Based on the commitments to-date, those are the remaining areas of immediate need, IMHO, because of pass-happy PAC-12, departures of Williams, Anthony, Anderson and Sofeli and injuries to Lasco and Bigelow.

Your thoughts?

I'd like to see us get two of them. If we could flip a guy like Arnold or Foreman (though that's not looking super likely right now) plus land another from the uncommitted guys, that would be ideal.

From the uncommitted recruits, if we get 2 of Enewally, Moore, or Price, I'd call that success.

If we get one of those guys or some random backup option, that's less ideal but at least it's depth.

If we get nobody, that's not so good.

I would be ecstatic with getting Newby and any 2 of Moore, Enewally, and Price.

Newby is going to be hard to flip, but you never know. I think we are still on him.

We get whom we get and be happy we have a damn decent class.

SonOfCalVa;842070967 said:

---

We get whom we get and be happy we have a damn decent class.

---

What's the point of even following this stuff if you're just going to be unthinkingly, unwaveringly satisfied no matter the outcome?

All I'm saying is that looking at our roster, we have holes to fill, and it'd be nice to see those needs addressed. If we don't, it's not the end of the world, but it's less good than if we had gotten some of our targets.

atoms;842071006 said:

---

What's the point of even following this stuff if you're just going to be unthinkingly, unwaveringly satisfied no matter the outcome?

All I'm saying is that looking at our roster, we have holes to fill, and it'd be nice to see those needs addressed. If we don't, it's not the end of the world, but it's less good than if we had gotten some of our targets.

---

As I (and others) cannot affect the outcome, I don't worry about it.

Sonny's team is doing a pretty decent job recruiting.
It would be good if the next recruits fill needs but, even so, quite a few here will :cry: if the recruits aren't rated 4* or 5*.

SonOfCalVa;842071079 said:

---

As I (and others) cannot affect the outcome, I don't worry about it.

Sonny's team is doing a pretty decent job recruiting.
It would be good if the next recruits fill needs but, even so, quite a few here will :cry: if the recruits aren't rated 4* or 5*.

---

Another stars don't matter argument? LOL

Dykes did an OK job all things considered, but this class still lacks well behind many pac 12 schools.

SonOfCalVa;842071079 said:

---

As I (and others) cannot affect the outcome, I don't worry about it.

Sonny's team is doing a pretty decent job recruiting.
It would be good if the next recruits fill needs but, even so, quite a few here will :cry: if the recruits aren't rated 4* or 5*.

---

I agree with all that, but that doesn't have a lot to do with the point of the thread. Obviously none of us have any impact on the outcome, but we're here talking about it anyway.

SonOfCalVa;842071079 said:

---

As I (and others) cannot affect the outcome, I don't worry about it.

Sonny's team is doing a pretty decent job recruiting.
It would be good if the next recruits fill needs but, even so, quite a few here will :cry: if the recruits aren't rated 4* or 5*.

---

you can't affect the outcome of games either, so do you never worry about our season either?

Tedford;842071083 said:

---

Another stars don't matter argument? LOL

Dykes did an OK job all things considered, but this class still lacks well behind many pac 12 schools.

---

exactly. Stars do indeed matter unless you are being coached by Lame Kiffin.

Tedford;842071083 said:

---

Another stars don't matter argument? LOL

Dykes did an OK job all things considered, but this class still lacks well behind many pac 12 schools.

---

Wrong. Rivals has Cal as the 4th Pac 12 school, ESPN 5th, and Scout 4th. The lowest national ranking from any of those sites is 28th from ESPN. The new staff has done a very good job considering that they are representing a team that went 3-9 last year and that (in most cases) they didn't have the benefit of having prior relationships with these kids.

Personally I feel that teams like Boise State, Iowa, and TCU have proven that stars are overrated. Hell, even San Jose State finished in the top 25 this year and I would bet they have never been rated as having one of the top 60 classes.

SonofBlue;842071108 said:

---

Wrong. Rivals has Cal as the 4th Pac 12 school, ESPN 5th, and Scout 4th. The lowest national ranking from any of those sites is 28th from ESPN. The new staff has done a very good job considering that they are representing a team that went 3-9 last year and that (in most cases) they didn't have the benefit of having prior relationships with these kids.

