Our 600 pound Gorilla

[Cougsocal]

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

10 win seasons have always been the exception. The frustrating part is that we've seen this team play exceptionally, and it seems to have exceptional talent that is underachieving.

Just to redefine expectations - the Cougs will be a 6-8 win team with CML at the helm, with 9+ wins being the exception, not the rule. The other side of that coin is that <6 win seasons should also be the exception as well.

 

[dgibbons]

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

If your sole metric is recruiting rankings. This team has been getting deeper since Leach arrived. Guys are contributing as true freshmen or redshirt freshmen. We’ve been contending for a division title. That means we’re winning games. There is a huge variance in three star players. We’re getting guys that are actually good much more often then we’re getting guys like Max Gama.

 

[79COUG]

10 wins is the exception for probably 90% of the teams out there.
Keep in mind that at 7-2 right now we're in pretty elite company.

 

[Coug90]

If your sole metric is recruiting rankings. This team has been getting deeper since Leach arrived. Guys are contributing as true freshmen or redshirt freshmen. We’ve been contending for a division title. That means we’re winning games. There is a huge variance in three star players. We’re getting guys that are actually good much more often then we’re getting guys like Max Gama.

Yeah, we will never be in the top 20 in recruiting rankings, that's just reality. A couple things though. Leach and his staff GRINDS at recruiting and does find really good players that are not ranked as highly for one reason or another. Also, Leach turns them into 4/5 year players about as well as any coach in the country, which is huge. Kids don't flunk out under Leach at the rate of other programs. That's why once Leach has been somewhere 3-4 years he's able to win pretty consistently.

 

[CougPatrol]

I've always looked at % of recruiting class with the program through graduation as the most important recruiting metric.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

Good topic, but I don't know that I would call Leach's recruiting "troubling weak". We're never going to outrecruit USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford or Washington. It's just not going to happen. Where we need to be, is in the same neighborhood as Utah, CU, the Arizonas & Cal.

Stay in that range. On the low end, beat out Boise or SDSU for a couple guys. On the high end, get a couple guys with UCLA or Nebraska type offers. Keep taking 5 linemen every class. Actually enroll 25 every year. Keep most of them in school and out of trouble.

That should keep us right about where we are. You're right, 10 win seasons will be an aberration, but so will 4 win seasons. That's the case for most of the programs in the conference though.

 

[CougEd]

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

A couple of thoughts on recruiting. First, as I thought the biggest impact Leach would have immediately because of his cache was on the oline. Plus his strategy is different than those who were here before him. He will get the numbers almost every year. Others struggled in part that they weren't sure if they the lineman were Pac 10/12 players. When the other coaches made a mistake in oline evaluation the kid would be sitting around for three years because they couldn't switch them positions and taking up a valuable roster spot. Leach has a different philosophy. One of big boy football. He isn't afraid to make them want to switch schools if after fall camp he discovers they aren't Pac 12 players. He doesn't have dead weight on the roster.

He has recruited well on online, rb. Receivers are functional. QB has been spotty with hits in Falk (walk on) and Tyler H, and busts with Bender and Bruggman.

Linebackers for the most part have been solid. Dline started strong and have had some misses lately. And my guess is that is why we are getting the lower recruiting rankings. If there is a short fall it is at the DT position.

Corner...they too have been functional. Pippins tends to make plays. Molten they really like. Against Arizona his lack of top end speed seemed to be revealed. Thompson is the best they have had in a long time.

Again, if he could secure some d lineman I think "rankings" would be much improved.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Looking back at OL recruiting is interesting. Early on, we really weren't winning any recruiting battles over the competition I'd like to see, but the results were still very good. Now, it appears we've jumped up a tier in terms of who we're landing, so will be exciting to see what McGuire can do with arguably a better base to work with. Here's a list of all the OL we've taken since '13 and a short list of their best listed offers.

