'17 PA DT Kurt Hinish (Notre Dame Signee)

[CIrishWin]

Are you in the right thread? lol

I see typical defensive project that would need 2-3 years before being able to see the field in an effective role. Not saying those kids aren't important, but I would say that they should never be the jewel in a class.

Agree 100%

The complaints about lack of players being able to play and contribute on defense if he does decommit ok fine we should be trying to flip Cage and Crosby like at corner we need to be working on flipping Wade and getting Graham. Hicks is ok. At Safety we need to try to flip Delpit or Gray we are trying to build a national champion. Not saying that some guys will not get better in college but I think we take too many projects that do not pan out. Especially on defense.

 

[ND Fan Vancouver]

Agree 100%

The complaints about lack of players being able to play and contribute on defense if he does decommit ok fine we should be trying to flip Cage and Crosby like at corner we need to be working on flipping Wade and getting Graham. Hicks is ok. At Safety we need to try to flip Delpit or Gray we are trying to build a national champion. Not saying that some guys will not get better in college but I think we take too many projects that do not pan out. Especially on defense.

Good call

 

[PANDFAN]

Agree 100%

The complaints about lack of players being able to play and contribute on defense if he does decommit ok fine we should be trying to flip Cage and Crosby like at corner we need to be working on flipping Wade and getting Graham. Hicks is ok. At Safety we need to try to flip Delpit or Gray we are trying to build a national champion. Not saying that some guys will not get better in college but I think we take too many projects that do not pan out. Especially on defense.

that's what staff are trying to do but you have to take those who are also legit prospects that are willing to come instead of "trying to flip" and losing out on all of them

 

[CIrishWin]

that's what staff are trying to do but you have to take those who are also legit prospects that are willing to come instead of "trying to flip" and losing out on all of them

I hear you and I understand that stance. My thing is it just seems we always taking projects. We get lucky sometimes but you can not sustain winning like that. Let me explain what I mean by winning not just a winning record but the last week of the season we still in the running to be one of the top 4. Like right now we have a very good group of freshmen in sthe secondary now in this next class we need another good group we should not take a project cause what we have now and I think we do that far too often across the board.

 

[Irish#1]

Are you in the right thread? lol

I see typical defensive project that would need 2-3 years before being able to see the field in an effective role. Not saying those kids aren't important, but I would say that they should never be the jewel in a class.

Why yes I am! I see him being similar to Zorich. I've not watched a lot of tape on him, but from what I saw I feel his underrated. If we can get another Zorich the defense gets 100% better.

 

[ND Fan Vancouver]

This kid is a great football player. His tape is awesome. He gets off blocks well and drives HARD. I've read that he's been awarded defensive MVP at a few big camps. He comes from a serious program as well. I don't consider him a "project" personally. He's not a Tiassum or Dew-Treadway. Those two are head-scratcher/projects. Great kids though

 

[Luckylucci]

I hear you and I understand that stance. My thing is it just seems we always taking projects. We get lucky sometimes but you can not sustain winning like that. Let me explain what I mean by winning not just a winning record but the last week of the season we still in the running to be one of the top 4. Like right now we have a very good group of freshmen in sthe secondary now in this next class we need another good group we should not take a project cause what we have now and I think we do that far too often across the board.

Then, essentially, all prospects are projects, which to some extent I agree with.
The fact is, there are only 10-15 players, at best, that every cycle are not projects. The rest of them have a lot of potential. We recruit talent, as good of talent as most teams we play. That is not why were are in this predicament. This team has talent. That is very apparent. Enough to beat Bama, probably not, but not many teams do and even then, as we saw from PSU/OSU, sometimes the more talented team doesn't always win. That's college football for ya.

So, like last year, where we were a few seconds from being in the playoff, even with an incompetent DC.

Also, this is a very uninformed opinion. If you actually realized that roughly 50% of the DL drafted in the first 2 rounds of the 2016 NFL draft were 3 star or lower recruits, you might feel differently. The two starting DE's for Clemson, would be consider projects if we use rating services as our metrics.

UW is crushing the Pac 12 right now, with all of these "projects" that you dislike so much. This isn't difficult to understand. There is, literally, talent everywhere. You just have to find it, put it in a position to be successful, and develop it along the way.

