Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
Ashley Schaeffer said:
C'mon, fellas. All a guy needs is an answer to this. Hell, I'll even take an opinion if that's all you got.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
2011 Griz Football Recruiting List
- Thread starter WaGriz4life
- Start date
C'mon, fellas. All a guy needs is an answer to this. Hell, I'll even take an opinion if that's all you got.
D#1GrizFan
Well-known member
Something I remember reading is that the next recruiting class, ie this years, wasn't going to be the greatest... please correct me if I am wrong though.
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
Lou said:
Hell, Lou, I was beginning to think nobody noticed this. Thank you for corroborating. What is the Gonzaga undefeated since 1942 team in your signature? Is that a youth deal?
HighLineGRIZ
Well-known member
I believe Payton's list is pulled from the recruiting websites. The websites typically don't do much pub on Montana athletes. Therefore, you won't see them on Payton's list. There are several Montana athletes that are getting looks that are not on the list above.
Lou
Well-known member
Ashley Schaeffer said:
Hey there Ash, hope you don't mind if I call you Ash......much quicker to type. Really reminds me of the greatest tennis player of all time, Arthur Ashe. Anywho, the signature signifies the fact that Gonzaga University used to have a football program, up until 1942. It was then dropped and never re-established so kind of a play on words if you will.........and i think you will.
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
Oh, I read you loud and clear now, Lou. Come to think of it, I've heard of the basketball team over there at Gonzaga before. And you can call me what you will, friend. Hell, my daddy called me Ash right up til the day his liver went.
HighlineGriz, thanks for your input, pard. I can see that maybe they wouldn't include some of those boys on the list. You gotta admit, though, that it doesn't seem that the coaches are goin' after a lot of Montana boys even right now. Hell, it might be because there ain't a lot of Montana boys that the coaches think are worth it right now.
HighlineGriz, thanks for your input, pard. I can see that maybe they wouldn't include some of those boys on the list. You gotta admit, though, that it doesn't seem that the coaches are goin' after a lot of Montana boys even right now. Hell, it might be because there ain't a lot of Montana boys that the coaches think are worth it right now.
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
HighLineGRIZ said:
HighLineGRIZ, if you don't mind saying, can you list some of the Montana boys getting looks who ain't on the list above? I've been doing a bit of research on this subject, and that's honestly what brought me to this address in the first place. It'd sure mean a lot, pard.
HighLineGRIZ said:
That is true... I try and only add kids that we can verify...
The best palyer I have seen in the state is the Bozeman Hawks QB/ATH Tanner Roderick...
Gotta believe that UM and MSU are hot on his trail
Gotta believe that UM and MSU are hot on his trail
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
Paytonlives said:
Now this is what I've been looking for right here. Now we got six out of 84, unverified. This is what has me in a kerfuffle: It looks like Montana has 33% or so Montana kids on the roster right now, and the coaches look to be goin' outta state for most of the boys for the future.
If a guy looks at the Eagle roster over at Eastern Washington, he'll see roughly 75% of those boys come from the home school's state of Washington. Yet, as I can gather, The Eagles over there have nowhere near the following of the Montana Grizzlies according to attendance figures.
Now, the logical deal is to point to the State of Washington's FBS programs as taking fans from the Eagles, whereas Montana ain't got that problem because it ain't got a FBS program.
This is where I get confused: the Cougars at Washington State have about 47% boys from Washington State, and The Huskies at Washington have about 46% boys from Washington State. Yet, both of these programs far outdraw the Eagles at Eastern Washington in terms of attendance and overall program support even though they ain't got near the number of homegrown boys on the roster. What's more, is the Cougars and Huskies are not particularly good programs.
If having hometown boys on the roster is such a big factor for support, why do the Cougars and Huskies outdraw the Eagles? All I'm saying is that it might have something to do with the fact that the Cougars and huskies play Division 1 ball, whereas the Eagles play a division down. In which case the percentage of Montana boys on the roster, which a lot of fellas have said was a major reason to stay in the lower division, wouldn't matter as much.
What do y'all think?
englishgriz
Well-known member
Ashley Schaeffer said:
One thing you gotta take into account is the extreme difference in population between Washington and MT: 6,664,195 to a little under a million for Montana. Therefore there are close to 7 times as many HS football players in WA, and most likely 7 times as many elite football players in WA. And I would venture to guess there are even more elite players in WA, just because of the dynamics of larger cities and the different opportunities and cultures that you have in those places in comparison to the more rural areas in MT.
EWU has a huge amount of players from Washington, because there are a lot of good football players from WA. They don't need to recruit from outside the state, because there are already alot of players that want to stay in the state and play D1 football. They can't all play for UW or WSU. Montana just doesn't have the huge population to have a huge crop of elite football players, so we have to recruit around. We actually get quite a few players from WA (23%). Its all about getting the best players for the team, and the state of Montana is just spread a bit thinner talent wise than a higher population state. And I dont mean to say there arent any good football players from Montana, just that higher density of population is going to be more likely to have a larger amount of good players.
