... as well as his ability to develope players. As I look at the list of our committments, I notice one thing; size and speed. I'm guessing if you have those two and a good coach the rest will work itself out.
Now I havent seen any of these players play, just has many of you havent. I do notice that Shula seems to be going after a different type of player than other schools. My theory to this is stated above. I think the theory makes sense, though I'm not saying this theory is the truth.
Which would be easier to do in your mind though? Have a talented CB that is 5'8 and try to teach him to play tall? or have a 6'2 CB with speed and try to teach him technique? It seems all of our OL run under a 5.0 in the 40, which is fast for big men. Which is easier? To teach a big, slow, fat *you know what* lineman to play athletic, while wondering if he will make weight? or to put size on a small, athletic OL? The only position where it seems we are recruiting BIG bodies is DT, which makes perfect sense.
So basically he is basing his recruiting on size/speed rather than "potential" (again this is only my theory). If a CB or WR is under 6'... if a OL is over weight... if a LB is too slow....then he wont waste his time. Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rules, this is just a general observation.
Now that I have explained my theory, will it work? Well, judging from the improvements/performances of Ramzee Robinson, Keith Brown, D.J. Hall, Wallace Gilberry, Simeon Castille, Antoine Caldwell (Before his injury), Roman Harper (HUGE improvement from last year), and Matt Caddell (among others); I think this method of recruiting will work out just fine.
Now I havent seen any of these players play, just has many of you havent. I do notice that Shula seems to be going after a different type of player than other schools. My theory to this is stated above. I think the theory makes sense, though I'm not saying this theory is the truth.
Which would be easier to do in your mind though? Have a talented CB that is 5'8 and try to teach him to play tall? or have a 6'2 CB with speed and try to teach him technique? It seems all of our OL run under a 5.0 in the 40, which is fast for big men. Which is easier? To teach a big, slow, fat *you know what* lineman to play athletic, while wondering if he will make weight? or to put size on a small, athletic OL? The only position where it seems we are recruiting BIG bodies is DT, which makes perfect sense.
So basically he is basing his recruiting on size/speed rather than "potential" (again this is only my theory). If a CB or WR is under 6'... if a OL is over weight... if a LB is too slow....then he wont waste his time. Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rules, this is just a general observation.
Now that I have explained my theory, will it work? Well, judging from the improvements/performances of Ramzee Robinson, Keith Brown, D.J. Hall, Wallace Gilberry, Simeon Castille, Antoine Caldwell (Before his injury), Roman Harper (HUGE improvement from last year), and Matt Caddell (among others); I think this method of recruiting will work out just fine.