Fitz says up to 11 true freshman may play this year (including 4 WRs)

[gocatsgo2003]

That's fascinating, GCG, and leads me to four questions:
1. Were there multiple metrics that prospects had to reach, or was it only the 100? Feel free to share the tests and thresholds if you like.
2. Does this mean that there is a case where a 10.98 could be passed through whatever screening process you were involved in, but an 11.02 would not?
3. Did this process distinguish between hand timed or electronic time?
4. What's the source? Because you're talking about the screening process, I assume it's a questionnaire of some sort routed through the high school? (Geez, I hope it was a faxed form.)

As with most things in recruiting, it was more art than science. But, in order:

1) This is the main "more art than science" area, in that most speed times aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Prospects, high school coaches, speed/development coaches like Core 6, and even combines like The Opening are all incentivized to "juice" times for one reason or another. That's part of the reason track times are helpful -- they are much more likely to be impartial. I personally liked the indoor sprints, then the 100, then the 200.

2) No.

3) Yes.

4) Publicly-available times on DyeStat, Athletic.net, and the like. The only thing that was taken at face value on recruiting questionnaires was the name and address.

 

[Gladeskat]

I'm not really here to argue that Jake isn't a good athlete -- he had solid tape and is a versatile guy who reminded me somewhat of a Brian Peters safety or a Herschel Henderson corner, maybe even a Jimmy Hall SAM. Jake's 100 PR is reported in one place as an 11.06 and another as a 10.92. He's a good athlete and I was pleasantly surprised by his tape based on his offer list.

But anything over an 11.0 100 is not a positive for a guy trying to play a skill position at the BCS level, regardless of skill.

So I guess VanHoose's 11.4-ish 100-meter times indicates he shouldn't be a good corner. There's football speed and then there's track speed.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I would agree with you somewhat if you were talking about 100 yards vs. 100 meters. Otherwise, I simply don't believe you. We don't have many skill position players players on the current roster who can run an 11.0 hundred meters, and a number of those who couldn't landed D1 scholarships in any event. (By skill position players, I assume you mean running backs, receivers,. defensive backs and quarterbacks.)

I never said it was a hard cut off. I said it was reason for further investigation. After all, if you want a fast team you have to recruit fast players.

The most vivid example I can remember is Ibraheim Campbell, though it's a little different in that is was in his senior year instead of during the recruiting process. We saw that he had run an 11.19 100 his senior year and the thought was "well, maybe he doesn't run as well as we thought." That is until we realized that he had also run both the 110 and 300 hurdles and competed in the long jump on the same day. Assuming the typica ordering of events, he had already competed in the long jump and had the hurdle events in front of him, so was conserving energy. If I recall correctly, he had already run the prelims for his races as well.

And this was a benchmark for the positions you list except for QBs.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

So I guess VanHoose's 11.4-ish 100-meter times indicates he shouldn't be a good corner. There's football speed and then there's track speed.

Or we knew Nick was an excellent overall athlete who competed in track his senior year primarily to stay in shape for football. We thought he was a good enough athlete to play corner at a high level based on his tape, but were even more sure after Bates watched him play essentially as a one-man press on the basketball court, showing the change of direction and dynamic athleticism we were looking for.

And, again, track times were just one of many factors that go into an athletic evaluation.

 

[hdhntr1]

Do you really think these guys got slower or that they lied about their 40 times as high schoolers (or were timed by their coaches or at combines... both of which are highly incentivized to "juice" times)?

First, there were only 93 guys that were sub 4.5 total out of HS from all sources. It does not indicate how the times were obtained. To your suggestion that the times provided might not always be reliable (especially when coaches hand timed or the like) , I do not disagree. But wouldn't the combines tend to be electronically timed and in any event, you have other times at the combine to compare to? What happens to them in college? Often they have to put on weight and/or change position. CBs go to Safety, Safeties to LB, LB to DL for example. This would tend to slow them down. Also a lot get injured or never perform at a high enough level to get to the combines. So in any event, I can see fewer guys having elite speed by the time it gets to the NFL combine. Total is only about 40 that are sub 4.5. And many guys may be slower than in HS.

That said, my original comment is that his time of a 4.42 was definitely not just average. I made no comment as to whether the time was valid. and since I grew up in a time of 100 yd times where anything 10.0 or under was considered pretty fast, I have much less feel for 100 meter times.

