Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2014 Class Grade

I'll give it a passing grade. If most of these recruits can stick around the program for a full 4-5 years and play to their potential then it is good enough to compete against mid-tier Pac teams. MacIntyres comments on the Fan tonight indicated that's exactly what he wants - no more 2008 classes that come in with a bang and go out with a whimper.

This is not the strategy I'd prefer and the inability to win head-to-head Pac-12 recruiting battles is extremely frustrating. We're basically back to late Barnett-era recruiting. But that honestly doesn't seem so bad in retrospect given that those upperclassmen were the last to bring CU to a bowl game.
 
Here's your grade jay_sherman_it_stinks_xlarge1.jpeg

Kidding guys. All things considered I think CU recruited alright given expectations. Mac seems like the guy to bring y'all out of the basement, but it'll take a couple more seasons.

Heck, ASU in 2011 had their own 67th nationally ranked recruiting class (like 4 out of 5 top commits all flipped in last week before signing day) and Graham still turned a 10 win season with those guys 3 years later.
 
Last edited:
Yung Buffalo said:
I feel like some of you don't fully understand where this program was just 2 years ago. So I'll remind you. We won 1 game (and that game would have been a loss if Wazzu hadn't handed us the W in the last quarter). We were a national joke in college football. Now, if you were a high school kid, why in the world would you want to commit to a team like that? As far as I'm concerned, Coach MM coming in and winning 4 games was beyond my expectations. In my mind, this class is less a representation of our staff's recruiting ability, and more a product of winning only 5 games in 2 years. If any of you expected HCMM to come in and sign multiple 4 star kids in his first full year of recruiting, then you just simply aren't living in reality. Things are getting better, baby steps are being taken, and I feel bad for those of you who can't be happy about that. Patience people, transforming a football program doesn't happen overnight.

So, with reasonable expectations in mind, I give this class a B-.
Click to expand...

Good post. I would still go with C - C-, but a very good description of the CU situation.
 
Revised Grade

C+

Coach Mac filled a lot of needs. The team had to get better in the secondary and they did.

There might not be the 4 stars or 5 stars guys. But there are a lot of guys that will help the program get better.
 
Last edited:
We are so hilarious. When a kid commits we are all ":woot: :dance5: Welcome aboard!!!"

Then we grade the class and it's "D" or "C-". Sorry, but it makes me :why: .


:rofl2:
 
There's reall know way to know at this point. You know what they say about assumptions ... A year ago nobody would have guessed that Gilliam was going to be a freshman all-American. Stars don't always mean a whole lot in the short run or on individual players. In the long run or in groups, it's a different story. It's easier to build a program out of 20 four- and five-star players every year. But you can build a pretty good linebacker out of a two-star who was our of school for a semester before coming to CU.
Keeney, Watanabe and Hasselbach may turn into the kind of players Gilliam is, but we won't know for a year (or maybe two). In the meantime, we need to hope the staff can win some more games so they can win some of the battles for the four- and five-stars. You can't expect them to beat USC or even ASU head-to-head very often until we beat them on the field (or come a lot closer).
It's kind of a catch 22. Can't win recruiting battles until you win games, and can't win games until you consistently win recruiting battles. Until then, we have to hope the coaches can produce a lot more Gillams. If you're expecting the '80s or even early '90s level recruiting right away you're kidding yourself.
That being said ... B- (as long as I'm able to change the grade in a year or two when the grades actually come in).
 
Yung Buffalo said:
I feel like some of you don't fully understand where this program was just 2 years ago. So I'll remind you. We won 1 game (and that game would have been a loss if Wazzu hadn't handed us the W in the last quarter). We were a national joke in college football. Now, if you were a high school kid, why in the world would you want to commit to a team like that? As far as I'm concerned, Coach MM coming in and winning 4 games was beyond my expectations. In my mind, this class is less a representation of our staff's recruiting ability, and more a product of winning only 5 games in 2 years. If any of you expected HCMM to come in and sign multiple 4 star kids in his first full year of recruiting, then you just simply aren't living in reality. Things are getting better, baby steps are being taken, and I feel bad for those of you who can't be happy about that. Patience people, transforming a football program doesn't happen overnight.

So, with reasonable expectations in mind, I give this class a B-.
Click to expand...

Well put. This is an accurate reminder of times not so long ago. I think Fresno St just scored again BTW..... :cheers:
 
I find these discussions oddly entertaining. There will always be arguments on this board about recruiting. I get the sense that someone would be there to furiously defend a class full of 1* recruits and at the same time someone that would poo poo a class consisting of 24 5*s and 1 4*. "HCMM couldn't even close the class with one more 5*... worthless!"

One perspective that I haven't seen discussed may be the most important. What grade HCMM gives this class? Opinions are like assholes and HCMM's asshole is the only one that counts right now... assholes!

Does this class move the program along the plan he has to return CU to relevance and to championships? I feel pretty certain that no one on this forum knows for sure.

I get the sense that HCMM has a plan, one that will work at returning CU to where we all want them. I don't think I got that impression from the previous two coaching staffs. So did this class move him a little further down the road to relevance? Unless you are on the coaching staff, you probably can't honestly answer that question.

My asshole says B-/C+. While we lost some guys we really wanted, I get the impression that we nonetheless improved the team with these additions and HCMM improved relationships that should enhance our '15 recruiting capabilities.

I don't have the expectation that HCMM is supposed to out-recruit the UTs, Oregons and USCs of the world at this point of his tenure. I question those that come across as if they have that expectation because CU was good for a few years during this century.

