Recruiting "champions"

[mad dog]

This morning, I was thumbing through my copy of Dave Campbell's Texas Football, and I happened upon a quote about prized recruit Robert Griffin's chances at competing for the starting QB job at Baylor. Griffin, who followed Art Briles from Baylor, compiled a 25-4 record in high school. The quote questioned whether his nearly flawless record in high school would hamper his ability to digest hardship at a school that has historically struggled.

Then, the wheels in my head started turning. Maybe Dickey had something right.

It wasn't the terrible offense. It wasn't the barricade and turtle strategy with fans. It wasn't the sandbagging or complaining about conditions.

But he did recruit tough players.

Thinking back to the kind of teams we enjoyed seeing from 2001-2004, what, more than anything, was their calling card? I'd suggest to you that it was their smashmouth, take no prisoners attitude. Whether that be running the ball from a power set 40 times a game, or landing huge hits on defense, the old teams had a mentality of "we might lose, but you're going to remember the bruises from playing us for weeks." I can throw out any name at any position on offense or defense, and those that watch them play can all say the same thing: "that guy was one tough SOB."

Scott Hall. Kevin Galbreath. Patrick Cobbs. Andy Brewster. Dylan Lineberry. Jeff Muenchow. Randy Gardner. Andy Brewster. Johnny Quinn. Booger Kennedy. Adrian Awasom. Michael Pruitt. Evan Cardwell. Cody Spencer. Chris Hurd. Taylor Casey. Don McGee. Markeith Knowlton. Jonas Buckles. Craig Jones.

I challenge anyone to find a name in that list that isn't tough as nails.

Fast forward to today, where Coach Dodge says he wants to build a program based on winners. In light of the comment about Robert Griffin that started this whole train of thought, are we sure that's such a good idea? Can you recruit a team full of guys who are have lost a handful of games in their young lives, and expect them to hold up to any sort of failure at the next level? Can you build a team of soft, suburban finesse players who've had everything handed to them, and be truly surprised when they get mauled by a team who thrives on physical intimidation? Can that kind of team suck it up and dig in when they're down by 21, or do they give up and let in 50?

I submit that you can't build a team like that. Having winners on your team is important, vital even. But building a team of high school champions is like building a house out of mortar. You need the "brick" guys, too; the battle-tested roughnecks that don't break when things get tough. And I think those guys are in precious short supply these days.

Don't believe me? Ask a former player what they think of the guys who have quit on their team so far. And don't believe for a second that there aren't more Sam Dibrells or Justin Padrons on this team. But a few more "brick" guys might just be enough to keep the thing together. We just need them to step up.

Now.

[gangrene]

Don't forget Marcus King.

I agree with your philosophy and I've been thinking that from the day since Dodge made that declaration...hoping I'd be wrong. Most of the kids have lost more games in a season and a half of college than they lost in their entire high school careers. Now, we're seeing what they are made of, how they respond and what motivates them.

[chrisfisher]

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'll take champion players any day of the year.

[Green Mean]

You certainly need tough players but you can get those players anywhere whether they are in inner city dumps or in your suburban Plano/Southlake areas. Its a matter of recruiting correctly. And seriously its all about talent. Whether they are tough or not...if they dont have talent it will never translate to wins. Also in NT's case the last two seasons, coaching seems to be an apparent flaw. I am not saying Dodge is not a good coach but to me he has been outcoached silly. In my opinion it boils down to talent no matter where they came from...if you have talent throughout your whole team then it will generally equate to wins.

[mad dog]

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'll take champion players any day of the year.

You are entitled to your opinion. I will say that I have had the advantage of seeing the "tough" teams in action, and that is indeed a key difference between now and then. But you don't have to take my word for it. I'd be interested to hear what others who saw 2001-2004 live might say. FFR? Silver? Harry?

