Bear Down Wildcats

It's time to own it. All the great things RichRod can do on offense, he simply sucks at recruiting defense. These abysmal classes full of 3 stars and less are not going to cut it in the Pac, at least not with Casteel doing the coaching up. Own it people because it's the truth.

Either gotta get better development like we do on the offensive side or we have to quit settling for middling defensive recruits.

Haven't most of our 4-star recruits been on defense?

splitsecond wrote:It's time to own it. All the great things RichRod can do on offense, he simply sucks at recruiting defense. These abysmal classes full of 3 stars and less are not going to cut it in the Pac, at least not with Casteel doing the coaching up. Own it people because it's the truth.

Either gotta get better development like we do on the offensive side or we have to quit settling for middling defensive recruits.

Couldn't agree more. Fantastic finish aside, if Hill drops the ball we are sitting here this morning in a decidedly different world.......wondering if we can even get to 6 wins. In year 3 of the RRod/Casteel 3-3-5 experiment they have not recruited a single PAC12 level DL or CB that will see the field this year.........and the downward trajectory of our recruiting (we lead the PAC12 in 2 star recruits) doesn't give me a lot of hope at the moment. Frankly, we need to do what Sonny Dykes did in the offseason, junk our current defense and bring in a new coordinator with new position coaches (I know its unlikely to happen). Dropping Salavea was a big mistake.

I am just going to savor the moment and the win because I can only imagine what we would all feel like right now if the miracle had not occurred. As it is after the hangover from last nights celebration ends people are going to realize that we are going to be favored in possibly only 1 more game this year (Colorado at home), possibly two (WSU on the road). Its going to be a Cat fight the rest of the year.

dmjcat wrote:Dropping Salavea was a big mistake.

No.

You keep saying this, and it keeps being a silly argument.

Casteel was never going to keep him around. Casteel had every right to bring in who he wanted as assistants for his D, and he & RR had no duty to keep Salave'a, a coach who was unfamiliar with the system being implemented. Never mind that Kirlavich is widely respected as a DL coach, and you seem to be one of the few who don't. You can rail against the 3-3-5 all you want, it's not changing this season and I highly doubt it gets scrapped anytime soon while RR is still coach. Besides, if you don't have enough good players, it doesn't matter what system you play.

I do want to clarify now that I am sober, that this doesn't mean we can't recruit and develop some underrated talent. Just that we can't count on those guys to do everything. Scooby can't save us every play, though in the second half he carried the team. The 3-3-5 REQUIRES better athletes in the DB spots. Pac Man made the system work at WVU. Maybe star rating is the wrong measure, but bigger better athletes are required on the line and in the secondary. Right now our best athlete far and away is an undersized LB. And he is the heart and soul of this D but he can't do everything.

Lot of overreaction to the defense today I think.

1st drive - Cal comes out in a formation I am guessing they haven't used before (at least with Goff), we miss tackles (McCall in particular), and they score. (Reminded me of UCLA trickeration with Jack last year.)

2nd drive - Parks inexplicably goes to double a guy running a 5 yard out, Grandon bites on a little fake that gets his weight shifted the wrong way, and boom, TD.

After those fiascoes we settled down and played reasonably well. Even the Muhammad touchdown in the 2nd half - looks like purely individual breakdowns to me. Scooby takes a bad angle, McKnight fights off a block but then gets juked out of position, and Tevis misses the tackle he has to (and usually does) make - TD.

I found our lack of offensive production way more concerning. Couldn't run at all, lots of miscues in the passing game, and didn't take advantage in the red zone (coming away with zero points after that Rubenzer fumble on the 10 is pretty inexcusable).

azthrillhouse wrote:Lot of overreaction to the defense today I think.

1st drive - Cal comes out in a formation I am guessing they haven't used before (at least with Goff), we miss tackles (McCall in particular), and they score. (Reminded me of UCLA trickeration with Jack last year.)

Good post azth. And on this drive, first play of the game, Bondo should have sacked Goff for a 6-8 yard loss but didn't wrap up.

Maybe a little overreaction to the D, but there are some serious concerns.