Personally, I have a 7 course meal expectation from this rebuilding project, not a feed me at the fast food drive-thru one. I am quite prepared for building up to a spectacular main course vice opening up the wrapper and spilling mustard all over my lap.

Go Buffs :thumbsup:
 
Agree with OU. I think HCMM's plan is in work and there appear to be many members of this class who can be solid contributors as they develop in the program and hopefully a few playmakers as well (Keeny, Fields, Watanabe, I'm looking in your direction). The item that would increase the speed of this turnaround is a dynamic playmaker at RB, QB or WR. I was hopeful that Ballage might be that guy but it looks like we have an opportunity to get one (or more) of those with the 2015 class.
 
DBT said:
I think Duff finds me unworthy of posting in a recruiting forum since I'm obviously an idot.
Click to expand...

I just find it it funny that you admit you don't follow it much, but like to wade in to defend the coaching staff. Just as you have defended every coaching staff. It is what you do.
 
Duff Man said:
I just find it it funny that you admit you don't follow it much, but like to wade in to defend the coaching staff. Just as you have defended every coaching staff. It is what you do.
Click to expand...
Also, other idots post in here all the time. Amirite?
 
Duff Man said:
I just find it it funny that you admit you don't follow it much, but like to wade in to defend the coaching staff. Just as you have defended every coaching staff. It is what you do.
Click to expand...
I don't follow it much anymore. But I have followed and observed CU recruiting for over 30 years. So, after watching over 30 recruiting classes come and go and just being older, I try to keep it in perspective at a macro level. But yeah, I'm no expert on kids class to class. I don't study film and subscribe to recruiting sites so I can't really opine on individual recruits too much.

As as for defending coaching staffs, I try to give the benefit of a doubt. I was wrong about Hawkins publicly. But privately, I saw red flags almost from the start. I was never keen on Embry but did give him the benefit of a doubt. I was totally on board when he was let go. I liked GB. I liked Rick initially but began to get uncomfortable about him. Loved Mac. I quickly came to hate Fairbanks and was just becoming a fan in Mallory's last couple of years. So, I admit, my public stance on Hawkins was a mistake. Otherwise, I don't think I've been too off base in these 30 + years. And trust me, your perspective will change as you get older.
 
I gave the class a C- and then had a short post explaining my grade. I don't care if you disagree with my post, but you made a half-hearted attempt to call me out and are just in this thread to join the fray without really saying anything. Your summary of your feelings toward Hawkins pretty much says it all.
 
Duff Man said:
I gave the class a C- and then had a short post explaining my grade. I don't care if you disagree with my post, but you made a half-hearted attempt to call me out and are just in this thread to join the fray without really saying anything. Your summary of your feelings toward Hawkins pretty much says it all.
Click to expand...
Duff I really respect your knowledge of recruiting. I appreciate that you share it on this site. Is this a great class on the face of it? No. So your grade is in line with the "experts." Your baseline and mine are different. You base it on where we'd like to be. I base it on where we are. My problem with your grade was that you tend to go out of your way to play the contrarian.

It's just a difference in our personalities. Doesn't make you a bad guy. Doesn't make me an idot.
 
Last edited:
I graded it slightly below average and on a generous curve actually (above the experts).
 
DBT said:
Duff I really respect your knowledge of recruiting. I appreciate that you share it on this site. Is this a great class on the face of it? No. So your grade is in line with the "experts." Your baseline and mine are different. You base it on where we'd like to be. I base it on where we are. My problem with your grade was that you tend to go out of your way to play the contrarian.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be a surprise, it's a message board. Contrary opinions are make discussion and keep a board going. If everybody agreed all the time why would we bother.

There are a number of posters on this site who tend to throw stuff out that seems to be there more for a reaction than to inform. There are others who tend to be contrary in their thinking but may have some supporting arguments to back them up. Again just because a position is supported by somebody else's opinion on another website doesnt' make it right either but it does add to the discussion.

I disagree with Duff on certain things but I do respect his opinions. It is clear that he puts time and effort into formulating them and isn't just throwing crap against the wall.

Rating recruiting classes will always end up a personal measure. If a person wants and thinks we should be recruiting at a national championship level then a class like we got this year would be no better than a D-. How many of the kids we signed would likely ever see the 2-deep at Bama, LSU, FSU, USC, tOSU, etc.

On the other hand if the intent is to be better than we have been recently and beat the other local (non-B5) conferences we certainly are much better than CSU, Wyo, AFA, etc. The grade then comes out as at worst an A- since those schools would gladly take virtually everyone on our list.

I want to see CU back contending for conference championships but as far as we have fallen this isn't going to happen quickly. If you judge based on does this class move us forward in comparison to the rest of the conference, especially the lower half then I give it about a B. I see a few guys who are likely to turn into difference makers and a lot of guys who will develop into players who at least belong on the field against other PAC 12 teams, something I couldn't say about a lot of the players that M2 inherited when he took over the job.

I don't think that either Duff or DBT are out of line, just different perspectives. I do think that it would be fair to expect that while I can argue B for this class this year the exact same class two years in the future would recieve a much lower grade
 
Duff Man said:
I graded it slightly below average and on a generous curve actually (above the experts).
Click to expand...
How would you grade based on reasonable expectations considering where this program is right now? Was it much better than could have been expected (A), better than expected (B), what was expected (C), worse (D), or much worse (F)? I'd go in the B- range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top