re: My Grade for this Class (Kinda Long but I Think it's Decent haha)

Spot on, well said. Your point is what some folks are missing when evaluating this class. It is a fantastic class made up of the best La. has to offer, and extremely well defended from coaches who know how to pick pocket recruits, and tried desperately to get ours this year because they are so good. This class is as good as any ranked above it in any poll, and has the potential to have as much impact as any in recent memory.

LINK

quote:

---

So I posted my abbreviated thoughts in a different thread, but it turned into a big flame, name-calling fest so I figured I'd try again. For anyone who has intelligible critiques, comments or questions please join in. I am always eager and willing to discuss Tiger football. For any who simply wish to sling mud and insults, please stay away. Now on to the thoughts.

Recruiting class grade: A/A-
Recruiting job by the coaches: C+/B-

Seems awful weird to break these into two different categories, but I think it's extremely important and worth discussing. Let's be honest there are simply some states that are easier to recruit to than others. A state like Louisiana where you have a continent-sized amount of talent and studs everywhere plus only one flagship school is basically a recruiting Casino where you're Rainman.

I made the Clemson example in the other thread and I think it still holds plenty of water. South Carolina didn't produce a single 5 star this year whereas Louisiana produced 3. However, a team with a losing record last year signed more 5 stars than us, all out-of-state.

Some were asking if an out-of-state recruit counts for more than an instate recruit. No, this is obviously not true, but what is true is it's significantly more difficult to get someone like Tony Steward to say in front of a packed gym that was doing the Tomahawk chant and waving FSU flags that he was going to their division rival than it was for LSU coaches to get someone like Collins to go to LSU.

The saving graces of this coaching staff when it comes to recruiting are Wilson and Cooper. You can directly attribute the LOIs of Freak and Landry to Wilson. Without him, they don't sign here. And Cooper once again validated his skills as being the best DB evaluator in the nation. Collins, Jenkins and Eugene are all studs who will play in the league with his coaching.

My complaints of the coaching staff are three. First, Chavis simply has got to improve as a recruiter. His developmental skills are second to none, but he really struggles getting the best canvases to work with. I mentioned that this was one of the deepest LB classes in a long time. We really could've added a couple bigtime studs (I think Randle is good but he's still just one).

There were two critiques of this theory. The first was that there are bigtime studs instate next year at LB. First off, I have never EVER been a proponent of the "but we have so-and-so next year" theory. Second, I think the instate crop is somewhat overrated next year; not bad but there are no CJ or Anthony or Stewards in that class.

The second is that we already have plenty of depth at LB. Sure we have quite a few bodies, but we're lacking elite athleticism and playmaking ability IMO. We're also lacking bigtime size. People say we don't need to carry as many LBs because we use so much 4-2-5 personnel, and it is true we have used this personnel quite a lot the past two years.

This was out of necessity not desire IMO and it really hurt our ability to set the edge. Because of this you saw us use under fronts so frequently as well as send Mathieu off the edge so often. The problem with this is you're committing so many bodies to the edge because you're undersized that it really puts pressure on your interior LBS and missed tackles can result in huge gains. An athletic OLB with size like Anthony or Steward would have been monster in this class.

My second critique is our move away from East Texas. I don't know who was supposed to be recruiting this area but they severely dropped the ball this year (and of all the years to do-so). I know there's tons of recruits in Florida but it's so much farther and there's not the LSU contingent like there is in East Texas.

So all in all I think the class is very good but I simply can't give it an A+ or the coaches an A grade when we were out-recruited by Alabama for the 4th year in a row (and by Auburn in 2 out of the 3 sites) in a class that we've been talking up for years. Hell we had three 5 stars committed before the end of the summer and we still couldn't out-do the midget. They also took one less LOI than us so it wasn't our restrictions that hurt us.

That's all. I know many won't read this, but for those who do I'd appreciate any thoughts (looks like we'll all be snowed in too so we have time). Have a good one!

---

It is absolutely amazing how naive some LSU fans have become. Anyone who subscribes to the "LSU recruits itself" to instate players theory is probably pretty new to the recruiting scene.

Just because Nick Saban and Les Miles have made it seem easy - IT'S NOT!! I've had to suffer through so many years when the top programs at the time would come in and snatch 5-star type players like Johnny Hector, Tommy Wilcox, Warrick Dunn, Travis Minor, Raynoch Thompson, Leroy Etienne, Tyronne Hughes, Bucky Richardson, Darryl Songy, Billy Cannon, Leroy Hoard, and so many more than I care to name. And in every case the LSU coaching staff at the time busted their balls to keep these stars at home - and couldn't.

Les Miles, Frank Wilson, and the rest of the staff did a GREAT job with this class. And if you think Wilson and Cooper are the only coaches that deserve credit for this class, maybe you should ask Rasco and his family about Brick Haley, or David Jenkins and his family about Steve Ensminger, and on and on. Once again, it is so naive to think that you'll get every player you target.

You keep talking about Clemson signing so many out-of-state highly rated players. Guess what - good for them. They did a good job. But how in the hell does that translate into this staff doing an average job? Simply absurd.

To rate the signing class an "A" and the coaches that recruited that class a "C/B" is absolutely ludicrous.

quote:

---

Still a great accomplishment to lock them all down, but this was a special instate class.

---

as in C+ great?

Look I totally get where you are coming from but there are some factors here that you are not noticing IMO.

