Bears Add a Future Hometown Hero in 4 Star Richmond TE Jermaine Terry

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

irvinebear said:

---

This started like a good congratulatory commitment thread, but devolved... again. We really suck at commitment threads.

Can we get back to congratulating Jermaine on a great achievement?

---

Cal89 said:

---

Congratulations to Jermaine Terry, AND Cal!

So glad that we are going-back to more of a TE-focused offense; and we are clearly attracting and getting some of the best in the nation too.

I view stars as assigned by services as a measure of incoming talent level. Most often pretty raw talent, with upside being the lure. There is then development of that talent at the school of choice. Development results are easily measured broadly in wins and via other metrics, down to the individual level of course. We live and breathe such numbers on this forum. The resulting talent affords a select few to play professionally, and that too can and has been a gauge of interest also.

JT was quite impressive in delivering NFL-ready talent. I looked back in the day, over quite a few years, and the amount of talent pumped into the NFL from Cal rosters was not just impressive, but much more so in relation to the average star classes or incoming talent. The development and maximization of talent by him and his staff were noteworthy and clearly the best in D1. No team with Cal's level of recruiting was putting so many players in the NFL, year after year...

The HC is the single most important talent on the football team. It all starts there...

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

71Bear said:

---

It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff).
Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is so refreshing to have a staff that recruits CA instead of saying there aren't enough kids that meet our academic requirements

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is so refreshing to have a staff that recruits CA instead of saying there aren't enough kids that meet our academic requirements

---

There were plenty. The coaches were a bunch of idiots....

---

Cal's always recruited SoCal. it's the Bay Area where the last couple staffs have said there aren't enough high level athletes with strong academics to bring in many.

Let's hear who the "idiots," including Wilcox and staff for the past three years, have passed on who were strong students, high level athletes and good fits for the program.

Real easy to call people stupid. Not so easy to back up the assertion.

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

I see it this way: Tedford was a known entity as the OC for Oregon. However, in 2002 Tedford won 7 games mostly with the guys he inherited from a 1 win team. That created a lot of buzz. He added good JC players and solid underrated guys and won 8 games in 2003 including handing USC their only loss. That is when the recruiting really took off. The next year in 2004 he won 10 games.

The 2002 class had 3 guys with 4 stars

The 2003 class had 4 guys with 4 stars

The 2004 class had 6 guys with 4 stars

The 2005 class had 1 guy with 5 stars and 9 guys with 4 stars.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

. He added good JC players

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Are JC's as rich a source of talent as they used to be?

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

I see it this way: Tedford was a known entity as the OC for Oregon. However, in 2002 Tedford won 7 games mostly with the guys he inherited from a 1 win team. That created a lot of buzz. He added good JC players and solid underrated guys and won 8 games in 2003 including handing USC their only loss. That is when the recruiting really took off. The next year in 2004 he won 10 games.

The 2002 class had 3 guys with 4 stars

The 2003 class had 4 guys with 4 stars

The 2004 class had 6 guys with 4 stars

The 2005 class had 1 guy with 5 stars and 9 guys with 4 stars.

---

Out of curiosity, how many stars did Marshawn Lynch receive coming out of high school? Was he a 4-star athlete? (IIRC, the 5-star athlete was Desean Jackson; please correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Minor correction: Cal had 7 wins in both '02 and '03 but the SC win in '03 definitely helped '04 recruiting.

---

01Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

I see it this way: Tedford was a known entity as the OC for Oregon. However, in 2002 Tedford won 7 games mostly with the guys he inherited from a 1 win team. That created a lot of buzz. He added good JC players and solid underrated guys and won 8 games in 2003 including handing USC their only loss. That is when the recruiting really took off. The next year in 2004 he won 10 games.

The 2002 class had 3 guys with 4 stars

The 2003 class had 4 guys with 4 stars

The 2004 class had 6 guys with 4 stars

The 2005 class had 1 guy with 5 stars and 9 guys with 4 stars.