2013
Sorenson: CU, SMU, UW (although I don't think UW was still actively recruiting him)
Seydel: CSU, Hawaii
Meyer: EWU
Freeman: Utah St
O'Connell: Idaho
Madison: None listed

2014
Krepsz: UNR
Dillard: EWU, Idaho, Port St
Evers: SDSU

2015
Perrott: Cal, BSU, SDSU, CSU, UNR
Osur Myers: Cal
Bigge-Duren: UNR, SJSU
Price: Cal, Fresno
Sakaria: Hawaii

2016
Mauigoa: OSU, BYU, Hawaii, UNR, UNLV
Watson: BSU, Fresno
King: ASU, CU, SDSU
Haangana: OSU, SJSU
Ryan: SDSU, Fresno, AFA, UNR, SJSU
Gaisoa: None listed

2017
Lucas: Wyoming
Valencia: Oregon, Cal, TTU, Utah, Iowa St
Nathaniel: Arizona, SDSU, UNR, Utah St
Kuzmack: BSU

2018
Lewis: Minn, Mizzou, Iowa St, KU, UK, UCF, Memphis
Anderson: ASU, Utah, OSU, BSU, CSU
Beresford: UCLA, Nebraska, Arizona, ASU, OSU, BSU
Riley: Cal, Navy, CSU, Utah St
Kingston: SDSU, UNR, Wyoming


Looks like we took a bit of a jump in 2015 where you're starting to see more Cal, SDSU & Fresno type programs, rather than EWU & Idaho. Then, maybe another jump in 2017 and into 2018 where you're starting to see some upper level Pac12 competition, Oregon, UCLA, plus more ASU, Zona & Nebraska.

I'm thinking maybe the spike in '15 was the Joe Dahl effect. "Hey, these guys really can put guys in the league". And the spike in 2017 was the Cody O'Connell effect. "Woah, they developed that guy into an All American?"

 

[longtimecoug]

Mike Leach is exceptional in many areas. IMO no coach does more with less. He has done well in evaluating 2 and 3 star talent. But considering all the $$$$ spent on facilities, and the fact that he has completely turned the program around, overall recruiting remains troublingly weak. According to this website, he has yet to have a top 50 recruiting class. Unless, things improve we may need to come to grips with the fact that this may be as good as it gets, 10 win seasons may be the exception, not the rule.

Based upon the fickle world of "verbals" he maybe finally stepping up his game this year, a top 40 class. The question remains can he lock it down on signing day. Let's hope so.

That said, let's not cut our noses off despite our faces. The Price era was soured by chronic complaints that he didn't win consistently, even though he tooks us to a holy grail Rose Bowl, when it was the biggest game out there. Let's not do the same with Leach. Never forget how bad it was under Paul Wulff, and appreciate what we have. A guy who can recruit to Pullman like Price and coach up like Leach, is probably but a pipe dream.

the price era was soured by his consistent ugly losing seasons, sure he had a couple of big years and a couple of pretty good years, and many total crap years . his recruiting never reached anything comparing to Leach's consistency and overall quality.

 

[CougEd]

the price era was soured by his consistent ugly losing seasons, sure he had a couple of big years and a couple of pretty good years, and many total crap years . his recruiting never reached anything comparing to Leach's consistency and overall quality.

I would tend to disagree. His lack of "consistency" happened probably in three area's. Oline, QB, and Dline.

I would probably take Price's receivers over Leach's, for sure his TE's, running backs are probably on par. Linebackers in Price era were better as were DB's.

But Leach has lacked consistency along dline and you could even argue QB.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I would tend to disagree. His lack of "consistency" happened probably in three area's. Oline, QB, and Dline.

I would probably take Price's receivers over Leach's, for sure his TE's, running backs are probably on par. Linebackers in Price era were better as were DB's.

But Leach has lacked consistency along dline and you could even argue QB.

It's really hard to argue he has lacked consistency at QB. It's a 6 year sample and really only 2 starting QBs, both have been pretty good. I don't think you can look at Bruggman & Bender and call those recruiting misses just cause they couldn't beat out a 3.5 year starter.

You can only play 1 guy at a time. I mean, if we're going to call that "inconsistent" recruiting, then every coach recruits the position inconsistently.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I would tend to disagree. His lack of "consistency" happened probably in three area's. Oline, QB, and Dline.

I would probably take Price's receivers over Leach's, for sure his TE's, running backs are probably on par. Linebackers in Price era were better as were DB's.

But Leach has lacked consistency along dline and you could even argue QB.