1. LSU roster of scholarship LBs:

46 Kevin Minter LB 6-1 225
22 Ryan Baker LB 6-0 227
23 Stefoin Francois LB 6-1 215
57 Lamin Barrow LB 6-2 221
58 Tahj Jones LB 6-2 205
54 Justin Maclin LB 6-4 230
52 Luke Muncie LB 6-3 223
31 D.J. Welter LB 6-0 226

Add Trevon Randle and you have 9 scholarship LBs. Most of these players are underclassmen. So if you have a schollie limit of 83, would it really be prudent to have recruited MORE LBs?? ...and if you already believe that more safeties will be moved to LB, which they will, then you should realize that there is plenty depth there.

The fact that most of these players are underclassmen should also tell you that many of them will continue to improve and will likely have better results on the field, accordingly.

2. Looks like a solid LB class next year, as far as in-state players go. This makes recruiting easier from a logistics standpoint. Plus, as I have already detailed, LBs weren't a huge need. LSU lost one LB and gained another for a net loss of 0 LBs.

3. Chavis effectively develops many safeties into solid LBs. Did you notice how LSU has recruited a number of extra safeties? There is a reason for that. Chavis likes a converted safety on the strong side. If you have a problem with this, then your gripe is more scheme related. You would have to then adjust your view of recruiting accordingly. To reiterate: If Chavis likes a big saftey a Sam backer, then he has recruited very well...thus making YOUR negative recruiting rating irrelevant because you are rating the class based on what YOU believe should be the correct personnel. Get it?

4. Chavis often uses a 4-2-5 with an extra DB on the field, hence the abundance of PT for Tyrann last year. He does this out of a schematic choice, not out of necessity due to poor LB recruiting.



If i had to be super critical, I would say that LSU should have sacrificed one of the DBs they recruited and gone for another DT. The coaches know more than I though and for all I know they might have even tried to do that.

quote:

---

How does that mean that it's easier for LSU? You are trying to make a definitive statement about something that is unquantifiable, at least with the numbers you present.

You don't know the effort that each coaching staff went through to secure the signatures so you can't determine who had the easier job.

---

Right. LSU signed Peterson because Clemson didn't put in the effort. They had a great shot with him but decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Also on your "effort" argument, Clemson is much closer to Florida and they recruit there constantly so would you really make the argument that they would put in less effort for a Florida kid than LSU would?

Look I know it's borderline impossible to definitely prove something is easier than something else. However, here are a couple of things I'd include and lemme know if you don't think it's slightly compelling. Not saying you could get a jury to indict under the "without a reasonable doubt" clause but I think any logical person could see where I'm going.

-One team is a significant national power, the other hasn't won their conference since its expansion
-One team has won two NCs since 2003, the other has won one in its history and it was in the 80s
-One has a better history of signing elite players from this particular state

You don't think it's slightly compelling that one might be easier to recruit to? I'm not saying you could get Einstein to prove it a law of nature, but I think it's somewhat obvious.

I think he meant to say John David Crow, not Billy Cannon.

quote:

---

I know it's borderline impossible to definitely prove something is easier than something else.

---

Capitulation. I'm done here.

quote:

---

Look I totally get where you are coming from but there are some factors here that you are not noticing IMO.

1. LSU roster of scholarship LBs:

46 Kevin Minter LB 6-1 225
22 Ryan Baker LB 6-0 227
23 Stefoin Francois LB 6-1 215
57 Lamin Barrow LB 6-2 221
58 Tahj Jones LB 6-2 205
54 Justin Maclin LB 6-4 230
52 Luke Muncie LB 6-3 223
31 D.J. Welter LB 6-0 226

Add Trevon Randle and you have 9 scholarship LBs. Most of these players are underclassmen. So if you have a schollie limit of 83, would it really be prudent to have recruited MORE LBs?? ...and if you already believe that more safeties will be moved to LB, which they will, then you should realize that there is plenty depth there.

The fact that most of these players are underclassmen should also tell you that many of them will continue to improve and will likely have better results on the field, accordingly.

2. Looks like a solid LB class next year, as far as in-state players go. This makes recruiting easier from a logistics standpoint. Plus, as I have already detailed, LBs weren't a huge need. LSU lost one LB and gained another for a net loss of 0 LBs.

3. Chavis effectively develops many safeties into solid LBs. Did you notice how LSU has recruited a number of extra safeties? There is a reason for that. Chavis likes a converted safety on the strong side. If you have a problem with this, then your gripe is more scheme related. You would have to then adjust your view of recruiting accordingly. To reiterate: If Chavis likes a big saftey a Sam backer, then he has recruited very well...thus making YOUR negative recruiting rating irrelevant because you are rating the class based on what YOU believe should be the correct personnel. Get it?

4. Chavis often uses a 4-2-5 with an extra DB on the field, hence the abundance of PT for Tyrann last year. He does this out of a schematic choice, not out of necessity due to poor LB recruiting.

---

Solid response, but I mentioned my gripe with this in the original post. I truly believe Chavis has been moving safeties to OLBs more out of necessity and not out of desire.

Like I mentioned originally, with these undersized OLBs we've had difficulty setting the edge in the past. That's why you see us running so many under fronts and bringing Mathieu off the edge so much. This is a good way to set a strong edge, but it leaves your interior vulnerable.

Also, I don't feel there are many elite playmakers in the names you mentioned. Obviously I know the coaches' opinions hold much more water than mine, and I have no doubt Chavis could mold them into something serviceable I just get giddy thinking about what he could do with someone like Anthony or Steward.

quote:

---

Thanks

---

You're thanking me for recognizing that you said I was right?