forums

Richt's First Full Class (2017) - Looking back - What a Brutally Bad Top15 Class

Advertisement
moshated305 said:
Was a transition class. Not much time to save the mess Golden left. With that said the 2018 class hasn't produce much yet either.
Click to expand...
Wrong on that one my friend. 2016 was the transition class. 17 was richts first full class and it ended up clearly being brutal
 
orange&green84 said:
Talking about the development aspect. The defense has yet to put someone in the first two days of the NFL draft in the 4 years (no one from this cycle is going 3rd or better; maybe Shaq and that's a strong maybe).
Click to expand...
Yet we are fielding quality, competitive defenses. players aren't being drafted in the first 2 rounds because they aren't good enough, Isn't it possible the players are being developed to their max? considering the defense has played pretty well.
 
Ethnicsands said:
Do you think it is now safe for mainstream posters to admit we have had a talent issue in addition to coaching issues?
Click to expand...
No one has ever argued that we didn't have a talent issue.

The argument is that we have enough talent to beat teams that are worse than us, that's why people harp on the coaches as hard as they do.

Losing to a team like UF sucks but it's also understandable because they're more talented & better coached, but losing to 3-9 GTech & 6-7 FIU teams is what makes people lose their mind.

Simply with a competent coach those are easy W's.
 
Disgustipated said:
Yet we are fielding quality, competitive defenses. players aren't being drafted in the first 2 rounds because they aren't good enough, Isn't it possible the players are being developed to their max? considering the defense has played pretty well.
Click to expand...

We also play a garbage schedule given that we're in the weakest division. Don't pay attention to the rankings, if you put us in the Big 10 or SEC, our ranking's going to look a little different.

Also, if you're saying that the best you can churn out is day 3 draft picks, that goes back to evaluation - which circles back to coaching.

No matter how you argue it, it's coaching that's the problem, whether recruiting, evaluating, development or all of the above.
 
Advertisement
Liberty City El said:
No one has ever argued that we didn't have a talent issue.

The argument is that we have enough talent to beat teams that are worse than us, that's why people harp on the coaches as hard as they do.

Losing to a team like UF sucks but it's also understandable because they're more talented & better coached, but losing to 3-9 GTech & 6-7 FIU teams is what makes people lose their mind.

Simply with a competent coach those are easy W's.
Click to expand...

I accepted the UF loss. By blue chip rankings (which had us over 50%), we were about equal. But Mullen was/is a better HC than Manny and that was a rough matchup for a first time HC. Losing to teams vastly inferior to you, and managing to lose after every bye week is what has Manny labeled as a corch.
 
orange&green84 said:
I accepted the UF loss. By blue chip rankings (which had us over 50%), we were about equal. But Mullen was/is a better HC than Manny and that was a rough matchup for a first time HC. Losing to teams vastly inferior to you, and managing to lose after every bye week is what has Manny labeled as a corch.
Click to expand...

This is also for me the fact that Manny could not motivate the guys to play hard. It's like he just threw his hands up in the air and gave up, because the team's play reflected that.

That's corch-level. No matter what, a good coach gets his guys to play hard every week. Manny could not do that, and that is where he failed most miserably.
 
Liberty City El said:
No one has ever argued that we didn't have a talent issue.

The argument is that we have enough talent to beat teams that are worse than us, that's why people harp on the coaches as hard as they do.

Losing to a team like UF sucks but it's also understandable because they're more talented & better coached, but losing to 3-9 GTech & 6-7 FIU teams is what makes people lose their mind.

Simply with a competent coach those are easy W's.
Click to expand...

I give every 1st year coach and staff a TON of leeway...But what this staff lost to this year was one of the worst performances I've ever seen. It was hard to do worse than Diaz and company did this year.
 
Liberty City El said:
No one has ever argued that we didn't have a talent issue.

The argument is that we have enough talent to beat teams that are worse than us, that's why people harp on the coaches as hard as they do.

Losing to a team like UF sucks but it's also understandable because they're more talented & better coached, but losing to 3-9 GTech & 6-7 FIU teams is what makes people lose their mind.

Simply with a competent coach those are easy W's.
Click to expand...
My point has been that of course we have more talent than most teams we lose to. That’s what happens with bad coaching. But if people don’t realize how far our talent and culture have fallen, then their hoped for fixes will miss the mark. I call it like I see it, and I’ve seen multiple systemic issues for ages. I started harping on Evals in ‘02.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
Do you think it is now safe for mainstream posters to admit we have had a talent issue in addition to coaching issues?
Click to expand...

You've been one of the few that has pounded the table with me on this issue.

There have been countless canaries in this coal mine that should have given a heads up to the GenPop that the talent here ain't all that.

Couple it with the lack of development, evaluation, and recruiting acumen and this team is where it is today.
 
Couple this with the 2016 Class and you can see how our Senior and Junior classes from last year were absolutely abysmal. No joke, but our depth and talent is at G5 level.
 
We as fans cant have it both ways. You can't ***** about not getting a top 5 class and say these things . That's why I never do as I know you can't go by rankings in a class. For example IMO the 2 classes Manny brought in are better then any classes we have brought in since Shannon . The 3 stars Manny brought in last year ( and even the 2 star in zion) were better then they were advertised.

