The Art of Talent Evaluation

[CountVolcula]

As long as I have been on this earth, I have seen a change in coaches ability to evaluate talent

When many of us older guys started playing and watching football, there were no Scout, Rivals, 247, and many of the "pay for my opinion" sites

Before them, coaches had to receive film or watch a kid play live. Those coaches knew what kinds of kids they wanted and the benefits that they would add to a team. They would put in relentless hours going from HS game to HS game or hours and hours of watching film, trying to find what they needed. They would only trust talent if they had seen it in person.

Fulmer, in his early career, was great at player evaluation. He would find the guys before other coaches and would pull them in. Later on, Fulmer began to rely too heavily on the talent evaluations of scouting services. Thats when Fulmer began his decline. He began having more and more recruiting classes flop. Players getting arrested, dropping out, etc.. This is because recruiting services only look at physical features. They also only look at what THEY consider to be talent.
What they consider talent may not always be best for a particular team.

Fulmer, himself, admitted that he probably relied too heavily on the recruiting services, instead of evaluating the players himself

Only a few coaches possess the knack to evaluate talent now, Saban being the best. Saban relies more on what he sees than what he hears or reads. Its his team, not Scouts or Rivals. There is a reason other coaches wait until Saban offers before they begin to pursue a kid.

Dooley knows this. Thats why he will offer kids that nobody else has yet. Plus, he wont offer most those kids until he has seen them in person. Hes not just throwing out offers to anybody that will say yes.

You dont want a coach that just offers kids because they are a 4* on Scout.

Some of you guys need to realize that the recruiting services are just a tool. One of a many that a coach has.

The best tools are his own eyes


:hi:

 

[Blake25p]

Great post

 

[volssam]

Well said.

Go vols

 

[fade route]

To some degree I agree with you Count. On the other hand, go look at the top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out as ranked by these recruiting services, and a vast majority of them are winning their conferences or more and putting up double digit wins. It does matter. But, I agree that it shouldn't be the only tool a coach uses.

 

[supersmo18]

To some degree I agree with you Count. On the other hand, go look at the top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out as ranked by these recruiting services, and a vast majority of them are winning their conferences or more and putting up double digit wins. It does matter. But, I agree that it shouldn't be the only tool a coach uses.

Ironically, this is the more or less the same argument that was started in the thread yesterday about the correlation to coaches' salaries and winning percentage. It's got a strong correlation to have a higher-paid coach that wins more, but it isn't always necessarily true. Every now and then you get the outlier, like Peterson at Boise State, who simply wins, but doesn't have the bank thrown at him like Mack Brown, Bob Stoops, or Nick Saban. I think it all just goes to show that sometimes the return is worth the investment, but sometimes you still fail playing the market.

 

[ItsAllVols]

I agree with the Count, some of the 5* players just bring a soap opera to your team because they think they have earned respect because of them. We’re as the players that are 3* and 4* will bring a better work ethic to your team because they still need to work at their craft.....You can’t find the true person inside until you look them in the eyes at MOMMA’s house..

 

[LittleDTO]

To some degree I agree with you Count. On the other hand, go look at the top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out as ranked by these recruiting services, and a vast majority of them are winning their conferences or more and putting up double digit wins. It does matter. But, I agree that it shouldn't be the only tool a coach uses.

The flaw in your argument, is when a proven coach offers a kid that has previously not had any offers or werent evaluated by scout, rivals, etc, they immediately get a huge bump in grade from those services.
A retroactive grade.

 

[rjd970]

To some degree I agree with you Count. On the other hand, go look at the top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out as ranked by these recruiting services, and a vast majority of them are winning their conferences or more and putting up double digit wins. It does matter. But, I agree that it shouldn't be the only tool a coach uses.

A lot of these kids get rating bumps after certain coaches offer, so it becomes a chicken/egg scenario.

 

[NeylandTradition]

Great Post!
I like the old school recruiting.

"WOW"

 

[volinexile17]

Ironically, this is the more or less the same argument that was started in the thread yesterday about the correlation to coaches' salaries and winning percentage. It's got a strong correlation to have a higher-paid coach that wins more, but it isn't always necessarily true. Every now and then you get the outlier, like Peterson at Boise State, who simply wins, but doesn't have the bank thrown at him like Mack Brown, Bob Stoops, or Nick Saban. I think it all just goes to show that sometimes the return is worth the investment, but sometimes you still fail playing the market.

I didn't read that thread yesterday, but did the OP say whether the coach was getting paid the huge salary when he won? I just wonder if a guy wins a conference or BCS game, then gets the dump truck full of money.

 

[Volnbeers]

Well when Dooley starts winning with these 3 star under the radar types then I will trust his evaluations.

 

[fade route]

Ironically, this is the more or less the same argument that was started in the thread yesterday about the correlation to coaches' salaries and winning percentage. It's got a strong correlation to have a higher-paid coach that wins more, but it isn't always necessarily true. Every now and then you get the outlier, like Peterson at Boise State, who simply wins, but doesn't have the bank thrown at him like Mack Brown, Bob Stoops, or Nick Saban. I think it all just goes to show that sometimes the return is worth the investment, but sometimes you still fail playing the market.

Agree, smo, and I'm still trying to figure out why that thread went so long. It's pretty simple to figure out: most high paid coaches are paid that way BECAUSE they win, not in HOPES that they win. There are exceptions - Kiffin when he was here, but typically, the winning precedes the bling.

