What?!!!!! Williams is averaging 7 yards a carry!! He had god only knows how many home runs, and you're saying Scott has impressed more this year?? You gotta start paying more attention during games.:thumb:
Question: What top 100 recruits have committed to LSU or are interested in LSU. I've heard we havent had any 5 star commits up till now, and the other 5 stars we're after are not very high on LSU. Is that true or BS?
lol...This is a model example of a well structured argument. The author clearly discredits the countering examples by calling them a "stretch" and "lame". :lol:
LSU has never been about landing a bunch of 5* guys. Ask USC how that's working out for them. :huh: Only the Top 28 of the Top 100 are 5* players. We've gotten some of the top 100 ( Chancey Aghayere #61, Ryan Baker #65, and are expecting Chris Tolliver, #64 as well. There could be some surprises and we pick up one or two 5's but I haven't really been following recruiting lately so not sure what's in the mix- sure some could share in that department- probably check out the "Last six" thread. I just didn't read through it. ’07: 2 five star, 19 four, 5 three (Toliver & C.Jones) ’06: 2, 12, 11 (Woods & Williams) ’05: 1, 7, 5 (RP) ’04: 3, 12, 10 (Doucet, Wroten and Carter) ’03: 1,17,10 (Justin Vincent) . ’02: 1,10,9 Russell, Bowe, and Flynn, Dorsey.........all just 4’s
Assuming that you meant to suggest that USC's 5*'s are all from Cali and so therefore overrated, that's not so. In 2007 USC's 5*'s came from CA (5), AZ(2), LA (1) and Michigan (1). Of all those, 5 have been injured this season and unable to contribute on a regular basis or at all. In 2006 USC 5*'s came from VA, CA, WA, and NJ. The Jersey boy seems to be the only one who may have been only worth a 4* but he xfered for lack of playing time. In 2005 USC's 5*'s came from CA, TN, and NJ. At this point it looks like Patrick Turner out of NJ may have been overrated as he's yet to develop as much as hoped. In 2004 USC's 5*'s came from CO, OH, FL, CA, and Utah. And in 2003 they came from LA and CA. The Cali boys that year included Lawrence Jackson (likely AA this year), Steve Smith (playing in the NFL), and Reggie Bush (he's a Saint :yelwink2: ). JDB is the LA 5* and I'd have to say that at this point in his senior year, he's not a 5*. As for this year, out of the top 40 players listed on Scout, only 6 are from California and 2 of those, Darrell Scott and Dayne Christ were on LSU's wish list. If there is a CA bias then you'll have to use something else to prove it.
I see some room in the middle for the 5*= results argument. USC has recruited a ton of 5* athletes. It has resulted in 1 NC, one AP title, 2 NC appearances, and last year we were one game shy of a 3rd appearance. Of the 6 losses we've had over the last 4 (maybe 5?) years, all have been by 7 or less points. To say that anything short of a NC year in and year out isn't getting it done is a standard that no team can meet. I think it's also worth taking into account that after the 2004 NC, the entire coaching staff sans PC has turned over. How easy is it to continue the recruiting train when new staff is taking over? All swords have a double edge and of course having a ton of 5*'s doesn't guarantee anything other than having a lot of talented athletes on the sideline. While I can't go into detail, the issues do not include competition between potential Heisman winners. When you get a group of competitive and talented athletes who are used to winning and playing, it takes some time to instill a mindset of "one team, one goal". We didn't get there this year but USC WILL be competitive again next year. One could easily make the argument that the issues with recruiting were more with the plethora of skill positions and not enough on the lines. We were absolutely depleted on the Oline very early in the season which didn't allow us to establish the run (an expected strength) and forced us to throw more (JDB has struggled as have our WR's). Had we had more depth or time at position on the Oline, things might have been different. Personally I think it's important to recruit talented athletes, smart players, and good character people. I don't however believe that 5* players necessarily should or do equal NC's. There are just way too many other factors to consider.
It's tough to compare records & championships because we're on different playing fields. USC in the PAC 10 doesn't equal USC in the SEC. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of draft positions for LSU vs USC players. I'm confident that despite USC's substantially more impressive recruiting, their draft success is not very different from our own. There's 2 possible reasons for this. USC recruits are overrated/LSU recruits are underrated, or that LSU does a better job of developing their talent. I say it's a combination of both, but mostly due to biased recruiting services. USC is a much bigger market than LSU & their coaches play up the recruiting service rankings. As for LSU developing players better, I can't think of a way to defend that based on factual evidence, but note a player like Dwayne Jarrett who slipped to the second round not for a lack of talent but because he's viewed as the product of a system
As for recruiting success, there are a lot of factors that go into it. Let's look at it this way: *The following is looked at by star rating as if it were a true indication of talent level, not the guess it truly is. Every team needs some star power. We'll equate this to a Rivals 100 prospect (practically no difference between them & the 5 stars except exposure). Most of the starters will be made up of above average players that operate well within the system. They may only be a late first or second day NFL draft pick, but they are excellent players in college. (4 stars) Every team needs role players - these players may develop into very good players, but their contribution to the team is not lost even if they don't. They provide depth & help the team get better in practice (3 star).
The Heisman trophy.. doesn't get much respect from me or anyone I know. They might as well change it to the "Offensive player of the year at a good school" trophy. AP titles hold no weight in my eyes either. Even if we have another fiasco like 2003 with us getting the AP somehow. It's still just a media trophy. They're successful, yes.. but stars are overrated. :hihi:
Hey guys. I think what may be missing in this talk of stars and how they relate to success is this. Stars don't measure the heart of a player. Stars don't measure the fierce loyalty of a player. Stars don't measure character. I feel like LSU has advantages to SOME and I repeat SOME other top programs. Guys from Louisiana grow up dreaming of playing for LSU. I'm not saying kids don't grow up dreaming of playing for teams like USC, Oklahoma, Texas and others but we get the majority of the Louisiana recruits because of this. It's one of the main reasons Mr. Dorsey gave for returning for his senior season. Kids choose a college for all sorts of reasons. Some choose because they feel that program can get them to the NFL. Some choose because of academics, some choose because of whatever. The point I'm trying to make, and I'm probably not doing it well, is this. It could be that an LSU recruit "outplays" his "star rating" because he's playing for LSU. Playing in Tiger Stadium and just playing for LSU in general is, I'm sure, quite a motivator, especially for a kid who has been wanting to do so all his life. It may just seem this way but TO ME it seems like, MAYBE, recruits go to USC for other reasons. Vball could probably comment on this more. I don't know enough about USC to know what the motivations are for recruits choosing to go there.
