Production vs Potential

[NDSox]

Taking a break from the weekly matchup banter for a bit...

With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.

Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.

It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.

My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.

 

[mc140]

You are projecting what they will do when they are 22-23. You routinely see very good and undersized high school players try to walk on at bigger schools. The vast majority never end up playing. My neighbor was an all CCL player and chose to walk on at a mid level Big Ten school over D2 offers. It took until his 5th year there to get on the field consistently as a special teams player and he played zero snaps his first three years there.

 

[greatgig13]

Reminds me of a kid CG had a couple years ago. Didn’t start until senior year but got recruited by SIU as a d lineman because he was 6-5” 300. Wasn’t even on the radar and suddenly became noticed based on potential with a build like that.

 

[Kevin JCHS 81]

Taking a break from the weekly matchup banter for a bit...

With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.

Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.

It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.

My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.

I believe the College saying you are looking for is: "You Can't teach size or physical attributes to a kid BUT you can teach everything else."

 

[LHSTigers94]

Taking a break from the weekly matchup banter for a bit...

With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.

Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.

It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.

My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.

Considering 70% of college football is below average, appearance is way more important than skill. The schools that actually recruit talent are usually more successful.

 

[Formicidae13]

Rochester qb Nic Baker from a couple years ago is someone that comes to mind with this topic. He still went D1(SIU), but if he were taller I imagine he would’ve had all sorts of top level offers. His senior year he had 3,900 yards, 54 tds, and only 2 ints on his way to a 14-0 record. He’s already proven himself quite well with the Salukis

 

[NDSox]

Rochester qb Nic Baker from a couple years ago is someone that comes to mind with this topic. He still went D1(SIU), but if he were taller I imagine he would’ve had all sorts of top level offers. His senior year he had 3,900 yards, 54 tds, and only 2 ints on his way to a 14-0 record. He’s already proven himself quite well with the Salukis

I think many of us can think of these types of examples. I have a hard time coming up with examples of the kid who fits the size mold but really doesn't play to a great impact in HS to all of a sudden becoming a contributor at D1 level. In fact, many of those don't seem to even stick around for more than the first year in college.

 

[crusader_of_90]

This guy played in the band freshman year and was badgered into playing sophomore year. Was the whipping boy for almost everyone. But the scouts saw 6/5, 245 pounds who ran the 300 high hurdles. So Northwestern took him. He was not awesome, but still huge and fast, so the Rams took him.

Frank Boudreaux Stats, News and Video - DT | NFL.com

Latest on DT Frank Boudreaux including news, stats, videos, highlights and more on NFL.com

www.nfl.com

Then he blew out his shoulder, and the Secret Service took him.

http://admin.althoffcatholic.org/tinymce/filemanager/files/Boudreaux2.pdf

 

[crusader_of_90]

Considering 70% of college football is below average, appearance is way more important than skill. The schools that actually recruit talent are usually more successful.

Wouldn't it be 50 percent below average?

 

[LHSTigers94]

Wouldn't it be 50 percent below average?

7 and 6 or 8 and 5 records are considered average. Getting to 6 wins make you bowl eligible which is below average. How many college teams make a bowl game?

 

[eagles2k3]

This is a great topic of discussion. I’m sure edgy or other posters could comment on their own experiences. Wasn’t there a Naz wide receiver, who was dominant at many of the camps and combines but didn’t get the big offers? I think he ended up walking on At a big school.

 

[FballDaddy]

Great thread. I think what's worth considering is that production can be team based. Running backs on passing teams might not have major stats. They also need at least a decent line to provide some openings for them. Wide receivers are dependent on a QB getting them the ball (and a line blocking well enough to give that QB time). QBs without people to catch...etc.

That doesn't even account for the fact of how different competition can impact "production". Would you rather have a RB getting 100yds a game in the CCL or 150yds a game in some rural small school conference? I think that's why the camps and measurables are getting so much weight IMO.

 

[eagles2k3]

perfect example of a player that didn’t pass the eye test is North Central’s Andrew Kamienski. All time leader and receptions, record holder for tds in a season, etc. He is drawing a lot of attention from nfl scouts and is likely to be drafted. I’m fairly certain he could start at a lot of big ten schools. Definitely didn’t pass the eye test coming out of high school but is no doubt making a name for himself at a small school.

 

[missingwalter]

Oswego had a kid that went to D3 Dubuque, never started a game for OHS and was on the Bears practice squad last season (may even be there now). Sometimes you just grow into your potential in college.

 

[MC63]

I believe the College saying you are looking for is: "You Can't teach size or physical attributes to a kid BUT you can teach everything else."

Ray Meyer (DePaul) said many times, "you can't teach heighth."

 

[Oddy]

Yea, you can’t teach size. One of my sons played o line, started every hs game he played, had a C on his jersey Sr year, but was under sized and never got a sniff of recruiting. Why I find hs football so interesting and college not so much.