Outside of Bondo and Scooby there are 0 playmakers on D.
The tackling was piss poor, the pass rush was poor, and the pass coverage was piss poor.

phenom5 wrote:Maybe a little overreaction to the D, but there are some serious concerns.

Outside of Bondo and Scooby there are 0 playmakers on D.
The tackling was piss poor, the pass rush was poor, and the pass coverage was piss poor.

Other than that, how'd you like the game Mr. Lincoln? ...

We still sacked him, what, 4 times? Goff went 18-30, 3 TD, 1 INT. Rubenzer got 8 yards on 6 carries, plus a fumble. One passing TD was a completely broken play on 2nd drive of game. His second was very good, but then the third one was only completed because our CB, who was in great position to make a play on the ball, tripped over his own freaking feet. Not juked out so that he tripped, he freaking tripped over his own feet. In the 2nd half we really started to limit Goff's production. We also caused a fumble on the NINE, yet we couldn't punch it in.

If we take off Lascho's 44 and Muhammad's 50 yard runs, there goes half of their rushing yards on two plays. Now I know we can't do that, but really what I think happened is a combination of uncharacteristic mistakes (not wrapping up, blown coverages, just plain bad luck), coupled with a completely ineffective offense. I mean, think about it. We're meant to limit big plays. Yet Cal was never in the redzone until the 4th quarter. Now, do they deserve most of the credit for still putting up so many points to that point? Yeah. But we just made some silly mistakes, and when the offense is doing absolutely nothing and going 3-and-out, with as many possessions as Cal had against a demoralized, tired defense, I'm surprised we didn't give up more points.

Everything went right for Cal's offense, everything went wrong for both our offense and defense, and we still found a way to win and make some key stops.

Yeah I'm more concerned that our run game was shut down and that cal was able to run at will on us with the rush offense people on here called nonexistent.

ASUHATER! wrote:Yeah I'm more concerned that our run game was shut down and that cal was able to run at will on us with the rush offense people on here called nonexistent.

Those were both a bit surprising to me. Cal sold out on the run IMO, and it worked for the most part, although I thought Anu had some nifty runs. UA's run D vs. Nevada was pretty effective, and I thought Nevada's rushing game presented a bigger threat than Cal's. Dykes actually wants a 50/50 split run/pass at Cal, just never really got the chance last year playing from behind most games. Poor tacking by UA in the 4th helped inflate Cal's numbers a bit, especially that 50-yard TD.

Whatever Oregon does against this D won't surprise me, I'm not sure it's fair to expect much from UA's D against them. Every game after that however UA will need to be able to find more solutions than they did against Cal.

I'm certainly concerned with our D but I thought Cal's receivers were impressive - they made a few incredible grabs.

I have been a critic of the defense but I realize that the depth is not there yet (a year or two away) and last night, not only was the defense snake-bitten but the offense was awful in the first half and didn't help anything out. The offense was on and off the field in 2 minutes or so putting a lot of pressure on the defense. I hope last night was a bit of an anomaly for the defense. The offense can't play that badly again hopefully. I don't know what was going on but the runs were strictly up the middle, no stretch running plays and Anu seemed utterly locked in to one option despite having a lot of time to throw and often overlooking wide open receivers while trying to hit home run balls. In other words, trying to force the action instead of taking what the defense gave him. I have yet to see the second half (had to go to sleep -- didn't give up). I presume that it was a shade different.

This defense is still 2 years away from being full strength because of the recruiting done before RR got here. We have some exciting players in the wings. Wish they were ready this year, but that's not gonna happen.

Reydituto wrote:

dmjcat wrote:Dropping Salavea was a big mistake.

No.

You keep saying this, and it keeps being a silly argument.

Casteel was never going to keep him around. Casteel had every right to bring in who he wanted as assistants for his D, and he & RR had no duty to keep Salave'a, a coach who was unfamiliar with the system being implemented. Never mind that Kirlavich is widely respected as a DL coach, and you seem to be one of the few who don't. You can rail against the 3-3-5 all you want, it's not changing this season and I highly doubt it gets scrapped anytime soon while RR is still coach. Besides, if you don't have enough good players, it doesn't matter what system you play.

Silly??? I suggest you look in the mirror.

