Orgeron Changes Recruiting Philosophy

The commitment of Shay Fields of St. John Bosco last night only further illustrates the point of my story today on how Ed Orgeron’s changed USC’s recruiting since he took over from Lane Kiffin.

“These commits might raise eyebrows, but it is apparently part of a strategy Orgeron used at USC under former coach Pete Carroll. Orgeron signed players like defensive tackles Mike Patterson and Kenechi Udeze, who were not initially considered big-time prospects but became successful players.”

Full story here

Share this post:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • Stu Azole

    but then Pete skipped out on these types and just took 5* guys, cheating along the way to get them. And then when that didn’t work, he split, leaving the university to clean up his mess!


      Will be funnier watching fucla piss themselves on gameday this saturday.

      • Trojan Hoarse

        It will be like the recent College GameDay in Washington where they were broadcasting the show in the dark at 6:00am…….with all of the people holding up their various signs, clamoring for attention and TV air time… I wonder what “creative” signs will be in store for us this Saturday?……..

        • Stu Azole

          “SC – our 38 are far worse than your 85”

          • Trojan Hoarse

            Troll on and Hate on………

        • Stu Azole

          “SC – at least we get cookies again”

          “SC – where talent goes to die”

          “SC – We’ll be even worse next year”

          “SC – Maybe Jim Mora will be OUR next HC”

          “SC – We don’t care if you graduate, just please give us a try”

          • Trojan Hoarse

            Azzhole singing to the USC blog – “Hopelessly devoted to yooooooouuu…..”…..

      • Stu Azole

        Yes, you are now AT THE BOTTOM! Hoping for a UCLA loss and not expecting an SC win. Rick was so right – the monopoly really is OVER (at UCLA NOW)!


          laugh it up chump. Enjoy your time ahead of USC (but still middle of the PAC). When USC has more than 30 SCHOLARSHIP PLAYERS it will be back to the norm.

          • Stu Azole

            which norm? The norm that covered 1980-2000, where SC was basically irrelevant but for one or two years? You act like Pete’s run was the norm when, in fact, it was nothing of the such. Remember ON!

          • snarfy

            The irony of your comment is that 1980-2000 were USC’s years in the desert, but we still had 3 Rose Bowl victories and 5 appearances.

            1980-2000 were UCLA’s glory years and you had 3 Rose Bowl victories and 5 appearances, same as USC.

          • Stu Azole

            years in the desert? Really? Other than Pete’s years, SC’s been average for decades. Continue to hold on to the idea that you’re special because you won games in the 70’s though – I’m sure that will come in handy somewhere.

          • snarfy

            Let me make the point even clearer for you – USC’s average years were equal to UCLA’s glory years.

            You’re so stupid it’s unbelievable. You try to argue USC was irrelevant for a certain period of time without realizing USC’s results during that period were equal to UCLA’s.

            You represent the worst of the internet.

          • Arturo

            Didn’t UCLA- a self called basketball school- only have 1 decade of basketball dominance? According to your logic, Carroll’s ten year run doesn’t count. So does that mean UCLA’s decade long run not count either?

          • Stu Azole

            You don’t see me talking about the Wooden era, do you? I didn’t see it, don’t remember it and don’t care about it. I live in TODAY!

          • Arturo

            much like UCLA BB has been irrelevant but for one or two years outside of Woodn’t?

          • Stu Azole

            again, I don’t really care about the past. That said, 3 final 4s in a row isn’t actually irrelevant. If you want irrelevant in BB though, you just have to look in your own backyard.

          • ThaiMex

            U Dumb FAWK…scotty just reported SCUm will have over 50 scholarship players dressed for this weeks game. LIES, lies, and more lies… can’t handle the truth that U knuckleheads just SUCk!
            fit UN torgans!

        • snarfy

          Yes, Rick was so right. The monopoly was definitely over, in the sense that UCLA would only lose another 4 straight games to USC before the tide started to turn.

  • Independent_George

    Orgeron was asked if he regretted Kiffin’s decision to
    [fill in blank with any Lane Kiffin decision]?

