Other site trashes NUs recruiting
- Thread starter SciCat
- Start date
The writers on that site hustle and put out a lot of articles, but I've alway felt that their football knowledge overall was somewhat lacking. I think it is very hard to reach any conclusions about the strength of this class at this point of the recruiting cycle and based solely on star ratings. Furthermore, their whole theory of a decline is based on comparing these last two classes only to the 2014 class when that class, from a star rankings perspective, was also somewhat of an outlier relative to the classes that preceded it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the talent level that NU has been bringing in in the last several classes has never been better. My main concern is that I don't think we have developed that talent as well as we have in the past. I think Matt Rice said it best in a past post, NU's formula to success is to out recruit half of the Big Ten competition and then out coach/out develop the other half of the Big Ten. I think we are executing on the first half of the formula but I am not so sure about the second half of that formula.
IMO Fitz is doing very well in head to head competition this year against Iowa and Wisc. Overall this has not been the case in past years so I feel this is a major step up in recruiting. Further I do not think ILL has been a very strong state to recruit in over the last two years which hurts somewhat. Most importantly I think Fitz has done well this year considering the record over the last two years. Need more wins to move up the recruiting ladder.
That article was one of the worst hack jobs I've ever read. It does a huge disservice to NU and our football program. It just shows how amateur they can be over there, even though they do pump out some decent stuff.
Last edited:
I think you're spot-on, corbi. NU has been filling its classes with kids with multiple major conference offers - and the only exceptions have been players that nu was first on, based on camp performance.
But, with some exceptions, the staring group seems to be filled with guys who came in ready to compete, but who didn't seem to get much better over time.
Was Tony Jones better as a senior than as a freshman, when NU burned the shirt? How about Chi Chi or Vitabile or Campbell, who all contributed early?
Among the current roster, what about guys like Lowry or Henry or Vitale or Harris? All came in ready to contribute at the Big Ten level. But I don't know if any of them would be considered likely or preseason all-conference players in their third or fourth year on the field.
The best example would be the OL, which a) requires the most development, b) has been filled with three-star recruits for the better part of the decade, and c) could be considered a consistent weakness over the past several years.
This is not to denigrate the players; I think that they've not significantly been coached up over time.
Different side of the same coin: how many NU contributors who did not play in their true freshman or sophomore years became significant contributors as RS sophomores or later? Maybe Drew Smith. McHugh at WR and Jones at LB may get big opportunities. Certainly Oliver has a shot, though the ready-to-contribute-immediately guy seems to have the inside edge.
And, of course, maybe this is common as you recruit more big-time talent... The depth chart gets filled with obvious potential contributors, and those who miss early transfer to lower programs (in, say, the sec) or enjoy their education (at, say, NU).
So your thesis is basically "players who are better to start with are better players." Makes sense.
Well, also, "players don't get better."
The key questions were early on: Did Tony Jones or Vitabile or Campbell or Chi Chi or Collin Ellis get significantly better while they were here?
I would suggest that Jones and Ellis and Vitabile were the same as they were right away - good enough to see the field, not good enough to be difference makers.
The key questions were early on: Did Tony Jones or Vitabile or Campbell or Chi Chi or Collin Ellis get significantly better while they were here?
I would suggest that Jones and Ellis and Vitabile were the same as they were right away - good enough to see the field, not good enough to be difference makers.
Last edited:
Yes, they each did. ChiChi had to learn how to play linebacker after primarily playing safety in high school. Same with Campbell at DB after playing predominantly RB. Same with Ellis after playing RB/WR/DB at a low level of competition in Louisiana. TJones battled through injuries while Vitabile got a LOT better in pass protection.
You've explained how the first three got better or, say, gained experience, between the end of high school and stepping in the field. But the stats would show Ellis and ariguzo's contributions only marginally improving from the time they first got on the field to their senior seasons. The only difference between Jones as a soph and Jones as a junior was playing time. (We can call his senior season a wash, but we also know what we expected...) Vitabile was a Rimington watch list guy as a sophomore, and back to back Honorable Mention as a junior and senior. Ariguzo was 3 times Conference honorable mention.
