Benaiah Franklin Commits
- Thread starter boiler800
- Start date
For the sake of accuracy, about the only thing I put stock into for recruiting is competitive offers. If he gets mid level p5 offers, I'll get excited.
However, I give Haz credit for finding Tranquill before ND did so maybe hes good at finding kids under the radar.
You seriously might want to watch a few wr recruiting videos. They all look like that.
Yes it was 247 Sports. In my humble opinion, his ratings will climb across the board and he will become a recruiting target of other programs of Purdue's magnitude. Make no mistake, this is no offer made by us out of desperation. Coach Parker will be his position Coach and he would have to be all the way on board for this offer/acceptance to take place. Parker is doing an excellent job as a recruiter and he gets better each year.
I think he is flying under the radar still, and therefore isn't even other schools back up plan. He is only the target of smaller regional schools. McLaurin was similar, only the top target of Purdue and smaller regional schools...until he went to one OSU camp...and his highlight videos weren't nearly as impressive. Just because he isn't front page news now, doesn't mean he isn't deserving. Signing day is over 7 months away and summer has just begun. Fasten your seat belt boiler17 cause this dude will be blasting off.
Again, recruiting isn't about 1 recruit. Is every recruit in a recruiting class going to blow you away? Probably not. My original point didn't have as much to do with this 1 player, but our recruiting overall.
We have 5 commits - 4 of which are basically "under the radar". I'm willing to take some, but I don't know about 80% of a class.
In this thread, someone's saying Hazell hasn't had time to "develop" his players. How many years does it take? And again, bringing in these "under the radar" types takes longer to develop - how long are we going to wait for results?
Recruiting flat out needs to improve. What people are saying to defend our recruiting is literally word for word what they were saying about Hope's recruiting. There are certainly ways to combat average recruiting, including very good coaching, very good systems in place, etc. - but we haven't seen that either.
We aren't going to beat Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State, Notre Dame for recruits. A lot of our guys are going to be under the radar.
Haha, exactly.
Why are we last place in the big ten!?!?
Well, we arent Ohio State.
What??
Not only that but you still have to compete with good teams!
When Tiller was at Purdue, we competed with the 'big boys' for recruits. We didn't win a lot of them, but we also got a lot of recruits that had good offers.
We're not going to go in and go 50/50 on recruits we compete with Ohio State, ND, etc. for. But Purdue's gotten plenty of recruits that had the options to play at good programs like that before.
Talk about a defeatist attitude.
The problem is, we rarely EVER won those battles when Tiller was here. Yes, the players we did get in them were good....but who's to say it was net worth our time? How many prospects did we lose out on in those battles where we could have gotten an Under the radar type who could have developed to be just as good?
Without wins, the staff has no shot in beating out the big boys recruiting wise. So when the wins aren't there, why even bother? It's a chicken and egg arguement obviously....but just because you would go to Purdue over MSU or OSU doesn't mean high D1 prospects would. Why get in the mix for kids we aren't going to land?
It's not a defeatest attitude....its a realist attitude. The recruiting strategy should be and has been get the best kids you can find that want to come to Purdue and then develop them. And again....it's too early to judge the developmental skills of some of the staff. OL has come a long way....but had to because of depth/experience issues. DL has a lot of potential but needs to hit it. LBs are sooooooo young but seem to be a solid backbone and if we can find another safety, our DBs could be our best in a long time. Signs point to this staff getting it done in some areas and wins COULD but should come.
Once our profile is raised....then we go after the bigger kids. Did Tiller get in the mix for big recruits early? I didn't follow Purdue FB as closely back then but I SERIOUSLY doubt it. The big time recruits I remember being interested in us were from like 1999-2004 when the program had a lot of hype around it.
I'm glad someone on here understands that this isn't EA Sports NCAA Football....
Key for Purdue is to land the best kids they can. Kids that are
1. Football Smart
2. Love the game
3. Talented
4. High character
5. Coachable
That right there will lead to more development and less attrition. What does that then lead to boys and girls...
More depth!!!
Depth is huge. Development is huge.
Once we start winning a little more the talent we're able to attract will increase but this staff will still want those specific traits they're looking for
It isnt just about beating the big boys. There is a slew of mid ranked players that go to mediocre programs we arent getting either. That is where Hazell should be concentrating.
