Link: An Open Letter to the Athlete We Must Stop Recruiting
TL;DR - the coddled, super star athlete just isn't worth recruiting. They will likely under perform, be a drain on your coaching staff, and poison your locker room.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think it will really catch on. There will always be programs willing to bring in a Johnny Manziel, overlooking obvious red flags, because they want the crystal football golden, um, you know.
So what do you guys think, can a team win with the Sam Rogers of the world or will we always have to be willing to make concessions for the uber-talented prima donnas of high school football?
Do you agree that the long term effects of a Marcus are enough to pass on recruiting that kind of talent?
Does the opinion of a women's rugby coach from Connecticut really apply to P5 football recruiting?
Comments
I would pass on a Marcus 10/10 times
I agree, especially if the red flags are waving in your face, but Marcus had a brother who was unworldly successful at our school. The head coach was well acquainted with the family and looking back at that time, it was not a wild reach to bring him on campus as a scholarship athlete if he met entrance requirements. I can't say about Johnny Football, but looking at this stats as a high school player, was it a major gamble too? Nearly every kid I knew in high school partied, drank beer and stayed out late, even the best athletes from around the state - as measured by Boys State conversations. I recall that Manziel performed pretty darn well for the Aggies despite what he might have been up to otherwise. It was more the Browns who dropped the ball on him.
Now, how many Sam Rogers are there in this world? He is even more of an exception and harder to find than the elite. He is truly special and I think it's a bias of many coaches to overlook him because he does not meet certain criteria that they want or believe are harbingers of success as football players. Anyway, while it is a perfect off-season topic and I see what he/she is saying, I do not agree with the basic premise of the above author simply because there are not that many elite athlete's out there - say as measured by a 5-star ranking? And of them, how many actually fall into the Marcus-Manziel bad-apple category? Each kid must be measured on his own merit and I think we need to give coaches (most at least) credit for not just taking a kid because he has five stars - they take them because they can. Two, three and four-star kids can be just as bad, poisonous and troublesome. I know cuz I was once around them.
All just my opinion of course.
Recruiting has changed so much in the last 3-5 years. Gone are the day of taking a couple unofficial's and then taking the 2-3 official visits. Now its a popularity contest take all 5 visits just because its not on your dime and you get a free weekend.
I'll never forget overhearing a parent say "well we knew we didn't like this university already just enjoy the free stuff and weekend" This same parent was also the "hovering type" poor kid had no idea either and was just blinded by the swag and seeing his name in the media.
But as long as we continue down this path its just going to get worse
From Joe's article on recent commit, Dalton Keene:
It was so incredibly refreshing to hear a recruit say that. It's great when kids realize it's not all about them all the time. Just because you have the freedom and ability to drag this thing out and keep coaches sweating and waiting doesn't mean it's the RIGHT thing to do. The problem is, the spoiled, coddled prima donna recruits have, like you said, turned this thing into a popularity contest. More free trips to wherever in the country to go hang out with their friends. And the recruiting dynamics encourage this because the more drama and intrigue added to a recruitment, and the longer it drags out, the more offers he is likely to attract and the more national attention. I personally think the whole thing has turned into a circus, and I have decided to not worry about recruiting or pay incredibly close attention to it anymore. Seeing recruits with ridiculous top 30 schools lists and trying to stir up as much drama as they do is really unfortunate. Just figure out what you want in a school, make a few visits, and then make a decision and stick with it. The attention that media gives some of these guys is just unbelievable. But, as you say, it's only going to get worse on our current path. Unfortunately, this is the norm in today's college athletics.
isn't it a reflection of the coaching staff if they can't handle those type of kids? I think it's a stretch to say that the super star athlete that has to be coddled will likely under perform. From what I've heard many consider deangelo hall to have been a cancer in the locker room.
manziel is another example you brought up. for all his concerns, red flags etc he elevated T A&M to a level they haven't been at and gave them national recognition coming into a new conference.
As far as winning with sam rogers of the world i'd doubt it. For one you only get one sam rogers only so often so banking on getting kids like that consistently just isn't going to happen. Wyatt teller to me is a kid like sam rogers who just seems to want to put in the required work to be successful but he wasn't a walk-on he was a top 100 national kid.
I've never heard a teammate say Hall was a cancer. Everything I've heard has been assumption coupled with irrational emotional response following the defensive collapse of '03. D-Hall has been a great ambassador for the school during his pro career.
The article demonstrates a recruit that obviously has some "me" problems. That kid probably isn't that hard to figure out. On the other hand, I feel sorry for the borderline talent kids that get crossed off a list for a singular bad experience only because the coaches can no longer rely on impartial references from coaches, teachers, and counselors.
Agreed - have never heard a bad thing from anyone who has met him.
I've heard plenty of great things about him from people who meet him as well, but I forget where it was mentioned ( was a few different places) that said his last year he was not a positive influence in the locker room and definitely had the "me" attitude that the OP was talking about.
Watching the E:60 on DHall provides a lot of context on his attitude, and the difference between him on and off the field. I think there is a lot more than meets the eye. The fact is there is often, not always, two different types of great players. Look no further than Sherman vs. Chancellor. Some want to be in your face, and some prefer the Bruce Wayne path. As long as they stay out of trouble and can back up any $%&# they want to talk, then all good by me. I don't prefer people with a "me" attitude, but for better or worse, we could start quite a long thread of hall of fame players with it. Perhaps, that might just be what motivated them to be great in the first place.
I've never heard teammates complaining of him being a locker room cancer either, but you don't earn a nickname like "MeAngelo" without displaying some prima donna tendencies, which does fit in with the general theme of this discussion. I believe he's matured as he aged and left the MeAngelo days behind him, but it is still a fair topic for discussion.