And really, comparing his recruiting to Price is a little silly to begin with. He's really had 5 classes, 2 of which are still freshmen, RS freshmen & sophomores. Saying Price recruited better LBs or DBs. Well, yea, he had 14 years to do it. Of course, you can make an all star team of Price's best LBs and it's better than the 8-10 that Leach has recruited and have been in the system long enough to have an impact.

 

[CougEd]

It's really hard to argue he has lacked consistency at QB. It's a 6 year sample and really only 2 starting QBs, both have been pretty good. I don't think you can look at Bruggman & Bender and call those recruiting misses just cause they couldn't beat out a 3.5 year starter.

You can only play 1 guy at a time. I mean, if we're going to call that "inconsistent" recruiting, then every coach recruits the position inconsistently.

Gotta disagree to a degree. When you recruit three qb's, one a four star kid who is a bust, followed up by his next recruiting class and he is a bust, that is inconsistent. The difference is in some respects that Price's QB's left early, and the class right after Bledsoe and Leaf didn't want to sit behind a four year starter. So by their talent that created a natural gap, further made problematic when they left early.

When you miss on two of the four kids you recruited that is some level of inconsistency in recruiting based on rankings. I think :Leach will always get production,

 

[dgibbons]

Gotta disagree to a degree. When you recruit three qb's, one a four star kid who is a bust, followed up by his next recruiting class and he is a bust, that is inconsistent. The difference is in some respects that Price's QB's left early, and the class right after Bledsoe and Leaf didn't want to sit behind a four year starter. So by their talent that created a natural gap, further made problematic when they left early.

When you miss on two of the four kids you recruited that is some level of inconsistency in recruiting based on rankings. I think :Leach will always get production,

OK, Ed. Those 3 guys in 14 years that Price recruited sure prove his consistency at the QB position.

 

[dgibbons]

And really, comparing his recruiting to Price is a little silly to begin with. He's really had 5 classes, 2 of which are still freshmen, RS freshmen & sophomores. Saying Price recruited better LBs or DBs. Well, yea, he had 14 years to do it. Of course, you can make an all star team of Price's best LBs and it's better than the 8-10 that Leach has recruited and have been in the system long enough to have an impact.

Adding that recruiting rankings and services were totally different in the Price era than today.

 

[CougEd]

And really, comparing his recruiting to Price is a little silly to begin with. He's really had 5 classes, 2 of which are still freshmen, RS freshmen & sophomores. Saying Price recruited better LBs or DBs. Well, yea, he had 14 years to do it. Of course, you can make an all star team of Price's best LBs and it's better than the 8-10 that Leach has recruited and have been in the system long enough to have an impact.

No actually when I was comparing it I was looking at Prices first five years. Not really silly. When Price took over he came from Weber State and a .500 record. He didn't have a name or cache.

It is kind of "silly" to argue about recruiting rankings but what I am gonna do---go home and mow my lawn right now

Mark Fields, Ron Childs, Chris Hayes, Brandon Moore, Steve Gleason. I would match up rushing, Mobley, Burns, BT Walker Moronkola, Hinchen, Hunter with anyone we have seen.

Same with receivers- Pointer, Davis, Schexnader, Bobo, Jackson, Taylor, and the other fab 5.

While it is silly, Price sure got some spectacularly talented kids.

 

[CougEd]

OK, Ed. Those 3 guys in 14 years that Price recruited sure prove his consistency at the QB position.

Oh...wasn't sure that was the point. But OK.

 

[dgibbons]

Oh...wasn't sure that was the point. But OK.

Now that we're off QB. Please explain how Price's RB recruiting was "on par." Who did Price recruit besides Shaumbe and Michael Black? We have three guys that caliber on the roster right now.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Gotta disagree to a degree. When you recruit three qb's, one a four star kid who is a bust, followed up by his next recruiting class and he is a bust, that is inconsistent. The difference is in some respects that Price's QB's left early, and the class right after Bledsoe and Leaf didn't want to sit behind a four year starter. So by their talent that created a natural gap, further made problematic when they left early.

When you miss on two of the four kids you recruited that is some level of inconsistency in recruiting based on rankings. I think :Leach will always get production,

How can you say they were busts? Because they couldn't start over the winningest QB in program history?

 

[CougEd]

How can you say they were busts? Because they couldn't start over the winningest QB in program history?