The crux is, college football is fun and exciting because there are so many unknown quantities out there. That is literally the part that makes the college football landscape, so exciting. There are players that have few offers, but a lot of potential, and put in the right system, can be very special.

 

[GBdomer]

This is my biggest want of this class. Hope we run the table to show him this season was something of a fluke and we'll be competing for the playoffs next year.

I respect your opinion and I really want Hinish in this clsss because I like pad level and LOVE his motor but it wouldn't be doomsday if we lost him. Of all the commits outside of Lugg this one surprises me the most about guys looking around.

 

[CIrishWin]

Then, essentially, all prospects are projects, which to some extent I agree with.
The fact is, there are only 10-15 players, at best, that every cycle are not projects. The rest of them have a lot of potential. We recruit talent, as good of talent as most teams we play. That is not why were are in this predicament. This team has talent. That is very apparent. Enough to beat Bama, probably not, but not many teams do and even then, as we saw from PSU/OSU, sometimes the more talented team doesn't always win. That's college football for ya.

So, like last year, where we were a few seconds from being in the playoff, even with an incompetent DC.

Also, this is a very uninformed opinion. If you actually realized that roughly 50% of the DL drafted in the first 2 rounds of the 2016 NFL draft were 3 star or lower recruits, you might feel differently. The two starting DE's for Clemson, would be consider projects if we use rating services as our metrics.

UW is crushing the Pac 12 right now, with all of these "projects" that you dislike so much. This isn't difficult to understand. There is, literally, talent everywhere. You just have to find it, put it in a position to be successful, and develop it along the way.

The crux is, college football is fun and exciting because there are so many unknown quantities out there. That is literally the part that makes the college football landscape, so exciting. There are players that have few offers, but a lot of potential, and put in the right system, can be very special.

Potential gets you beat and coaches fired. UW has to take potential Notre Dame should be at the level of taking players than we know can play and produce. UW I can give you another example except for this year TCU. Now my question to you is you say put in the right system are you saying we do not recruit the right players for the system we are putting them in.

 

[GowerND11]

Potential gets you beat and coaches fired. UW has to take potential Notre Dame should be at the level of taking players than we know can play and produce. UW I can give you another example except for this year TCU. Now my question to you is you say put in the right system are you saying we do not recruit the right players for the system we are putting them in.

Every school takes potential. You're acting as though only mid level programs take projects. OSU is using a project player right now at DE in Hubbard. Every roster of major programs have projects, some in the early stage of the project, others now starting.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Every school takes potential. You're acting as though only mid level programs take projects. OSU is using a project player right now at DE in Hubbard. Every roster of major programs have projects, some in the early stage of the project, others now starting.

Good point bringing up OSU. Another prime example from OSU yet again is Darron Lee. 3 star high school option QB. Becomes a first round draft pick at LB within 3 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThePiombino]

Every school takes potential. You're acting as though only mid level programs take projects. OSU is using a project player right now at DE in Hubbard. Every roster of major programs have projects, some in the early stage of the project, others now starting.

lol come on man, if this seems like apples to apples to you then I'm not sure any amount of reasoning in the world can help you.

As per 247 Composite:

OSU's "project": - 4 | 0.9230 | Nat'l: 181 | Pos: 13 | State: 7
ND's "project" - 3 0.8671 | Nat'l: 497 | Pos: 40 | State: 11

We are not competing on a level playing AT ALL if this is how we stack up in terms of "project" players. I know rankings don't mean everything, but just to be clear that's four-hundred ninety-seven. FOUR.

 

[Crazy Balki]

lol come on man, if this seems like apples to apples to you then I'm not sure any amount of reasoning in the world can help you.

As per 247 Composite:

OSU's "project": - 4 | 0.9230 | Nat'l: 181 | Pos: 13 | State: 7
ND's "project" - 3 0.8671 | Nat'l: 497 | Pos: 40 | State: 11

We are not competing on a level playing AT ALL if this is how we stack up in terms of "project" players. I know rankings don't mean everything, but just to be clear that's four-hundred ninety-seven. FOUR.

Darron Lee (.8595) / Nat'l: 633 / Pos: 42 / State: 36

Either way, I think we can all agree to that Hinish is NOT an 86-87 level player. Hinish's ranking is in desperate need of an update.

