Serious RB recruiting opinions? (Long, sorry)

I started following recruiting heavily in 2008. We had James Davis then the great Spiller joined. I remember the enthusiasm for the 5* Silver Tuna Harper but he under performed mostly. The next RB was Ellington but what most didn't realize was Ellington was and still is a stud. Andre never got the respect at Clemson he deserved following Spiller, IMHO. Then McDowell was serviceable, talented but small.

Moving forward we picked up the little guy that was dismissed. Then 3* Gallman, very underrated, one of the hardest guys ever to tackle, not easily tackled by one guy. We get several good 4* players like Choice, Fuller, etc.

But then we pull in 5* Feaster that is supposed to be a great runner and ball catcher. Unfortunately I think his injury hampered his freshman season and really waiting to see these great hands he is supposed to have. Then we get another really good 4* that nobody saw coming and being this good.

All of this to say, we continue to miss on the high rated RB's that are pretty much given NFL caliber like Gurley, Marshall, White, Ford, etc., etc. (I know I'm missing names that are obvious).

Seems like our RB recruiting kind of mimics our OL recruiting. Get a highly ranked one every few yrs but basically get a solid guy annually that gets developed over the next couple seasons. But you see schools with 1-2 highly ranked RBs recruited annually like Bama, UGA, LSU, FSU, Mich St, and Wisc.

I would think a good RB would love our environment and opportunities especially if he could play for an offense to showcase his hands as we as running?

Why have we struggled to recruit headliner RBs? Yes, our staff has done a great job developing great players and finding those underrated 3-4* RBs. It's just never a given that we will get those Silver Tuna players even when they seem to be a lock. I really thought we had Zamir last year.

TheTiger012

Trainer [30]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 42

Joined: 12/7/15

I get what you're saying

Jul 30, 2018, 12:20 AM

but it's not the same as our OL recruit woes.

For starters, recruiting on the offensive line is (a) harder to evaluate and (b) requires significantly larger numbers than RBs. We can pull in one RB per class, maybe two every once in a while and be fine. You have to have a constant stream of offensive lineman going through, anywhere from two to five per cycle usually. That makes evaluating and focusing efforts just a total different game. The approach to offers, visits, and the standard for an offer is different.

Tony Elliot serves as RB coach and he decides who gets offered and oversees RB recruiting in general. It is known widely that coach Elliot is very, very selective of who he decides to offer a scholarship here. Even with a class of 25-30 players with the definite need of one RB and maybe the chance of two, but only four players offered. Compare that to Georgia offering 14 RBs in this class so far, or 21 in last class when we offered nine. That's also not mentioning the fact that the system they operate in is very RB friendly. With the chance of two primary backs and one or two secondary backs getting the snaps and a history of producing NFL RBs, it's not exactly surprising to see them succeed. Our offense isn't based around the run. Before last season, in Wayne Gallman's last two seasons starting there wasn't another RB with more than 50 touches and in his first season there was only one. Compare that to 2017 Georgia with five RBs taking 50+ rushes. In fact, the last time Georgia had less than three players with 50+ rushes was 2008. That's a whole decade of not only running often, but running multiple backs.

Think of it the same way as us with our WRs. We naturally attract WRs because we put them in the NFL and turn them into good players. The history speaks for itself and you can be sure that the recruits are listening.

To measure our offensive production by run and pass, I subtracted our passing offense ranking from our rushing offense ranking (Pass Off - Rush Off). A positive ranking means a superior rushing attack and a negative number means a superior passing attack. The magnitude of a ranking indicates how severe the discrepancy between the two.

2017: +38
2016: -67
2015: -11
2014: -44
2013: -49
2012: -20
2011: -35

You'll notice that all but one season has been a pass heavy offense. The combination of multiple running backs and Kelly Bryant's ability to run as well as his more limited ability to pass meant that for the first time since our 2011 breakout season we had a run-oriented offense. 2015 was only +11, which is very balanced, but the offense as a whole ranked #6 nationally and was absolutely dominating -- Gallman and Watson's best rushing year.

It's just hard to attract all of the top backs away from places like Alabama and Georgia because their history and system are just better for those players. We have four scholarship running backs on the roster this season and every single one of them is a 4*. That is #### good and extremely impressive. You'll notice similar situations at places like Oklahoma and Auburn. It's not like we're doing something wrong, we just don't necessarily always attract the "best of the best" guys. And that's fine. Our system doesn't run off of a stable of extremely talented backs giving teams a heavy dose of runs. We won't be that type of team any time soon either, but as long as we keep getting the guys we want we'll be fine.

I'm personally a little irked by the statement "Seems like our RB recruiting kind of mimics our OL recruiting". It's just wrong in every way. "Get a highly ranked one every few yrs but basically get a solid guy annually that gets developed over the next couple seasons". Just, no.

Since the 2010 class, we've either not taken a RB or had a blue chip player. Every season. That's impressive. That's consistent. No, we haven't gotten the top 10 guy or whatever, but we get the players. We have talented players and we have them deep.

Compared to our offensive line, it's not even close. Again, they are just different in almost every way, but still. We don't consistently get blue chip talent on the OL and we certainly don't have talent deep. We develop decently well, but the lack of true talent across the line is screaming at you when you see regular breakdowns.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up