Position-Specific Recruiting in TCY

[WSUCougar]

I tend to look for specific characteristics in recruits, depending upon their position, so I thought I’d toss mine out for discussion. Bear in mind that I generally like to run out of the I or Veer formations, which influences certain choices.

QB:
Ample depth and a good mix of youth and developed upperclassmen is a starting point at this key position. I never want to be in the position where I have to start a true freshman (although sometimes injuries will force it), so I don’t mind getting a guy with a lower athletic-prep if he meets my other standards, which are:

Standard #1: He cannot have “Avoid INTs” as a weakness, and likewise cannot have a gross statistical mismatch for INTs to TDs.

Standard #2: It’s preferable that he has a good completion %.

Standard #3: I prefer touch, timing, or medium passing (and of course avoid INTs) as a strength rather than a weakness. On the flip side, I don’t care so much about long and very long passing as a strength (mainly because it pushes one of the ones in Standard #3 to a weakness).

Standard #4: Good rushing stats are preferable. It’s hard to tell sometimes who runs better in college, a guy who was listed as “Runs all the time” with 1 carry for 3 yards in high school, or a guy who was listed as “Runs very little” who has 100+ carries in high school. But in either case I like a guy with wheels over a stiff.

Standard #5: This applies to virtually every position, but the more ratings consistency the better. I’d rather not see “Very Low” there if I can help it.

RB:
Speed, speed, and more speed. Give me those Breakaway Running strength guys. I’ll take a power runner with Breakaway as a weakness, but only as a change-of-pace #2 RB. I don’t mind getting a guy with a lower athletic-prep at RB; this is a way to sometimes steal a real blue-chip RB because the powerhouses tend to avoid them, at least initially. I like relatively bigger backs (5-10+). I watch out for poor receiving stats in high school, as well as low yards-per-carry averages.

FB:
Okay, here’s a bias for my type of offense. The fullback needs to be a good blocker, or at least not have run blocking as a weakness. I am also wary of a guy with very low ratings consistency with no mention of blocking as a strength or weakness. I like size here, and FBs which have a decent number of catches, too. Once again, I don’t mind getting a guy with a lower athletic-prep at FB.

TE:
Due to the desire for good blocking, it’s pretty much the same comments as for fullback, with a few more to add. I won’t even look at a guy with “catch the ball” as a weakness. Dropped passes really bug me, so none of that. I like 3rd down catching and across the middle as strengths for a TE, as long as run blocking is not a weakness. Big guys are great at this position (6-4+). Athletic prep is more of a concern at TE.

WR:
This is a position that I tend to de-emphasize in my draft classes. Again, I won’t even look at a guy with “catch the ball” as a weakness, and he has to be really good in other ways if he has “get open” as a weakness. YAC and 3rd down are bonus strengths. I’ll take a guy with punt returning as a strength if he has no other flaws. Low athletic prep doesn’t bother me too much here, especially since more often than not I am recruiting later at this position and the studs are already taken.

O-Line:
I’m lumping all of these together for the simple reason that I usually apply the same criteria to all three positions. First, I prefer high athletic prep guys at these positions more than any other. Second, I prefer run blockers over pass blockers any day. Third, size is a bonus.

Punters & kickers:
Pretty simple for me. High ratings consistency is my first priority, then punting distance is preferably not a weakness for punters, and field goal accuracy is not a weakness for kickers.

DE:
Ratings consistency is my first priority, and I want it here probably more than any other position. I’ll usually take pass rushers over run-stuffers. Watch the high school stats.

DT:
Run defense is my first priority. Ratings consistency is great, but I’d prefer good athletic prep more. Size is a plus – I want Gilbert Brown.

ILB:
Hard, fast rule: run defense cannot be a weakness. Preferably, it is a strength. Should have plenty of tackles in high school. I also don’t like ILBs who have man coverage as weakness. INTs or pass rush as strengths make me worry. For me, good athletic prep is more desirable for linebackers.

OLB:
Hard, fast rule: man coverage cannot be a weakness. Pass rushing is more desirable for OLBs. I like a good mix of stats for an OLB.

CB:
Hard, fast rule: man coverage cannot be a weakness, and if it is not a strength I can’t have a guy with less than average ratings consistency. The corner is there to cover his man, and I don’t play much zone. I’m not too keen on CBs as return men, so guys with that as a strength make me wonder. Athletic prep is nice but not imperative.

S:
I probably overvalue safeties, but I tend to think of it as a top-priority position. I watch the stats, and I look for run defense or man coverage as a strength (and definitely not a weakness). No returners as a strength. Athletic prep is important.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Comments? Discussion? Your take?

[dacman]

I don't put much stock in strengths and weaknesses when they have average ratings consistency, and none at all at high. With high consistency, ratings tend to be withing 1-5 points of each other across the board. Its only when you get down to the very low guys (which is still about 1/2 the pool unfortunately) that strengths/weaknesses become an issue, and even then maybe not.

I know before 1.0c a guy could be very low only because his endurance was somewhat less. I specifically remember a O-lineman I hesitantly recruited who turned out to be a 89/91/50 guy who's ratings consistency was very low and had run blocking as a weakness.

I haven't played 1.0c enough (or recently enough) to know if all that still holds true.

[Go-Buckeyes]

A very good and educational write up. I've always been one to run a single back offense....even at Nebraska and I have my own theories to recruiting. I agree, totally, on the defensive side of the ball. And the QB and OL philosophies are similar to my preference as well. You'd think we both were assistants under the same old coaching mentor from years ago *lol*

Looks to me, Cougs, that whereas you would put more emphasis on a RB/FB/TE, I tend to lean heavy, and I mean HEAVY on the WR position. Looking for 2-3 guys a year, that get open, have high ratings consistency and can catch the ball. Depth is also a big key for me because of the 3 wide package. I don't feel safe at all going in to a new season without at least 7-8 WR's.

Like other TCY readings, I found this to be a nice posting. Keep up the good work!

[33sherman]

I don't think it's possible to overvalue safeties--if you're gunning for an undefeated season, you have to be able to stuff those deep passes late in the game when you're trying to protect a close lead against a good opponent.

Also, you can turn 'em into good CBs if you're thin in that area.