rose Bowl Michigan whipped us physically
84 Orange Bowl we belonged with Oklahoma but our recruiting was flawed leading to 5 years in the desert.
James could develop and coach but realized he needed better players
By 91 we could whip anyone. The fumes lasted until 94 with wins over the Buckeyes and Canes.
Then we started losing big games again because we didn't develop and recruiting slid
By Gilby we had nothing
Everything does matter because nothing lasts forever
Petersen is close but you can't be satisfied. Ever.
Talent, coaching, facilities, and support.
The last three years have been far better than the late 80s across the bored except we don’t have that signature bowl win. -
Oh boy, not sure this place is for you, fren. Maybe PM the Eyerish Dog... he can dial you in.NLdawg said:
Cool man. Let’s hire Adrian Klemm. If we’re going to get nasty in the middle of a perfectly civil discussion, let’s start with your behavior toward our recruits on Twitter.LaMichael_Corleone said:
Sorry man I usually don’t downvote stuff but this is just such a reach that it can’t go without acknowledging how stupid this is.NLdawg said:
So I guess this is where we differ. To me, talent evaluation is a huge part or one’s ability to recruit. Every dude in the bar can spot the hot chicks. The Bruce Wayne we want closes the one that isn’t going to steal all his money and be on meth after 4-5 years.LaMichael_Corleone said:
It’s really not that relevant tho. That’s moving the goalposts. If Skinny turns out to be a stud for us for two years even, does that mean we did a good job recruiting him? Of course not. Just because BBK has a good year doesn’t mean you did a good job of recruiting LB’s in 2015.NLdawg said:
I agree to an extent. But if you’re saying we can’t evaluate the quality of a coach’s recruiting work relative to how that player turns out, I think that’s wrong. A big (maybe the biggest) part of recruiting is projecting how a guy will develop after 2-3 years in the program. That’s where we’ve separated ourselves from most programs.LaMichael_Corleone said:
No I got you. I just wanted to show examples of how people can read what you posted and then make the jump to equate: if a player is good = the job of recruiting by the coachFirePete said:
Ohh I understand that the coach is not doing their part.LaMichael_Corleone said:FirePete said:
I think he is going to be good,Tequilla said:I’m going to laugh if this guy turns out to be really good
@NLdawg this is an example of what I meant by evaluating the process of recruiting isn’t about grading the player, it’s about grading the coach.Tequilla said:I’m going to laugh if this guy turns out to be really good
No one thinks Cooper McDonald or Mason West are going to be bad players. At least I don’t and I really try not criticize abilities and projections of HS kids. Differentiating a player’s abilities and how well of a job a coach did recruiting isn’t really a “strawman argument” when people often blur the lines by saying stuff like this or saying that UDUB did a good job of recruiting LB’s in 2017 just because Joe Tryon is good.
But I am looking at from a roster point of view he has the tools to be a good player. So he is not Kyler many who is eating up roster spot
The counter to this is the thought that nearly everyone will develop to their potential in our program so we need to go after the highest ceiling guys bc our program is sure to get them to that ceiling. While it’s certainly true that our program can be gas on the fire for the most talented guys, the buy in we expect is extraordinary. There are guys who lack the make up to handle it and flame out. If a coach fails to project in that regard and we waste a scholly, that’s as bad or worse than missing on targets or process failures.
TLDR: How a player turns out is relevant to evaluation of the recruiting job.
Nick Harris is a good player who didn’t have ANY other D1 offers. Good job on evaluating, horrible job selling your program to the other guys the coaches themselves had ranked higher. Just because Nick Harris is good doesn’t mean we must retroactively go back and say Strausser did a better job recruiting than we thought.
Talent evaluation =\= ability to recruit.
Huff deserves eval credit for Gaard but everyone and their mother have offered Murao, Hatchett, Rosengarten. Huff sold those guys and didn’t need to be a great evaluator of hidden talent in order to close the best class possible.
Jimmy Lake offering Esteen early is a great example of evaluating. Jimmy Lake offering and whiffing on every other guy out west until he offered Jacobe way later than the rest of his top schools an example of poor recruiting sales/management. -
Except that part of the "difference" of our? recruiting strategy is not to offer unless kids show mutual interest in us? so IT IS WORSE than someone like Oregon spamming offers that misses on their top 2-3 targets. If you miss on kids that were never coming here anyways, then fine, it is what it is. We? are missing on kids that show initial interest in us?, then talk to Bob, and decide, "Nevermind, I don't want to go there." That's definitely a red flag.Tequilla said:
I don’t think anybody is claiming that Gregory is a strong recruiter ... so you’re not disagreeing with really anybodyExtraChrisB said:
Sure, but it's the measuring stick for how well a coach recruits. When year in and year out certain coaches routinely miss their top 2, 3, 5 guys, yeah, they won't be considered strong recruiters. It's not too complicated. Gregory is an 'easy target' because he keeps missing.Tequilla said:Happy to be proven wrong but it’s unrealistic to think you are always going to get your top choices ... few schools at best even sniff this IMO
Back in the day it was always recruit the top 3 in the West and we’re doing our job if we got one ... the LA schools were always going to be tough to beat ... but the key was getting comparable talent and then developing it better
By and large Gregory isn’t considered a strong recruiter and he’s an easy target because of it
For better or worse, this commit is proof that the work and messaging we are doing in Texas is starting to pay off ... the real proof will come if we’re ever able to pull elite kids West
As for Texas, it's always been about resources spent and results to show for it. Results haven't matched up with the opportunity cost, and Coop doesn't really move the needle (that's what I call my dick.)
