Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

SuperDuck wrote:It's NOT all about the tradition of a school that gets them great players, although it doesn't hurt.

Oklahoma was mediocre to awful for a few years in the 1980's after Barry Switzer left. They went through Howard Schnellenburger, Garry Gibbs and John Blake, but nobody brought in great talent again until Bob Stoops came along.

Texas sucked under John Mackovic, but was rejuvenated under Mack Brown. Why? Mack Brown is a great recruiter.

USC was awful before Pete Carroll was hired.

Michigan obviously didn't get prime defensive talent under RichRod.

Alabama sucked for several years until Saban was hired.

Penn State is still getting mediocre talent under Joe Paterno.

Notre Dame was awful for several years and didn't get prime talent.

I could go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Chip is on the right track. It's easy to forget because of our recent success that that Chip Kelly has just finished his second season as head coach. We're already starting to win some big recruiting battles and we'll likely win a lot more in the next few years. Does that mean that we're going to consistently out recruit teams like USC, Texas, Alabama, LSU, etc? Probably not, but it does mean that Oregon is going to consistently get their slice of the pie.

As far as defensive lineman go, there are only so many to be had nationwide that are of Division 1 caliber and it's going to be a battle for those guys every year. We'll win some, lose some and Chip will figure it out and still win.

Anyway, my point is that it's NOT all about tradition. That helps to a point, but it's not everything.

My two bits.

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Yea, UM and UM are both good examples but they've still been bringing in top recruits because of who they are. I'm sorry dude, but recruiting to Tuscaloosa is entirely easier than recruiting to Eugene. Simply put, the difference in pop #s (which translates to the amount of HS football players), the distance and academic req's of the conference make it much harder to recruit out here.

As far as your nonsense comparing Texas to AM or SMU or tech, you're a young kid and I'll leave it at that. To give you a good analogy, there are the Cowboys and then there are the Texans. There is UT and there is everybody else. UT will have a class filled for the following year before most teams get their first commit.

Miami and Michigan aren't bringing in top recruits. Take a look at there classes. And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon. They weren't bringing in elite classes prior to Saban showing up. Solid, top 25 classes? Yes, but that's a far cry from where they are now.

This year alone, 2 of 3 Texas 5* prospects are going out of state. 10? 1 of 2. 09? 2 of 5. 08? 3 of 3. Etc, etc, etc. There's plenty enough talent for A&M, Tech, SMU, etc. They don't get it because they don't win. Instead, kids go to Norman Oklahoma and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Not exactly the most ideal locations to live, but the programs are successful.

Winning is more important than location. Another example being Nebraska, who's clearly picked it up on the recruiting front.

So why doesn't Boise or TCU field top 10 ranked classes? There is no single, over-riding reason why any recruit chooses one place over another like "winning."

Supreme wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's NOT all about the tradition of a school that gets them great players, although it doesn't hurt.

Oklahoma was mediocre to awful for a few years in the 1980's after Barry Switzer left. They went through Howard Schnellenburger, Garry Gibbs and John Blake, but nobody brought in great talent again until Bob Stoops came along.

Texas sucked under John Mackovic, but was rejuvenated under Mack Brown. Why? Mack Brown is a great recruiter.

USC was awful before Pete Carroll was hired.

Michigan obviously didn't get prime defensive talent under RichRod.

Alabama sucked for several years until Saban was hired.

Penn State is still getting mediocre talent under Joe Paterno.

Notre Dame was awful for several years and didn't get prime talent.

I could go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Chip is on the right track. It's easy to forget because of our recent success that that Chip Kelly has just finished his second season as head coach. We're already starting to win some big recruiting battles and we'll likely win a lot more in the next few years. Does that mean that we're going to consistently out recruit teams like USC, Texas, Alabama, LSU, etc? Probably not, but it does mean that Oregon is going to consistently get their slice of the pie.

As far as defensive lineman go, there are only so many to be had nationwide that are of Division 1 caliber and it's going to be a battle for those guys every year. We'll win some, lose some and Chip will figure it out and still win.

Anyway, my point is that it's NOT all about tradition. That helps to a point, but it's not everything.

My two bits.

Who said anything about tradition?

Supreme wrote:And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon.

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Yea, UM and UM are both good examples but they've still been bringing in top recruits because of who they are. I'm sorry dude, but recruiting to Tuscaloosa is entirely easier than recruiting to Eugene. Simply put, the difference in pop #s (which translates to the amount of HS football players), the distance and academic req's of the conference make it much harder to recruit out here.

As far as your nonsense comparing Texas to AM or SMU or tech, you're a young kid and I'll leave it at that. To give you a good analogy, there are the Cowboys and then there are the Texans. There is UT and there is everybody else. UT will have a class filled for the following year before most teams get their first commit.

