Ye Olde Green Wave Forum

The DEFINITIVE Tulane discussion forum
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
Coach Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 1934
Location: Baton Rouge
-There has been a lot of talk about commits being under the radar. I seek to roughly define and lay out the facts. I propose 2 classifications for this purpose. Simply put if they have a P5, or two AAC or MWC/BYU/Army offer they are "on the radar." I include the MWC because their recruiting class grades compare with AAC's.

GREEN: On
RED: OFF
Strike through = de-commit
Bold = Sign
Name-POS-top 3 Offers

Sorrell Brown WR USAFA, Purdue, UTEP
Macon Clark LB ULL, Troy
Simi Bakare RB Central Ark, Stephen F Austin
Cameron Carroll RB South Al, Southern Miss, Central Ark
Nik Hogan OL Miss St, Kentucky, ECU
Tyrick James TE K-STate, SMU, New Mexico
Jamal Anderson DB Louisville only other offer
Patrick Shegog ATH Army, Navy Central Ark.
Carlos Hatcher DE USM only other offer
Michael Remondet OL UL, Marshall
Jason Swann OL NC State, Syraccuse, Miss St.
Jamiran James DT Houston, Memphis, Navy
Amare Jones ATH Tulsa, SFA, UNT
Stephen Lewerenz OL MTSU, Liberty, Murray
Davon Wright DT Navy, SMU, COl state
Juan Monjarres DE Wash St, Colorado, ECU
Christian Daniels QB Purdue, USAFA, Navy

_________________
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM


Last edited by Poseidon on Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:51 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 19028
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks for the summary Poseidon. I'd appreciate it if you could keep that updated, as some guys have decommitted and we'll probably be adding guys as well.

It seems we've had more "off radar" guys lately and amidst a losing streak it's easy to forget the impressive guys we'd gotten earlier.

Of course, it's all just internet chatter until signing day, so let's hope the good ones stick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:18 pm 
Online
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:34 am
Posts: 24115
Location: New Orleans
Good job taking a stab at it.

I'd dispute Amare Jones due to his solid 247 rating but your standards are your standards. Hatcher carries good ratings as well and the staff certainly didn't treat him as if they thought him a under the radar/backburner type.

I think of Lewerenz, Clark, and Bakare as the most truly under the radar commitments. Lewerenz committed very early at a time when most programs take on guys that their fans aren't familiar with (LSU did this with a DE from Ferriday named Dantrieze Scott). Clark and Bakare are guys whose names came to us very late. Clark has an offer from Troy as well.

_________________
You want experience running the entire show? You got it. You want someone young and energetic? You got it. You wanted someone with absolutely no ties to Cowen/Dickson? You got it. - TU23


Last edited by long green on Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Posts: 20027
Location: North Kenner
4 OL commits. I'd like to get all 4 plus another 1 or 2 transfers that can play immediately.

Btw, thanks for the breakout. Looks like we are about 50/50 with radar/under radar guys.

_________________
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson


Last edited by waverider on Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
Breaker Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:52 am
Posts: 403
Poseidon wrote:
-There has been a lot of talk about commits being under the radar. I seek to roughly define and lay out the facts. I propose 2 classifications for this purpose. Simply put if they have a P5, or two AAC or MWC/BYU/Army offer they are "on the radar." I include the MWC because their recruiting class grades compare with AAC's.

GREEN: On
RED: OFF
Name-POS-top 3 Offers

Sorrell Brown WR USAFA, Purdue, UTEP
Macon Clark LB ULL
Simi Bakare RB Central Ark, Stephen F Austin
Cameron Carroll RB South Al, Southern Miss, Central Ark
Nik Hogan OL Miss St, Kentucky, ECU
Tyrick James TE K-STate, SMU, New Mexico
Jamal Anderson DB Louisville only other offer
Patrick Shegog ATH Army, Navy Central Ark.
Carlos Hatcher DE USM only other offer
Michael Remondet OL UL, Marshall
Jason Swann OL NC State, Syraccuse, Miss St.
Jamiran James DT Houston, Memphis, Navy
Amare Jones ATH Tulsa, SFA, UNT
Stephen Lewerenz OL MTSU, Liberty, Murray
Davon Wright DT Navy, SMU, COl state
Juan Monjarres DE Wash St, Colorado, ECU

This is the first year football has an early signing date
It will be interesting to see how many of these commits sign in December and how many wait for a better offer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am
Posts: 1924
Poseidon, great job. I really enjoyed it and like Pete said, please keep it updated. I think your standards are fair.