Saying you have to recruit diamonds in the rough because you cant beat out teams that compete for national championships oversimplifies the argument simply to protect the staff.
Saying you have to recruit diamonds in the rough because you cant beat out teams that compete for national championships oversimplifies the argument simply to protect the staff.
1. I dont think your list of character attributes goes unnoticed by coaches when recruiting. In other words, no one thinks this is EA sports, but you have to get kids with the attributes you list AND physical ability.
2. Every good team Ive been around or watched from the stands has a few high ability nut jobs on it. The rose bowl team had Mitrione, Vinny, and Stratton. I think they are necessary
2. Every good team Ive been around or watched from the stands has a few high ability nut jobs on it. The rose bowl team had Mitrione, Vinny, and Stratton. I think they are necessary
Thank you.
How about competing with NW, Iowa, a stinking mid level p5 school? They must all take thug atheletes that want to destroy everything around them
We aren't really at a talent deficit when it comes to these schools. Not as much as you think at least. I don't know how you could watch us play vs. Iowa last year and think there was a huge talent defecit. The D wore down late, but if we had any semblance of an offense that doesn't happen and we likely cruise to a win in that game.
With Northwestern, they have recruited slightly better than us but its clear they have better coaches...thats why they whipped our tails last year. I wouldn't trade them for their talent...but coaching staffs...hell yes.
Im confused.
Our previous debates have been me saying we do have talent, and you saying we dont/are thin. Ive never thought we dont move the ball because of talent and always because the coaching staff are stubborn bordering on stupid with how they run things. To get to their level, I fully believe they are intelligent good people. However, the decisions they make are so lame. Further, I dont know how we compete with MSU and ND the last two years without talent.
Besides that, I was referncing Iowa, NW, p5 schools with regard to recruiting.
To be clear, Im not saying this kid sucks/wont help. Im saying his tape looks like any other kids tape Ive seen. Admittedly, I dont watch a ton of those videos. Maybe 5 purdue kids a year? I mean seriously, 20-40% of those highlights are him running outs/unspectacular routes and getting tackled normally. Good play? Sure. Nothing to get excited about.
The teams you cited.....Iowa and NW aren't deep either. They also aren't much more, if any more talented than we are. That's what I was saying. It was those games where certain coaching deficits shined the most....not talent/player/recruiting deficits.
I also never said we don't have talent. I think we do...and I think our depth is growing.
Yes, going 1-11 and 3-9 really sucks. This was ALWAYS going to be a slow build after Danny Hope's recruiting style decimated the depth pool in the program. If we can build a baseline of talent and continue to develop behind that....results on the field will get better and recruiting will get better. Pointing to star rankings of guys DOES NOT tell the whole story....plain and simple.
Right...that said, his highlights are per game....so they show all his good plays from 1 game....it seems he doesn't have a mix with his top plays from every single game like most guys do. No shame in that.
I mean, why are you against him running routes, catching the ball and gaining yards consistently? Looking at the WRs now, thats not necessarily a strength....
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I get where you are coming from and sincerely hope youre right.
I agree it will get marginally better, but this staff will continue to find an effective element here and there, run it into the ground with unoriginal playcalling & straight forward strategy, ditch the whole system and restart with bench players.
I love what I read from all members of the staff, and want to believe in them and the players but its crazy vanilla out there.
But this is what I am talking about.
Let's take Northwestern for example. First off, they run fairly unique systems that works for them and they execute well. This is one thing I've said about programs that aren't automatic success - you have to have good coaching and a good system. Our system is stated to take years for a player to learn - how the hell does that set you up for success with a talent and depth problem?
Secondly with regards to recruiting - is Northwestern's talent level so much better than ours? I'd say it's at least noticeably better, but is our starting 11 on both sides a huge difference? No. But the problem, once again, is DEPTH!
