Recruiting and Roster Management: what Kelly's doing.

[Old Man Mike]

I'm a bit uncomfortable about this thread. It may be Duh-obvious to regulars, or it may be impenetrable. But a current thread on recruiting elsewhere has shown enough confusion on some of these issues, that maybe this isn't a waste of time. To begin, let's pretend like the football world was as orderly as mathematics.

If it was it would behave in a way similar to this pattern: in any given year, a coaching staff would have a roster which looked like "5-20-20-20-20=85". That is: Five fifth years and twenty guys who came in new each year following. Life is more complicated than that, but that pattern is close to the pattern that a school which treats its player-athletes like actual human beings in pursuit of a degree, and which doesn't create "situations" which lead to a lot of "dropping out" or transferring. In that, Notre Dame comes as close to the mathematical base pattern as anyone, IF the coaching staff of previous years have had good "roster management" and not much bad luck. Our current real-world [non-mathematically precise] situation is "6-21-15-19-24=85". Next year's array could be: "5-15-19-24-?". The "5" has been widely discussed in another thread [Cave/Crist/Slaughter/KLM/Cwynar]; and the "?" is the current recruiting that we're [and the staff] all fussing about.

Kelly has to look at those numbers intelligently though, not simply robotically, as all players aren't created equal [Lou Nix is not going to play QB as much as he'd like to]. If the world was mathematics, the players leaving would be a nice smooth "set" of positional players and we could go out recruiting in an attempt to clone them. They're not, of course, but there is still a somewhat fixed idea of what the distribution of players-by-position should be. What is it? Or in other words, how do you get to 85?

Again, the math says that you have four specialists [K/P/K-P/LS] and 81 positional players. We are currently carrying an extra specialist due to the miracle of Ruffer and the "can't-pass-up" Brindza. When Ruffer moves on, we will still be carrying one extra, as the staff has verbaled another LS to replace Cowart. That leaves us not unusual in having 80 positional players.

Since this is long, I'll cheat and begin again following, so as not to irritate possible word limits.

 

[OchoShayneO]

wtf?

 

[Old Man Mike]

So, NASA says that Rocket Science is easy; it's Rocket Engineering that's hard. [real-world translation: 5-20-20-20-20=85 is nothing compared to constructing it properly; or, calculating how fast Rocket can get to the endzone is easy; MAKING Rocket is hard]. So, what's the mathematical distribution of the "80" positional players, and where are we in relation to that?

It is not outrageous to regard the offense and defense as splitting these 80 guys. Who would the forty O-players be? "44" would be nice, but the NCAA says no. Offense regularly "cheats" on its "four-deep" roster by stealing from a counter-intuitive place: the O-line. This theft is possible because of the intensity of the "set-of-five" work that a starting O-line gets --- i.e. it is not as fluid a situation as other positions and you see less in-game substitution even in blow-outs. O-line coaches think that "four-per-year" is fine and get one per year for the rest of the O-positions for your 40. Again, this is the rocket science simplicity view, not the real engineering view.

On defense you also need to "steal" four positions, but it's not as obvious where. D-line theft is usually a VERY BAD idea. So those four should usually come from DB and LB. Translating this to actual numbers, it would mean 14 DBs and 14 LBs on your roster, plus 12 D-line [in our 3-4 base system]. On offense it would mean 4QBs/TEs/RBs. 12WRs. 16 O-line. And, ideally, spread about nice and evenly across the classes.

What's coach got to work with, now and two years down the line [which is the time frame that you have to pay attention to in roster management?]

to be continued....

 

[Old Man Mike]

Part three: Kelly came in with problems as to the distribution of these numbers as we know. Charlie's high-quality but numbers-light last year [that class IS contributing 8 starters so it's no dud] did leave holes in certain places, most spectacularly QB/DB/OL [no QB following Crist; two DB, one transferring; and three OL one transferring]. Kelly's own transitional class was, like they all are, tough, and, though he fixed the QB numbers, the DBs and OLs fell further behind. D-line was also a multi-year problem with only one in Charlie's last year and two [assuming Heggie switches to O] in the transitional year. If we don't understand these irregularities in our roster as Kelly found it, we can't see exactly what his moves are.

He of course spectacularly fixed both lines last year. Our numbers now match the simplistic ideal in both areas. He is going about fixing the remaining "out-of-shape" area [DB] this season. DB is so out-of-whack that it would take seven to get the number correct, but that's probably too heavy for one class, so six might be where it really stops...but who's to say? Where he is still "short" is WR [note Farley coming over, and GAIII only half-heartedly moving to RB in case of emergency]. We still need another WR in this class. Our O-line is at its "proper 16" with the surprise of Prestwood, but we lose Robinson, Nuss, Dever, Clelland, and possibly Golic. We have two verbals; we need the "normal" four.