Campbell seemed to have made a leap as a senior, but also seems, to me, to be the exception among the core that just left.
Maybe the research is wrong - maybe it's just normal for football playera to peak and plateau somewhere between 19 and 21.
If I may butt in, I think that article more or less sucked. Sounds like something you write just to take up space. I certainly do not consider myself to be an expert on recruiting, but at a glance the current class looks more or less equal in quality to last year and 2013. 2014 looks better than any class in recent memory because of 4 4-stars plus Anderson. But with the exception of that class I think the current class does not show any evidence that recruiting is getting any worse . I think the overall quality of the last 3 1/2 classes including the one in progress looks like an improvement to me over where we were several years ago when it seemed like we were 50% two stars and 50% three stars
Went back and read the article, and I personally feel it was disrespectful to the 2015 commits and their families. I know that some will read the article and I hope they realize that it was written by a student only a few years older than the themselves------------who probably knows nothing about analyzing tape or little else about the real "ins and outs" of recruiting.
I have always felt that in collegiate sports, coaches are fair game for criticism but that individual players should not be unduly criticized---it almost seems like this writer is disparaging our commits who have yet to play their senior year of high school football.
The article is pretty much garbage because it presents highly subjective and speculative data made for media purposes as evidence that recruiting is not reeling in the talent when the 2016 class is the statistical equivalent of the 2015 class. It also ignores the fact that the 2016 class is just over half filled, and that the updated rankings won't be available for several months. They do discuss competing offers as a comparator, but even that data is not complete.
It's a low blow, in my opinion, to criticize players when the authors don't watch film, talk to coaches, or attempt to inform themselves using other datapoints before writing such damning prose.
It's a low blow, in my opinion, to criticize players when the authors don't watch film, talk to coaches, or attempt to inform themselves using other datapoints before writing such damning prose.
I disagree with this. I don't quite understand this "our players don't improve" thing that people state here often. They improve, but perhaps not as fast as some would like them to.
Jones improved up until his junior year and then had a case of the drops for some reason last season. His ability to catch balls in traffic has improved considerably since he was a freshman.
Campbell has also improved from a shaky freshman year to become a steady, hard-hitting strong safety. Chi Chi and other LBs (Nwabuisi, Proby, too) have improved as evidenced by their higher tackle totals. I've looked at their stats and have posted on this previously. What I found then was steady improvement in the stats of our LB and DL, some of which is because of greater playing time. Proby was terrific his senior year and made plays that don't show in the stats like stoning guys at the line who otherwise would have gone for long gains. Proby did it time and time again. Keep in mind that the DL also affects LB stats as well. Having guys like Arnfelt and McEvilly at DT can keep the LBs clean for making tackles. ChiChi's best TFL year was in 2012 when both, as well as Scott and Willaims, were healthy. QWilliams certainly improved at DE and was playing superb football at the end of 2012, but that's back a few years.
Lowry has gone from a pass rush guy who benefitted from the efforts of Scott and Arnfelt to a solid, all around DL player. He can play inside or outside now and helps spring our DE's for sacks.
Our DT's have all developed from where they were when they entered the program. That's to be expected with weight training. I do wonder if the OL and DL could have improved even more with more of a power lifting routine. With a few exceptions like Arnfelt (!!!), they are not as strong as they need to be, IMO.
I also don't think you'll see as much improvement in some of the skill positions like RB because you either have it or you don't as a runner, but you will see improvement in their blocking abillity and ability to break tackles. JJ already breaks tackles well by virtue of the way he runs but needs to gain strength for blocking and durability. Some guys are great as freshman and stay that way like Sherrick McManis.