Look at these classes:
Northwestern
2015: 15 three stars, 3 two stars
2014: 4 four stars, 7 three stars, 4 two stars
2013: 1 four star, 15 three stars, 3 two stars
Purdue
2015: 12 three stars, 14 two stars
2014: 1 four star, 8 three stars, 10 two stars
2013: 1 four star, 15 three stars, 7 two stars
Four Stars
Northwestern: 5
Purdue: 2 (Etling is one..but I don't know if NW's guys are all there still either)
Three Stars
Northwestern: 37
Purdue: 35
Two Stars
Northwestern: 10
Purdue: 31
Where's the glaring difference? Two star players. And then a difference of 3 four stars when you're talking about low numbers like that is of somewhat significance.
Purdue's problem is DEPTH. Northwestern has 3 star players in their 2 deeps. Depth is huge in football. Not only do you play more than your starters in games, but also in terms of injuries.
It's not that Purdue needs to be landing 10-15 four star players a class. Purdue's last 2 classes have had more 2 star players than 3 star players (Hazell's actual recruiting classes). Quite frankly, the 2013 was heavily recruited by Hope (the best one of the 3).
The problem is the depth and no I don't see how you can justify it has "improved".
What do you mean by depth? I dont think any program save top 5 pedigree programs dont have holes on their depth chart. This seems so exageratted to me.
Conversely if by depth you mean more higher calibur recruits knowing they wont all work out, I agree.
Conversely if by depth you mean more higher calibur recruits knowing they wont all work out, I agree.
Two deeps. And yes most teams that are good.. top 25 have a strong two deep. Of course there is usually a hole or two somewhere.
And I wouldn't call any of the recruits we have so far this year diamond in the rough. More like solid prospects with potential
Gotcha. Thats where we disconnect. I see Hayes and Powell as solid-ish guys and the rest as obvious diamonds.
To me, solid prospects all have multiple p5 school offers at this point. But I know Rivals doesnt keep perfect track of that, coach evaluations are on going, and it is still early.
Im definitely dont think it would be easy to fill a competitive roster with guys with offer lists like that.
Im saying every team except the top 5ish teams in the country have 1-3 holes in their starting offense and defense any given year. Maybe Im reading in between the lines incorrectly but it seems like when people talk about depth on here they feel like we should have 80% of two deeps filled out with guys with experience, and thats never going to happen. Even Tillers best teams always had a few not so great guys on either side of the ball.
Wisconsin replacing front seven on D last year, MSU reinvents themselves on offense every year for a while now. Youve got to be far more nimble coaching wise than we have been.
You're presenting an argument in circles.
First off, depth is HUGE in college football.
Secondly, I stated most of Northwestern's back-ups are solid 3 star kinda players. That doesn't mean they have a lot of experience, that doesn't mean they are awesome. I also said nothing about Northwestern not having any holes in their 2 deep (there are plenty of 3 star players that aren't that great - hello most of our teams over the past several years are 2 and 3 star players). But I can tell you right now, if you asked me which of those recruiting classes I would prefer, I'd pick Northwestern's hands down.
Ahhh, I see what you mean. Agree depth is key in that context. We should have a two deep of promising 3 star kids with multiple p5 offers.
I was thinking of depth experience wise and using the MSU/Wisky examples of coaches thinking on their feet to adapt to what players are good at because turnover and putting young/inexperienced kids in key roles that need to be customized to their strengths is inevitable and part of what they are paid to do.
So in that context I agree depth will make us better, but only marginally, like a game or two a year. The simplicity I see in the schemes and adjustments are far to simple and slow to be overcome by player skill alone unless the qbs start executing at a top 20 level.
I agree, but I still think you're underestimating depth. Again, take a look at our basketball which is super deep - the competition is going to be ridiculous. If you don't have anyone pushing you, it can be hard to be very motivated. And that's not even on the field. In games, specifically on defense, there's a lot of rotating out. So yes, having bad back-ups matters - especially in a long season.
You may "see" simplicity in schemes, but our coaches have stated they are very complex and take a couple years to fully learn! Again, I think it's a massive blunder to put a system that complex in place with marginal talent and a lack of depth.
For all the chatter back and forth about Franklin, particularly about his 2 star ranking, I saw this story and thought it would help people judge for themselves. I am standing firm, I really like Franklin.
Sure...most kids in HS run a 4.7-4.9 anyway. He didn't exactly blow the doors off of everybody. I don't see what your problem is with legit 4.5 speed, or do you need to be reassured by seeing 4.4. A 4.5 second 40 is pretty good speed for a D1 WR.