 

[Luckylucci]

lol come on man, if this seems like apples to apples to you then I'm not sure any amount of reasoning in the world can help you.

As per 247 Composite:

OSU's "project": - 4 | 0.9230 | Nat'l: 181 | Pos: 13 | State: 7
ND's "project" - 3 0.8671 | Nat'l: 497 | Pos: 40 | State: 11

We are not competing on a level playing AT ALL if this is how we stack up in terms of "project" players. I know rankings don't mean everything, but just to be clear that's four-hundred ninety-seven. FOUR.

Are these the current cycles lowest rated players? If so, that's really irrelevant to the conversation. because as noted above, lower rated recruits at OSU, have beaten out higher rated competition. The point isn't, we are recruiting as much "talent" or stars, as they are. The point is, there is talent everywhere, we just have to find it and develop it. Like Hubbard, Darron Lee, the entire UW roster (lol), etc. Again, who wanted Will Fuller? Or Deshone Kizer? Kizer was literally called a project by all in attendance at Elite 11, well that's a potential 1st round project now. I'll take more of that, please. Who OSU said no thank you to, BTW.

What ChiIrish is essentially saying is we can't keep taking projects because we'll never win with them. Well, that's just not true. Plenty of programs turn "projects" into good players and most prospects out of HS are "projects". There are not many Day 1 collegiate ready players. It's just not realistic to expect ND to take that approach.

It's very apparent that ND isn't going to win 10+ games/year, doing it the same way OSU/Bama do. We'll have to take a similar approach to what MSU, Stanford, UW, and the like have. That's focus on finding talent that fits and develop it. It's certainly not a lost cause, but it does need a perception change. Do you really think that UW fans right now, give two shits about their recruiting rankings the last few years? The reason we are here isn't a structural recruiting issue with ND, that can't be changed/fixed. It needs some minor tweaks, to keep the proper depth at appropriate positions and good coaches to develop what we are bringing in. I couldn't be more confident in saying, that ND is bringing in enough talent. The defense needed to be coached better and we have to address the depth chart gaps. Those don't have anything to do with recruiting "projects".

Heck, our best freshman player, so far, Donte Vaugn is a 3 star from Tenn. with little interest from the SEC. So, he'd be considered a "project". Well, I'm sure glad we took him. He looks to be special. There are more kids like that, just need to find them.

 

[Irish#1]

Are these the current cycles lowest rated players? If so, that's really irrelevant to the conversation. because as noted above, lower rated recruits at OSU, have beaten out higher rated competition. The point isn't, we are recruiting as much "talent" or stars, as they are. The point is, there is talent everywhere, we just have to find it and develop it. Like Hubbard, Darron Lee, the entire UW roster (lol), etc. Again, who wanted Will Fuller? Or Deshone Kizer? Kizer was literally called a project by all in attendance at Elite 11, well that's a potential 1st round project now. I'll take more of that, please. Who OSU said no thank you to, BTW.

What ChiIrish is essentially saying is we can't keep taking projects because we'll never win with them. Well, that's just not true. Plenty of programs turn "projects" into good players and most prospects out of HS are "projects". There are not many Day 1 collegiate ready players. It's just not realistic to expect ND to take that approach.

It's very apparent that ND isn't going to win 10+ games/year, doing it the same way OSU/Bama do. We'll have to take a similar approach to what MSU, Stanford, UW, and the like have. That's focus on finding talent that fits and develop it. It's certainly not a lost cause, but it does need a perception change. Do you really think that UW fans right now, give two shits about their recruiting rankings the last few years? The reason we are here isn't a structural recruiting issue with ND, that can't be changed/fixed. It needs some minor tweaks, to keep the proper depth at appropriate positions and good coaches to develop what we are bringing in. I couldn't be more confident in saying, that ND is bringing in enough talent. The defense needed to be coached better and we have to address the depth chart gaps. Those don't have anything to do with recruiting "projects".

Heck, our best freshman player, so far, Donte Vaugn is a 3 star from Tenn. with little interest from the SEC. So, he'd be considered a "project". Well, I'm sure glad we took him. He looks to be special. There are more kids like that, just need to find them.

Good points.

Everyone needs development, even the upper 5 star kids. It's just the amount between their ceiling and where they currently are that is part of the key. To me Hinish's ceiling is high. I may be wrong, but I thought Chris Zorich wasn't a highly recruited kid coming out of HS. Look how he turned out.