Guys can seem to peak their sophomore year because they make considerable improvement between their 1st and 2nd years on the field and because they are not known and schemed against. And of course, injuries can set back players in their development. I worry about that with Kuhar and McEvilly
Last edited:
Excellent post. As far as the insidenu site, you are also correct, it was a measurement compared against the 2014 class. While still premature, I find myself definitely agreeing with insidenu when comparing the two classes. Not sure who wouldn't??? That said, if you compare the context of the two classes, i.e., one after a bowl victory, and one after two poor seasons, I think I'd have to say that this year's class is a helluva lot better recruiting job. So, I was disappoingted that insidenu didn't put things in context. I think the storyline which includes the word "Disappointing" is unfair. I think Fitz has done a helluva job, along with Springer and others of pulling a rather solidly ranked class, at this point.
FWIW, the writer won an award as the top student journalist in the B1G.
http://www.insidenu.com/2015/5/26/8661675/henry-bushnell-named-big-tens-top-student-journalist
Honestly, not exactly sure what that's worth, but just putting it out there.
My 2 cents and I will take the contrarian view here just to balance things out a bit - recruiting is a little "meh" this year compared to years past, including and especially two years ago, so not sure why the author is getting called out for writing what should be obvious to all. I don't think it's a bad class necessarily or anything close to a disaster, but it's hard to dispute that the players are not quite as highly sought after (they have less impressive offers) and we did miss out on our top 3 QB's (though I acknowledge the possibility that the kid we fell back on might end up being the best of the 4), not to mention that none of the 4 were remotely as highly regarded as Alviti or Thornson - or for that matter Hunter Thompson, whom I hope we are still a high probability for next year. Last 3 classes, we've had a kid with an Alabama offer. We may end that streak this year. Campbell is easily our most highly regarded recruit, but wouldn't have been in other years. I don't think we've fallen quite to the levels of the pre-Fitz era, but so far, this is not one of our best classes, at least as measured by our A list (earliest offers), competitive offers (my favored indicator) and star rankings. We haven't lost anyone to the Illini or IU, thankfully, but we did lose three kids to BC (I realize we also beat BC for more than a couple, but prior to this year, losing to the likes of BC was extremely rare). I don't know why anyone is surprised. We are coming off two 5-7 seasons, so we should be dipping from the peak after our 10 win season. Just win, and we'll swing back up.
It's still early in the game, and anything can happen between now and February, but overall I think it's hard to argue with the kid's assessment. Far from a hack job if you ask me.
Because he didn't do anything besides look at composite ratings, make a few disparaging comments about the commits, then write a story.
The comparison off offers really isn't that different. If anything, 2014 is the outlier and 2016 recruiting is roughly on par with 2013 and 2015. And, if we are going to use "missing out on top QBs" as a barometer, we also did that in 2015 with Locksley, Gentry, Waller, Pellerin, and Perkins... so no "slippage" there.
PS -- wouldn't hurt your credibility to get the kids' names correct.
I don't think the assessment is necessarily wrong. The classes of 2015 and 2016 are clearly not as highly-regarded as the class of 2014, but he hardly did anything to back up his assessment. The "hack job" part is more in the clear lack of depth in thinking/analysis in favor of putting together a quick story that is more clickbait than analysis.
I think improvement and development are two separate things. For me, I haven't seen the sorta development or improvement along the OL. I think the DL has consistently improved. Scott being one, and I thought Gibson was underrated last year and I fully expect him to improve even more this year. That said, if our OL is weak and can't stay on blocks again for more than a second or two, then it's the Coordinator's job to play to the strengths of the offense. Spread the field and go with quick routes or quick and/or misdirection runs. Last year McCall was eating us alive by having mimimal protection and repeating the same ole thing, i.e., middle to deep routes that take time to develop, and virtually no misdirection whatsoever. I realize he knew Trevor had an arm that could get it there but Trevor couldn't do squat on his back. In this regards, I became very upset with McCall and I wasn't the only one. Announcers, almost weekly, were asking questions on TV about why the NU coach would continue just doing the same thing when the QB is getting absolutely POUNDED 10 yards behind the line. The problem is that this has happened two years in a row and McCall seems unable to listen or doesn't have the skillset to recognize this assault. Because the 2 QB system became the 3 QB system two years in a row now with our QB's getting absolutely crushed and injured. Our OL will be fine and our offense would be fine if we played to our strengths while recognizing the weaknesses. And another thing, if McCall can't recognize the worth of Vitale and utilize him more, then what is McCall good for?
