On Talent

9 comments so far February 6, 2008 by Darren K. Carlson

The assessment, evaluation, and value of talent is one of the great enigmas in college football. It is very difficult to win big without it, though having it does not necessarily assure wins, either. It is a qualifying factor, a prerequisite with other elements required. Talent is made all the more slippery when you realize that its evaluation is subjective. Yes, speed and size are objective. But "beauty" has proven time and time again to be in the eye of the beholder. The number of highly rated and much sought after players who turned out to be busts in either the college or pro ranks speaks to that point as much as the number of unheralded players who blossomed in to legitimate stars on the field. With the advent of recruiting sites bringing more fans in to the proverbial scouting "tent", the topic of talent evaluation has never been hotter. So, on signing day, I offer my take on player evaluation and what goes in to quality recruiting classes.

What We Look For
Big Red Network strives, always and every day, to cover Husker football. That includes recruiting, which may be the most difficult subject to cover. It is fluid, subjective, and full of strong opinions. So, in an effort to cut through the clutter, we focus on three things for any player NU is recruiting - production, measurables, and the competition for his services.

Production -- Nothing speaks more highly of a player than his on-the-field results. Nothing trips my trigger more than seeing a player with a lot of yard or a lot of tackles. If a player is the Player of the Year in their home state, take him almost without exception (Nate Swift, Prince Amukamara). What happens on the field matters more than a 40-yard dash time or how a kid looks in shorts and a t-shirt.

Also, you have to look at the level of competition that player faced. For somebody playing in the toughest league in LA (Major Culbert) or in Texas' largest classification, 5A, like Anthony Blue, you weight that production a little bit more. And, yes, the competition in Nebraska's Class A schools is tougher than Class B and below. Any player from B or below must absolutely dominate to classify in the D1 college level. I've seen plenty of kids who qualify. At the B level and below, they should stick out as much as seeing an ostrich cross the street.

Measureables -- A players physical attributes matter next. You can't coach a kid to be fast, tall, or big. You can't fake 10.3 speed in the 100 meters, or 6'4'' height. That is one of the greatest things about the proliferation of camps, both at colleges and in the private areas (Nike, Addias run camps) - they produce reliable data. Before the proliferation of those camps, it was difficult for the average fan (and even some coaches) to truly know a player's measureables. It makes scouting that much easier, because coaches are looking for confirmation or validation of those results on the field, instead of scrutinizing to find those facts themselves.

The Competition -- Nobody knows talent more than coaches. One of the best ways for the average fan (or blogger) to know if a kid passed the proverbial sniff test is to see what other teams are offering a player scholarships. If NU is going up against powerhouse programs or schools that run similar systems, it's worth noting. If they are going against non-BCS schools or bad teams in their own division, that should merit concern. And, if they are offering a kid with only other offers from 1-AA schools, they really should be asking him to walk on.

Of course, we also consider beating any school from the Big 12 conference (especially the North division) for a player to be like winning twice. It's one for you, and one less for them.

The Role of Recruiting Sites
The number one question I get from many readers is ... "What about the star ratings?" The subtext here is about how heavily to consider the evaluation and ratings of services like Rivals and Scout. Put simply - these services have value based on the things I just went over. But, their quantification (star rating) needs to be taking with a heavy dose of salt.

Bottom line, Rivals and Scout are commercial, subscription-based services for the average consumer. And, the average consumer needs a "handle", a term, a bottom line or lowest common denominator. That's why the star ratings work. They give the average fan a way to describe a player in short hand. Coaches and scouts do not need to be spoon fed star ratings. They know players when they see them. College coaches can watch many prospects play one half of a basketball game and know if they have the physical ability to play at the D-1 level. The stars are for the fans to talk about. And, that's fine.

Is there a correlation between stars and a player's potential? Sure there is. The folks who run those sites and evaluate players consider a kid's physical ability and level of production. Reggie Bush turned out to be pretty good, right? The problem with the star ratings is that they aren't aimed at college football. It is a projection of a player's NFL talent. That's a big issue.

College football and pro football aren't the same, even if the same game is being played. How a player like, say, Marlon Lucky, projects in to the NFL ranks doesn't speak to his ability as a college player. Consider Barron Miles, one of the all-time great NU cornerbacks, compared to Michael Booker who played at roughly the same time. Booker had NFL ability, and was drafted highly. Miles went to the CFL, where he still plays. If I were picking all-time teams, I'd put Miles way ahead of Booker.

A more recent example of this effect is Anthony Blue. The aforementioned Mr. Blue was a favorite of mine when NU landed him a year ago. He had good production on a great team in Texas 5A football. He had great speed, legitimized by his track times, and he was wanted by the Texas schools. So, why then did he only merit a 3-star rating from Rivals.com? Because he wasn't 6-feet tall. He doesn't "project well" in to the pro ranks.

The Politics of Exposure
There is one other factor in recruiting now that makes it different than just a decade ago. It's partially about exposure and notoriety now. While the camps I mentioned earlier serve a great role in providing measureable stats, they also are what get a player noticed by both services and coaches. So, if a player does not attend these camps, it is tough for them to reap the benefits of that exposure.

My favorite example in NU's current class is the comparison between Sean Fisher from Millard North and Micah Kreikemeier from West Point. On paper, they are the same player, folks. They are both 6'4'' tall, around 210-215 lbs, and run the 40 somewhere around 4.7. The difference is exposure. Fisher plays for a proven powerhouse in Millard North, and got good exposure from his HS games and from attending camps. In West Point, Kreikemeier got neither. If you look at tape of the kid, Kreikemeier passes the "Godzilla" test you want to see from a player from a small classification...he's often both the biggest kid on the field as well as the fastest.

Will one of these players be great? Will neither of them? Both? We don't know. For my own edification and for the sake of the readers, I also try to rely on people I can trust to evaluate players. I ask guys I know have refereed games and coaches who have coached against these prospects. (By the way, those types of sources are telling me that John Levorson from Crete is probably the real hidden gem in this year's class for NU.) Still, to try and combat the need to rush to judgment requires all of us to trust in the coaching staff. That's been especially tough in the turnover that has occurred since 1998.

Intangibles
The notion of trusting the coaches is what brings me to my last point, the intangibles. At the end of all the evaluations, ratings, rankings and hand wringing, coaches have to trust their gut. This often boils down to two intangibles, I think - physical play, and "fit". Football is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport. It's violent and aggressive. And, at almost every position on the field (excluding, maybe, the kicker), you want a player who relishes contact. Not a player who can hit, and not one who tolerates contact. You want a player who literally loves to hit. That's the place to start with this game, since it always boils down to blocking and tackling.

Finally, coaches will often error on the side of "fit". That is, does a certain player align with a program from a strategic standpoint, and from a culture or mentality standpoint. You can't make a running quarterback in to a thrower. But, the cultural alignment is just as important. That is why the walk on program is so important. It's not just about getting talent at a relative discount. It is the bellwether for NU's football culture.

So, on this signing day, I've outlined some things to consider with recruiting. I ask you to consider the current and past classes through the lens I have place here, and offer your feedback.

Happy Letter-of-Intent Day, Husker Fans!

» Enjoy this article?
Send it to your friend or get Husker news by email!

NextPrevious