Summary as I see it so far

MeanGreen_MBA · February 1, 2017

It looks like a decent class on paper:

3 quality receivers, plus a 3 star RB/Slot/KR. Which was a need

5 OL which was definitely a need

1 Punter - a key point in Special Teams

2DL and 2 LB which is a point of concern and addressed

Fill-in a couple of secondary players that are usually good athletes to boot.

1 QB that has a lot of buzz around him

Throw in some Blue Shirts that will contribute, and don't forget English....

in addition to, was it 7 total 3 stars we brought in?

Not a bad day over all...

it appears The Sky is Not Falling after all!!!!

any grades at this point? I know the day is not over, and we still have a few schollys to hand out...plus the fall0out in the next few days..

I give today a solid B

MeanGreenTexan · February 1, 2017

6 minutes ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

It looks like a decent class on paper:

3 quality receivers, plus a 3 star RB/Slot/KR. Which was a need

5 OL which was definitely a need

1 Punter - a key point in Special Teams

2DL and 2 LB which is a point of concern and addressed

Fill-in a couple of secondary players that are usually good athletes to boot.

1 QB that has a lot of buzz around him

Throw in some Blue Shirts that will contribute, and don't forget English....

in addition to, was it 7 total 3 stars we brought in?

Not a bad day over all...

it appears The Sky is Not Falling after all!!!!

any grades at this point? I know the day is not over, and we still have a few schollys to hand out...plus the fall0out in the next few days..

I give today a solid B

I believe @Cerebus was going to be creating a poll thread around this very topic. He's likely waiting for the entire day to be done (McGehee still hasn't signed) before doing so. I'll reserve judgement until after tonight.

Cerebus · February 1, 2017

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I believe @Cerebus was going to be creating a poll thread around this very topic. He's likely waiting for the entire day to be done (McGehee still hasn't signed) before doing so. I'll reserve judgement until after tonight.

Waiting for a development, but poll will be up later today.

Harry · February 1, 2017

I like that we got a lot of o-linemen. They needed to address this.

MeanGreenTexan · February 1, 2017

9 minutes ago, Harry said:

I like that we got a lot of o-linemen. They needed to address this.

I just hope these guys can contribute at the C-USA level. You can sign 25 OL, and if none of them can play, you've signed none.

Cerebus · February 1, 2017

12 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I just hope these guys can contribute at the C-USA level. You can sign 25 OL, and if none of them can play, you've signed none.

I think the coaches were more hyped for the OL recruits than anyone else.

As a guy who believes that football games are won by the guys who start the play with their hand on the ground, this is good news for me.

mad dog · February 1, 2017

21 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I think the coaches were more hyped for the OL recruits than anyone else.

As a guy who believes that football games are won by the guys who start the play with their hand on the ground, this is good news for me.

For the record, I 100% agree with this sentiment. However, from my perspective, I thought the WRs inability to create separation was just as significant an issue. I saw a number of times where Fine had 4-5 seconds to sit back and pat the ball and none of his receivers got open. Or times where the protection broke down and he's sprinting to the sideline, and no receivers can even work back to the ball to give him places to throw. I would defer to experts as to whether this is a speed, strength, or technique issue, but if you go 4 wide and give your QB 4 seconds to throw, one of the guys should be open.

Cerebus · February 1, 2017

Just now, mad dog said:

I thought the WRs inability to create separation was just as significant an issue.

I think that is why you saw a class mostly of OL and then WRs, and RB's who can play the slot. The main thing the coaches talked about the skills players was their ability to create space.

untjim1995 · February 1, 2017

15 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I think that is why you saw a class mostly of OL and then WRs, and RB's who can play the slot. The main thing the coaches talked about the skills players was their ability to create space.

Seriously, the WRs we had here were recruited to play in McCarney's archaic offense. I mean they might have thrown downfield more than 10 yards about 5 times a game. Andrew McNulty and Josh Greer threw bubble screens and two yard throws to the tight end when not handing the ball off. Those receivers that are still here are either going to improve after last season's indoctrination into a modern offensive scheme or they will be easily replaceable by WRs who actually played in the spread in HS.

The disappointment was that the OL, which was supposed to be Mac's MO for developing, has been subpar or worse for 3 years now.