Curious Turk. How can you, as an outsider, distinguish between improvement and development?
Observation. The greatest witness for a fan is any given Saturday.
That answer doesn't offer any specifics. What are the things you "observe" at indicate it is improvement or development? I assume you mean observation during games. If you see a player doing something better, how do you know whether the change in play came as a result of some coaching input or was strictly due to the player improving on his own?
"He's the kind of player who solidifies a recruiting class, but doesn't elevate it."
"He's a pretty underwhelming prospect."
"[Recruit] is undersized and shouldn't really generate much excitement."
"It's not like Northwestern beat any significant competition for his services."
"But the reality is that the players pledging their futures to NU aren't as good as the ones who were doing so two years ago, or even last year."
What a dweeb. Might have to start agreeing with Mr. Stupor about what level of dweeb we're letting into NU at this point.
Seeing him and his cohort of football lightweights circle the wagons in the comment section makes me think that this wasn't a clickbait piece but rather their actual belief and they thought that their 30 seconds of composite ranking searching on 247 was going to blow people's minds.
"He's a pretty underwhelming prospect."
"[Recruit] is undersized and shouldn't really generate much excitement."
"It's not like Northwestern beat any significant competition for his services."
"But the reality is that the players pledging their futures to NU aren't as good as the ones who were doing so two years ago, or even last year."
What a dweeb. Might have to start agreeing with Mr. Stupor about what level of dweeb we're letting into NU at this point.
Seeing him and his cohort of football lightweights circle the wagons in the comment section makes me think that this wasn't a clickbait piece but rather their actual belief and they thought that their 30 seconds of composite ranking searching on 247 was going to blow people's minds.
What does it matter? Whether it is coaching or self-improvement, the name of the game is to get better over 4 or 5 years. I believe most improvement is in fact a combination of both. Coaches can try to push all they want, but unless a player has the desire the coaching will fall flat. Likewise, a player may want to get better, but without good coaching he will be limited in what he can accomplish. So what you see on Saturday is a combination of the efforts of the staff and the players.
I watch NU football as a fan but I know nothing about football. So I'll comment through my basketball lens, a subject I know a little about (not being modest, that's little with a small l).
It's great that students get the opportunity to cover sports and write articles. But you really have to take what students write with a huge grain of salt. They know very little about the topic and there doesn't seem to be much editorial interference between the generation of content and that content getting posted.
When they write updates about bball recruits there is typically zero new information about the updates. They compile information, organize copy, write it up and post. A lot of the articles simply don't deliver what they promise. They graded all the basketball players' full season performance and it was a little painful to read. And other than the obvious B Mac did terrific, they got so much wrong. If a basketball player can score 17 a game he walks on water, even if he can't stop a stuffed bunny.
One young writer I've been impressed with as far as analysis goes is Doc Cat Fan's son. He does a nice, thoughtful job.
I'm middle aged and I don't like to see student athletes criticized. I'd like them to be able to go to school compete and graduate without having to read about how they are not very good. The same goes for the young writers who fill up content on sites like this. I'd like them to get a pass on being stupid. Undergrad is the period where you're allowed to be stupid at times.
But I'll throw the gauntlet down. The article that generated this thread is "C" work and the writer has more going on upstairs than the article represents. I like a lot of what he's done. Most of what he's done. If I were his editor I would hand it back with a lot of red ink and tell him, "bullshit, you didn't prove your thesis."