You can go down through our roster position-by-position looking at these sorts of numbers, and find Kelly aiming for the logical numbers, which he hopes will ultimately smooth things out from the two unbalanced years [remember that the last Weis class not only is down to 15 members, but that three of those are specialists]. The smallness of that class also portends an odd recruiting year two years from now, which if one offers Carlo, Tyler, Zach, Chris, and Cierre fifth years [and how not?] you'd have only about twelve schoiarships. That future might tempt Kelly to save an empty slot or two this year --- roster management.

I could go on with this, but I'll mercifully stop. I wrote it because people are saying that we're getting beaten out this year in recruiting. In a whacky way, it isn't about that. It's about what our roster looks like and how Kelly's filling it. If we needed only three players, and Kelly got the three best guys available to fit those ideals, he'd be "perfect" and recruiter of the year. I actually don't much care who those other guys get, as long as our staff fills our roster with who they want.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Good idea Mike. This could be a good off-season thread. Most off-season threads lack substance. Thanks for taking the initiative.

 

[IrishMoore1]

I think a lot of people expect us to have 20 commits already and it's only July. Despite our late season success, Kelly and company still have to prove to some degree that ND is coming back. On top of that, we want elite players, and elite players usually don't decide until it's fairly close to signing day. Everyone needs to chill out. There's still a long way to go. I'm willing to bet that recruiting will pick up very positively once the season starts and ND starts winning.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I could go on with this, but I'll mercifully stop.

I am bored and without mercy. For the following analysis, I'm going to assume that our 2012 5th-years will be Cave, Crist, KLM, Cwynar, and Slaughter. * indicates a 5th year of eligibility.

QB-4: Crist* (Sr), Hendrix* (Soph), Rees (Soph), Golson (Fr). This group looks good. Assuming we don't take a QB this cycle, we will maintain the target number of 4 if Crist comes back for a 5th year in 2012 and no one transfers.

RB-5: Jonas Gray (Sr), Cierre Wood*(Jr), Cam Roberson*(Soph), Cam McDaniel (Fr), George Atkinson (Fr). This group doesn't look bad from a long-term numbers standpoint, but we're definitely short on experienced depth for 2011. Kelly runs a one-back system, but the position is important and prone to injury, so he probably wants 5-6 ideally. 2-3 RB recruits in this cycle will leave us with 5-6 RBs in 2012 if GAIII moves back to WR.

WR-10: Floyd (Sr), Goodman* (Sr), Walker* (Sr), Toma (Jr), Riddick (Jr), Jones (Soph), Smith (Soph), Massa (Soph), Daniels (Fr), Farley (Fr). Again, this group doesn't look bad from a numbers perspective; we ideally want 12 dedicated WRs, so we're 2 short for 2011. Looking ahead, we'll likely lose three to graduation after this season, but GAIII may get moved back to WR in the near future. Thus, 4 WRs probably puts us at the desired 12 in 2012.

TE-5: Ragone (5Y), Eifert* (Jr), J Golic* (Jr), Welch* (Soph), Koyack (Fr). Our most loaded position. We're one over the simple ideal of four, which isn't really a bad thing since TEs are so versatile (e.g. expect to see lots of Ragone the FB and Eifert the WR this year). If we skip on TE as expected, we'll still have four in 2012.

C-2: Cave* (Sr), M Golic* (Sr). This position looks scary, especially for 2012 since Golic is unlikely to get a 5th year invite, but Kelly's interior linemen do a lot of cross-training. IIRC, Watt has taken, and Hanratty/ N. Martin are likely to see snaps at C, so we're probably better off than it appears. Still, Center is a crucial position, and at this point no one appears ready to fill Cave's shoes.

OG-6: Nuss (5Y), Robinson (Sr), Clelland* (Sr), Watt*(Jr), Heggie*(Soph), Hanratty. At six, we're two under the simple idea of eight, but as OMM mentioned, it's very easy to "cheat" on numbers for OL; players that don't crack the two-deep at OT can easily move inside, etc. We currently have 16, which is ideal, but we'll probably lose 5 after this season (Dever, Nuss, and Robinson run out of eligibility, while Clelland and Golic are unlikely 5Ys), so look for at least 4 OL recruits in this cycle.

OT-8: Dever (5Y), Z Martin*(Jr), Lombard*(Soph), Nichols*(Soph), Hegarty (Fr), N Martin (Fr), Carrico (Fr), Prestwood (Fr). We're at the ideal of eight OTs right now, but Carrico and Martin appear likely to move inside, and Dever runs out of eligibility this year. As mentioned above, the numbers for each specific OL position aren't as important as the overall total, and we're sitting at 16 this year with a likely loss of 5 heading into the 2012. Look for 4 OL commits this cycle.