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
englishgriz, that is an astute observation, but not really what the argument seems to be about. Sure, there are more boys, and a higher percentage of boys who can play the game in Washington State for many of the reasons you have cited.
But, the critical relationship is not between two states' relative propensity for producing football talent. Rather, it is the relationship between the percentage of homegrown players on Division 1 programs within a given state and the percentage of homegrown players on lower division teams within that state.
Here, I have cited two programs, that despite much lower percentages of homegrown players on their teams, still have a longstanding ability to outdraw a program with a much higher percentage of homegrown players on its team. The reason for the disparity is the inquiry. I venture it's because the former programs play Division 1 ball, and thus, captivate more fans than the latter despite the latter's higher percentage of homegrown players. Therefore, it would seem that a given team's percentage of homegrown players might matter less than some believe.
Now, it might be that the psychographics of an average Montana fan dictate a drop in interest with a drop in Montana players. Hell, I have guys who come into the dealership thinking the 6 Series is better than the 5 Series even though the 6 has an outdated design and doesn't meet many of their needs regarding family transport. I'll still sell 'em the 6, though, the customer always thinks he's right. And, yes, Ashley Schaeffer knows big words.
The fact of the matter is that, very nearby, bad programs with less home state players have many more fans. Hell, I think a guy might even be able to extrapolate the general maxim nationwide. I'll bet that Division 1 programs outdraw lower division programs across our country regardless of the percentage of players that come from that given state.
I hope this clears up my rationale, pard. I'm not interested in talent populations of a given state; only the relationship between the percentage of homegrown players playing for Division 1 programs within that state with that percentage playing for lower division programs, their respective fan bases, and the reason.
But, the critical relationship is not between two states' relative propensity for producing football talent. Rather, it is the relationship between the percentage of homegrown players on Division 1 programs within a given state and the percentage of homegrown players on lower division teams within that state.
Here, I have cited two programs, that despite much lower percentages of homegrown players on their teams, still have a longstanding ability to outdraw a program with a much higher percentage of homegrown players on its team. The reason for the disparity is the inquiry. I venture it's because the former programs play Division 1 ball, and thus, captivate more fans than the latter despite the latter's higher percentage of homegrown players. Therefore, it would seem that a given team's percentage of homegrown players might matter less than some believe.
Now, it might be that the psychographics of an average Montana fan dictate a drop in interest with a drop in Montana players. Hell, I have guys who come into the dealership thinking the 6 Series is better than the 5 Series even though the 6 has an outdated design and doesn't meet many of their needs regarding family transport. I'll still sell 'em the 6, though, the customer always thinks he's right. And, yes, Ashley Schaeffer knows big words.
The fact of the matter is that, very nearby, bad programs with less home state players have many more fans. Hell, I think a guy might even be able to extrapolate the general maxim nationwide. I'll bet that Division 1 programs outdraw lower division programs across our country regardless of the percentage of players that come from that given state.
I hope this clears up my rationale, pard. I'm not interested in talent populations of a given state; only the relationship between the percentage of homegrown players playing for Division 1 programs within that state with that percentage playing for lower division programs, their respective fan bases, and the reason.
loyalgriz
Well-known member
Before everyone freaks out, the coaches are after a lot of Montana kids this year. It's a great class. Montana kids do not get ranked on the Scout very much at all, because so few do the summer camps, etc. Some of them may end up getting ranked later down the road as the powers to be learn about them. Many on that list aren't really being recruited by UM anymore and there are many not on the list either.
loyalgriz said:
I am also hearing um is hitting Montana harder than the last few years. I'm sure Plu go a lot of flack after only having 3 in last years class.
here is the BN list of MT kids to watch, some commitments and discussion too.
http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=21746
Roderick is the jewel of the class, it sounds as if he is likely Boise bound though
Kodiak
Well-known member
Saw this kid last night:
Lamar Madkin (Mount Vernon) Mount Vernon, Washington 6'4" 240 4.8
He played DT and TE for Mount Vernon in a loss last night. He didn't fare too well at the point of attack as a DT but I could see him as a DE in college, probably not fast enough to play linebacker, which is what he played last year. He has the physical tools. He only had one catch on offense and it went 75 yards for a TD but that was against the opposing team's second team guys late in the game. Didn't overly impress me but does seem to have the physical tools to play at the next (FCS) level.
Lamar Madkin (Mount Vernon) Mount Vernon, Washington 6'4" 240 4.8
He played DT and TE for Mount Vernon in a loss last night. He didn't fare too well at the point of attack as a DT but I could see him as a DE in college, probably not fast enough to play linebacker, which is what he played last year. He has the physical tools. He only had one catch on offense and it went 75 yards for a TD but that was against the opposing team's second team guys late in the game. Didn't overly impress me but does seem to have the physical tools to play at the next (FCS) level.
Ashley Schaeffer
Well-known member
Cats2506 said:
Now, this I don't really understand all that much. Maybe the coach thought he'd put the best players he could on the team, and that's why there weren't more ol' Montana boys. I don't know how they do things around here yet, but where I'm from, a coach will get more flack for losing than having less local boys on the team. Hell, I know of a few coaches who got fired over losing.