Well....if you are a four star players and you wind up at Montana State and not exactly light the place on fire to me is a bust in terms of expectations.

Bender is a bust because he was recruited out of Florida with expectations and he flunks out.

So "bust" relative to expectations. And yes there are plenty of "busts".

 

[random soul]

Well let's not forget that from '89 to '91 there were Erickson and Walden guys on Price's rosters too. Off the top of my head CJ Davis and Philip Bobo were both Erickson guys, were they not? Broussard and Swinton were Walden? Etc, etc.

 

[longtimecoug]

I would tend to disagree. His lack of "consistency" happened probably in three area's. Oline, QB, and Dline.

I would probably take Price's receivers over Leach's, for sure his TE's, running backs are probably on par. Linebackers in Price era were better as were DB's.

But Leach has lacked consistency along dline and you could even argue QB.

those are big areas of inconsistency, I'll take Leach winning with what you say are inferior recruits compared to price over getting our asses kicked with the price superior recruits

 

[Loyal Coug]

those are big areas of inconsistency, I'll take Leach winning with what you say are inferior recruits compared to price over getting our asses kicked with the price superior recruits

No shit. Agree completely.

This whole thread is kind of stupid. CML is recruiting good players and winning at a consistent level not seen before. So WTH is the problem?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Gotta disagree to a degree. When you recruit three qb's, one a four star kid who is a bust, followed up by his next recruiting class and he is a bust, that is inconsistent. The difference is in some respects that Price's QB's left early, and the class right after Bledsoe and Leaf didn't want to sit behind a four year starter. So by their talent that created a natural gap, further made problematic when they left early.

When you miss on two of the four kids you recruited that is some level of inconsistency in recruiting based on rankings. I think :Leach will always get production,

Ed, when you are bashing on our QB's, take a minute and review what's been going on in the rest of the league.....think about it......and then think about shutting up. Oregon loses their elite starting QB to graduation a couple years ago and spirals into the toilet. Utah has a long and established tradition of sucking on offense when their starting QB goes down....and they normally do. UCLA went tits up last year when Rosen got hurt (and he's been inconsistent this year). Keller Chryst is a mediocre QB at Stanford. Jake Luton and Darrell Garretson are taking turns being mediocre at OSU. USC was a hot mess before Darnold took over and even he's been inconsistent. Ross Bowers has an adjusted QBR of 43.0 and passer rating of 118.7 at Cal this year (and his team is 1-5 in conference play).

When you look around the league, most of the teams are worse off at QB than us and in many cases, it's not close. Browning at UW, Wilkins at ASU and Montez at CU have been pretty consistent but none of them are getting any pub outside of their own fanbases. Khalil Tate has turned into a phenom at Arizona but he's the first "great" QB at Arizona in a long time. I'd take Luke Falk and Tyler Hilinski as a pair over any other two deep in the league and Tate is the only other QB in the league that I'd really want right now. Luke hasn't been as great as we'd like, but his stats and wins speak for themselves. Hilinski can flat out sling the ball and will clean up the turnovers. The majority of QB's that are recruited spend their careers holding clipboards and not accomplishing anything. It's the nature of the position. Again, take a look around and you'll realize that Leach is doing fine.

 

[Cougsocal]

Good topic, but I don't know that I would call Leach's recruiting "troubling weak". We're never going to outrecruit USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford or Washington. It's just not going to happen. Where we need to be, is in the same neighborhood as Utah, CU, the Arizonas & Cal.

Stay in that range. On the low end, beat out Boise or SDSU for a couple guys. On the high end, get a couple guys with UCLA or Nebraska type offers. Keep taking 5 linemen every class. Actually enroll 25 every year. Keep most of them in school and out of trouble.

That should keep us right about where we are. You're right, 10 win seasons will be an aberration, but so will 4 win seasons. That's the case for most of the programs in the conference though.

I would call it troubling weak. Here's why. If you average the Rival ranking over last 5 recruiting classes, conference wide, we have had the weakest recruiting: WSU - 10.8 , Colorado - 10.4, OSU - 9.4, Utah - 8.4, AZ - 8, Cal - 7.2, ASU - 6.2. This, despite 100 million in improvements, and 3 bowls in 4 years. Price's 2002 recruiting class was #6, and #28 nationally, despite one bowl and in 5 years and sub par facilities. If that isn't troubling, what would be? Leach has upgraded recruiting since Wulff, but that is a very low bar. Wulff was getting out recruited by most MWC teams.