Silly is defending a coach/defense that resembles swiss cheese
Silly is stating that you don't have enough good players....and then failing to have the brains to put
two and two together and realize the DC & DL coaches are the ones who have failed to recruit those players.
Silly is defending dumping a very respected ex-UA player (whom Sarkisian thought so much of he attempted to bribe him away from wsu) who has excellent contacts with the Poly pipeline (who we need to recruit much like Utah).

Daryl Zero wrote:I have been a critic of the defense but I realize that the depth is not there yet (a year or two away) and last night, not only was the defense snake-bitten but the offense was awful in the first half and didn't help anything out. The offense was on and off the field in 2 minutes or so putting a lot of pressure on the defense. I hope last night was a bit of an anomaly for the defense. The offense can't play that badly again hopefully. I don't know what was going on but the runs were strictly up the middle, no stretch running plays and Anu seemed utterly locked in to one option despite having a lot of time to throw and often overlooking wide open receivers while trying to hit home run balls. In other words, trying to force the action instead of taking what the defense gave him. I have yet to see the second half (had to go to sleep -- didn't give up). I presume that it was a shade different.

It was the combo of poor offense with snakebit defense that made us look so bad. After halftime, we stiffened up a bit, but then we missed some tackles and let them run over us on the last few drives. Bondo was a huge help, and we need bigger LB's and DL and more depth. It needs work, but I don't expect it to be this bad against, say, Colorado, or WSU, or whatever. Maybe Oregon in 2 weeks, but not against the less-talented teams in the PAC.

QWERTY:

It needs work, but I don't expect it to be this bad against, say, Colorado, or WSU, or whatever. Maybe Oregon in 2 weeks, but not against the less-talented teams in the PAC.

Humor me but who exactly are the "Less talented teams" you refer to??? Colorado perhaps and maybe wsu (although they just gave the ducks all they could handle). Unfortunately, the conference is well balanced with very few "less talented teams" this year.

ASUHATER! wrote:Yeah I'm more concerned that our run game was shut down and that cal was able to run at will on us with the rush offense people on here called nonexistent.

Cal stacked the box and dared Solomon to throw.

When Solomon was overthrowing everyone it worked, but once he got in a little rythmn their defense got shredded.

Not too worried, if teams want to do that I think Anu will throw for big numbers like last night.

azcat34 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:Yeah I'm more concerned that our run game was shut down and that cal was able to run at will on us with the rush offense people on here called nonexistent.

Cal stacked the box and dared Solomon to throw.

When Solomon was overthrowing everyone it worked, but once he got in a little rythmn their defense got shredded.

Not too worried, if teams want to do that I think Anu will throw for big numbers like last night.

A couple of guys remarked on Twitter last night that Cal might want to think about doubling Cayleb Jones. Um, I'm sure Solomon and the rest of the WR corps would LOVE for that to happen.

That is the problem, you only have somany guys you can double. Someone will be open. I thought Cal's db's were gassed in the 4th quarter. They couldn't stay with our rotated, fresher legs

dmjcat wrote:QWERTY:

It needs work, but I don't expect it to be this bad against, say, Colorado, or WSU, or whatever. Maybe Oregon in 2 weeks, but not against the less-talented teams in the PAC.

Humor me but who exactly are the "Less talented teams" you refer to??? Colorado perhaps and maybe wsu (although they just gave the ducks all they could handle). Unfortunately, the conference is well balanced with very few "less talented teams" this year.

I'd expect us to do well against Utah and Oregon State too (even though we don't play them), and while USC has the talent, they don't have the depth.

azcat49 wrote:That is the problem, you only have somany guys you can double. Someone will be open. I thought Cal's db's were gassed in the 4th quarter. They couldn't stay with our rotated, fresher legs

I thought I saw somewhere that we set a pac-12 record for plays run in a game. That's especially incredible when you think about our ineptitude early in the game.

prh wrote:

azcat49 wrote:plays run in a game. That's especially incredible when you think about our ineptitude early in the game.

It was, and they broke the number of plays record set by USC earlier this year

azgreg wrote:

Classic RR.

azgreg wrote:

Rich Rod during his press conference was saying that while they were recruiting Scooby Wright that he was a "sleeper" recruit and his son at the time told him that Scooby's twitter handle was twostarscoob (that he thought it was one). That Arizona was really only one recruiting him until the end when a couple of other schools got involved late. At times staff questions themselves when other schools not recruiting what they thought (and is) a really good player like Scooby.