 

[GhostOfTheGhhost]

No so long ago, coaches wanted to see games. Entire games. They would go to watch kids play. They would request full game tapes, not just highlights. They had to find players, not potentials. The rise of camps like Rivals, plus the internet making it possible for schools to move from regional recruiting to almost national recruiting let colleges take a lot more chances on kids with potential. Not saying it is better or worse, but I am saying that old school guys like me will always find it frustrating that kids that can actually play get a lot less looks than kids with potential because of size/speed...especially when you see games where the "player" dominates the "potential."

 

[RD_Watcher]

College recruiters still look at full games via Hudl and other film services. While a kid's highlight clip may catch their eye on Twitter, it is measurables, showcase performance and full game tape that drives a recruiter to start conversations. Programs big and small still send assistants out to watch games every week, depending on the program's schedule and location. I know definitively Butler and Valpo have coaches and assistants at games in Chicagoland every week, even with their smaller sized staffs. The bigger the program, the more eyes they have on recruiting.

If you look at college football as a business where an investment requires a return, it makes sense for a Big 5 program to use measurables and analytics. Sure, there are instances where someone gets overlooked and ends up having a remarkable college career at a small FBS, FCS, DII or DIII school - but those are few and far between - and 99.9% of those kids would not have been a Heisman Trophy winner and drive ticket sales.

Every program has years of data they use to construct their "perfect" recruit by position, and they hit far more than they don't. Even the kids with the measurables who do not become starters still contribute to the team at Scout and Special teams, giving the starting team quality reps every week against scout players with SEC/BIG 10/PAC 12 size. Often, those scout and special teams players are still on scholarship - some full, some partial. Why? Because programs have figured out the "investment" of the scholarship is worth the return in a starter going up against that scout team player every week in practice.

Further, HS production isn't always able to be directly compared, especially at a non-skilled position. If we look at a hypothetical OT - 6"5" 270lbs. Let's say he gave up no sacks during his season, and running to his B or C gap gained 1500+ yards. You then have to take into account his competition. Did he face any other D1 caliber competition? How did he do blocking into the strength of the Offense? Was he having to move his feet, or was he simply stronger than everyone else? Was he facing 3 or 4 man fronts? What if you then found out this OT only has a 76" wingspan, has a May birthday, and is the oldest in his High School class? Conversely, an OT that only had 700 yards rushing to his side and gave up 2 sacks, but faced tough competition, has a 80" wingspan. has a May birthday, and is one of the youngest in his class. The younger kid may have more potential, as his body hasn't developed as much, he may have more room to put on muscle at the next level, and he faced stiffer competition in High School.

So back to the original point about potential vs. production - as all production is not equal, a program has to use measurables to compare, and will take the kid with more potential when there is a higher ROI. While not perfect, if their system has a higher than 75% return, they will consider it a successful model.

Lastly, I believe some kids - and many parents - need to check their ego and accept what they are being told. The market will tell you where you stand. And believe it or not, players at North Central, Rochester, Augustana, Valpo, Butler, and Western Illinois are have great college experiences - some are probably better than kids in B1G programs. If a kid wants to play in college, there is a spot somewhere for them to play. It just may not be at Notre Dame, Illinois, Michigan, or even Vanderbilt. And that is okay.

 

[missingwalter]

Valpo sends coaches out to games? Cause they offer just about every kid with a little bit of talent.

 

[RD_Watcher]

Valpo sends coaches out to games? Cause they offer just about every kid with a little bit of talent.

I know they send people out, especially when they have a home game weekend. I'm assuming with a relatively new coach, they are just trying to fill the program and hope they hit on someone. That league is weird, in that they don't offer scholarships, yet are D1 FCS. So if a kid truly believes he was under-recruited and is willing to put in the work, he could go to Valpo (or Butler, or Dayton) and try to get into a position to transfer.

 

[missingwalter]

I don't if that's easy (to transfer out), especially for kids with academic money. My point was, Valpo offered about 8 kids from our program in the class of '21, we played in the Spring and not one coach reached out to those kids after the "offer" was made. They certainly could have had a chance to show up to some games.

 

[RD_Watcher]

That's a good point. I can't say what their strategy is, what restrictions were in place last spring, or what their recruiting goals are. I just know they have someone - and sometimes, multiple someones - at games almost every week. Perhaps it's for the better talent they are trying to really recruit?

When you don't have scholarships, you can offer anyone, I suppose.

 

[missingwalter]

That's a good point. I can't say what their strategy is, what restrictions were in place last spring, or what their recruiting goals are. I just know they have someone - and sometimes, multiple someones - at games almost every week. Perhaps it's for the better talent they are trying to really recruit?

When you don't have scholarships, you can offer anyone, I suppose.

Possibly and in the Spring most of the "better" talent had already signed LOI's. Regardless of that, almost everywhere I went on recruiting visits, all the kids had offers from Valpo.

 

[Bwm57]

I believe the College saying you are looking for is: "You Can't teach size or physical attributes to a kid BUT you can teach everything else."

Seems like it might be hard to “teach” brains or heart a lot of the time.

 

[godfthr53]

Coaches still request to see full games. They want to see what the recruit is doing on the plays that aren't part of their highlight.