[meangreenfreak]

I think ideally you want "tough champions." This team would look a lot different if we were bigger in the trenches and better in the secondary. If we could get some of those players like Cody Spenser and Taylor Casey, who were like a "heat seeking missle" with a nose for where the ball was going, our pass defense would be dramaticly better. If we were 6-3 to 6-5 and 250+ on the defensive and offensive lines, we would have better running lanes and passing lanes, and getting more pressure on the opposing QB. Right now, we look like shrimp compared to our opponents. We have some weight on the OL and DL, but it looks more like fat than muscle. We have very good skill position players, but we need some more of the "warrior" types on defense and OL.

P.S. None of it matters if you can't tackle.

The 2000-2004 teams were nasty. They did have the smash-mouth attitude and it won games in the SBC. I would argue that if we had better skill position players to compliment the warriors on those team, we would have picked up a few more OOC wins as well.

[JayDub]

You are entitled to your opinion. I will say that I have had the advantage of seeing the "tough" teams in action, and that is indeed a key difference between now and then. But you don't have to take my word for it. I'd be interested to hear what others who saw 2001-2004 live might say. FFR? Silver? Harry?

Based on what I saw between 2001-2004...I would have to agree. Those were guys that were out to prove something...guys that had been told they weren't big enough, fast enough, or good enough to play D-1 ball. The vast majority of what Dodge has recruited are kids from successful programs in affluent communities. I'm not trying to generalize here, but alot of these kids have been nurtured and, in some ways, sheltered from the realities of world for their entire lives.

The idea of how some of these kids were going to adjust to it always bothered me...and it looks they can't handle it. It also makes me question if Dodge is completely out of touch with where he is and where NT is as a program. All in all, however, I think we're better off without them. Let the kids that want to prove something do it without the prima donna attitudes.

[chrisfisher]

I think ideally you want "tough champions."

Agreed. Tough champions.... not pampered, sissy boy champions.

[greenminer]

ah! Leftover bricks. Now I have almost read it all.

Stop calling the kids out. Let them make their decisions, and don't lay on the judgment until you've met them face to face.

[mad dog]

I think ideally you want "tough champions.".......The 2000-2004 teams were nasty. They did have the smash-mouth attitude and it won games in the SBC. I would argue that if we had better skill position players to compliment the warriors on those team, we would have picked up a few more OOC wins as well.

You certainly need tough players but you can get those players anywhere whether they are in inner city dumps or in your suburban Plano/Southlake areas. Its a matter of recruiting correctly. And seriously its all about talent. Whether they are tough or not...if they dont have talent it will never translate to wins. Also in NT's case the last two seasons, coaching seems to be an apparent flaw. I am not saying Dodge is not a good coach but to me he has been outcoached silly. In my opinion it boils down to talent no matter where they came from...if you have talent throughout your whole team then it will generally equate to wins.

What I am saying is that you need both. Just like in the brick and mortar analogy; you need both to build a wall. Too much "skill" and you get the 2008 team. Too much "toughness" and you get the 2001 team. When the two synced up, even just a little, you get the 2002-2003 teams.

ah! Leftover bricks. Now I have almost read it all.

Stop calling the kids out. Let them make their decisions, and don't lay on the judgment until you've met them face to face.

Ah! Selective Reading! I'd like to see where you got the word "leftover," too.

The brick and mortar was an analogy about building a wall. An analogy about using the right balance to build a team, and that using too much of any one type of player will severely limit your potential. Analogies are used as a figurative comparison, and taking them literally will lead to missing the point.

You don't have to know the players personally to see that the team quit last Saturday in a way that we never would have seen on the watch of the aforementioned players. Also, leaving the team while you are still able bodied can correctly be termed "quitting." Finally, the word "Quitter" is one that I am borrowing from at least one person who has played on the North Texas football team. That's how they view it, and so do I.

[LongJim]

Fast forward to today, where Coach Dodge says he wants to build a program based on winners. In light of the comment about Robert Griffin that started this whole train of thought, are we sure that's such a good idea?

YES!

Can you recruit a team full of guys who are have lost a handful of games in their young lives, and expect them to hold up to any sort of failure at the next level? Can you build a team of soft, suburban finesse players who've had everything handed to them, and be truly surprised when they get mauled by a team who thrives on physical intimidation?