The article is an early first draft with a long way to go before it's ready for publication.
It's great that students get the opportunity to cover sports and write articles. But you really have to take what students write with a huge grain of salt. They know very little about the topic and there doesn't seem to be much editorial interference between the generation of content and that content getting posted.
When they write updates about bball recruits there is typically zero new information about the updates. They compile information, organize copy, write it up and post. A lot of the articles simply don't deliver what they promise. They graded all the basketball players' full season performance and it was a little painful to read. And other than the obvious B Mac did terrific, they got so much wrong. If a basketball player can score 17 a game he walks on water, even if he can't stop a stuffed bunny.
One young writer I've been impressed with as far as analysis goes is Doc Cat Fan's son. He does a nice, thoughtful job.
I'm middle aged and I don't like to see student athletes criticized. I'd like them to be able to go to school compete and graduate without having to read about how they are not very good. The same goes for the young writers who fill up content on sites like this. I'd like them to get a pass on being stupid. Undergrad is the period where you're allowed to be stupid at times.
But I'll throw the gauntlet down. The article that generated this thread is "C" work and the writer has more going on upstairs than the article represents. I like a lot of what he's done. Most of what he's done. If I were his editor I would hand it back with a lot of red ink and tell him, "bullshit, you didn't prove your thesis."
The article is an early first draft with a long way to go before it's ready for publication.
As to the recipe for improvement or development, that lies outside the scope of my comment. Beats me, how could I know with certainty? The recipe includes studying film, coaching, being doggedly determined in the weight room, intangibles, and other things inherent in the game like injuries. My comment had nothing to do with the recipe, just the finished product on the field. For instance, I can say with certainty, through observation, that Kafka developed into a very good QB AND his improvement was phenomenal. Not sure what your fuss is? Talk to me Willis!
Jango's dad was posting in the comments section of the article, will some well-reasoned rebuttal to the article and also offering the opinion that recruits use these articles as motivation. So the comments section of the article contained much more valuable insight than the actual article.
The slippage on QB's is more from Alviti and Thorson. The overarching message resonates. Hell, we're about to lose a kid to UCONN for Pete's sake. When has that ever happened?
He probably thinks UCONN has better academics. Morty better fire some non-tenured Profs and upgrade the teaching talent!
I didn't read their article and probably won't. I do occasionally read the site because, well, who else is writing about NU as often as them? That said, they remind me of that poindexter character that is the ESPN NFL analyst. I don't know his name but he is this squirrelly bald guy with glasses. I doubt he has ever touched a football, let alone a girl :-0
Northwestern is the one job I'd probably move for if NU needs some UConn talent.
(Oh boy, I hope I didn't make any grammatical errors this time.)
I disagree. I've grown tired of his constant shots at Jim Phillips and the athletic administration... I get enough of that on here from his dad.
Well, you do know that DocCatsFan and his son are the same person, right?
Probably harder to see the improvement in Vitabile as he is part of a unit that had its issues. TJ was injured in what likely would have been his most productive period. Other guys listed have done pretty well.
The message that resonates is that the 2014 class is the outlier and the last two classes are pretty much in line with historical norms, which isn't too bad considering two consecutive unimpressive seasons. Skanes is indeed a particular kind of situation, but it's pretty clear that he doesn't have much guidance in this recruiting process if he's choosing a school by its "chill factor."
2014 had a greater number of top athletes than we have had before or since. Not really surprising. Last year was headed along the same path until a number of decommits among our top rated guys. This just looks like a solid class. that would have been considered as very good compared to every class other than the 2014 outlier. Even though we have had to go to plan B in a few areas, those plan B guys look to be pretty good. Maybe that it is occurring earlier in the process. Still have to sign them but so far the class looks good.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Brendan Sullivan enters the transfer portal- Latest: CoralSpringsCat