Personally I feel that teams like Boise State, Iowa, and TCU have proven that stars are overrated. Hell, even San Jose State finished in the top 25 this year and I would bet they have never been rated as having one of the top 60 classes.

---

they also don't play in the Pac-12. i guess if all you want is to be top-25, then yeah, just get underrated 2-3* kids and coach them up. you want to be BCS bowl competitive you're going to need some bigtime guys.

please dont say "Stanfurd did it w/ only 3-stars!", that's a lie.

SonofBlue;842071108 said:

---

Wrong. Rivals has Cal as the 4th Pac 12 school, ESPN 5th, and Scout 4th. The lowest national ranking from any of those sites is 28th from ESPN. The new staff has done a very good job considering that they are representing a team that went 3-9 last year and that (in most cases) they didn't have the benefit of having prior relationships with these kids.

Personally I feel that teams like Boise State, Iowa, and TCU have proven that stars are overrated. Hell, even San Jose State finished in the top 25 this year and I would bet they have never been rated as having one of the top 60 classes.

---

Actually, you're wrong. Quantity=/=Quality. On Scout Cal's avg star rating is ahead of only Colorado, Utah and Wash. St.

On Rivals Cal's avg rating is behind Stanford, UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington. Middle of the pack.

Those schools don't compete in the pac 12, they prove nothing. You think SJSU finishes top 25 in this conference? Not a chance.

Iowa is a Big 10 team, which is also a major conference. Vanderbilt and OSU also finished ranked and they similarly arent known for vaunted recruiting classes.

SonofBlue;842071123 said:

---

Iowa is a Big 10 team, which is also a major conference. Vanderbilt and OSU also finished ranked and they similarly arent known for vaunted recruiting classes.

---

So the goal is to finish ranked?

You have low standards.

The amazing thing about this fan base is that it seems the majority will always choose to look at things in the most negative way possible. We get a top 25 recruiting class? Oh the average star rating isn't high enough. I swear, we could be in the middle of a perfect season and people on this board would still be whining about half of whats going on.

SonofBlue;842071128 said:

---

The amazing thing about this fan base is that it seems the majority will always choose to look at things in the most negative way possible. We get a top 25 recruiting class? Oh the average star rating isn't high enough. I swear, we could be in the middle of a perfect season and people on this board would still be whining about half of whats going on.

---

Yup

Tedford;842071126 said:

---

So the goal is to finish ranked?

You have low standards.

---

It would represent progress. You guys act like Cal is a football powerhouse. That we should expect 5 stars to falls over themselves in their rush to get here and that we should be disappointed in anything less than a Rose Bowl. Finishing ranked represents status. It shows that a team is getting recognition and has had a fairly good season. Being able to walk into a recruit's house and tell them that your team has been ranked for years in a row is a pretty good way to convince them that you win. For a team that went 3-9 last year I would think finishing ranked would be an achievement. The goal is obviously a Rose Bowl but if you finish ranked the season is not a complete failure.

SonofBlue;842071128 said:

---

The amazing thing about this fan base is that it seems the majority will always choose to look at things in the most negative way possible. We get a top 25 recruiting class? Oh the average star rating isn't high enough. I swear, we could be in the middle of a perfect season and people on this board would still be whining about half of whats going on.

---

please. you really think this year's recruiting class, top to bottom, is currently as talented as classes of the past few years???

2013
#23
avg: 3.04
total: 28 players

2012
#23
avg: 3.26
total: 19 players

2011
#17
avg: 3.45
total: 22 players

2010
#11
avg: 3.58
total: 19 players

and btw, in 2010 we took 19 players to earn #11 in the nation, while we currently have 28 commits to achieve only #23. sure, you can make the argument that the 2013 class might have some Alex Macks, or that 4-5*'s may be busts, but that's besides the point. on paper, as it is now, i would most definitely choose to have classes of years past.

it's not complaining, it's pointing out the reality of what we've had to deal with following a 3-9 season and a coaching change. not talking about it, or "complaining" about it, doesn't make it any less true.