Let me preface my comments with , because after reading this my tone seems brusque, Matt.

That characterization is kind of offensive, IMO.

When you think about it, would you characterize players like Ulatoski, Reesing, Clement, Dodge, Daniel, Meager, and Vizza (to name a few) as soft? What, exactly, have they had 'handed' to them? Do you not think that many of them were the ones dishing out the intimidation? None of them were successful to this point by being soft. In general, you want people on your team who have succeeded at the highest level against the highest level of competition. I suppose you're saying that they haven't lost enough to be able to deal with getting whacked. I submit that they have been under tremendous pressure to win, and to keep their programs winning.

I submit that you can't build a team like that. Having winners on your team is important, vital even. But building a team of high school champions is like building a house out of mortar. You need the "brick" guys, too; the battle-tested roughnecks that don't break when things get tough. And I think those guys are in precious short supply these days.

To build a successful team, you need kids who want to win, and know what it feels like to win, and are hungry to win. Period. Doesn't matter if they're 5A or 1A. Suburban or Aubrey. They will look to their leaders (whoever they are) to inspire them when they feel like giving up or half-assing it. Who is leading this team? Is it apparent? I don't know, I'm just asking. You will always have guys on a successful team that when faced with adversity, will not be able to hang.

Conversely, you will have guys that have never really won anything--and those who have won it all--who will never stop fighting until you drag them off the field. That comes from inside, and isn't specific to a type of program, or a program's success. And successfully recruiting those guys is not a science, but in general, you want kids who are used to winning, and want to be winners. And in general, THOSE will be the guys dealing out the punishment and intimidating people.

This team is finding itself right now. The chaff is going to blow away, and the cream is going to rise, etc. It is going to be very painful until the entire group--coaches included--are all on the same page, and the buy-in is there. The buy-in is not there. It's time to see who's going to suck it up and do what it takes.

Edited October 2, 2008 by LongJim

[Quoner]

This team is finding itself right now. The chaff is going to blow away, and the cream is going to rise, etc. It is going to be very painful until the entire group--coaches included--are all on the same page, and the buy-in is there. The buy-in is not there. It's time to see who's going to suck it up and do what it takes.

Creamy chaff? Your metaphors baffle me and I will therefore not focus on your excellent points.

[greenminer]

What I am saying is that you need both. Just like in the brick and mortar analogy; you need both to build a wall. Too much "skill" and you get the 2008 team. Too much "toughness" and you get the 2001 team. When the two synced up, even just a little, you get the 2002-2003 teams.

Ah! Selective Reading! I'd like to see where you got the word "leftover," too.

The brick and mortar was an analogy about building a wall. An analogy about using the right balance to build a team, and that using too much of any one type of player will severely limit your potential. Analogies are used as a figurative comparison, and taking them literally will lead to missing the point.

You don't have to know the players personally to see that the team quit last Saturday in a way that we never would have seen on the watch of the aforementioned players. Also, leaving the team while you are still able bodied can correctly be termed "quitting." Finally, the word "Quitter" is one that I am borrowing from at least one person who has played on the North Texas football team. That's how they view it, and so do I.

The leftover quip was alluding to the mass that blames our mess on DD's "leftovers". And here we have a thread that is defending them as bricks. It was a vague attempt to show how we like to swing arguments in a manner that is convenient for us.

That's all I meant. Otherwise, I do think this is a great perspective thread.

I'm of the opinion that success can be tied into character, but not be the blame for lack thereof. I think. I just make this shit up on a whim, so take it FWIW!

Some of these kids are seeing adversity for the first time. I also like to think many of them were winners because at some point or another in their preps, they had to gut something through, rethink their priorities and figure out what needed to be done to win.

I can't say which player is which though. Dibrell might have been tired. He may be blessed in other areas, and decided that he could enjoy life spending his time elsewhere and not in an area that is under the public eye and won't carry on to the NFL.

But again, I don't know.

Edited October 2, 2008 by greenminer

[mad dog]

YES!

Let me preface my comments with , because after reading this my tone seems brusque, Matt.