Caw Caw · February 1, 2017

I thought it was odd how often in the live feed they reflected on character, culture and work ethic. And, when you look at our guys we offered with no other offers, most of them were offered, and stuck, waaaaaay earlier in the process than our more highly recruited guys. That means, to me, that the coaches had other options, maybe even ones who were more highly recruited, but chose these players for a specific reason. At this point, you either think Litrell and co are the guys, or they aren't. You think they're building the right way, or they aren't. They admitted they lost some battles, but they also got some under recruited guys they offered 6 months ago or more. They would have asked them to blue shirt if that's what they thought the best move was. After hearing them talk, and and as we know Litrell is no salesperson, I felt better about the their selections. They seem like thoughtful choices. So at this point you either think they are good evaluators of talent or you don't.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Caw Caw

TIgreen01 · February 1, 2017

15 minutes ago, Caw Caw said:

I thought it was odd how often in the live feed they reflected on character, culture and work ethic. And, when you look at our guys we offered with no other offers, most of them were offered, and stuck, waaaaaay earlier in the process than our more highly recruited guys. That means, to me, that the coaches had other options, maybe even ones who were more highly recruited, but chose these players for a specific reason. At this point, you either think Litrell and co are the guys, or they aren't. You think they're building the right way, or they aren't. They admitted they lost some battles, but they also got some under recruited guys they offered 6 months ago or more. They would have asked them to blue shirt if that's what they thought the best move was. After hearing them talk, and and as we know Litrell is no salesperson, I felt better about the their selections. They seem like thoughtful choices. So at this point you either think they are good evaporators of talent or you don't.

Good post. Time will tell. I want to believe but at the moment I can't get past the sting of utsa just owning us pretty much since they were allowed into CUSA with us. Thought it would cost us then, and still do. It's definitely impacting my level of sanity here today. Maybe a beer (or a few) will help....

wardly · February 1, 2017

On what planet is this a "solid B"? I give it a "D", and am being generous.

MeanGreen_MBA · February 1, 2017

6 minutes ago, wardly said:

On what planet is this a "solid B"? I give it a "D", and am being generous.

what specifically bothered you by it so much that you give it a D? I wish we had more 3* players. SL and company did address all the key positions we needed to have addressed. Plus, we have a little room for add -ons when things shake out in the next day or 2.... Nothing to write home about, but certainly not a D...

p_phelps · February 1, 2017

Just now, MeanGreen_MBA said:

what specifically bothered you by it so much that you give it a D? I wish we had more 3* players. SL and company did address all the key positions we needed to have addressed. Plus, we have a little room for add -ons when things shake out in the next day or 2.... Nothing to write home about, but certainly not a D...

The fact that we are behind the like of appalachian state and many more smaller schools. The fact we remain stagnant when others around us get substantially better. It's not a good class

wardly · February 1, 2017

Gee, I guess because 247 ranked us 12th in CUSA and 116th nationally, and we got our butt kicked by both UTSA and Texas State., These kids look like al the others we have recruited the last decade. How has that worked out for us? In my opinion, anyone who gives our staff a passing grade has low standards,If we don't expect more, then this is what we get.I expect more.

FirefightnRick · February 1, 2017

3 minutes ago, wardly said:

Gee, I guess because 247 ranked us 12th in CUSA and 116th nationally, and we got our butt kicked by both UTSA and Texas State., These kids look like al the others we have recruited the last decade. How has that worked out for us? In my opinion, anyone who gives our staff a passing grade has low standards,If we don't expect more, then this is what we get.I expect more.

Wardly...it's probably because the recruits read all the negative posts about it here on GMG.com the past several weeks......(sarcasm).

Rick

All About UNT · February 1, 2017

lunch pails.... husbands and fathers .....

AustinFromUNT · February 1, 2017

I'm so glad that the outcome of our season is based on how a third party service rates us after removing 5 of our recruits rather than, ya know, actually playing 12 games this upcoming season. *very obvious sarcasm* I'm also glad that half of our fan base are better recruiters than a group of guys who have been doing it for most of their adult life. NFL teams pick the players for the positions they need most in the draft, SL is doing something similar. Take what you need not what is shiniest. Can we do better in recruiting? Sure! Should we? Sure! Will that change happen over night? No! Why not? Because FW already has relationships and great players to his name, SL starts from behind in that area. Give him time and see what he can do.

TreeFiddy · February 1, 2017

Well, on NSD the scoreboard is the rating services. According to them, our coaches got their ass handed to them today by the rest of the league. At the moment, it is kind of hard to argue with the services. Come September, the coaches have a chance to prove everyone wrong. Thankfully, the season is the only season that ultimately matters, but it has been proven that there is a direct correlation between strength of recruiting and results on the field.

