Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Nah, we'll be back Author: Joe Friday [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10:58:14 11/23/25 Sun In reply to: Go Green 's message, "Nah, we'll be back" on 18:01:07 11/22/25 Sat To the program’s credit, Dartmouth recruiting has been more professionalized/more resources dedicated for sure, and all of the IL programs are now landing guys they wouldn’t have gotten just a few years ago due mostly to the portal/roster management, but otherwise it’s TBD just as it always has been - an educated projection/guess based on physical measurables, game film and character assessment. I recall clearly on how some saw the D ‘21 first year guys - the Covid class - as being a weak recruiting class. Those guys all have three rings - two of which were earned as juniors and seniors - many legit contributors. The football graveyard is littered with the headstones of guys who were “highly touted” who began to believe their own hype and then don’t execute in the moment. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Subject: Fair enough, but... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:48:33 11/23/25 Sun It's easier to win with guys who were highly touted than with guys nobody else wanted. That's a big reason why Dartmouth was so lousy in the late 1990s to 2009. In those days, we were thrilled to get a recruit who also had an offer from (say) Army. Now, we pretty much expect that our recruits had multiple offers from competitive school teams.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Fair enough, but... Author: Joe Friday [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:26:06 11/23/25 Sun “It's easier to win with guys who were highly touted than with guys nobody else wanted.” Yes - maybe- assuming they’re not overrated…I want it to be that simple too, but you of all people know that a lot of guys just don’t fill those shoes when they actually step on the field and face D1 speed and execution, and, a lot of guys are underrated and therefore not highly recruited but nevertheless kill it when they get their opportunity- outshining the (maybe) three stars who were supposed to be the guy - hunger combined with a chip on the shoulder does that. Those Dartmouth no-star ‘21s are a legit example.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Fair enough, but... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 05:43:48 11/25/25 Tue That freshman RB Craddock who got more yards than Crowther against Brown? He had an offer from BC. And he's got classmates with comparable credentials.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Fair enough, but... Author: Joe Friday [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:41:47 11/25/25 Tue Time will tell, but yes it was great to see Craddock begin to step into the featured back role.