I remember in the 80's and early 90's some of best classes weren't top 10 and some of our worst were top 5 ( looking at you Dennis Erickson ) . It is about talent eval not how many stars a kid has. **** guys like Ed Reed and Ray lewis were thought as 3 stars by services !
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
It's development and evals in my opinion.

I may be of the minority but I feel like Miami has/had a severe problem developing players. Everybody regresses here. Bandy, Thomas, Joe Jackson, Garvin, etc... looked like future studs as freshmen. They never got better.
Click to expand...
in the minority? i think MOST people here feel that our development sucks, which means our coaching sucks.
 
rsa coral gables said:
in the minority? i think MOST people here feel that our development sucks, which means our coaching sucks.
Click to expand...
‘Development’ as a label has been a term people use to cover up for bad evals. Hey, we recruited kids with stars, so if they don’t pan out, it must be because ’development.’ Whatever that means. It’s not all that helpful as a term. People should be more specific. Is it bad technical training? Bad S&C? Is it cultural or rooted in a lack of technical capabilities?

The truth is, much of what people call bad ‘development’ is just the visual effect of bad schemes. If you don’t put kids in a position to look good, they won‘t look good, and the absence of looking good is what many see as proof of bad ‘development.’

But even in the ‘bad development’ era, we’ve had guys who developed. Rayshawn Jenkins, Walford, Redwine, Jaquan, Herndon, Njoku, Perryman, Burns, Feliciano, Isidora, Hurns, Hankerson, etc.

Bad coaching shows up in a lot of ways. Bad culture is downstream from bad coaching. Bad S&S is downstream from bad culture. But all that aside, Evals get to what you bring in the door. Are we bringing in the right kids. The right type of kids.
 
Ethnicsands said:
‘Development’ as a label has been a term people use to cover up for bad evals. Hey, we recruited kids with stars, so if they don’t pan out, it must be because ’development.’ Whatever that means. It’s not all that helpful as a term. People should be more specific. Is it bad technical training? Bad S&C? Is it cultural or rooted in a lack of technical capabilities?

The truth is, much of what people call bad ‘development’ is just the visual effect of bad schemes. If you don’t put kids in a position to look good, they won‘t look good, and the absence of looking good is what many see as proof of bad ‘development.’

But even in the ‘bad development’ era, we’ve had guys who developed. Rayshawn Jenkins, Walford, Redwine, Jaquan, Herndon, Njoku, Perryman, Burns, Feliciano, Isidora, Hurns, Hankerson, etc.

Bad coaching shows up in a lot of ways. Bad culture is downstream from bad coaching. Bad S&S is downstream from bad culture. But all that aside, Evals get to what you bring in the door. Are we bringing in the right kids. The right type of kids.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and there is more to extrapolate from the bold portions, as even "bad evaluations" is a broad term.

Is the kid missing certain athletic traits or measurables to succeed at this level? How do we project his physical growth and maturation? Are there character concerns? What is the kid's work ethic like? Does he have a high enough football IQ? Is he liked by his teammates? Does he have sufficient mental toughness to overcome adversity? Does he have sufficient discipline to maintain good traits following success? Can we utilize and maximize his talents in our scheme?

A lot of people stop at the first two or three questions when they are looking at recruits. With star rankings, combine results, camp highlights, and game film, it's easy to fall into a myopic view of the evaluation process that focuses on physical ability and raw athleticism. But history is full of incredibly talented people who never amount to ****.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
‘Development’ as a label has been a term people use to cover up for bad evals. Hey, we recruited kids with stars, so if they don’t pan out, it must be because ’development.’ Whatever that means. It’s not all that helpful as a term. People should be more specific. Is it bad technical training? Bad S&C? Is it cultural or rooted in a lack of technical capabilities?

The truth is, much of what people call bad ‘development’ is just the visual effect of bad schemes. If you don’t put kids in a position to look good, they won‘t look good, and the absence of looking good is what many see as proof of bad ‘development.’

But even in the ‘bad development’ era, we’ve had guys who developed. Rayshawn Jenkins, Walford, Redwine, Jaquan, Herndon, Njoku, Perryman, Burns, Feliciano, Isidora, Hurns, Hankerson, etc.

Bad coaching shows up in a lot of ways. Bad culture is downstream from bad coaching. Bad S&S is downstream from bad culture. But all that aside, Evals get to what you bring in the door. Are we bringing in the right kids. The right type of kids.
Click to expand...

it is both, bad evals and bad development. we know if it is bad development when the player goes to the NFL and produces.
 
rsa coral gables said:
it is both, bad evals and bad development. we know if it is bad development when the player goes to the NFL and produces.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Guys who go to the NFL are generally developed. If they didn’t look good at UM, it’s most likely because our scheme and game planning and play calling suck. Those things make the team unproductive. They don;t prove that a kid wasn’t ‘developed.’

We’ve had a few kids do better in the nfl than you’d expect, but not that many. Who are the guys who magically developed in the nfl?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top