That characterization is kind of offensive, IMO.

When you think about it, would you characterize players like Ulatoski, Reesing, Clement, Dodge, Daniel, Meager, and Vizza (to name a few) as soft? What, exactly, have they had 'handed' to them? Do you not think that many of them were the ones dishing out the intimidation? None of them were successful to this point by being soft. In general, you want people on your team who have succeeded at the highest level against the highest level of competition. I suppose you're saying that they haven't lost enough to be able to deal with getting whacked. I submit that they have been under tremendous pressure to win, and to keep their programs winning.

To build a successful team, you need kids who want to win, and know what it feels like to win, and are hungry to win. Period. Doesn't matter if they're 5A or 1A. Suburban or Aubrey. They will look to their leaders (whoever they are) to inspire them when they feel like giving up or half-assing it. Who is leading this team? Is it apparent? I don't know, I'm just asking. You will always have guys on a successful team that when faced with adversity, will not be able to hang.

Conversely, you will have guys that have never really won anything--and those who have won it all--who will never stop fighting until you drag them off the field. That comes from inside, and isn't specific to a type of program, or a program's success. And successfully recruiting those guys is not a science, but in general, you want kids who are used to winning, and want to be winners. And in general, THOSE will be the guys dealing out the punishment and intimidating people.

This team is finding itself right now. The chaff is going to blow away, and the cream is going to rise, etc. It is going to be very painful until the entire group--coaches included--are all on the same page, and the buy-in is there. The buy-in is not there. It's time to see who's going to suck it up and do what it takes.

I know you mean no offense. is appreciated, though not necessary. Sports debates are the stuff of fandom. When we start doing nothing but debating the presence of lunches and posting pictures of mysterious old wizards peering into their mystical braziers, THEN we can start to worry.

Let me provide another example. Isn't it odd that, seemingly, once a year, USC loses a head scratcher to a really bad team? I always thought that was a little odd, until I heard a great explanation on the Ticket. Corby made the point that the team is made up of blue chip talent from top to bottom. Their third string gunner was probably an all-state player. He contended that you can't build a team out of blue chip talent, because they don't know how to handle being punched in the mouth. After all, they have always been bigger, stronger, and faster than the other guy, and were rarely in a position to doubt themselves. He said, and I will agree, that you need the 2 and 3 star guys (if you'll excuse the over-simplification), too. The guys who would bulldog a bear just to get in the game. Hockey needs its grinders, and basketball needs the big man down low. It's all the same thing... someone to do the dirty work, and push the other guys around them.

I agree that sometimes you get a singular talent that can do both. But they're pretty rare, just by the opposing pressures that create the two different types of players. In that absence, however, you need both.

I also agree that you need players hungry to win, wherever they come from. That hunger to win should be across the board, and not selectively recruited. If you don't want to win, then why do you play that game, right?

My point is that if you recruit a team full of guys who have lost a handful of games in their lives, they might not be the best equipped to deal with failure. That's not saying they somehow should: some guys naturally can deal with it... everyone else needs to learn it. Finally, there's a difference between losing and not being competitive. We haven't been competitive in years, and that kind of stigma takes very tough individuals to throw off.

I'm talking about the guy who has seen his share of losing and wants to win in spite of it as compared to the guy on the perennial playoff team.

I'm not talking about talent. I'm questioning the wisdom of creating a team purely of people who don't know how to get up after getting knocked down. You need both kinds of guys, and the good news is that toughness is contagious.

[LongJim]

Creamy chaff? Your metaphors baffle me and I will therefore not focus on your excellent points.

Yessss....creamy, chaffy goodness...!

[mad dog]

The leftover quip was alluding to the mass that blames our mess on DD's "leftovers". And here we have a thread that is defending them as bricks. Obviously, a vague attempt to show how we like to swing arguments as we see fit.

That's all I meant. Otherwise, a great perspective thread.

I'm of the opinion that success can be tied into character, but not be the blame for lack thereof. I think. I just make this shit up on a whim, so take it FWIW.