 

[stlnd01]

Can't we take both? There will always be projects. Some will become studs, some won't. But to play at an elite level we also need elite recruits. You can't bank on a program full of three-stars. We shouldn't, anyway.
Last year we had Will Fuller AND Jaylon Smith. Nick Martin AND Romnie Stanley.

 

[Luckylucci]

Can't we take both? There will always be projects. Some will become studs, some won't. But to play at an elite level we also need elite recruits. You can't bank on a program full of three-stars. We shouldn't, anyway.
Last year we had Will Fuller AND Jaylon Smith. Nick Martin AND Romnie Stanley.

And we don't, we get our fair share of highly rated recruits. We've been recruiting as well as most (maybe all, I'd have to look) teams on our schedule, from a team rankings standpoint.

However, keep in mind 3 of those 4 players you mentioned were not ranked even close to where they were drafted. So, we developed and/or isolated talent that was not accurately ranked. That is also the point. We need to continue to do that. It looks like Stepherson might be another example. Where we need to see more of this is defense. I believe with bringing in a good DC, we will.

 

[stlnd01]

And we don't, we get our fair share of highly rated recruits. We've been recruiting as well as most (maybe all, I'd have to look) teams on our schedule, from a team rankings standpoint.

However, keep in mind 3 of those 4 players you mentioned were not ranked even close to where they were drafted. So, we developed and/or isolated talent that was not accurately ranked. That is also the point. We need to continue to do that. It looks like Stepherson might be another example. Where we need to see more of this is defense. I believe with bringing in a good DC, we will.

Ronnie Stanley was a high four-star with offers from USC, Florida State and Alabama.
Ronnie Stanley, Bishop Gorman, Offensive Tackle
So, yes, he developed into a top ten pick while at Notre Dame, but he was hardly a "project" as a recruit.
My only point is I think we - charitably and with good intention - often focus on the "high ceiling" potential of three-star recruits. That's great. Better to focus on the positive, and some of those kids do become Fuller or Kizer. But let's not kid ourselves about the importance of pure talent and athleticism when it comes to putting together elite college football teams. And that stuff is more likely to come with four or five stars attached.

 

[Luckylucci]

Ronnie Stanley was a high four-star with offers from USC, Florida State and Alabama.
Ronnie Stanley, Bishop Gorman, Offensive Tackle
So, yes, he developed into a top ten pick while at Notre Dame, but he was hardly a "project" as a recruit.
My only point is I think we - charitably and with good intention - often focus on the "high ceiling" potential of three-star recruits. That's great. Better to focus on the positive, and some of those kids do become Fuller or Kizer. But let's not kid ourselves about the importance of pure talent and athleticism when it comes to putting together elite college football teams. And that stuff is more likely to come with four or five stars attached.

Where did I call Stanley a project? I said he developed into a substantially higher rated draft pick than his recruiting ranking suggested, that's the point. He wasn't rated as the top OT in his class, or even close to that. He was the #13 OT in his class per the composite and if you include ratings from other draft eligible classes, he'd probably be around 20 or lower. So, not very accurate if you ask me. That's the point.

 

[dwshade]

Just look at how two of our "projects" from last year's class are doing. 247 composite had KJ Stepherson at #96 WR and Julian Love at #46 DB. These two kids have been outstanding as true FR. and if they progress as expected will find themselves in the NFL down the road. I think staff does a great job finding kids like this.

 

[TheChosen1]

Every school takes potential. You're acting as though only mid level programs take projects. OSU is using a project player right now at DE in Hubbard. Every roster of major programs have projects, some in the early stage of the project, others now starting.

Ohio State pass-rush leaders:
Sam Hubbard: 26 QB pressures
Tyquan Lewis: 25
Nick Bosa: 22
Jalyn Holmes: 15

 

[beryirish]

Ohio State pass-rush leaders:
Sam Hubbard: 26 QB pressures
Tyquan Lewis: 25
Nick Bosa: 22
Jalyn Holmes: 15

Isn't Nick a freshman? ....son of a bitch.