 

[NUCat320]

As with most things in recruiting, it was more art than science. But, in order:

1) This is the main "more art than science" area, in that most speed times aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Prospects, high school coaches, speed/development coaches like Core 6, and even combines like The Opening are all incentivized to "juice" times for one reason or another. That's part of the reason track times are helpful -- they are much more likely to be impartial. I personally liked the indoor sprints, then the 100, then the 200.

2) No.

3) Yes.

4) Publicly-available times on DyeStat, Athletic.net, and the like. The only thing that was taken at face value on recruiting questionnaires was the name and address.

That’s fascinating, GCG. Thanks for adding that color.

More follow-ups:

1. Were shorter distances also evaluated with similar cutoffs? I know that 60-yard/meter is a common indoor distance.

2. Are there publicly available/combine strength metrics that are used? I assume for those, you would rely on Rivals/UnderArmour etc. combine stats, which are far less subject to juicing? Or for strength, are you simply evaluating frame and presumed ability to add weight/strength.

3. Recruiting support staff sounds like drudgery. But, then again, so are shortly-after-undergrad, at least at the beginning. Thanks for your contributions to the cause.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

That’s fascinating, GCG. Thanks for adding that color.

More follow-ups:

1. Were shorter distances also evaluated with similar cutoffs? I know that 60-yard/meter is a common indoor distance.

2. Are there publicly available/combine strength metrics that are used? I assume for those, you would rely on Rivals/UnderArmour etc. combine stats, which are far less subject to juicing? Or for strength, are you simply evaluating frame and presumed ability to add weight/strength.

3. Recruiting support staff sounds like drudgery. But, then again, so are shortly-after-undergrad, at least at the beginning. Thanks for your contributions to the cause.

1) I liked to see sub-7.0 60s and sub-6.8 55s. 6.8 in the 60 and 6.6 in the 55s means you're pretty fast. A 6.42 like Jelani Roberts put up or 6.55 like Solomon Vault in the 55 means you're definitely pretty fast. There's always a difference between football speed and track speed as Glades pointed out, but solid track speed is at least an indicator that the "raw material" is there to be fast on the field.

2) Not really. Plus it is a whole lot easier to get a guy MUCH stronger than it is to get a guy MUCH faster. Strength gains can be pretty significant, but speed gains are more marginal (in an economic sense). It's more about frame and "projectability."

3) It was, but also a lot of fun.

 

[hdhntr1]

1) I liked to see sub-7.0 60s and sub-6.8 55s. 6.8 in the 60 and 6.6 in the 55s means you're pretty fast. A 6.42 like Jelani Roberts put up or 6.55 like Solomon Vault in the 55 means you're definitely pretty fast. There's always a difference between football speed and track speed as Glades pointed out, but solid track speed is at least an indicator that the "raw material" is there to be fast on the field.

2) Not really. Plus it is a whole lot easier to get a guy MUCH stronger than it is to get a guy MUCH faster. Strength gains can be pretty significant, but speed gains are more marginal (in an economic sense). It's more about frame and "projectability."

3) It was, but also a lot of fun.

Only 0.2 seconds different from 55 to 60 yds? At full speed, time to cover 10 yds is about 0.8 or so. I mean you are giving 2 plus seconds for 20 yds (40-60)

 

[No Chores]

I never said it was a hard cut off. I said it was reason for further investigation. After all, if you want a fast team you have to recruit fast players.

The most vivid example I can remember is Ibraheim Campbell, though it's a little different in that is was in his senior year instead of during the recruiting process. We saw that he had run an 11.19 100 his senior year and the thought was "well, maybe he doesn't run as well as we thought." That is until we realized that he had also run both the 110 and 300 hurdles and competed in the long jump on the same day. Assuming the typica ordering of events, he had already competed in the long jump and had the hurdle events in front of him, so was conserving energy. If I recall correctly, he had already run the prelims for his races as well.

And this was a benchmark for the positions you list except for QBs.

All of this is interesting, but the fact remains that a 11.0 100 meters is extremely fast for a 6'3" 200 lb safety. It is indeed a reason for congratulations, not just further investigation. I really don't think you appreciate how fast an 11.0 hundred meters actually is. Sure there is a difference between football speed and track speed, but to suggest that an 11.0 100 meters is no big deal is nonsense.