Miami and Michigan aren't bringing in top recruits. Take a look at there classes. And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon. They weren't bringing in elite classes prior to Saban showing up. Solid, top 25 classes? Yes, but that's a far cry from where they are now.

This year alone, 2 of 3 Texas 5* prospects are going out of state. 10? 1 of 2. 09? 2 of 5. 08? 3 of 3. Etc, etc, etc. There's plenty enough talent for A&M, Tech, SMU, etc. They don't get it because they don't win. Instead, kids go to Norman Oklahoma and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Not exactly the most ideal locations to live, but the programs are successful.

Winning is more important than location. Another example being Nebraska, who's clearly picked it up on the recruiting front.

So why doesn't Boise or TCU field top 10 ranked classes? There is no single, over-riding reason why any recruit chooses one place over another like "winning."

Because they're second tier programs with mediocre staffs(great HC's though), stuck in second rate conferences?

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's NOT all about the tradition of a school that gets them great players, although it doesn't hurt.

Oklahoma was mediocre to awful for a few years in the 1980's after Barry Switzer left. They went through Howard Schnellenburger, Garry Gibbs and John Blake, but nobody brought in great talent again until Bob Stoops came along.

Texas sucked under John Mackovic, but was rejuvenated under Mack Brown. Why? Mack Brown is a great recruiter.

USC was awful before Pete Carroll was hired.

Michigan obviously didn't get prime defensive talent under RichRod.

Alabama sucked for several years until Saban was hired.

Penn State is still getting mediocre talent under Joe Paterno.

Notre Dame was awful for several years and didn't get prime talent.

I could go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Chip is on the right track. It's easy to forget because of our recent success that that Chip Kelly has just finished his second season as head coach. We're already starting to win some big recruiting battles and we'll likely win a lot more in the next few years. Does that mean that we're going to consistently out recruit teams like USC, Texas, Alabama, LSU, etc? Probably not, but it does mean that Oregon is going to consistently get their slice of the pie.

As far as defensive lineman go, there are only so many to be had nationwide that are of Division 1 caliber and it's going to be a battle for those guys every year. We'll win some, lose some and Chip will figure it out and still win.

Anyway, my point is that it's NOT all about tradition. That helps to a point, but it's not everything.

My two bits.

Who said anything about tradition?

you yourself did in your retort to my last point.

Supreme wrote:And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon.

Seriously man, you are all over the place right now with whatever argument you are trying to make

briarduck wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

bigsugarduck wrote:We still got a great class comming in and hopefully Deanthony Thomas will be that cherry on top, but did we just get hosed on signing day?

Gotta say I'm very disapointed we didn't pick up any of the "maybe sorta" players....Cross those fingers for DT....

Yup, this class got punk'd, teabagged and clowned, all in the span of like 5 minutes. Pretty embarrassing day to be an Oregon Duck.

Seriously, I'm not quite sure how some of you think this class is anything but our best ever. Did we miss out on a few DTs, sure. Were any of those guys day 1 impact players? Not at all. No, what you think about so and so is nice, none of them were ready to play on Day 1.
If you want to be honest about who's getting punk'd tonight, wait for The Black Mamba to become the Green Mamba by choosing the Ducks and we take the Trojans most favored recruit. As for this nonsense about DT recruiting, get over it already.

Exactly...we are all disappointed we didn't get a couple of DTs and Byers but make no mistake this class kicks ass and add the GREEN MAMBA and its absolutely awesome!

QB, RB, WR, O-Line, LB are all unbelievable and insert DaT to CB and its beyond anything we could have hoped for...just awesome!

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Yea, UM and UM are both good examples but they've still been bringing in top recruits because of who they are. I'm sorry dude, but recruiting to Tuscaloosa is entirely easier than recruiting to Eugene. Simply put, the difference in pop #s (which translates to the amount of HS football players), the distance and academic req's of the conference make it much harder to recruit out here.

As far as your nonsense comparing Texas to AM or SMU or tech, you're a young kid and I'll leave it at that. To give you a good analogy, there are the Cowboys and then there are the Texans. There is UT and there is everybody else. UT will have a class filled for the following year before most teams get their first commit.

Miami and Michigan aren't bringing in top recruits. Take a look at there classes. And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon. They weren't bringing in elite classes prior to Saban showing up. Solid, top 25 classes? Yes, but that's a far cry from where they are now.

This year alone, 2 of 3 Texas 5* prospects are going out of state. 10? 1 of 2. 09? 2 of 5. 08? 3 of 3. Etc, etc, etc. There's plenty enough talent for A&M, Tech, SMU, etc. They don't get it because they don't win. Instead, kids go to Norman Oklahoma and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Not exactly the most ideal locations to live, but the programs are successful.

Winning is more important than location. Another example being Nebraska, who's clearly picked it up on the recruiting front.