RR saying sometimes can still find "sleepers" recruits but with the internet it's become more rare.Too Easy now to get your highlights and attention out in public.

Here's press conference from today RR talks about twostarscoob http://www.arizonawildcats.com/mediaPor ... M_ID=30700

splitsecond wrote:It's time to own it. All the great things RichRod can do on offense, he simply sucks at recruiting defense. These abysmal classes full of 3 stars and less are not going to cut it in the Pac, at least not with Casteel doing the coaching up. Own it people because it's the truth.

Either gotta get better development like we do on the offensive side or we have to quit settling for middling defensive recruits.

Despite all of the negative comments you received, the reality of our recruiting, especially this year, is on a negative trajectory. For grins, I just checked out the # of 2 and 4 star recruits for each of the PAC12 schools (Scout). The numbers are a bit disconcerting:

School 2 Stars 4 Stars
UA 7 1
asu 0 2
Colorado 4 1
Utah 2 0
WSU 1 4
OSU 6 0
UO 0 5
UW 1 4
USC 0 8
UCLA 0 5
Cal 2 0
Stanford 0 2

Granted, the UA has signed more recruits (and recruiting isn't over). The fact that the UA leads the conference in 2 star recruits, however, isn't a good sign. Even worse, schools such as WSU (currently a bottom feeder) are recruiting our pants off (1 two star, 4 four stars). We can rationalise about recruiting OKG's all day long, the bottom line is our recruiting is heading in the wrong direction..........which by the way is exactly what happened to Stoops.

Hey but Utah looked really good at home Saturday night so you have to be happy about that? Oh wait.....

dmjcat wrote:Silly??? I suggest you look in the mirror.

Oooooooh, burn!!!

dmjcat wrote:Silly is defending a coach/defense that resembles swiss cheese
Silly is stating that you don't have enough good players....and then failing to have the brains to put
two and two together and realize the DC & DL coaches are the ones who have failed to recruit those players.
Silly is defending dumping a very respected ex-UA player (whom Sarkisian thought so much of he attempted to bribe him away from wsu) who has excellent contacts with the Poly pipeline (who we need to recruit much like Utah).

I'm not defending the defensive performance - It has to improve for UA to win 8-9 games as I projected - I'm defending the reality that the scheme is not changing this season.

Silly is not realizing that RR or Casteel were NEVER GOING TO KEEP JOE SALAVE'A, and that continuing to harp on the idea that he should have been kept makes you look like the village idiot. I defend RR's decision (and Casteel's) not to retain him because I believe a new HC hire should be able to hire his own assistants, whomever they may be, and that a DC shouldn't be saddled with the responsibility of holdovers if he doesn't want them. Silly is not realizing that new coaches bring usually clean house and bring their own guys with them, regardless of how good or loved the prior regime's assistants were.

Silly is thinking that I am somehow disrespecting Joe Salave'a; Me, I like Joe Salave'a, he's become a solid DL coach at Wazzu, I've met him, I know his agent from when he was an NFL player, and I can tell you it was never a realistic consideration that Joe would stay on. The "Poly Pipeline" is nice, but that is just not enough of a reason to keep a coach who doesn't otherwise know the schemes to which he is recruiting.

Silly is not "having the brains" to realize how recruiting is actually done at UA: Position coaches don't recruit their own position players at UA for the most part, each assistant is responsible for a geographic region that takes advantage of existing or developed relationships. Matt Dudek organizes the recruiting pool for UA coaches, the coaches evaluate that pool and whittle it down to offers, and each coach goes from there in their assigned region, with RR having final say. Sometimes a position coach ends up recruiting a player at his position, either through his region, or to help the recruitment (like Kirlav did with Marcus Griffin at DT), but it's not a rule of thumb.

Don't like the defensive recruiting? Blame RR first and foremost. IMO your star-based argument about the 2015 class heading in the wrong trajectory is a premature conclusion, when most of these guys are 11 months away from even potentially playing in a game, yet at least there's some questionable data to support it. But blaming RR and Casteel for not keeping Salave'a, as if that was the cure-all, is S-I-L-L-Y.