DE-8: Ethan Johnson (Sr), Lewis-Moore* (Sr), Schwenke (Soph), Lynch (Fr), Tuitt (Fr), Niklas (Fr), Springmann (Fr), Chase Hounshell (Fr). We currently have 8 at DE, which is ideal, but when EJ graduates after this season, Schwenke and KLM will be the only upperclassmen in this group; in other words, we're going very young in the near future, so the freshman need to see significant minutes this season. Look for one DE this cycle to bring us back up to 8 DEs in 2012.

DT-5: Cwynar* (Sr), Newman* (Sr), H. Williams* (Sr), Stockton* (Jr), Nix* (Soph). 4-5 DTs is about right for a 3-4 defense, but it's unlikely that Newman or Williams get a 5th year, so look for at least one DT this cycle to keep us at 4 in 2012.

ILB-9: McDonald* (Sr), Posluszny* (Sr), Te'o (Jr), Calabrese* (Jr), Fox* (Jr), Moore* (Soph), Utupo (Soph), Grace (Fr), Schmidt (Fr - if he earns a schollie). We're very deep at ILB. McDonald and Posluszny are likely gone after this season, but with Schmidt as a preferred walk-on, and Shembo & Rabasa's flexibility, it's unsurprising that we're not recruiting any ILB this cycle.

OLB-7: Fleming (Sr), Filer (Sr), Shembo (Soph), Spond (Soph), I. Williams (Fr), Councell (Fr), Rabasa (Fr). Seven puts us at one under the ideal of eight, and that number drops down to 5 in 2012 with the graduation of Fleming and Filer. Look for 3 OLBs in this cycle to bring us back up to 8.

CB-6: Gray (5Y), Blanton (Sr), Wood (Soph), Jackson (Soph), Brown (Fr), J Atkinson (Fr). It's not hard to see why this is such an area of concern. We're thin already this year with six; when we lose Gray and Blanton, we drop down to four in 2012. Look for 3-4 CBs taken this cycle, and pray that the underclassmen are able to get lots of reps this season.

S-7: H Smith (5Y), D McCarthy* (Sr), Slaughter* (Sr), Motta (Jr), Collinsworth (Soph), Hardy (Fr), Badger (Fr). S looks a little better for numbers than CB, and we bring back more experience in 2012 as well. Smith runs out of eligibility and McCarthy likely doesn't get a 5th year, so look for 2-3 S recruits in this cycle.

Specialist-5: Ruffer (5Y), Cowart (Jr), Tausch (Jr), Turk (Jr), Brindza (Fr). We're deep in this area, and that likely doesn't change in 2012 since Daly keeps us at 5 after Ruffer's departure. It will be interesting to see how we recruit this position next cycle since we lose 3 of these guys after 2012.

Observations:

• It looks like the estimate of 21-23 recruits in this class will be accurate.
• We may be full at S.
• According to Okwara and Perkins, we're looking to take 3 OLBs this cycle, and the numbers bear them out.
• Look at how many of our OL are eligible for 5th years. That's a very good practice that's been sorely lacking in the past.

I'm certain I made some mistakes. Point them out and I'll correct them as soon as I can.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Whiskey: your post makes me feel better. Someone has understood exactly what I was saying, or trying to. Your breakdown as you've pushed it, is very similar to mine. We differ mainly in that I think that Kelly will be VERY picky about the last few recruits, as he will gain a lot of flexibility by saving a couple of scholarships against that small class that's coming up for graduation after this next one.

One other thing that I'll say in praise of Kelly: he doesn't like being constricted by the robot numbers anymore than any good manager would. That is why I believe that he has thought hard about how to maximize flexibility. His [as usual, brilliant] approach to this is to get as far away from the positional mindset as he is allowed. He does it, of course, by turning roster management into "Skill", "Big Skill", and "Power".

This helps him in two [at least] ways:
1). He is actively recruiting that kind of person whenever it's possible [and has convinced his staff of recruiters that this is what we are doing]; and,
2). He is telling the recruits that as well. It appears to be a selling point for a certain type of player, and creates an expectation in players of flexible moving in position. In doing this up front, he doesn't have to lie to anyone.

If he can maximize this type of player, the vagaries of accident and surprise will not be as difficult to overcome when they inevitably occur. We've seen a LOT of movement already --- apparently all with good attitude.