Some of these kids are seeing adversity for the first time. I also like to think many of them were winners because at some point or another in their preps, they had to gut something through, rethink their priorities and figure out what needed to be done to win.

I can't say which is which though. Dibrell might have been tired. He may be blessed in other areas, and decided that he could enjoy life spending his time elsewhere and not in an area that is under the public eye and won't carry on to the NFL.

But again, I don't know.

No problem. As I said to Jim, sports debates are greatness. They're proof that people still care.

If anyone has taken offense to the "brick" analogy, I apologize. I actually think that a "nails" guy would take the "brick" moniker with pride. Buckles certainly liked to hit like a ton of 'em.

I've started to hear conflicting stories on Dibrell, so be prepared for a retraction on him.

[LongJim]

Let me provide another example. Isn't it odd that, seemingly, once a year, USC loses a head scratcher to a really bad team? I always thought that was a little odd, until I heard a great explanation on the Ticket. Corby made the point that the team is made up of blue chip talent from top to bottom. Their third string gunner was probably an all-state player. He contended that you can't build a team out of blue chip talent, because they don't know how to handle being punched in the mouth. After all, they have always been bigger, stronger, and faster than the other guy, and were rarely in a position to doubt themselves. He said, and I will agree, that you need the 2 and 3 star guys (if you'll excuse the over-simplification), too. The guys who would bulldog a bear just to get in the game. Hockey needs its grinders, and basketball needs the big man down low. It's all the same thing... someone to do the dirty work, and push the other guys around them.

Corby is a dillweed.

He's oversimplifying it. Why does a guy who will bulldog a bear have to be a 2 or 3 star player? The grinder and the low post guy have their skillset, would you not agree? The grinder may not skate or stick handle, but he will tear off your head and leave digested lunch in your neck. THAT IS a blue chip talent for hockey. Same with the low post guy. He can't dribble or hit a three, but he can throw a bow to your temple, stuff the rock and take the punishment. Those are as much blue chip talents as other skills. It's folly (IMO) to sign a 'Rudy' and then watch him get steamrolled on the goal line, (but by God he laid a pop on the guy before he took the cleat marks on his back. He didn't quit!) Go get 'em lil' buddy!! What's that? You lost a tooth on that play? GOOD! Grows hair on your chest!!

Top teams will always take the underdog's best shot. USC took OSU's best shot and it was 21-0. From there, it was 21-7 USC. I would argue that USC got punched in the mouth, and did answer--BECAUSE they got punched in the mouth. Hats off to OSU, but they lose that game 9 out of 10 times, because USC punches THEM in the mouth. Sometimes a blind squirrel...

I also agree that you need players hungry to win, wherever they come from. That hunger to win should be across the board, and not selectively recruited.

Right. The problem is--it's a recruiting crapshoot. But your odds of getting this type of player--with the qualities you speak of AND talent--are better when you get the player from a winning program. By and large.

My point is that if you recruit a team full of guys who have lost a handful of games in their lives, they might not be the best equipped to deal with failure. That's not saying they somehow should: some guys naturally can deal with it... everyone else needs to learn it.

IMO, when they reach this level, it cannot be learned. It is already learned. There are two reactions to failure at this level--either you get up and say "Wait a second! I ROCK! I'm going to kick your ass, because that's what I've always done!" or "Wow. You kicked my ass. I guess I still don't rock. I will have no more of this."

I'm questioning the wisdom of creating a team purely of people who don't know how to get up after getting knocked down.

You definitely have to have kids who don't quit, but you're making the assumption that being 'winners' does not equate to being tough or having stick-to-it-iveness, or guts, or whatever you want to call it. And again, I'm saying that that is a crapshoot, and not dependent on whether the team/player has lost 'his share'.

It's guts, and it's at every level, and in players on every team--whether or not they've been relatively successful or not. And, I postulate that winning programs breed the very type of player you are referring to.

[mad dog]

Corby is a dillweed.