As we can see, almost half the class is under the radar. This type of recruiting will keep you in the bottom 3rd of the AAC. If we sign 25, there should be no more than five recruits that are considered under the radar kids. WF better pick it up. The only way I see this being done is to hire assistants from across the country and recruit nationally. They must figure this out one way or the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 17312
Location: Philly & Ocean City, MD
Yes, great job, Poseidon. I am always amazed by guys like you, long green, TU23 and others that get into the nitty gritty.

As for under the radar vs. on, I am reminded of business development metrics that parse available market vs. addressable market. Simply put, addressable markets are those where one has a reasonable chance of converting an opportunity to sales. In fact, if you sell management on available market as being entirely addressable, you won’t last long in your job. You don’t have the resources and the barriers to entry are impossible to overcome.

P5 has become a de facto barrier to entry. Not insurmountable but close. Our addressable market should continue to be like the joke about not having to outrun the bear—just outrun your companion. The problem of where Tulane is is that the barriers to entry are high which means that we not only have to work harder to outdo our AAC peers but we have hit more than miss on those Poseidon has in red.

I feel for WF and his staff. Screaming at them to recruit better doesn’t make it happen. They know what’s at stake.

_________________
Tulanian since 1974


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:53 am
Posts: 19359
Location: New Orleans
I've given up long ago beating LSU for recruits. All I'm focused on now is how we do against the top third of our conference.

_________________
After a while, the residents of the sea do not hear the sound of the waves.
How bitter it is, the story of routine- Arabic (Anon)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9179
It's not going to make a huge difference at the margins, but I don't think we should lump Army (or Navy, for that matter) in with our conference foes...their recruiting is well below that standard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline
Riptide Level

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:30 pm
Posts: 165
ml wave wrote:
It's not going to make a huge difference at the margins, but I don't think we should lump Army (or Navy, for that matter) in with our conference foes...their recruiting is well below that standard.


Navy or Army alone should not be lumped in but a Navy or Army offer along with one of the others should be a plus because of what it says about a young man's character and grades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 5826
Location: Gretna, LA
ThePig wrote:
ml wave wrote:
It's not going to make a huge difference at the margins, but I don't think we should lump Army (or Navy, for that matter) in with our conference foes...their recruiting is well below that standard.


Navy or Army alone should not be lumped in but a Navy or Army offer along with one of the others should be a plus because of what it says about a young man's character and grades.

They're also going to be completing for athletes with similar skill sets in many cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:53 am
Posts: 19359
Location: New Orleans
I wouldn't discount their athletes if its a position that relates to what we do and want to do better (RB for instance) not so much at other positions (DL for instance). But I do see an Army or Navy offer useful to determine if a kid is solid academically and of good character that, when added to my "Star" and who also offered, gives me a better picture of how we did.

_________________
After a while, the residents of the sea do not hear the sound of the waves.
How bitter it is, the story of routine- Arabic (Anon)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
Coach Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 1934
Location: Baton Rouge
GretnaGrn wrote:
ThePig wrote:
ml wave wrote:
It's not going to make a huge difference at the margins, but I don't think we should lump Army (or Navy, for that matter) in with our conference foes...their recruiting is well below that standard.


Navy or Army alone should not be lumped in but a Navy or Army offer along with one of the others should be a plus because of what it says about a young man's character and grades.

They're also going to be completing for athletes with similar skill sets in many cases.


All good points. The academies are just wrench's in the system. It might depend on position as well considering our similar schemes. I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible.

_________________
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 19028
Location: Cincinnati, OH
I would actually give more credit to us getting a recruit for specific positions (QB!) if we beat Army, Navy, or a handful of other schools which run an offense similar to what we do. Not everyone is going to go after players with specific skill sets that we might need. Therefore, some players will necessarily be "off the radar" to most schools but acceptable to us.

But that's NOT valid across the board.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9179
ThePig wrote:
ml wave wrote:
It's not going to make a huge difference at the margins, but I don't think we should lump Army (or Navy, for that matter) in with our conference foes...their recruiting is well below that standard.


Navy or Army alone should not be lumped in but a Navy or Army offer along with one of the others should be a plus because of what it says about a young man's character and grades.

At this point I take character and grades as a given and I don't really see a need to give extra credit, recruiting-wise, for it. If anything, we've recruited character and grades for far too long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 5826
Location: Gretna, LA
PeteRasche wrote:
I would actually give more credit to us getting a recruit for specific positions (QB!) if we beat Army, Navy, or a handful of other schools which run an offense similar to what we do. Not everyone is going to go after players with specific skill sets that we might need. Therefore, some players will necessarily be "off the radar" to most schools but acceptable to us.