 

[dgibbons]

I would call it troubling weak. Here's why. If you average the Rival ranking over last 5 recruiting classes, conference wide, we have had the weakest recruiting: WSU - 10.8 , Colorado - 10.4, OSU - 9.4, Utah - 8.4, AZ - 8, Cal - 7.2, ASU - 6.2. This, despite 100 million in improvements, and 3 bowls in 4 years. Price's 2002 recruiting class was #6, and #28 nationally, despite one bowl and in 5 years and sub par facilities. If that isn't troubling, what would be? Leach has upgraded recruiting since Wulff, but that is a very low bar. Wulff was getting out recruited by most MWC teams.

Maybe recruiting isn't troubling weak with that little factoid? And we're going to four bowls in five years. And recruiting is night and day different than it was in 1999. The Bohler Addition was not subpar.

Again, you are using one metric, and one metric only. You're not even using composite recruiting rankings.

Leach taking five linemen in every class, instead of some three star safety or WR that will never play skews the rankings a bit too. The skill guys have a disproportionate impact on the rankings.

 

[Cougsocal]

Adding that recruiting rankings and services were totally different in the Price era than today.

In year 4, Mike Price had the most complete team in the conference, stopped from going to the Rose Bowl by the weak play of the future #1 pick in the draft. If anything, rankings today should be more accurate today, right? Did I mention, Price did that working entirely out of Bohler, on a shoe string budget.

Leach is exceptional in coaching, does very well evaluating talent, he has hired a staff that can really coach up kids. I'm happy with where we are at, 3 bowls in 4 years. I marvel at what he has done. He got us to a bowl with Wulff level talent for christ sake! We were a pube away from being a modern OSU. Leach saved us. I was happy under Price, too. Boom and bust was fine with me. Rose Bowls were worth it too. The proudest moment of my Cougar life was walking into the Rose Bowl on 1/1/98.

To the people who whine about these losses, it ain't coaching. Sub par coaching was Price's forte. I didn't realize that until Leach came on board. Conversely, I also did not really appreciate what a recruiter Price was until now. In a perfect world, I would want a coach with Leach's mind and Price's Father Flanagan persona - the best of both worlds, IMO. Just like Tony Raveling in basketball.

The reason we lose games like we do, to who we do, is because while we have the best engineer in the conference, IMO, we are running with the smallest engine as well. Highly tuned small engines are simply more prone to unexpected failure, because far more is asked of them.

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

So Ed,

If Price got better talent than Leach but Leach is going to his 4th Bowl in 6yrs, Leach much be doing more with less & your logic would equate to a better coach.

 

[CougPatrol]

Mike Price was one of my favorite coaches, and I'll never toss him under the bus, but if we're comparing him head-to-head with Leach, another data point to remember is that today's P12 conference is significantly more difficult top to bottom than it was during the Mike Price era.

 

[dgibbons]

In year 4, Mike Price had the most complete team in the conference, stopped from going to the Rose Bowl by the weak play of the future #1 pick in the draft. If anything, rankings today should be more accurate today, right? Did I mention, Price did that working entirely out of Bohler, on a shoe string budget.

Leach is exceptional in coaching, does very well evaluating talent, he has hired a staff that can really coach up kids. I'm happy with where we are at, 3 bowls in 4 years. I marvel at what he has done. He got us to a bowl with Wulff level talent for christ sake! We were a pube away from being a modern OSU. Leach saved us. I was happy under Price, too. Boom and bust was fine with me. Rose Bowls were worth it too. The proudest moment of my Cougar life was walking into the Rose Bowl on 1/1/98.

To the people who whine about these losses, it ain't coaching. Sub par coaching was Price's forte. I didn't realize that until Leach came on board. Conversely, I also did not really appreciate what a recruiter Price was until now. In a perfect world, I would want a coach with Leach's mind and Price's Father Flanagan persona - the best of both worlds, IMO. Just like Tony Raveling in basketball.

The reason we lose games like we do, to who we do, is because while we have the best engineer in the conference, IMO, we are running with the smallest engine as well. Highly tuned small engines are simply more prone to unexpected failure, because far more is asked of them.