 

[GreatGolson]

my good sir, were are you by any chance a Rocket Engineer?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Just a biochemist ... you know, the guys who grow up Rockets and Rudolphs and Floyds in secret government labs in Montana.

dshans was the rocket engineer but found that English paid better.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Despite all my stupid meanderings on this board concerning just about anything that comes up and catches my interest, this is the kind of stuff I really enjoyed reading on here for the 5 or so years I lurked about before joining. I say "enjoyed reading," because although I find this fascinating, I really don't know enough about football or math to contribute in any constructive way to these conversations.

Besides that, I was in the college or arts and letters, so got a lot education in BS, but not much in math. But, really appreciate reading this thread. Nice job, "Fast as Lightening!"

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We differ mainly in that I think that Kelly will be VERY picky about the last few recruits, as he will gain a lot of flexibility by saving a couple of scholarships against that small class that's coming up for graduation after this next one.

I wish Kelly had that kind of freedom, but I fear the holes in our depth chart left by Weis are too large to go unaddressed as soon as possible.

The 2012 recruiting class + 5Ys can't exceed 26. We agree that Cave, Crist, KLM, Slaughter, and Cwynar are likely to be our only 5Ys, which leaves a 2012 class of 21. As my post above pointed out, we have some very large holes to fill at RB, WR, OL, OLB, and in the secondary; our 2012 schedule is murderously difficult, so taking a gamble by leaving one personnel group thin could backfire big time if we get unlucky with injuries.

Ideally, I think Kelly would like 3 RBs, 4 WRs, 5 OL, 3 OLB, 7 DBs, and 2 DL. Unfortunately, that would require bringing back only 2 5Ys, and it's almost inconceivable that any 2012 freshman could possibly contribute more than any one of the 5Ys we're anticipating. Thus, we start trimming.

3 RBs would be nice, but 2 RBs will still leave us with 5 if and when GAIII moves back to WR. Given Kelly's single-back system, this isn't much of a sacrifice; especially if one of those "RB"s is a hybrid RB/ slot guy like Riddick.

4 WRs would bring us up to 12 when GAIII moves back, but 11 would be fine, so we only take 3 this cycle.

5 OL would bring us to back to the magic 16 for 2012, but again, 15 isn't so bad, so we only take 4 this cycle.

We need 3 OLBs to get up to the ideal 8, and it doesn't look like the staff is inclined to cut corners here. This position group is critical to Diaco's scheme, so they understandably want to maximize competition and protect themselves against injury and bad luck.

We need 7 DBs to get 4-deep at each slot, and since this is the largest "Weis void", numbers are crucial; as you've pointed out in previous threads, if you know you're going to have to play underclassmen, you'd better take a lot of them to increase the odds that a couple will pan out (you dubbed it "deficit thinking"). Can't cut corners here.

I agree also that trying to cheat on the D-line numbers is a bad idea. We need 1 more DE and DT this cycle.

So where does Kelly save a couple scholarships for the cycle 2012 cycle? Do we leave ourselves only 4 RBs, 10 WRs, and/or 14 OL for 2012? Do we steal from the OLBs, DLs, or DBs? I understand the logic behind what you're getting at, but given the difficulty of our 2012 schedule and the need to fill holes immediately, I don't think Kelly will tempt fate.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm with you on the reasoning path. I think that Kelly and the staff will have a "big board" which looks more complex than the one which most of us would [or even could] make, because it will have the genuinely flexible/movable players shaded in several areas. That sort of "philosophy" would allow making best guesses against future number deficiencies and/or injuries, and might make where to spend scholarships less risky.

An example [again a no brainer, so I apologize]: if you considered yourself to have Cave, Watt, ZMartin, Lombard, Nichols, Hegarty, Prestwood, NMartin, Hanratty, and Carrico, as your ten solid base linemen in a hoped-for total squad count of 16, and your flexibility board area shaded in Heggie [probably semi-permanently], but also Springmann and Hounshell [lets keep Niklas solidly on D], then we can count a soft thirteen. If we get LOIs from Decker and Harrell, that's 15, and if we decide to save scholarships, we can accept MGolic as a fifth year for the 16th. However, two "real" OT scholarships in any year is dangerous of creating a hole further along, so the leaning would be for at least one more [say Peat]. This might, however, doom Golic to a non-acceptance. Etc. Etc.

Reasoning such as that might be going on as the recruiting season advances. That is why, because, as we can see we are well-stocked with good talents in the numbers that we have [anybody would love to have our O-Line guys to work with], we can be extremely selective with our precious remaining offers, despite still needing proper total numbers to best guard against injuries or failed talents in the future.

That sort of analysis also makes it clearer why comparisons with how one team is doing vs another doesn't really make much sense in terms of real on the field results.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My concern with these giant influxes of DL and DB recruits is that in four years, are we going to be scrambling to sign another stellar class just to make up for the losses at each of these positions? Obviously, some will redshirt and that helps spread out the attrition, but hypothetically if we take 7 DBs this year to achieve the ideal number, then there's potential that in four years when those 7 players graduate, we'll be scrambling again to fill the hole. It seems like the staff would want to spread it out a little better. Am I way off on this thought process?