---

Out of curiosity, how many stars did Marshawn Lynch receive coming out of high school? Was he a 4-star athlete? (IIRC, the 5-star athlete was Desean Jackson; please correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

---

Marshawn was a high 4 star. One service had him as the second best running back in the country behind Adrian Peterson

---

Thanks for that OTB. That's kind of what I remembered, but I can't fathom how he wasn't ranked as a 5 star athlete. In any case, if Cal can get more Marshawn-esque student-athletes, that would be fantastic not just for the product on the field, but also because his uniqueness, drive, compassion, and intelligence are all part of what makes Cal the greatest university in the world.

---

burritos said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---

Tedford 2002 (late start)

Makkonen
McCleskey
Robertson
Mixon

I'll that foursome over any "new coach late start foursome" this century.

Tedford 2003 (first full year)

Arrington
Maningo
Giordano
Hughes
Rodgers
Stevens
Riddle
Mebane
Malele
DeCoud

I'll that top ten over any "new coach first full year top ten" this century.

In fact, I'll take those ten guys in the same class over any ten guys in the same class signed by any coach in any year since Tedford became coach.

To suggest Tedford started slow is ridiculous. 2003 was an amazing group of talent.

---

Well, you're moving the goalposts here. You said:

Quote:

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

No "late start" mulligans involved in a Day One statement.

Secondly, How many of those four you mentioned were Tedford recruits? I think only Makonnen was. You still have to hold on to them so points for that. But beyond that, I'd venture that there were hundreds of top fours from a coach's first recruiting class that were better to far better than that group. And to cherry pick the best four from a class of 18 that averaged a miserable 2.44 stars per player -you can't put lipstick on that pig. No big knock on Tedford. It's just another example of how it's tough to recruit strong classes from Day One.

As for the 2003 class, if you want to define recruiting effectively by looking at what kind of college players they were, fine. Then you have to reserve judgment on the last 2-3 of Wilcox's classes, too, because we're not there yet. But if you want to go by ratings, the 2003 class had a 2.92 to 3.0 star average. That's okay. Not sure it would normally be considered effective.

---

Tedford signed the guys. He gets credit for them. It is that simple (just like Dykes gets credit for Goff). Having said that, I did fail to clarify the "foursome" comment. It was in reference to only Cal coaches (i.e., Dykes/Wilcox). It is not a cherry pick because anyone is welcome to select the top four from Dykes' first class or Wilcox's first class and compare.

I define ALL by performance not stars. Absolutely, you cannot assess a class until at least three years after signing day. Having said that, Wilcox will be hard-pressed to match the '03 group. Quite frankly, I think that class will not be topped for many years. Of course, only time will tell if that statement holds up (I hope not, I would love to see this year's class better the results posted by the '03's).

---

I see it this way: Tedford was a known entity as the OC for Oregon. However, in 2002 Tedford won 7 games mostly with the guys he inherited from a 1 win team. That created a lot of buzz. He added good JC players and solid underrated guys and won 8 games in 2003 including handing USC their only loss. That is when the recruiting really took off. The next year in 2004 he won 10 games.

The 2002 class had 3 guys with 4 stars

The 2003 class had 4 guys with 4 stars

The 2004 class had 6 guys with 4 stars

The 2005 class had 1 guy with 5 stars and 9 guys with 4 stars.

---

Out of curiosity, how many stars did Marshawn Lynch receive coming out of high school? Was he a 4-star athlete? (IIRC, the 5-star athlete was Desean Jackson; please correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

---

Marshawn was a high 4 star. One service had him as the second best running back in the country behind Adrian Peterson

---

Thanks for that OTB. That's kind of what I remembered, but I can't fathom how he wasn't ranked as a 5 star athlete. In any case, if Cal can get more Marshawn-esque student-athletes, that would be fantastic not just for the product on the field, but also because his uniqueness, drive, compassion, and intelligence are all part of what makes Cal the greatest university in the world.

---

I'll be happy with a JJ Arrington like performance with a good line. Just don't fax the LOI too early.

---