He's oversimplifying it. Why does a guy who will bulldog a bear have to be a 2 or 3 star player? The grinder and the low post guy have their skillset, would you not agree? The grinder may not skate or stick handle, but he will tear off your head and leave digested lunch in your neck. THAT IS a blue chip talent for hockey. Same with the low post guy. He can't dribble or hit a three, but he can throw a bow to your temple, stuff the rock and take the punishment. Those are as much blue chip talents as other skills. It's folly (IMO) to sign a 'Rudy' and then watch him get steamrolled on the goal line, (but by God he laid a pop on the guy before he took the cleat marks on his back. He didn't quit!) Go get 'em lil' buddy!! What's that? You lost a tooth on that play? GOOD! Grows hair on your chest!!

Sure, if we'd like to qualify "toughness" as a skill set, then definitely. It doesn't have to be a 2-3 star player, but, as I said before, I think getting both is pretty rare, and, if a guy has toughness and skill, he's usually a blue-chipper. If not, he's a sleeper, and you're right in saying that kind of player is truly a crapshoot.

Top teams will always take the underdog's best shot. USC took OSU's best shot and it was 21-0. From there, it was 21-7 USC. I would argue that USC got punched in the mouth, and did answer--BECAUSE they got punched in the mouth. Hats off to OSU, but they lose that game 9 out of 10 times, because USC punches THEM in the mouth. Sometimes a blind squirrel...

I think you can argue this from both sides.

Right. The problem is--it's a recruiting crapshoot. But your odds of getting this type of player--with the qualities you speak of AND talent--are better when you get the player from a winning program. By and large.

Agreed that its a crapshoot. But I think the odds get skewed when you select for the type of athlete that plays in an established program.

IMO, when they reach this level, it cannot be learned. It is already learned. There are two reactions to failure at this level--either you get up and say "Wait a second! I ROCK! I'm going to kick your ass, because that's what I've always done!" or "Wow. You kicked my ass. I guess I still don't rock. I will have no more of this."

Now, in fairness, I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. I am of the opinion that, when it comes to football, you can't teach tall, and you can't teach quick. But you can teach just about everything else. And at the forefront, (I think most coaches will agree) are life skills. Among these are sportsmanship, preparation, honor, and, most relevantly, learning how to pick yourself up off the ground after getting decked.

You definitely have to have kids who don't quit, but you're making the assumption that being 'winners' does not equate to being tough or having stick-to-it-iveness, or guts, or whatever you want to call it. And again, I'm saying that that is a crapshoot, and not dependent on whether the team/player has lost 'his share'.

My assumption is based on the very logical conclusion that a lack of exposure hinders one's ability to adapt to that circumstance. This is what you might call a basic "learning curve." Now, some people can figure the thing out on the first try. Some never do. Most of the rest of us have to work at it several times before it clicks.

Again, I agree that you can make an argument for it being a percentage deal, but view is that you skew those percentages by actively selecting for the guy who hasn't had a chance to learn that yet.

It's guts, and it's at every level, and in players on every team--whether or not they've been relatively successful or not. And, I postulate that winning programs breed the very type of player you are referring to.

[MeanGreenEngineer]

I'm pretty sure it's thread like this that lead to Dickey calling us F'ers.

[Stan R]

I'm pretty sure it's thread like this that lead to Dickey calling us F'ers.

Now that's just too damn funny.

[mad dog]

I'm pretty sure it's thread like this that lead to Dickey calling us F'ers.

I wonder if there's any way for us to know that, for sure...

Any "magical" way...

[LongJim]

I wonder if there's any way for us to know that, for sure...

Any "magical" way...

There's really only one way.

[football fan]

I'm pretty sure it's thread like this that lead to Dickey calling us F'ers.

I can assure all of you that DD is loving every arse whipping Villareal is suffering through. He has nothing against the kids or Dodge but definitely no love lost for RV.

[yyz28]

I can assure all of you that DD is loving every arse whipping Villareal is suffering through. He has nothing against the kids or Dodge but definitely no love lost for RV.

...'cause he's having such a great season! LOL!

[MeanGreenEngineer]

...'cause he's having such a great season! LOL!

You mean the first place in the WAC Utah State Aggies?