8 or 9 wins? Wow. I'd be glad with 6. I truly believe that the Cal win was imperative for our bowl chances.

dmjcat wrote:

splitsecond wrote:It's time to own it. All the great things RichRod can do on offense, he simply sucks at recruiting defense. These abysmal classes full of 3 stars and less are not going to cut it in the Pac, at least not with Casteel doing the coaching up. Own it people because it's the truth.

Either gotta get better development like we do on the offensive side or we have to quit settling for middling defensive recruits.

Despite all of the negative comments you received, the reality of our recruiting, especially this year, is on a negative trajectory. For grins, I just checked out the # of 2 and 4 star recruits for each of the PAC12 schools (Scout). The numbers are a bit disconcerting:

School 2 Stars 4 Stars
UA 7 1
asu 0 2
Colorado 4 1
Utah 2 0
WSU 1 4
OSU 6 0
UO 0 5
UW 1 4
USC 0 8
UCLA 0 5
Cal 2 0
Stanford 0 2

Granted, the UA has signed more recruits (and recruiting isn't over). The fact that the UA leads the conference in 2 star recruits, however, isn't a good sign. Even worse, schools such as WSU (currently a bottom feeder) are recruiting our pants off (1 two star, 4 four stars). We can rationalise about recruiting OKG's all day long, the bottom line is our recruiting is heading in the wrong direction..........which by the way is exactly what happened to Stoops.

The WAZZU one is a trip for sure! We will probably end up with 2 4* kids in this class. I am still at the glass is half full level right now. I am pretty confident in our coaches to develop said 2*. Hell Scooby was a freaking 1* kid.

Lofty wrote:8 or 9 wins? Wow. I'd be glad with 6. I truly believe that the Cal win was imperative for our bowl chances.

Look at the remaining schedule with what we know after 5 weeks.

Oregon - likely loss.
USC - toss up. They have the star recruits but Arizona has a lot of firepower and may be a more cohesive team.
Washington State - lean towards win; they're a thorn in RR's side but he's not going to be caught flat again. Also after a bye.
UCLA - likely loss. They have vulnerabilities but they're getting guys back. Dangerous opportunistic defense.
Colorado - likely win. The offense is showing signs of life but they can't handle the Cats' offense.
Washington - toss up. I'd count this as a lean win but I want to see what Petersen does over the next six weeks.
Utah - likely win. Their defense is solid and stout but they don't have depth. They have trouble moving the ball.
ASU - lean towards win. Kelly may or may not be back (if he's out we win by 3 TDs) but their defense can't keep up. Stadium will be nuts.

Take one of the toss ups, the two likely wins, and one of the leans and that's 8 right there. Oregon and UCLA are the only games that Arizona is at a major disadvantage going forward. If the defense figures things out they could win ten. Solomon is only going to get better as the year goes, and if there's one thing the first four games have demonstrated, it's that this team goes as far as he can take them.

I'm just saying, (and maybe I am wrong), but I think we will be underdogs in all but two more games, probably. Heck, I don't know. But that Cal miracle was huge to me.

dmjcat wrote:
Granted, the UA has signed more recruits (and recruiting isn't over). The fact that the UA leads the conference in 2 star recruits, however, isn't a good sign. Even worse, schools such as WSU (currently a bottom feeder) are recruiting our pants off (1 two star, 4 four stars). We can rationalise about recruiting OKG's all day long, the bottom line is our recruiting is heading in the wrong direction..........which by the way is exactly what happened to Stoops.

Stoops' recruiting fell off after the Vegas Bowl win because he stopped doing it. Nothing "happened" to him. He thought he'd done enough to let the Arizona name sell itself.

Contrasting the current staff with the previous one is laughable. You can look at the current class one of two ways:

1) We're aiming low, offering and taking commitments from whoever we can early on because we know we're just going to be exercising what amounts to a rummage sale if we wait.

Or...

2) This staff is excellent at talent evaluation and gets in on many kids before lots of other higher profile programs have or before the services have done their due diligence to rank them realistically.