 

[Old Man Mike]

I think that you're "way on". You overload only when you are desperate in an area. Kelly saw that immediately at QB when he arrived. He recruited three "trues" and two "flexibles" [Spond and Roback]. He even joked after NSD that year that he would "only sign about seven QBs next year".

Our D-line situation was heading for a desperation situation after this coming year and [along with the killing gap in pass-rushing,] Kelly solved it with this last class --- but note the number of "flexibles" he signed, thus spreading out the potential.

DB was/is in bad shape with big significant losses coming after this year. Kelly tried hard last year signing four --- but I believe that he feels he whiffed a bit. [Farley is already shifted to WR, for instance]. Hardy has glimmer all over him, but are the elite corners there? Since only a few DBs are really evaluatable as can't miss in high school, he has decided to swamp his problem area with numbers and play the odds.

My opinion, which doesn't count, is that he should stop at six this class, unless he REALLY thinks that Nicky Baratti is his "flexible" missing QB [Tim Tebow style] for this year. And maybe even then....

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm completely on board with the three criteria (Skill, Big Skill, and Power). It clearly helps with managing the roster when you have the flexible athletes that can switch position and turn what some staffs would call a hard number into a soft number (as mentioned above).

This may be unrelated, but another concern of mine is that BCS regulars seem to consistently reload with elite players every year. Whereas ND rarely signs back to back to back classes with that elite caliber player. I think this is something the staff needs to address. They need to be sure that the Lynch/Tuitt/Williams becomes the norm and not the exception. The Texas, Floridas, Alabamas, etc of the world will regularly land these athletes regardless of the depth chart. ND needs to be able to do the same. This is probably better suited for another thread.

 

[IrishRugger2013]

This is the kind of analysis that makes me somewhat nervous for the 2012 season. Beyond a pure numbers game, there seems to a drop-off in experience between 2011 and 2012, especially at OL, DL, and in the secondary. While recruits such as Hegarty, Prestwood, Tuitt, Lynch, Hardy, Shepard, Darby, etc. give me hope for the future, it looks like we will have to count on them and our other young and inexperienced players to develop rather quickly.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is the kind of analysis that makes me somewhat nervous for the 2012 season. Beyond a pure numbers game, there seems to a drop-off in experience between 2011 and 2012, especially at OL, DL, and in the secondary. While recruits such as Hegarty, Prestwood, Tuitt, Lynch, Hardy, Shepard, Darby, etc. give me hope for the future, it looks like we will have to count on them and our other young and inexperienced players to develop rather quickly.

Lucky for us player development happens to be the bread-n-butter for this staff. I just hope the staff can work them onto the field this year to gain on the field experience. This also goes back to what another poster suggested earlier, where the staff is "overloading" a certain position in the recruiting cycle hoping that a couple of them stand out from the rest and can see the field immediately.

 

[Old Man Mike]

If Crist [or some QB] is really good, I believe that Kelly will get us through 2012 in good shape. Crist/Wood/Eifert/Martin/Watt/Cave/ Riddick/Jones are a formidable Offensive core. Lombard is very good from all information. He's the fourth lineman. The fifth will come, likely, from Nichols, Hegarty, and Prestwood [with NMartin as a wildcard]. The non-starters are good depth. The big question will be whether Daniels and/or GAIII can sort-of-replace Mike Floyd. Offensive leadership is there with Martin, Cave, and hopefully Crist.

Defensively there is an absolute load on the D-line and Saint Manti will still be there anchoring his raging linebacker buddies. {He will not opt to leave early, as he is an amazingly counter-cultural guy when it comes to values}. We knew all along that the D-backfield would be an adventure. Motta and Slaughter should stabilize it, and I expect Zeke to take Harrison's role. Hopefully the D-line will make it a lot easier for the rookie corners to cover.

IF "Crist, or whoever"+ Daniels/GAIII, or a fast starting rook+ two fresh corners come through, we'll not only survive the season but be a very big problem for the opponents. Our leadership should still be excellent. Kelly, Captain of the Ship, can navigate the waters. .... need to keep the staff, though.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is the kind of analysis that makes me somewhat nervous for the 2012 season. Beyond a pure numbers game, there seems to a drop-off in experience between 2011 and 2012, especially at OL, DL, and in the secondary. While recruits such as Hegarty, Prestwood, Tuitt, Lynch, Hardy, Shepard, Darby, etc. give me hope for the future, it looks like we will have to count on them and our other young and inexperienced players to develop rather quickly.