    “Yeah, but we should have had a better backup plan,” Orgeron said.

    That, my friends, sums up Lane Kiffin’s entire tenure at USC.

    • Ben Factor

      So, so true–I just don’t want to talk about it any more, and wish Wolf didn’t either.

  • well one thing about the Agin’ Cajun is he doesn’t over do it with excuses!!

    i think most of these guys went both ways in HS so a few games doing more duty should not be so big a deal.

    i mean, these kids are on the team to PLAY right?

    even the walk ons are still usually all-league of even all county caliber players, maybe not Div I hotshots, but still good athletes. up until the last few years, Oregon never even got any 4 star recruits much less 5 stars at every position like Lane has always had.

  • wolfman, another AWESOME video!!!

    Reid is getting stronger each week under your keen tutelage!!!

    still so EMBARRASSING you have to block comments due to the classless trOXans who would make offensive remarks about this fine young woman. sad really.

  • trojandude207

    Often times these 5* recruits are so full of themselves they are a waste of time. They are overrated because the of their school and weak opponents. A good coach should be able to teach an average player. We need more average players. I blame Kiffin (as I said I would for the rest of eternity)

    • Independent_George

      5* guys also leave early, don’t graduate . . .

      Paging Everson Griffin, Joe McKnight . . .

  • Goatboy Kiffin

    Fine if it works … the 2 times out 20

  • B.Miller

    Get guys that fit your system and scheme.. and depend on your coaching and technique..
    Stop worrying about what the internet ranks your players and worry about their ability in your system.

    • Ben Factor

      I think that Orgeron is making a virtue of necessity. According to several studies, the scouting service top 150 are the best targets, but only if your program can attract them. For the time being, USC cannot.

      • B.Miller

        I dont think rankings matter.. I think coaching and development is what counts.. you can turn a 2/3 star into a 4/5 star..
        Pete Carroll use to do it and CEO does it with his DL

        • Ben Factor

          Certainly, development counts. However, there has been statistical analyses of this subject, and the % of 5-stars who excel in college is materially higher than the % of 4-stars, which is materially higher than the % of 3-stars, etc. When the teams that rank high in recruiting (and that is by number of recruits with high “star” ratings) play teams that rank lower, the former win materially more often. Certainly, some 3-stars become great college players, but the best odds in recruiting are to sign the 5-star and 4-star players. As to Pete Carroll, he signed as many top guys as he could, and USC ranked very high in recruiting while he coached there.

          I do agree with you about finding the players who are suited to your system. But it’s much better to sign 5-stars who fit your system than to sign 3-stars who fit your system. Sometimes, you don’t have that option, and right now, USC does not have that option.

  • Arturo

    Patterson and Udeze played with chips on their shoulders. All of the PAC 12 is loaded with SoCal players so when they play SC, they play with chips on their shoulders. Good strategy (good examples of 3 stars contributing are Marcus Martin and J.R. Tavai- two solid players). Let the Chips fall where they may.

  • ProbationU

    It has been discussed several times. Recruiting a player based upon the number of stars is highly inaccurate. Oregon does a great job of recruiting players that fit their system.

    Also, you have to be able to evaluate talent and POTENTIAL. Some 5 stars have peaked. We are talking about high school kids, many of which have not fully developed physically. This is particularly true of linemen. Just look at how many of these guys go to smaller schools and end up in the NFL. It is a very inexact science. During the Kiffin era, he would often recruit 5 star skill players and have highly rated recruiting classes. I used to chuckle a bit because it looked like the cupboard was bare in the offensive line in particular. Neuheisel also did a poor job on the OL which is why we now have 3 true freshman having to start on the road in Eugene. Mora came in and recruited linemen but way too young as of yet.

    We will see what the new SC coach does but I would be surprised if he doesn’t start in the trenches.

    • Arturo

      Good points. I would only add that character counts – especially in football.

  • HeySucs

    Real SUC FB players don’t need no stinking edugation.

  • Arturo

    The recruiting services don’t tell the coaches who is hot or good, it’s the other way around.