 

[golfballs]

The flaw in your argument, is when a proven coach offers a kid that has previously not had any offers or werent evaluated by scout, rivals, etc, they immediately get a huge bump in grade from those services.
A retroactive grade.

correct

 

[Nuclear_Orange]

I couldn't agree more.

I would also like to point out that there are so many factors that go into offering a recruit.

These coaches know where they want to use these kids.

Some recruits they want to be the game changers and every down guys.
Some they think they can develop. etc.

We could go on all day naming the factors.
Only these coaches know what they are offering for.

I really think that volnation has placed its belief in a false hope that one recruit is going to be our saving grace; if they don't have 5star by their name they don't measure up.
But, It is about 22 guys in college football and even 44 in in the sec.

5 stars will come after this year when Dooley wins. We are in rebuilding folks.

What I am curious to see is after we climb out of the dungeon and back on top. What is volnation going to learn from this when we go through another tough period.

ROME WAS NOT BUILT IN A DAY

 

[sammyjoey]

Well said OP, and I agree with you.

But still, I'm a bit underwhelmed with our 2013 class at this point.

 

[fade route]

The flaw in your argument, is when a proven coach offers a kid that has previously not had any offers or werent evaluated by scout, rivals, etc, they immediately get a huge bump in grade from those services.
A retroactive grade.

I'll concede that point, but I wouldn't call it a flaw in my argument since I didn't address that issue in my post. The problem is, Dooley hasn't proven anything, and when he offers a 2* or even a 3*, peeps get suspicious, and justifiably so.

 

[Nuclear_Orange]

To some degree I agree with you Count. On the other hand, go look at the top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out as ranked by these recruiting services, and a vast majority of them are winning their conferences or more and putting up double digit wins. It does matter. But, I agree that it shouldn't be the only tool a coach uses.

I would agree.

But a coach has to have an eye for underated recruits in order to win to get the national spotlight, in turn getting the big guys on rivals and what not.

This is the case in our situation. Dooley is in the process of building us from the ground up. It takes time.

 

[supersmo18]

Agree, smo, and I'm still trying to figure out why that thread went so long. It's pretty simple to figure out: most high paid coaches are paid that way BECAUSE they win, not in HOPES that they win. There are exceptions - Kiffin when he was here, but typically, the winning precedes the bling.

I agree, it went too long for what it was, but throw in a few northknoxvols and VolBeefs, and that's what you get.

 

[LittleDTO]

I'll concede that point, but I wouldn't call it a flaw in my argument since I didn't address that issue in my post. The problem is, Dooley hasn't proven anything, and when he offers a 2* or even a 3*, peeps get suspicious, and justifiably so.

Well, if you had addressed the issue, it would have contradicted your point.

Dooley has shown he can recruit VERY well.
Hope this can translate to wins soon.

 

[volroadwarrior]

Well said OP, and I agree with you.

But still, I'm a bit underwhelmed with our 2013 class at this point.

You can be underwhelmed, but the fact is that the higher rated prospects won't commit until later in the year. Most exceptions are in state highly rated kids who want to play for the teams they are fans of.

Unfortunately, Tennessee doesn't have the numbers of in state prospects as many of their competitor states. The reality is that UT has to wait until the in state school either passes on the prospect or the prospect has no emotional ties to their in state team.

 

[sammyjoey]

You can be underwhelmed, but the fact is that the higher rated prospects won't commit until later in the year. Most exceptions are in state highly rated kids who want to play for the teams they are fans of.

Unfortunately, Tennessee doesn't have the numbers of in state prospects as many of their competitor states. The reality is that UT has to wait until the in state school either passes on the prospect or the prospect has no emotional ties to their in state team.

Exactly. I know the reality of recruiting at Tennessee vs USC, Texas, UF, etc. And I wouldn't be underwhelmed if we only had a couple recruits and coaches were spending time developing strong relationships with the elite talent that they know will be committing later in the recruiting season.

I'm underwhelmed with several of the guys we've decided to go ahead and take.

 

[fade route]

Well, if you had addressed the issue, it would have contradicted your point.

Dooley has shown he can recruit VERY well.
Hope this can translate to wins soon.

The wins will validate much of the recruiting if you're correct.

 

[LittleDTO]

[/B]




The wins will validate much of the recruiting if you're correct.

With the mess Dooley has had to clear up and the record the past 2 years, I think Dooley has done a damn fine job of recruiting.

I do have several criticisms of Dooley, but none of them are recruiting.
We are going to be fine, talent wise.

 

[The Breakerboy]

With the mess Dooley has had to clear up and the record the past 2 years, I think Dooley has done a damn fine job of recruiting.

I do have several criticisms of Dooley, but none of them are recruiting.
We are going to be fine, talent wise.

Mine are with offensive play-calling and game management. If Dooley is as organized as he say he is certain stuff shouldn't happen. I do have a couple with recruiting though.

 

[CountVolcula]

Questions I ask myself are

What kind of experience does the recruiting analyst have?

Have they coached?

Have they played?

Anyone can sit behind a computer or microphone and give an opinion. Thats not hard at all

People put some stock in these guys. Guys that have no experience other than watching the game, asking coaches rhetorical questions, or interviewing a recruit to get a feel on how they feel or how a trip went.

Yet, they lose their minds when people that have actually coached, played, and developed talent offer a kid that has not gotten the thumbs up from the recruiting services

Thats flawed logic at the core. Its akin to going online to get a second opinion about an operation