On the OL, we lose 2 starters and 3 backups; nothing earth-shattering. I'm sure Kelly and co. will try to ensure that the #2s see as many reps as possible this year in preparation for 2012.

The DL only loses Ethan Johnson, and with a year of solid experience for the frosh, I expect our DL to get even better in 2012.

As OMM mentioned, Motta and Slaughter will bring a lot of experience at S, which should allow Collinsworth and Hardy time to grow into the position.

CB is scary though. Lo Wood and Bennett Jackson (a WR transplant) may be starting in 2012, and they have virtually no experience at the moment. It will be crucial for the staff to give Wood, Jackson, J Atkinson, and Brown as many reps as possible this season to build some depth for 2012.

I wonder if Hardy stays at S or sees time at CB. CB is scary in 2012, but S hits a big hole in 2013-2014, especially if Hardy's not there. IIRC, Hardy projects as sort of an all-purpose Nickelback, similar to Slaughter, so he could probably play anywhere. I'll be interested to see where he ends up.

 

[Rhode Irish]

CB is scary though. Lo Wood and Bennett Jackson (a WR transplant) may be starting in 2012, and they have virtually no experience at the moment. It will be crucial for the staff to give Wood, Jackson, J Atkinson, and Brown as many reps as possible this season to build some depth for 2012.

I wonder if Hardy stays at S or sees time at CB. CB is scary in 2012, but S hits a big hole in 2013-2014, especially if Hardy's not there. IIRC, Hardy projects as sort of an all-purpose Nickelback, similar to Slaughter, so he could probably play anywhere. I'll be interested to see where he ends up.

Obviously it isn't the same as game experience, but Chris Badger will be an adult playing safety in 2013 and 2014 (and 2015). For some reason, that is a little comforting to me. Then, even if you do slide Hardy down to CB, you have a healthy competition between Collinsworth, Baratti, Prosise and Turner (and possibly a Shumate or a Shaq Thompson) for the other safety spot. Plus, there is always the option of keeping Hardy at safety if you can get three quality CB's out of the group of Shephard, Darby, Wood, Jackson, Brown, Atkinson, and probably one other "mystery" CB who will be part of the 2012 class who we don't know yet (maybe a TJ Davis or a Yuri Wright). I think that from that group of ~14/15 guys you can come up with a pretty good 2-deep throughout the secondary, which will not be asked to carry the defense considering what we expect from the front seven.

One area where I would approach constructing the roster a bit differently than you guys is I would borrow a little bit from offense and load up a bit on defense. Nothing drastic, but where your calculations were based on the ideal of 4 deep at each position (adjusted slightly to include 4 specialists and still fit under the 85 cap), I think having 12 WR's is unnecessary. I would like to see: 4 QB, 4 RB, 4TE, 10 WR, 15 OL // 12 DL, 16 LB, 15 DB = 80. 4 specialists make it 84, then you can use that last spot however you see fit (kind of like a wild card roster spot). Even in this scenario, I think you could get away with one less player at any of the offensive positions except for RB in any given year (though overall you wouldn't want to get into a habit of it). I like the idea of a few extra LB's and DB's because they are also very useful on the return and cover teams. A WR or RB could also be used on ST, so I would be flexible about borrowing a spot or two either way between LB/DB and RB/WR.

If you look at ND's current roster (Whiskey's breakdown on the last page is excellent), it is pretty close to this breakdown (my preference, OMM's preference and the actual roster breakdown are all slightly different but all VERY similar). The one area of concern is the imbalance on the roster by class at different positions. Some positions are now at or near their quota but skew very young (especially projecting into next year). As has been pointed out, this creates a double issue: young now, and it could necessitate totally restocking the position in a couple years (thus, getting very young again).

One way to avoid that is to keep adding players and going over preferred numbers for the position in the short term in order to soften the blow from the impending mass exodus. To do this, you would have to borrow from another position(s). Or, you can stagger the classes by saving a year of eligibility for a predetermined number of players at a position. To the extent that you can get away with it, I like the latter approach better, but it may not always work perfectly.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

One area where I would approach constructing the roster a bit differently than you guys is I would borrow a little bit from offense and load up a bit on defense. Nothing drastic, but where your calculations were based on the ideal of 4 deep at each position (adjusted slightly to include 4 specialists and still fit under the 85 cap), I think having 12 WR's is unnecessary. I would like to see: 4 QB, 4 RB, 4TE, 10 WR, 15 OL // 12 DL, 16 LB, 15 DB = 80. 4 specialists make it 84, then you can use that last spot however you see fit (kind of like a wild card roster spot). Even in this scenario, I think you could get away with one less player at any of the offensive positions except for RB in any given year (though overall you wouldn't want to get into a habit of it). I like the idea of a few extra LB's and DB's because they are also very useful on the return and cover teams. A WR or RB could also be used on ST, so I would be flexible about borrowing a spot or two either way between LB/DB and RB/WR.