Or maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle as is often the case. Either way, I've been pretty happy with how this staff has upgraded our roster in 2 short years and think it will only get better. Time will tell.

Guys like McKenzie, Patterson, Hale and Tabor aren't historically Arizona recruits, but it's becoming more routine now. Why? I tend to be optimistic and think eventually a few of these superstars "who got away" are going to start sticking around Lowell-Stevens as Wildcats.

I only see 4 2 star recruits according to rivals. I will say last years class was very exciting and I was hoping that this years class would be about the same. Unfortunately it seems thatthis is not the case with this years class. Seems very pedestrian

azcat49 wrote:I only see 4 2 star recruits according to rivals. I will say last years class was very exciting and I was hoping that this years class would be about the same. Unfortunately it seems thatthis is not the case with this years class. Seems very pedestrian

What do you think beating Oregon 2 years in a row do for recruiting?

3goggles wrote:

azcat49 wrote:I only see 4 2 star recruits according to rivals. I will say last years class was very exciting and I was hoping that this years class would be about the same. Unfortunately it seems thatthis is not the case with this years class. Seems very pedestrian

What do you think beating Oregon 2 years in a row do for recruiting?

I like the way you think but after seeing our defense against Cal I am afraid Oregon might put up 100 against us. Going on the road and beating number 2 would be a watershed moment and I am sure skyrocket our future classes. Also if we light up the scoreboard I am sure we will have no issues attracting a wide array of quality skill guys. Hopefully our defense can inspire a few kids to say they want to be a wildcat

49,

We'll put some points on the board against the Ducks because we do have a really nice group of offensive skill players. But in reality the Ducks are not going to have much trouble with us.

I can see them going on a second half roll and winning by two TD's pretty easily actually. If Mariota and the Ducks passing game are on fire and hitting big plays I can see them winning by 21 with the game in hand most of the way.

I wouldn't use the word inspiring and our defense. If anything it may show just how far we still have to go to match ORE talent for talent.

Anyway, I love my Cats win or lose!

I watched that Cal game several times and we we r loading the box and we still couldn't get off the blocks. Right now Oregon ' s OLINE is a mess, so that should help.

I just worry that we won't get many stops and we might start slow on offense and be 3 touchdowns down by the end of the first quarter.

I think defensively we are very far behind. In games like Cal and probably tomorrow, we need a defense that can keep us in it until we get the offense rolling.

Bump. Scooby is just 2 star garbage.

wyo-cat wrote:Bump. Scooby is just 2 star garbage.

Yep, can't play.

azcat49 wrote:

3goggles wrote:

azcat49 wrote:I only see 4 2 star recruits according to rivals. I will say last years class was very exciting and I was hoping that this years class would be about the same. Unfortunately it seems thatthis is not the case with this years class. Seems very pedestrian

What do you think beating Oregon 2 years in a row do for recruiting?

I like the way you think but after seeing our defense against Cal I am afraid Oregon might put up 100 against us. Going on the road and beating number 2 would be a watershed moment and I am sure skyrocket our future classes. Also if we light up the scoreboard I am sure we will have no issues attracting a wide array of quality skill guys. Hopefully our defense can inspire a few kids to say they want to be a wildcat

Azcat49 well let's see how this effects this years class! Beardown brobeans!

Scooby was such a key to RR and Casteel's plan that...

On Monday, RichRod and UA defensive coordinator Jeff Casteel chartered a private jet, flying to Santa Rosa so they could take Wright to breakfast.

Just to make sure, right?

Two weeks earlier, Casteel had flown commercially to reconfirm with Wright, a few days after Wright's official visit to Arizona. That's how careful this business can be. Wright initially pledged to play for Arizona in June. He then visited Tucson, with his family, in mid-summer.

According to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, RichRod's recruiting approach was so thorough that when Wright arrived at McKale Center on June 18, the entire football staff, 10 coaches, greeted him at the door.

Scooby was the focus for Casteel and RR - he's making them look like geniuses. I remember hearing his name called at the NAU game last year and wondering who the heck he was.