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:

SuperDuck wrote:It's NOT all about the tradition of a school that gets them great players, although it doesn't hurt.

Oklahoma was mediocre to awful for a few years in the 1980's after Barry Switzer left. They went through Howard Schnellenburger, Garry Gibbs and John Blake, but nobody brought in great talent again until Bob Stoops came along.

Texas sucked under John Mackovic, but was rejuvenated under Mack Brown. Why? Mack Brown is a great recruiter.

USC was awful before Pete Carroll was hired.

Michigan obviously didn't get prime defensive talent under RichRod.

Alabama sucked for several years until Saban was hired.

Penn State is still getting mediocre talent under Joe Paterno.

Notre Dame was awful for several years and didn't get prime talent.

I could go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Chip is on the right track. It's easy to forget because of our recent success that that Chip Kelly has just finished his second season as head coach. We're already starting to win some big recruiting battles and we'll likely win a lot more in the next few years. Does that mean that we're going to consistently out recruit teams like USC, Texas, Alabama, LSU, etc? Probably not, but it does mean that Oregon is going to consistently get their slice of the pie.

As far as defensive lineman go, there are only so many to be had nationwide that are of Division 1 caliber and it's going to be a battle for those guys every year. We'll win some, lose some and Chip will figure it out and still win.

Anyway, my point is that it's NOT all about tradition. That helps to a point, but it's not everything.

My two bits.

Who said anything about tradition?

you yourself did in your retort to my last point.

Supreme wrote:And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon.

Seriously man, you are all over the place right now with whatever argument you are trying to make

stlDUCKfan wrote:

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:Yea, UM and UM are both good examples but they've still been bringing in top recruits because of who they are. I'm sorry dude, but recruiting to Tuscaloosa is entirely easier than recruiting to Eugene. Simply put, the difference in pop #s (which translates to the amount of HS football players), the distance and academic req's of the conference make it much harder to recruit out here.

As far as your nonsense comparing Texas to AM or SMU or tech, you're a young kid and I'll leave it at that. To give you a good analogy, there are the Cowboys and then there are the Texans. There is UT and there is everybody else. UT will have a class filled for the following year before most teams get their first commit.

Miami and Michigan aren't bringing in top recruits. Take a look at there classes. And recruiting to Tuscaloose is easier than recruiting to Eugene because Alabama is a higher profile program than Oregon. They weren't bringing in elite classes prior to Saban showing up. Solid, top 25 classes? Yes, but that's a far cry from where they are now.

This year alone, 2 of 3 Texas 5* prospects are going out of state. 10? 1 of 2. 09? 2 of 5. 08? 3 of 3. Etc, etc, etc. There's plenty enough talent for A&M, Tech, SMU, etc. They don't get it because they don't win. Instead, kids go to Norman Oklahoma and Baton Rouge Louisiana. Not exactly the most ideal locations to live, but the programs are successful.

Winning is more important than location. Another example being Nebraska, who's clearly picked it up on the recruiting front.

Well let's see, one of those guys is Brandon Williams he plays RB. If you look about 5 spots ahead of him you'll see Malcolm Brown, he also plays RB and is better than Brandon Williams, which is why Williams would go somewhere else since Texas already got their stud running back. Again like I said, the only players that leave Texas are because Texas doesn't want them.

And the other player went to Oklahoma. He lives about the same distance from Norman as he does Austin so I'm sure he grew up a sooner fan.

Texas signed 22 players today, everyone besides one is from Texas and the other if from Oklahoma. You can't sign them all there is only a certain amount of scholarships to give out.

Supreme wrote:You're well aware of my argument. That winning trumps all when it comes to recruiting.

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:You're well aware of my argument. That winning trumps all when it comes to recruiting.

Except if you are a second-tier program, right? Good job showing that winning trumps all.

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:You're well aware of my argument. That winning trumps all when it comes to recruiting.

Except if you are a second-tier program, right? Good job showing that winning trumps all.

Yes, and thank you.

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

Supreme wrote:You're well aware of my argument. That winning trumps all when it comes to recruiting.

Except if you are a second-tier program, right? Good job showing that winning trumps all.

Yes, and thank you.

Seriously man, that was so insightful. Really, how long did it take you to come to the conclusion that only high profile programs that win can get top recruiting classes and what kind of asinine argument is that?

Further, how does that parlay into Oregon getting punk'd today? You began this moronic diatribe arguing that Tuscaloosa wasn't a good recruiting location, which you then flipped on by saying it was high-profile program. Then you claimed that winning is the ultimate factor but when presented with ND, Boise and TCU, you again flip and say that only top-tier programs get those recruits.

I'm really starting to question whether you are just a troll or not. Sometimes you will start to make a decent point, but then it devolves like this.