That's basically what I did in my follow-up post to OMM. I agree that 15 OL, 10-11 WR, and 4-5 RBs is fine (assuming one all-purpose RB/ Slot WR/ Return man). It's definitely a good idea to stack numbers on defense as much as possible without endangering offensive depth.

If you look at ND's current roster (Whiskey's breakdown on the last page is excellent), it is pretty close to this breakdown (my preference, OMM's preference and the actual roster breakdown are all slightly different but all VERY similar). The one area of concern is the imbalance on the roster by class at different positions. Some positions are now at or near their quota but skew very young (especially projecting into next year). As has been pointed out, this creates a double issue: young now, and it could necessitate totally restocking the position in a couple years (thus, getting very young again).

One way to avoid that is to keep adding players and going over preferred numbers for the position in the short term in order to soften the blow from the impending mass exodus. To do this, you would have to borrow from another position(s). Or, you can stagger the classes by saving a year of eligibility for a predetermined number of players at a position. To the extent that you can get away with it, I like the latter approach better, but it may not always work perfectly.

I think this is the plan. Take DB for instance; we'll bring in 6-7, and roughly half will EE. Those three guys will be ready for battle in 2012, so put one marginal guy on STs for reps and red-shirt the other three. I expect to see something similar with our freshman DEs this year.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

...you can come up with a pretty good 2-deep throughout the secondary, which will not be asked to carry the defense considering what we expect from the front seven.

Remembering this will bring comfort. A less-polished DB could look like an all-star out there if the front seven is reeking havoc in the backfield on a regular basis and forcing the QB into making poor decisions.

This is a great conversation. Overall, I feel there isn't much to worry about. The staff sees the glaring holes, addresses them, and moves on to the next.

 

[Irish YJ]

Two thoughts related to other post on this thread.

1) inability to sign back to back quality classes.
-We'll never be Texas who lock down 75+% early in the cycle. We do seem however to be on our way to a back to back quality class. Last year (using Scout ranking) at this time mid-July (discount the drama of de-commits, etc) we had only 9 commits, 5x3star, 3x4star, and 1x5star (which was Koyack/TE, not a position of great need). To date we have 12, 2x0star (RO will end up a 3 or 4), 4x3Star, 4x4star, and 2x5star. Pure numbers suggest we are supassing both quantity and quality compared to last year, and at areas of need. I'm also betting that both WR commits end up high 4star prospects, potentially 1 of them attaining 5 after all is said and done.

2) overloading leads to the same issue 4 from now - spotlight on DB.
-Not so fast my friend. The projected overload thus far is at DB. Darby can play CB, Slot, RB, KR, PR. Tee, let's assume he stays as an elite CB. CJ is an athletic project who has the potential to line up at eitehr DB position or possibly LB depending on how he fills out. Baratti is similar with the added offensive potential at QB and TE. Turner is a project as well, but seems versatile in the limited info out there. Now for a look at what's still on the board. I'll use B&G interest level "hot". Shaq could be blue chip at S or WR. Shumate also potential elite, either S or CB, and has also played OLB. Armani Reeves also a potential elite CB, Slot WR, or PR/KR. Reggie Danniels S project, and TJ Davis CB Project. Depending on how the chips (commits) fall, we could end up with 2-3 more elite guys, perhaps 4 if Geno or Yuri come back intot the mix. I think BK passes on RD and TJ for now, but regardless of timing, he would take a Shaq, Shumate, Reeves, Geno, or Yuri if the opportunity presented itself. All in all, it's not really stealing from the O given the flexibility of 50% of these kids.

Note - I'm a newbie, but learning. I'm sure the above is flawed, forgetting, etc.. .

 

[Rhode Irish]

Note - I'm a newbie, but learning. I'm sure the above is flawed, forgetting, etc.. .

No, you're good. Not sure if any of that was directed at my post, but I do agree that Kelly really emphasizes position flexibility and recruits for "skill" "big skill" and "power" more than for a specific position. And we have seen Kelly change a lot of skill players' positions already (either that they played or were thought to have been recruited for). It is a point I'm aware of and have made several times myself.

Maybe I didn't do a great job explaining this in my post, but my thoughts here are based on the positions that guys currently play and/or are supposedly being recruited to play. I am treating positions as static for the purposes of having a hypothetical discussion about roster construction. All of that is subject to change based on how Kelly ultimately deploys these guys, but I don't think many of us on this board are in a position to try to project out position changes for guys over the next several years.