 

[CIrishWin]

Are these the current cycles lowest rated players? If so, that's really irrelevant to the conversation. because as noted above, lower rated recruits at OSU, have beaten out higher rated competition. The point isn't, we are recruiting as much "talent" or stars, as they are. The point is, there is talent everywhere, we just have to find it and develop it. Like Hubbard, Darron Lee, the entire UW roster (lol), etc. Again, who wanted Will Fuller? Or Deshone Kizer? Kizer was literally called a project by all in attendance at Elite 11, well that's a potential 1st round project now. I'll take more of that, please. Who OSU said no thank you to, BTW.

What ChiIrish is essentially saying is we can't keep taking projects because we'll never win with them. Well, that's just not true. Plenty of programs turn "projects" into good players and most prospects out of HS are "projects". There are not many Day 1 collegiate ready players. It's just not realistic to expect ND to take that approach.

It's very apparent that ND isn't going to win 10+ games/year, doing it the same way OSU/Bama do. We'll have to take a similar approach to what MSU, Stanford, UW, and the like have. That's focus on finding talent that fits and develop it. It's certainly not a lost cause, but it does need a perception change. Do you really think that UW fans right now, give two shits about their recruiting rankings the last few years? The reason we are here isn't a structural recruiting issue with ND, that can't be changed/fixed. It needs some minor tweaks, to keep the proper depth at appropriate positions and good coaches to develop what we are bringing in. I couldn't be more confident in saying, that ND is bringing in enough talent. The defense needed to be coached better and we have to address the depth chart gaps. Those don't have anything to do with recruiting "projects".

Heck, our best freshman player, so far, Donte Vaugn is a 3 star from Tenn. with little interest from the SEC. So, he'd be considered a "project". Well, I'm sure glad we took him. He looks to be special. There are more kids like that, just need to find them.

What is your definition of winning. Mine is 10 wins year in and year out. With this coaching staff unless they get high 4 or 5 star recruits every year it will not happen for every will fuller I can give a John Turner, Micheal Deeb, Antohny Rabasa, Tony Springmann, Chase Hounshell, Jalen Brown, Jacob Matuska, Rashad Kinlaw the list goes on and on. All I am saying to be what we want to be which is NOTRE DAME we either have to have better recruits or coaches. Coaches are not changing so that only leaves one thing. Yes they all need to be developed but how much developing we need to keep to a minimum that is all I am saying.

 

[Booslum31]

What is your definition of winning. Mine is 10 wins year in and year out. With this coaching staff unless they get high 4 or 5 star recruits every year it will not happen for every will fuller I can give a John Turner, Micheal Deeb, Antohny Rabasa, Tony Springmann, Chase Hounshell, Jalen Brown, Jacob Matuska, Rashad Kinlaw the list goes on and on. All I am saying to be what we want to be which is NOTRE DAME we either have to have better recruits or coaches. Coaches are not changing so that only leaves one thing. Yes they all need to be developed but how much developing we need to keep to a minimum that is all I am saying.

I agree with this.

 

[PANDFAN]

per 247--states he is fully committed....elston seeing him today

 

[beryirish]

per 247--states he is fully committed....elston seeing him today

I love seeing your name pop up on "Last Post" because it's usually juicy information. At this point in time, it now scares me.

 

[BobbyMac]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I loved Notre Dame before Notre Dame loved me&#55356;&#57152;&#55356;&#57152; <a href="https://t.co/tWHmoITafD">pic.twitter.com/tWHmoITafD</a></p>— KURT HINISH (@Truk_sauce) <a href="https://twitter.com/Truk_sauce/status/809218378292482051">December 15, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ThePiombino]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I loved Notre Dame before Notre Dame loved me���� <a href="https://t.co/tWHmoITafD">pic.twitter.com/tWHmoITafD</a></p>— KURT HINISH (@Truk_sauce) <a href="https://twitter.com/Truk_sauce/status/809218378292482051">December 15, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Solid beyond solid. Love it

 

[BobbyMac]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NotreDame?src=hash">#NotreDame</a> 99-to-2: No. 94 (possibly) Kurt Hinish, defensive tackle, incoming freshman: <a href="https://t.co/iBfFXBcuaa">https://t.co/iBfFXBcuaa</a></p>— Notre Dame on NBC (@NDonNBC) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDonNBC/status/865190241967030273">May 18, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[arrowryan]

At the moment, he may be the d-lineman who is most ready to play. Great motor, great work ethic, and has been coached well already. Per ISD