Again, totally different eras. The 85 cap went into effect in 1994 I believe. No more Prop 48. There are now all kinds of camps and combines. There are now 12 teams in the conference. It makes no sense to compare them.

 

[Cougsocal]

Maybe recruiting isn't troubling weak with that little factoid? And we're going to four bowls in five years. And recruiting is night and day different than it was in 1999. The Bohler Addition was not subpar.

Again, you are using one metric, and one metric only. You're not even using composite recruiting rankings.

Leach taking five linemen in every class, instead of some three star safety or WR that will never play skews the rankings a bit too. The skill guys have a disproportionate impact on the rankings.

Really, you are basing Price's recruiting success on the remodel of Bohler? Completed in 2000? You do realize he had been here a decade? Two years after the best recruiting class in school history hit campus. Have you no shame.

Bowls mean little as proof of recruiting prowess when Leach is your coach. In year 2 Leach took the least talented team in school history to the New Mexico Bowl. Leach is so good he got us bowl eligble with a recruiting equivalent of a steaming pile of poo, four straight Wulffian recruiting classes, ugh. You know that. Are you really going to claim that Wulff recruited well too?

What recruiting metric shows that Leach is a kick arse recruiter? Come on, put up or shut up. How much difference does recruit one extra OL actual make? From last to ....?

 

[CougEd]

So Ed,

If Price got better talent than Leach but Leach is going to his 4th Bowl in 6yrs, Leach much be doing more with less & your logic would equate to a better coach.

So A and M...I didn't quite say that. But even if I felt Price got better talent at EVERY position, I would say the way Leach recruited and his model was more sustainable for going 6-6 or better.

 

[CougEd]

Ed, when you are bashing on our QB's, take a minute and review what's been going on in the rest of the league.....think about it......and then think about shutting up. Oregon loses their elite starting QB to graduation a couple years ago and spirals into the toilet. Utah has a long and established tradition of sucking on offense when their starting QB goes down....and they normally do. UCLA went tits up last year when Rosen got hurt (and he's been inconsistent this year). Keller Chryst is a mediocre QB at Stanford. Jake Luton and Darrell Garretson are taking turns being mediocre at OSU. USC was a hot mess before Darnold took over and even he's been inconsistent. Ross Bowers has an adjusted QBR of 43.0 and passer rating of 118.7 at Cal this year (and his team is 1-5 in conference play).

When you look around the league, most of the teams are worse off at QB than us and in many cases, it's not close. Browning at UW, Wilkins at ASU and Montez at CU have been pretty consistent but none of them are getting any pub outside of their own fanbases. Khalil Tate has turned into a phenom at Arizona but he's the first "great" QB at Arizona in a long time. I'd take Luke Falk and Tyler Hilinski as a pair over any other two deep in the league and Tate is the only other QB in the league that I'd really want right now. Luke hasn't been as great as we'd like, but his stats and wins speak for themselves. Hilinski can flat out sling the ball and will clean up the turnovers. The majority of QB's that are recruited spend their careers holding clipboards and not accomplishing anything. It's the nature of the position. Again, take a look around and you'll realize that Leach is doing fine.

Flat...I'll make you a deal. You don't tell me to shut up and I won't tell you to shut up about telling me to shut up.

Ummm...I didn't say he wasn't doing "fine". I said two of his QB's were busts. I didn't say the QB position was a bust. I am talking about how it relates to recruiting rankings. No more no less.

I do find it interesting we have Halliday then Falk and then whomever will break record after record I would think QB's would drool to be in the system.

 

[CougEd]

those are big areas of inconsistency, I'll take Leach winning with what you say are inferior recruits compared to price over getting our asses kicked with the price superior recruits

I would agree.

 

[froropmkr72]

I would call it troubling weak. Here's why. If you average the Rival ranking over last 5 recruiting classes, conference wide, we have had the weakest recruiting: WSU - 10.8 , Colorado - 10.4, OSU - 9.4, Utah - 8.4, AZ - 8, Cal - 7.2, ASU - 6.2. This, despite 100 million in improvements, and 3 bowls in 4 years. Price's 2002 recruiting class was #6, and #28 nationally, despite one bowl and in 5 years and sub par facilities. If that isn't troubling, what would be? Leach has upgraded recruiting since Wulff, but that is a very low bar. Wulff was getting out recruited by most MWC teams.