Just wanted to clarify that point. Good post by you, YJ.

 

[irishog77]

Thanks, OMM and others-- this has been one of the best, most insightful, and hyperbole-lacking (not really sure if that's a word...but it is in the post!) threads I've seen and followed in the 7 months or so I've been coming here.
All legitimate thoughts ideas and thoughts about recruiting in the present and future.

 

[Irish YJ]

Thanks RI! But I am a newbie and embrace my newbie status (at least for another few months . I'm happy to learn a little more everyday in my 15-20 min of surfing!

Here's another comment I posted on one of the Darby strings. Speaks to someone's remark about fluid position recruiting, etc. farther below. Static vs. fluid is a challenge even in the discussion board space. Can you imagine all the details BK and staff have to keep up with recruiting these guys looking 4 and 5 years down the road. I hope he has a chance to see the fruits of his efforts 4,5, and 6 years from now.

"Amen on the fluid remark. Until the class is locked up,,,, really until the class gets through summer practice.... we only have a blue print. The beauty of it all, we finally have a coach who understands this, embraces it, recruits to it, and coaches to it. No more finnese... The proof is in the pudding, but BKs actions and words thus far have impressed. All things the same, I've got a better feeling about BK after his first year (feeling of well-roundedness if that's a word) than I did with everyone post Holtz. I liked Weis coming out of his first year, but knew he was O first, finesse, and full of ego which closed the door early on a lot of elite recruits. Especially on the D side of things. Davie and TW were throwing darts at board, and in my opinion, weren't ready for all things ND. BradyQ and JeffS were lucky mistakes if you know the history of their recruiting cycle. All in all, BK has a plan, talks the talks, and has prepared for the walk. Let's just hope that they execute this fall. If they can, recruiting will be obscene next year."

bonus comment on multi position guys.... Can't wait to see Darby run back a kick for a TD, then intercept the ball on the first play from scrimmage to score another.

 

[Old Man Mike]

We arrived at the point of understanding recruiting and roster management that I hoped we would when I [with a bit of trepidation] began this thing. The whole idea was to expand everybody's awareness of the dynamism and future-orientation that goes into recruiting for an intelligent staff. [And take some of the emphasis away from what "other guys" are doing with their problems]. I thank everyone [and those further remarks to come] for their help in expanding my own understanding.

What will be the "hidden strength" of all we've talked about is the "dreaded" RKG factor. Football, like life, really can't be controlled nor, therefore, robotically planned for. Kelly's ace-in-the-hole is the RKG in all his dimensions. Paper descriptions are static; RKG players are not. Great athletes in combination with great coaches, applying great attitudes towards their development as part of a Team larger than themselves, WILL ADJUST to meet the circumstances.

We have a coach who sees life as it is: unpredictable and sometimes unfair. He knows that the path to success is being nimble. His schemes are nimble. His players and coaches are nimble. His mind is nimble. He will not let "fixed" concepts get in his way. Once we have the players who have the requisite body plans and attitudes on campus, the Kelly flexibility will move to do the rest. That's why I am so happy with what we have now "philosophically". National Championships?? Who knows?? I just love that the RKG we have as coach is giving it the best shot that he can.

 

[kmoose]

I expect Zeke to take Harrison's role.

As long as that is Harrison's 2010 role, and not his 2009 role!

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Two thoughts related to other post on this thread.

1) inability to sign back to back quality classes.
-We'll never be Texas who lock down 75+% early in the cycle. We do seem however to be on our way to a back to back quality class. Last year (using Scout ranking) at this time mid-July (discount the drama of de-commits, etc) we had only 9 commits, 5x3star, 3x4star, and 1x5star (which was Koyack/TE, not a position of great need). To date we have 12, 2x0star (RO will end up a 3 or 4), 4x3Star, 4x4star, and 2x5star. Pure numbers suggest we are supassing both quantity and quality compared to last year, and at areas of need. I'm also betting that both WR commits end up high 4star prospects, potentially 1 of them attaining 5 after all is said and done.

- Scout, more often than not, is the outlier when it comes to rating services. It's probably best not to go strictly by that recruiting site.

- I wasn't suggesting that our class this year will not be another stellar class

- You don't have to lock down 75% of your class early in the process (like Texas) to be considered a great class. They're considered a great class at the end of every year because of the quality and quantity. The reoccurring fact is that TX, AL, FL, USC, etc all consistently land top rated classes. That's part of what it takes to build a consistent BCS team (which ND strives to be).

- My overall point with that comment, was that it has been awhile since ND has consistently landed top 10 classes, year after year after year. I hope that is all a thing of the past though and that this staff set the tone with last year's class.