What I’m suggesting is that what is being considered the bar (do you close your top targets) needs to benchmarked to determine performance. Right now it’s just pissing and moaning. My guess is that few programs get their top targets consistently ... taking a look at the number of offers extended by schools really confirms this.
As for Texas, time will tell. There’s got to be a reason why we’re pumping resources into Texas ... there’s a reason besides that the coaches are stupid
I don't think a lot of our subpar recruiting coaches are going anywhere, I just wish Petermen would maybe help them with something they obviously are struggling at a bit more. -
Film nerds is his film better or the same as Smalls??
-
This.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Except that part of the "difference" of our? recruiting strategy is not to offer unless kids show mutual interest in us? so IT IS WORSE than someone like Oregon spamming offers that misses on their top 2-3 targets. If you miss on kids that were never coming here anyways, then fine, it is what it is. We? are missing on kids that show initial interest in us?, then talk to Bob, and decide, "Nevermind, I don't want to go there." That's definitely a red flag.Tequilla said:
I don’t think anybody is claiming that Gregory is a strong recruiter ... so you’re not disagreeing with really anybodyExtraChrisB said:
Sure, but it's the measuring stick for how well a coach recruits. When year in and year out certain coaches routinely miss their top 2, 3, 5 guys, yeah, they won't be considered strong recruiters. It's not too complicated. Gregory is an 'easy target' because he keeps missing.Tequilla said:Happy to be proven wrong but it’s unrealistic to think you are always going to get your top choices ... few schools at best even sniff this IMO
Back in the day it was always recruit the top 3 in the West and we’re doing our job if we got one ... the LA schools were always going to be tough to beat ... but the key was getting comparable talent and then developing it better
By and large Gregory isn’t considered a strong recruiter and he’s an easy target because of it
For better or worse, this commit is proof that the work and messaging we are doing in Texas is starting to pay off ... the real proof will come if we’re ever able to pull elite kids West
As for Texas, it's always been about resources spent and results to show for it. Results haven't matched up with the opportunity cost, and Coop doesn't really move the needle (that's what I call my dick.)
What I’m suggesting is that what is being considered the bar (do you close your top targets) needs to benchmarked to determine performance. Right now it’s just pissing and moaning. My guess is that few programs get their top targets consistently ... taking a look at the number of offers extended by schools really confirms this.
As for Texas, time will tell. There’s got to be a reason why we’re pumping resources into Texas ... there’s a reason besides that the coaches are stupid
I don't think a lot of our subpar recruiting coaches are going anywhere, I just wish Petermen would maybe help them with something they obviously are struggling at a bit more.
Great fucking poast, Bot. -
We’re also targeting guys that just about every legit school wants
So yes, it is true that we are being selective
It is also true that we’re still largely hitting on top 3-4 targeted players
I’m not having the Gregory is a great recruiter conversation because he isn’t.
But the arguments presented here in evaluating recruits are one sided at best and need to be benchmarked
Also, Jimmy Lake largely whiffed on his top tier this year and it’s not uncommon that he whiffs a decent amount (by the standards of some) each year
It’s why everything needs to have a healthy balance of short term takes and LIPO -
Lol. That’s not fair to this kid.DodgyBloke said:Film nerds is his film better or the same as Smalls??
-
Going 4-4 against ASU in the 80's is the biggest indictment against DJdnc said:
The late 80s were shit by and large. 89 we finally showed some life. The Freedom Bowel announced we were for real, and everything else flowed from that.FirePete said:
race does the current state of the program feel like the late 80 again?RaceBannon said:77 Rose Bowl we trick whipped Michigan and held on to win
81 Rose Bowl Michigan whipped us physically
84 Orange Bowl we belonged with Oklahoma but our recruiting was flawed leading to 5 years in the desert.
James could develop and coach but realized he needed better players
By 91 we could whip anyone. The fumes lasted until 94 with wins over the Buckeyes and Canes.
Then we started losing big games again because we didn't develop and recruiting slid
By Gilby we had nothing
Everything does matter because nothing lasts forever
Petersen is close but you can't be satisfied. Ever.
Talent, coaching, facilities, and support.
The last three years have been far better than the late 80s across the bored except we don’t have that signature bowl win. -
John Cooper was a tuff football coachTacoSoup said:
Going 4-4 against ASU in the 80's is the biggest indictment against DJdnc said:
The late 80s were shit by and large. 89 we finally showed some life. The Freedom Bowel announced we were for real, and everything else flowed from that.FirePete said:
race does the current state of the program feel like the late 80 again?RaceBannon said:77 Rose Bowl we trick whipped Michigan and held on to win
81 Rose Bowl Michigan whipped us physically
84 Orange Bowl we belonged with Oklahoma but our recruiting was flawed leading to 5 years in the desert.
James could develop and coach but realized he needed better players
By 91 we could whip anyone. The fumes lasted until 94 with wins over the Buckeyes and Canes.
Then we started losing big games again because we didn't develop and recruiting slid
By Gilby we had nothing
Everything does matter because nothing lasts forever
Petersen is close but you can't be satisfied. Ever.
Talent, coaching, facilities, and support.
The last three years have been far better than the late 80s across the bored except we don’t have that signature bowl win.
Too bad Bitchfork wasn't born yet