If we continue to get 13 offensive and defensive linemen per year, we will become a very good program

Where did I say this was as strong as years past? I thought I made it clear that I strongly believe that having a class even this strong is an accomplishment for Dykes and co. I just disagreed that Cal "lacks way behind many of the pac-12 schools". Those vaunted classes you cited are part of this last year's team and it resulted in the worst season since Holmoe was coaching.

SonofBlue;842071136 said:

---

Where did I say this was as strong as years past? I thought I made it clear that I strongly believe that having a class even this strong is an accomplishment for Dykes and co. I just disagreed that Cal "lacks way behind many of the pac-12 schools".

---

well it is certainly behind U$C and UCLA. and arguably behind UW. and that's not saying that the UW commits would be good for Cal, fit-wise [academic, attitude], but they've done a better job recruiting than we have. (understandably so given the obstacles we've faced)

SonofBlue;842071136 said:

---

Those vaunted classes you cited are part of this last year's team and it resulted in the worst season since Holmoe was coaching.

---

yes, coaching. our coaching staff was just fired. don't tell me the talented players resulted in our 3-9 season, the blame goes to the coaches. and hindsight's always 20/20. don't look retrospectively and say, they didn't pan out and they were 4/5-stars. on paper, i much rather take those classes.

SonofBlue;842071133 said:

---

It would represent progress. You guys act like Cal is a football powerhouse. That we should expect 5 stars to falls over themselves in their rush to get here and that we should be disappointed in anything less than a Rose Bowl. Finishing ranked represents status. It shows that a team is getting recognition and has had a fairly good season. Being able to walk into a recruit's house and tell them that your team has been ranked for years in a row is a pretty good way to convince them that you win. For a team that went 3-9 last year I would think finishing ranked would be an achievement. The goal is obviously a Rose Bowl but if you finish ranked the season is not a complete failure.

---

How many teams in major conferences consistently finish ranked with a majority of only 2 and 3 star players?

Cal has 2 4 stars on scout, and one of them(hunt) probably won't even be a Bear on signing day. They have 4 on rivals which is better but again Hunt probably won't be here.

Stars matter. I'm not asking for all 5 stars, but to have so little top notch talent in this recruiting class is discouraging. We're back to hoping for gems and using reasoning like Alex Mack and Mikey M were 2 stars, while ignoring the dozens and dozens of guys who failed.

SonofBlue;842071133 said:

---

It would represent progress. You guys act like Cal is a football powerhouse. That we should expect 5 stars to falls over themselves in their rush to get here and that we should be disappointed in anything less than a Rose Bowl. Finishing ranked represents status. It shows that a team is getting recognition and has had a fairly good season. Being able to walk into a recruit's house and tell them that your team has been ranked for years in a row is a pretty good way to convince them that you win. For a team that went 3-9 last year I would think finishing ranked would be an achievement. The goal is obviously a Rose Bowl but if you finish ranked the season is not a complete failure.

---

i don't expect 5-stars, but i certainly expect top-25 recruiting classes every year, not because our recent play has DESERVED that, but simply because of what Cal offers. it's gross how great Cal has it in many ways, downright disgusting. Buh said it best, "Cal recruits itself", you shouldn't have to put up 8-9 wins every year to be recruiting very well at Cal.

Stars can be so overated.One only has to look at Chip and other good coaches that don't get all 4 and 5 stars and still coach them up. More evidence that" you know who " did so much less with more.

Tedford;842071140 said:

---

How many teams in major conferences consistently finish ranked with a majority of only 2 and 3 star players?

Cal has 2 4 stars on scout, and one of them(hunt) probably won't even be a Bear on signing day. They have 4 on rivals which is better but again Hunt probably won't be here.

Stars matter. I'm not asking for all 5 stars, but to have so little top notch talent in this recruiting class is discouraging. We're back to hoping for gems and using reasoning like Alex Mack and Mikey M were 2 stars, while ignoring the dozens and dozens of guys who failed.

---

vice versa .....

hunt wont be here ? if hunt chooses to play for a another school that is his choice ... do you think a program lives and dies on stars of recruits ? so many factors come into play ... id rather have 3 star with no head case issues because he is not a 5 star jordan payton type and people drool all over them...... coach up the 3 star show me heart compete and graduate ... that other shh is a pipe dream ill pass

davetdds;842071145 said:

---

Stars can be so overated.One only has to look at Chip and other good coaches that don't get all 4 and 5 stars and still coach them up. More evidence that" you know who " did so much less with more.