But that's NOT valid across the board.

I think it's probably valid for most offensive positions, but absolutely NOT valid for any defensive ones (or kickers/punters).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:53 am
Posts: 19359
Location: New Orleans
I think I might have a problem with a WR recruit whose only Div.1A offer was Army. Other than that if the skill level is there and they have legit offers in addition to Army/Navy I would be fine (on the Offensive side)

_________________
After a while, the residents of the sea do not hear the sound of the waves.
How bitter it is, the story of routine- Arabic (Anon)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am
Posts: 1924
The WR we just picked up out of Texas looks like a solid pick-up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9179
GretnaGrn wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
I would actually give more credit to us getting a recruit for specific positions (QB!) if we beat Army, Navy, or a handful of other schools which run an offense similar to what we do. Not everyone is going to go after players with specific skill sets that we might need. Therefore, some players will necessarily be "off the radar" to most schools but acceptable to us.

But that's NOT valid across the board.

I think it's probably valid for most offensive positions, but absolutely NOT valid for any defensive ones (or kickers/punters).

I think you can make an argument for QB and OL, but we're not looking for anything different at RB or WR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:53 am
Posts: 19359
Location: New Orleans
I know that now I'm going to argue against myself but an Army WR has to know how to block, so there might be one out there that has sufficient size and speed to be worth taking a chance on. And personally I've like the FB's that I've seen from Army and Navy who seem capable of hitting the middle of the line for some yardage which tends to open the outside the Tackle runs. Seeing Badie get sent up some inside dive play makes me, well sad.

_________________
After a while, the residents of the sea do not hear the sound of the waves.
How bitter it is, the story of routine- Arabic (Anon)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline
Riptide Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 154
I can see some of the positives others see when a player has offers from Navy or Army. I would disagree though about us going after the same type of QB's. They are not the least bit concerned with him being able to pass the ball. I know many are frustrated by us not giving the passing game more opportunities but Fritz stated goal is to have a dual threat QB that is able to throw the ball . A lot of schools looking for RPO QB's are going after the type of QB we want. I felt we were fortunate to land Banks. It's going to be tough to recruit this position since so many look for a similar type. We're going to need some more luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 5826
Location: Gretna, LA
ml wave wrote:
GretnaGrn wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
I would actually give more credit to us getting a recruit for specific positions (QB!) if we beat Army, Navy, or a handful of other schools which run an offense similar to what we do. Not everyone is going to go after players with specific skill sets that we might need. Therefore, some players will necessarily be "off the radar" to most schools but acceptable to us.

But that's NOT valid across the board.

I think it's probably valid for most offensive positions, but absolutely NOT valid for any defensive ones (or kickers/punters).

I think you can make an argument for QB and OL, but we're not looking for anything different at RB or WR.

Disagree on WR; we need ones who can block far more than most schools. RB you may have a point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9179
GreenieBacker wrote:
I know that now I'm going to argue against myself but an Army WR has to know how to block, so there might be one out there that has sufficient size and speed to be worth taking a chance on. And personally I've like the FB's that I've seen from Army and Navy who seem capable of hitting the middle of the line for some yardage which tends to open the outside the Tackle runs. Seeing Badie get sent up some inside dive play makes me, well sad.

WR blocking is more of a willingness than a skill imo. Something to be taught, not recruited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:18 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9179
GretnaGrn wrote:
ml wave wrote:
GretnaGrn wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
I would actually give more credit to us getting a recruit for specific positions (QB!) if we beat Army, Navy, or a handful of other schools which run an offense similar to what we do. Not everyone is going to go after players with specific skill sets that we might need. Therefore, some players will necessarily be "off the radar" to most schools but acceptable to us.

But that's NOT valid across the board.

I think it's probably valid for most offensive positions, but absolutely NOT valid for any defensive ones (or kickers/punters).

I think you can make an argument for QB and OL, but we're not looking for anything different at RB or WR.

Disagree on WR; we need ones who can block far more than most schools. RB you may have a point.

If we are emphasizing blocking skills when targeting WRs (which I doubt we are) then I would humbly suggest that we might be better served looking for speed, the ability to get off the line of scrimmage, run decent routes, get open, etc...the things we lack that are really hampering our offense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Posts: 17910
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown
While I don't understand under the radar skill players, this class is shaping up as the best we've had in a long, long time.

_________________
A refreshing culture of standards, expectations and accountability is upon us.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group