Pop McKale wrote:

dmjcat wrote:
Granted, the UA has signed more recruits (and recruiting isn't over). The fact that the UA leads the conference in 2 star recruits, however, isn't a good sign. Even worse, schools such as WSU (currently a bottom feeder) are recruiting our pants off (1 two star, 4 four stars). We can rationalise about recruiting OKG's all day long, the bottom line is our recruiting is heading in the wrong direction..........which by the way is exactly what happened to Stoops.

Stoops' recruiting fell off after the Vegas Bowl win because he stopped doing it. Nothing "happened" to him. He thought he'd done enough to let the Arizona name sell itself.

Contrasting the current staff with the previous one is laughable. You can look at the current class one of two ways:

1) We're aiming low, offering and taking commitments from whoever we can early on because we know we're just going to be exercising what amounts to a rummage sale if we wait.

Or...

2) This staff is excellent at talent evaluation and gets in on many kids before lots of other higher profile programs have or before the services have done their due diligence to rank them realistically.

Or maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle as is often the case. Either way, I've been pretty happy with how this staff has upgraded our roster in 2 short years and think it will only get better. Time will tell.

Guys like McKenzie, Patterson, Hale and Tabor aren't historically Arizona recruits, but it's becoming more routine now. Why? I tend to be optimistic and think eventually a few of these superstars "who got away" are going to start sticking around Lowell-Stevens as Wildcats.

Pop! Good to see you on here!

I tend to thing #2 is closer to the truth. These coaches do a ton of evaluation and offer guys they like early; often other programs follow suit after UA has done the leg work for them.

Tonight's win will go a ways towards getting this highly touted recruits to stick around.

3goggles wrote:What do you think beating Oregon 2 years in a row do for recruiting?

You're a friggin prophet man! Got any ideas on the 9th race at Turf Paradise tomorrow?

Gladiator Cat wrote:We'll put some points on the board against the Ducks because we do have a really nice group of offensive skill players. But in reality the Ducks are not going to have much trouble with us.

I think Oregon had some actual trouble with UA tonight ...

azcat49 wrote:I watched that Cal game several times and we we r loading the box and we still couldn't get off the blocks. Right now Oregon ' s OLINE is a mess, so that should help.

I just worry that we won't get many stops and we might start slow on offense and be 3 touchdowns down by the end of the first quarter.

I think defensively we are very far behind. In games like Cal and probably tomorrow, we need a defense that can keep us in it until we get the offense rolling.

Cal's lines were massive on both sides of the ball. Cal is not the joke they were last year.

AZCatGirl wrote:

Now that's what I'm talking about CSM!

Ooops! Well, I have crow to eat after that game last night. Gladly scooping it up! 5-0. One win from bowl-eligibility. My earlier 6 win prediction is likely fodder! Sweet!

Reydituto wrote:I tend to thing #2 is closer to the truth. These coaches do a ton of evaluation and offer guys they like early; often other programs follow suit after UA has done the leg work for them.

They are after a lot of speed demons and it's looking like they know what they're doing evaluating guys. Arizona gets harder to handle as the game goes on. You're still trying to cover them and trying to run with their defense and they don't tire out.

Good to see you back on the multi-quote game, man. I was starting to think you'd lost your touch on that

Didn't look everywhere. Not sure already posted.

Study posted yesterday on FBS teams comparing expected recruiting talent vs. on-field results 2009-2013. Study compared:

Compared how teams recruited to where they ended up in computer polls at the end of each of the last five seasons. To measure on-field success, we used Kenneth Massey's ranking composite. Massey is a statistician whose work contributed to the BCS computer rankings; his composite index averages dozens of rankings including the six computers used in the BCS, the AP poll, and the USA Today coaches' poll.

Rivals rankings were used to measure recruiting. For each season, we used an average of the five previous recruiting classes. Even though upperclassmen generally contribute more than underclassmen, we avoided weighted averages because upperclassmen also transfer schools, declare for the NFL draft early, and have career-ending injuries.

If I interpreted correctly, stating Arizona on-field performance ranking equaled their Rivals recruiting class rankings. Little discrepancy between the two across the whole 5 years avg (I think).

Just one study. Not clear if it's factoring in transfers or contributing walk-ons. These obviously factor heavy with Arizona. Just in case others want to look at it...

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-wh ... 1640831522