---

oh my god, please stop with the Oregon (and Stanfurd) example.

first off, Oregon does not recruit nearly as well as a team with its national recognition and performances would suggest. they have recruited especially average on their lines, until recently.

second, Oregon's star players are almost all highly rated guys. LMJ, Blount, all 4-star guys. Cliff Harris (regardless of attitude issues), 4-star. Lyerla, 5-star. DAT, 5-star. Darren Thomas, 4-star. Asper, 4-star. Will Tukuafu, 4-star.

going4roses;842071153 said:

---

vice versa .....

hunt wont be here ? if hunt chooses to play for a another school that is his choice ... do you think a program lives and dies on stars of recruits ? so many factors come into play ... id rather have 3 star with no head case issues because he is not a 5 star jordan payton type and people drool all over them......

---

i don't understand why this point always gets brought up. nobody said you had to recruit 5-stars with attitude issues. believe it or not, the two don't always go hand in hand. Stanfurd, for example, does just fine recruiting 4-stars w/o attitudes.

going4roses;842071153 said:

---

....
coach up the 3 star show me heart compete and graduate ... that other shh is a pipe dream ill pass

---

what a defeatist attitude. yeah, and finding 2-3* guys who end up in the League is soooo common.

"% of players drafted by star rankings:

★★ 5.1%
★★★ 8.2%
★★★★ 17.0%
★★★★★ 37.0%"

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showpost.php?p=842068942&postcount=1

going4roses;842071153 said:

---

vice versa .....

hunt wont be here ? if hunt chooses to play for a another school that is his choice ... do you think a program lives and dies on stars of recruits ? so many factors come into play ... id rather have 3 star with no head case issues because he is not a 5 star jordan payton type and people drool all over them...... coach up the 3 star show me heart compete and graduate ... that other shh is a pipe dream ill pass

---

Yeah, because all 5 stars are headcases like Jordan Payton..?

How about bringing in coachable 4 and 5 star players? You know, like Marshawn Lynch, Jahvid Best and Shane Vereen? Or Zack Follet, Desmond Bishop and Syd Thompson?

My coachable 4 and 5 stars will beat your coachable 3 stars.

beeasyed;842071155 said:

---

oh my god, please stop with the Oregon (and Stanfurd) example.

---

Oregon COACH-up player
Furd ROID-up player

beeasyed;842071085 said:

---

you can't affect the outcome of games either, so do you never worry about our season either?

---

Worry? Uh, no ... I save my worrying for things that I can affect and I try to alleviate the worry by working towards change.

Do I feel highs and lows based upon the performance of the team (not necessarily wins and losses)? Sure ... but in the context that this is college football and the team that I rather loyally follow.
But, worry is reserved for important things in life.

The OP was talking about recruiting needs and I agree with that we could use more depth at DB... RB depth now looks more critical, but I still think we in okay shape

beeasyed;842071134 said:

---

please. you really think this year's recruiting class, top to bottom, is currently as talented as classes of the past few years???

2013
#23
avg: 3.04
total: 28 players

2012
#23
avg: 3.26
total: 19 players

---

According to MoragaBear, who I consider to be a very reliable source, we only got 18 players in 2012 and two of them didn't make it ... a net of 16, which is why we have so many scholarships available this year.

Meanwhile, as we "speak," the Bears coaching staff are on the road doing in-home visits tonight to shore up the doubtful, the doubted, and the starstruck.

SonOfCalVa;842071171 said:

---

According to MoragaBear, who I consider to be a very reliable source, we only got 18 players in 2012 and two of them didn't make it ... a net of 16, which is why we have so many scholarships available this year.

---

what's your point? that would only raise our average stars since the guys who didn't make it were not highly ranked to begin with: Fletcher, Bennett, Ford

beeasyed;842071178 said:

---

what's your point? that would only raise our average stars since the guys who didn't make it were not highly ranked to begin with: Fletcher, Bennett, Ford

---

The point was a correction to a mistaken stat ... with no concern about the adjustment of "average stars" ... also to pass on info on scholarships available about which some have had questions .... simple