If I'm not mistaken, the MeAngelo nickname originated on TSL for his tendency to go for the big play, sometimes at what they thought was a detriment to the team as a whole.
Personally, I never thought it was justified
I believe certain positions will attract certain personalities. Being a corner I think is one of the ones that require that extra "cockiness". There is no time to second guess any decision as a corner (and the wrong choice can be very detrimental).
DHall was an assett to the hokies and skins, and his attitude may have had somewhat of a positive effect on his success.
Thats just my 0.02
It only fits in with the theme if teammates or coaches believed it.
Manziel elevated them, but I also think the current string of QB debacles (high skill level, but bad attitudes and parental involvement) there started with him. Now I put the responsibility solely on the coaching staff for a: bringing in kids with major red flags, and b: not being able to appropriately handle said kids. That said, I think Johnny Football's long term effect on the school is exactly the author's point: the downsides having a staff that recruits the prima donnas end up costing the program more in the long term than their skills contribute.
Just an aside, a nice article from MMQB has some examples of parental involvement that don't really parallel what we've read here, but offer a different perspective on it.
Here's a brief story from the old days when I played soccer:
On my team we had a bunch of pretty good players, but no USMNT prospects. We played together really well and had the best coach I'd ever had. We also had one guy, let's call him Marcus (not his actual name), who had the worst prima donna attitude of anyone I'd ever met, and was a total jerk to everyone around him. Thought he was the king of the world and the best player in the league (D1 NCSL). He sat the bench a lot, had a bad attitude, coach didn't reward that kind of attitude.
One day at practice he gets particularly furious and starts fighting pretty much all of us, including coach. Jumps in his car and speeds away. As much as we all didn't really like him personally, he was a good player, one of us, and we were concerned that coach was going to cut him. We approached coach after practice about it and he told me something I'll never forget.
Later, we were playing in a State Cup game and we were down 0-1 at half. Other team had this ogre of a sweeper that we couldn't outrun, run around, or run through. He was far bigger, stronger, and faster than anyone we had. Our forwards were getting pushed around.
Coach beckons Marcus, tells him to go in and don't let that [redacted] push him around. Marcus goes in. A few minutes go by and Marcus (5'10") gets into a scuffle with ogre (6'4") like Godzilla vs King Kong. Ref breaks it up, gives yellow cards. Marcus is pissed. Marcus proceeds to school the hell out of this kid for the entire second half, pushes him around, scores, and gets an assist. 2-1 victory. The only thing that Marcus had on the guy was an attitude that he was never, ever going to let this kid get the better of him.
What did coach tell us at that practice after the fights?
"Listen," he told us, "I'm not going to cut Marcus. Every single team out there needs one guy like that. There are no teams that can handle having two guys like that".
Is it still considered a hand ball if you have four legs?
Really dug this reality post. (Can moles get on a treadmill too?)
Let's say 1 of every 20 two-star recruits is a Sam Rogers (a two-star recruit that plays like a 4ish star). It's just not reasonable to expect a staff to build a team by recruiting a players with a 5% success rate.
ok, so let's expand "the sam rogers of the world" to include not only under recruited players who pan out, but also players who have a good head on their shoulders, put the team first, and have a good work ethic. I don't think the author is saying recruit lesser talent in the hopes they get better, it's recruit the best players who have the character necessary for the team instead of sacrificing the latter for the former. Maybe that's a 5 star talent, maybe that's a promising 2 star talent.
In that case - definitely doable. We could probably list a hundred Hokies who fall into this category.
Like this world could handle a who team of Sam Rodgers. After winning the College Championships, Superbowl, and World Series such a team would no doubt take over the Earth...
such a team would no doubt take over the
Earth...such a team would no doubt take over the Universe...
I think that college football, like any hyper competitive business in the world, oftentimes requires putting up with 1 ultra talented ultra jerk to get things to the next level sometimes. And those people are going to be in demand, and they know it.
Now I am not advocating that things like actual criminal behavior should be ignored. But if you look at any scenario where you need "the best" to get ahead, sometimes you gotta grin and bear it. Take a company like Apple for example. By all accounts Steve Jobs was a grade A ass (and a terrible father to boot). But Apple is nothing without his involvement.
Marcus Vick is a prime example. If he hadn't been such a bonehead and getting himself in trouble, if all we had to deal with was a prima donna attitude I think we would have been OK with that. He had the skill necessary to take VT to a level even his brother couldn't in my opinion, just 2 cent decision making to go along with it off the field.
In my opinion, if you want to win, you need outstanding players. Sometimes that means dealing with a Manziel-type prima donna. What's important is that he's outnumbered by Sam Rogers / Bryan Randall / Cody Grimm -type guys who can: a) be a good influence on him and b) serve as the leaders of the team, limiting the spread of his attitude through the locker room.
Probably not (in most cases). His criminal activities and the Elvis Dumervil incident were stains on the reputation of the program, but I don't fault Frank for giving him a chance. I think AZHokie22 summed it up well above. Sure, we had reason to expect his attitude could be a problem, but he had the talent to make dealing with an attitude worth the trouble. I don't think there was reason to suspect he'd end up being an embarrassment to the university the way he did, though. That guy from Baylor who's been in the news so much...the red flags were there from his days at Boise State. Putting that guy on scholarship was a huge mistake.
I pretty much agree with recruiting guys who like to work and
earn their position on the team.
At the same time, you can't argue with talent. Maybe looking for
a mixture of both attributes is the way to go.