Imagine What Chip Kelly Could Do at USC/'Bama/Texas/tOSU/Etc.

[PapaG]

In other words, imagine what Chip could do if he could consistently get 5* recruits in every class due to location/tradition, instead of having to fight it out with Cal, UW, and others.

It would be scary.

 

[Natebishop3]

I could see Chip at USC. I don't know if his style would fit at Bama.

 

[oldmangrouch]

It is kind of sad. I looked at Rivals.com, and of their top 100 prospects, Oregon may get *1*. ( and he was ranked 97th)

How can a top 5 team with great facilities be so totally off the radar?

 

[PapaG]

It is kind of sad. I looked at Rivals.com, and of their top 100 prospects, Oregon may get *1*. ( and he was ranked 97th)

How can a top 5 team with great facilities be so totally off the radar?

Location, location, location. As soon as one of those major programs has an opening, Chip is going to be on a very short list.

It's a near-miracle what Chip has done at Oregon, and his recruiting classes are getting better. He somehow went to a Rose Bowl with Jeremiah Masoli as the QB. That's incredible, really, considering the other QBs who have appeared in that game the last decade.

 

[Ed O]

Location meaning both Eugene (not a big city tucked away in the corner of the country) and meaning the recruiting pool.

Florida, Texas and California put out an amazing number of high-quality football players. It's true that Florida gets divvied up between the U, FSU and Florida (and lots of lesser schools, besides) but even with that, there are more blue chippers to go around than for Oregon, OSU and Washington (and, I guess, WSU) in Washington and Oregon.

It is a bit depressing that Oregon doesn't get more 5* players, but the program has built momentum on the field and sometimes momentum in recruiting lags behind that.

Ed O.

 

[DuckySeahawk]

We really shouldn't worry about 5* recruits guys... Just remember that like 5-6 years ago a 4* was a pretty big deal. I'm happy getting motivated 4* recruits with a 5* or two every other year or so.

 

[STOMP]

It is kind of sad. I looked at Rivals.com, and of their top 100 prospects, Oregon may get *1*. ( and he was ranked 97th)

How can a top 5 team with great facilities be so totally off the radar?

a lot of the top prospects don't announce until just before LOI day. The Ducks are thought to be contenders for at least 4 more of the prospects in the rivals top 100 and this is in a year when they have relatively few guys moving on/graduating. Also on the greater rivals top 250 list you'll see that they have another 6 kids who have given a verbal commitment... this is a solid class. The site currently has them pegged as the 19th best class overall, look for that to improve when it counts, which would be a week from today

STOMP

 

[oldmangrouch]

I hope you are right.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Location meaning both Eugene (not a big city tucked away in the corner of the country) and meaning the recruiting pool.

Florida, Texas and California put out an amazing number of high-quality football players. It's true that Florida gets divvied up between the U, FSU and Florida (and lots of lesser schools, besides) but even with that, there are more blue chippers to go around than for Oregon, OSU and Washington (and, I guess, WSU) in Washington and Oregon.

It is a bit depressing that Oregon doesn't get more 5* players, but the program has built momentum on the field and sometimes momentum in recruiting lags behind that.

Ed O.

We have a total system type of offense. We need system players, not necessarily 5* players. On defense we could use better recruits.

 

[STOMP]

We have a total system type of offense. We need system players, not necessarily 5* players.

yup, they require not only certain types of athletes but target guys who demonstrate that they've the sort of work ethic that translates to their manic practices and game speed. It can also be a deal breaker if they don't think a guy will blend in well with their other players personally.

On defense we could use better recruits.

our D also requires certain physical and personal attributes that trump 5* talent. For instance, it's pretty clear that they highly value height/length for their DLine. I happen to think that their D has been pretty kick ass

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

We have a total system type of offense. We need system players, not necessarily 5* players. On defense we could use better recruits.

Chip's offense works best when the skill players are really fucking fast, the linemen are quick and agile, and a few bigger receivers/TEs can block downfield.

That's the "system", at least in terms of maximizing the offense. Basically, outside of QB, Oregon is typically after the same skill players as every other elite program, at least since Chip took over. A 5* skill player is going to work in any offense, if that recruit is rated correctly.

Oregon's never had a guy like DAT; if it's just the "system", why is DAT a Heisman Trophy candidate going into his true sophomore season? Answer - because he's really fucking fast.

Why was LMJ a Heisman Trophy finalist? Answer - because he's really fucking fast, and was completely underrated coming out of HS by scouting services.

Why will Kenjon Barner rush for over 1500 yards next year? Answer - because he's really fucking fast.

Every single Pac-12 school would love to have those guys on their team, regardless of 'system'.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

In other words, imagine what Chip could do if he could consistently get 5* recruits in every class due to location/tradition, instead of having to fight it out with Cal, UW, and others.

It would be scary.

Because he runs a system, I'm not so sure he'd do much better with 5* athletes. I mean, he might, but we've seen teams like USC & Washington (in years gone by) loaded with 4/5* players 3 deep at every position and they manage to lose games.

So it ain't necessarily the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

 

[PapaG]

Because he runs a system, I'm not so sure he'd do much better with 5* athletes. I mean, he might, but we've seen teams like USC & Washington (in years gone by) loaded with 4/5* players 3 deep at every position and they manage to lose games.

So it ain't necessarily the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

Washington hasn't consistently pulled in 4* or 5* recruits ever, and certainly not three-deep. USC, yes, and for the past 12 years, they have been dominant, outside of a two-year period where they were merely good.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Washington hasn't consistently pulled in 4* or 5* recruits ever, and certainly not three-deep. USC, yes, and for the past 12 years, they have been dominant, outside of a two-year period where they were merely good.

Back in my day, sonny, UW had as much or more talent than any team in the country. They consistently played below their talent level. And they had a good coach. USC has been easily the most talented team in the country numerous years and lost games. You should know that if you follow college football.

All I'm getting at is the obvious- some coaches do better when they have their system guys rather than just a load of talent. Chip might do well at other schools, but that's not a given.

 

[PapaG]

Back in my day, sonny, UW had as much or more talent than any team in the country. They consistently played below their talent level. And they had a good coach. USC has been easily the most talented team in the country numerous years and lost games. You should know that if you follow college football.

All I'm getting at is the obvious- some coaches do better when they have their system guys rather than just a load of talent. Chip might do well at other schools, but that's not a given.

UW never pulled in elite talent across the board, and they played above their talent level for years when Don James was coach. Just look at NFL players from UW, USC, and UCLA from the '80s/early '90s. USC and UCLA had way better talent than UW, yet UW was as good as any of the other two teams.