Gotta take issue with that class being called better than some recent classes. Bx rankings were more consistent and ranked the WSU classes around 50th. If I'm not mistaken....the Rivals database and scouts had the 2003' class higher than 2002'. I remember noting this and thinking they'd ranked them higher because of the Rose Bowl. Anyone else notice the revision in the Rivals' ranking since that time?

Anyway....there were some overranked in that 2002' (Taylor...Arnold). There was 4-5 immediate impact guys (mostly JC), 4 guys who would never see the field and some good athletes who would pan out in a couple of years.

 

[dgibbons]

Really, you are basing Price's recruiting success on the remodel of Bohler? Completed in 2000? You do realize he had been here a decade? Two years after the best recruiting class in school history hit campus. Have you no shame.

Bowls mean little as proof of recruiting prowess when Leach is your coach. In year 2 Leach took the least talented team in school history to the New Mexico Bowl. Leach is so good he got us bowl eligble with a recruiting equivalent of a steaming pile of poo, four straight Wulffian recruiting classes, ugh. You know that. Are you really going to claim that Wulff recruited well too?

What recruiting metric shows that Leach is a kick arse recruiter? Come on, put up or shut up. How much difference does recruit one extra OL actual make? From last to ....?

You can't even keep your story straight. You're talking about Price's 2002 class, then 1992. You're all over the place.

Since winning does not show good recruiting in your world, what does? Top 25 rankings? Bowl appearances? Or is it just Rivals' rankings?

 

[Fab5Coug]

No actually when I was comparing it I was looking at Prices first five years. Not really silly. When Price took over he came from Weber State and a .500 record. He didn't have a name or cache.

It is kind of "silly" to argue about recruiting rankings but what I am gonna do---go home and mow my lawn right now

Mark Fields, Ron Childs, Chris Hayes, Brandon Moore, Steve Gleason. I would match up rushing, Mobley, Burns, BT Walker Moronkola, Hinchen, Hunter with anyone we have seen.

Same with receivers- Pointer, Davis, Schexnader, Bobo, Jackson, Taylor, and the other fab 5.

While it is silly, Price sure got some spectacularly talented kids.

How many recruiting classes is that to get those guys? Bobo, Schex & Davis were on that '92 Snow Bowl team. Taylor & the Fab 5 were seniors in '97. Fields & Childs were on the Palouse Posse in '94. I think Moore was a senior in '97 & Gleason was '98.

Again, it looks to me like you're taking almost a decade worth of recruiting classes to make your point.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I would call it troubling weak. Here's why. If you average the Rival ranking over last 5 recruiting classes, conference wide, we have had the weakest recruiting: WSU - 10.8 , Colorado - 10.4, OSU - 9.4, Utah - 8.4, AZ - 8, Cal - 7.2, ASU - 6.2. This, despite 100 million in improvements, and 3 bowls in 4 years. Price's 2002 recruiting class was #6, and #28 nationally, despite one bowl and in 5 years and sub par facilities. If that isn't troubling, what would be? Leach has upgraded recruiting since Wulff, but that is a very low bar. Wulff was getting out recruited by most MWC teams.

I don't think recruiting is Leach's strongest attribute, and we were warned of that by Tech fans when he was hired. But I would call "troubling" what Wulff was doing. My opinion is we need to be in the same ballpark as Utah, CU, Cal & the Zonas. What are our national rankings compared to those schools over the last 3 years? I honestly don't know, cause I don't tend to look at those numbers. I do know, however, that most of the guys we're getting have P5 & upper mid major offers.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Flat...I'll make you a deal. You don't tell me to shut up and I won't tell you to shut up about telling me to shut up.

Ummm...I didn't say he wasn't doing "fine". I said two of his QB's were busts. I didn't say the QB position was a bust. I am talking about how it relates to recruiting rankings. No more no less.

I do find it interesting we have Halliday then Falk and then whomever will break record after record I would think QB's would drool to be in the system.

Ok, well if what Leach has been doing recruiting the QB position is "inconsistent", then sign me up for inconsistent.