Edited February 1, 2017 by TreeFiddy

AustinFromUNT · February 1, 2017

1 minute ago, TreeFiddy said:

Well, on NSD the scoreboard is the rating services. According to them, our coaches got their ass handed to them today by the rest of the league. At the moment, it is kind of hard to argue with the services. Come September, the coaches have a chance to prove everyone wrong.

I mean it's not really that hard to argue when you look at what happened today. We brought in 5 guys they didn't count. Yes, they are BS, yes, I know they don't count BS guys. But if you look at everything we were ranked 9th without Isadore being counted. There is no NCAA rule that says "Oh well if 247 doesn't count them in your class then they can't play" the whole argument for recruiting is about getting good players, we did, just 6 of them don't count for this rating method.

All About UNT · February 1, 2017

18 minutes ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I'm so glad that the outcome of our season is based on how a third party service rates us after removing 5 of our recruits rather than, ya know, actually playing 12 games this upcoming season. *very obvious sarcasm* I'm also glad that half of our fan base are better recruiters than a group of guys who have been doing it for most of their adult life. NFL teams pick the players for the positions they need most in the draft, SL is doing something similar. Take what you need not what is shiniest. Can we do better in recruiting? Sure! Should we? Sure! Will that change happen over night? No! Why not? Because FW already has relationships and great players to his name, SL starts from behind in that area. Give him time and see what he can do.

Come see us after you have been a fan for 10+ yrs and watched recruiting class after recruiting class get explained to us "group of guys" that we should accept them as the right players for their system. You weren't even in junior high when I first heard that explanation as to why our class was subpar in rankings.. It ISN'T a coincidence that the best team in decade and ONLY team to go over .500 was composed of players from our best class in the last 10 yrs.

Green Mean · February 1, 2017

Obviously recruiting stats and rankings matter to a point. There's a reason why the winners in CFB have higher recruiting classes than the non winners and it is quite a bit concerning we're ranked that poorly. It's rather delusional to dismiss these types of ratings and rankings.

That said I also do think that in NT's case we needed to get a coaching staff here that can coach and develop players up big time to create that first wave/leg of being consistent, respectable winners. Maybe SL can do that...or maybe it's going to be the same ol and more of the NT that we know and love so time will tell.

wardly · February 1, 2017

Ranked 9th by who? And is it acceptable to be in the bottom 1/3 in the conference? I guess so, since a lot of us want to give our staff a B/C grade.

TheTastyGreek · February 2, 2017

3 hours ago, Cerebus said:

As a guy who believes that football games are won by the guys who start the play with their hand on the ground, this is good news for me.

I think you're wildly overrating the value of a field goal holder. And, even if you aren't... We didn't sign one today.

UNT90 · February 2, 2017

5 hours ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

It looks like a decent class on paper:

3 quality receivers, plus a 3 star RB/Slot/KR. Which was a need

5 OL which was definitely a need

1 Punter - a key point in Special Teams

2DL and 2 LB which is a point of concern and addressed

Fill-in a couple of secondary players that are usually good athletes to boot.

1 QB that has a lot of buzz around him

Throw in some Blue Shirts that will contribute, and don't forget English....

in addition to, was it 7 total 3 stars we brought in?

Not a bad day over all...

it appears The Sky is Not Falling after all!!!!

any grades at this point? I know the day is not over, and we still have a few schollys to hand out...plus the fall0out in the next few days..

I give today a solid B

Of course you do.

This day is a huge F. Anyone objectively analyzing this class would assign that grade.

46 minutes ago, AustinFromUNT said:

I mean it's not really that hard to argue when you look at what happened today. We brought in 5 guys they didn't count. Yes, they are BS, yes, I know they don't count BS guys. But if you look at everything we were ranked 9th without Isadore being counted. There is no NCAA rule that says "Oh well if 247 doesn't count them in your class then they can't play" the whole argument for recruiting is about getting good players, we did, just 6 of them don't count for this rating method.

Have you looked at those 5 guys offer sheets? You should, because they are terribly inimpressive.

This class means Littrell will be a disaster in year 4 unless he has the #1 class next year.

Its looking like Littrell is more likely to be a 3 or 4 and done guy. This class will not be easy to recover from...