 

[Sterling Warrior]

Taking a break from the weekly matchup banter for a bit...

With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.

Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.

It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.

My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.

Reminds me of when I was in 7th grade, I didn’t make the middle school basket ball team because I couldn’t touch the net. I was by far a better player and shooter than many of my classmates that made the team because they could touch the net. Lol

 

[MC63]

Reminds me of when I was in 7th grade, I didn’t make the middle school basket ball team because I couldn’t touch the net. I was by far a better player and shooter than many of my classmates that made the team because they could touch the net. Lol

Was Matt Nagy your coach? How 'bout Terry Bevington?

 

[UlbKA91]

I thought August baby versus September baby would be a more consequential birthday cut-off. My daughter with mid September birthday coasted on that in youth volleyball until the other girls in her class caught up.

In regards to baseball development, it had been said that an outsized share of MLBers have August birthdays - that could be downwind of perceived potential and also the fact that an August birthday kid remains eligible in a younger age group for the entire summer and thus has a greater chance to dominate.

 

[missingwalter]

I thought August baby versus September baby would be a more consequential birthday cut-off. My daughter with mid September birthday coasted on that in youth volleyball until the other girls in her class caught up.

In regards to baseball development, it had been said that an outsized share of MLBers have August birthdays - that could be downwind of perceived potential and also the fact that an August birthday kid remains eligible in a younger age group for the entire summer and thus has a greater chance to dominate.

My son has an August birthday and he would have benefited greatly in both football and baseball had we held him back a year.

 

[UlbKA91]

My son has an August birthday and he would have benefited greatly in both football and baseball had we held him back a year.

Bill Parcell's ideal draftee was a lineman on either side with a September birthday who also redshirted.

 

[RD_Watcher]

I thought August baby versus September baby would be a more consequential birthday cut-off. My daughter with mid September birthday coasted on that in youth volleyball until the other girls in her class caught up.

In regards to baseball development, it had been said that an outsized share of MLBers have August birthdays - that could be downwind of perceived potential and also the fact that an August birthday kid remains eligible in a younger age group for the entire summer and thus has a greater chance to dominate.

I said May somewhat randomly. What I've seen - especially in/around the West Suburbs - are kids being "redshirted" for a year, normally after 8th grade. Most of these kids are on the younger side of their original class, as they started Kindergarten as a 5 year old, turning 6 in the spring, which is why I picked May. I know of some kids that graduated 8th grade in public school, then did another year of 8th grade at a private school. For at least one kid I know of, that private school was IMG for baseball.

My initial reaction to the Baseball development is those August birthday kids that made it to the MLB did not play down and "dominate", but played "up" with the friends they played with all their life. To quote a friend of mine with a lot of baseball development knowledge, if a kid is routinely the best player on the field each weekend, - like batting .750 in a weekend travel tournament - he is not playing at the right level. Dominating lesser competition won't make a better the same way playing up against better, more physically developed competition.

I am sure college recruiters in every sport are aware of a kid who graduates High School at 17 versus a kid who graduates High School at 18, almost 19 years old.

 

[AmbroseBlack]

I know of some kids that graduated 8th grade in public school, then did another year of 8th grade at a private school. For at least one kid I know of, that private school was IMG for baseball.

I heard of kids intentionally being held back in elementary school to gain a year of athletic development but never 8th grade. That is crazy to me.

 

[RD_Watcher]

I heard of kids intentionally being held back in elementary school to gain a year of athletic development but never 8th grade. That is crazy to me.

It is to me as well. To be fair, if a kid's birthday is in the summer -late July for example - and the young parents start him in Kindergarten at 5 years old, I can understand holding him back a year at some point, even in 8th grade. If a kid's birthday is in April or earlier, and the kid turns 18 during a senior year, i don't understand it. Holding a kid back for athletic reasons, and letting him/her turn 19 while still a student in high school makes absolutely no sense to me. If I were a college recruiter, the age would be a heavy discriminator, especially when evaluating against opponents.

 

[eagles2k3]

I heard of kids intentionally being held back in elementary school to gain a year of athletic development but never 8th grade. That is crazy to me.

This happens with wrestlers.
Much more prevalent with high level wrestlers. Lot's of wrestlers held back every year in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania but you're starting to see it more in Illinois now.

 

[Golden Warrior]

one of sterling's best players of recent vintage graduated at age 17 and didn't turn 18 until late july. man, a "redshirt" year for that kid would have been unfair! interestingly enough, he has a cousin who WAS "redshirted" and turned 19 during his senior year. that was helpful for this player's growth as well. i am not an advocate for "Redshirting" kids for athletic purposes, but i understand it.

 

[RD_Watcher]

This happens with wrestlers.
Much more prevalent with high level wrestlers. Lot's of wrestlers held back every year in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania but you're starting to see it more in Illinois now.

Interesting - I didn't realize it is so prevalent in wrestling. Of course, there are some social-economic factors involved in being able to "redshirt".

 

[Sterling Warrior]

Was Matt Nagy your coach? How 'bout Terry Bevington?

I honestly don’t remember their names, this was a long time ago!