As of Early Signing Period - 2018 Class Grade

[manhattanbuff]

He inherited a terrible team, went 2-10 in his first season, and is in a bowl game year two. Requiring that your staff continuously upgrade and properly evaluate talent doesn’t seem laughable. It seems like a requirement.

That's the worst kind of coach speak. UVA should be signing only five stars in the coming seasons if he's going to continuously get better players than the ones he has.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Nope. 2 Star, rated 47th best cornerback in juco. Anyways, all I said was it was funny that the 2 star happened to be one of the best players of that class and went to the NFL and you had to go off on a tangent. Do you feel better?

He was a 3 star on Rivals, but whatever.

It wasn't a tangent at all, every year people highlight the one or two guys who outperformed their rankings to justify our recruiting or show that "stars don't matter" while ignoring that most of the lower rated guys play like lower rated guys.

 

[Buffnik]

One thing to remember with CU's recruiting rankings with the "stars" granted from the evaluation sites is that JUCOs are downgraded a bit versus high school players. It's tough to become a 4* JC and the resources they put to rating JCs are very light. So when CU has 20-30% of its class coming from JC its going to bring down the average rank a bit when compared to a Stanford that doesn't take JCs.

 

[vinniew_11]

He was a 3 star on Rivals, but whatever.

It wasn't a tangent at all, every year people highlight the one or two guys who outperformed their rankings to justify our recruiting or show that "stars don't matter" while ignoring that most of the lower rated guys play like lower rated guys.

A lot of my issue is that a lot of the lower graded guys don’t get more of a cursory look if at all. So when they out perform their low rankings it’s a surprise. You can’t tell me every player gets an in-depth look. Yes, the super talented kids are just that. And some of those guys have peaked right there in HS. Recruiting is a fickle mistress.

 

[Duff Man]

He inherited a terrible team, went 2-10 in his first season, and is in a bowl game year two. Requiring that your staff continuously upgrade and properly evaluate talent doesn’t seem laughable. It seems like a requirement.

It sounds like coachspeak taken to a ridiculous extreme. Impossible for any team to be so selective in recruiting that every player in a recruiting class has to be an upgrade over the existing players on the roster.

 

[Buffnik]

It sounds like coachspeak taken to a ridiculous extreme. Impossible for any team to be so selective in recruiting that every player in a recruiting class has to be an upgrade over the existing players on the roster.

Yep. The models that seem to work within "coachspeak" of rebuilding a program are when they're more tangible. For example, Rich Rod at UA and Greg Schiano back in the day at Rutgers putting a huge emphasis on getting faster. You could see it tangibly with their recruits - often sacrificing size or taking lower rated guys because they were burners and then finding a position for them. Or at Stanford with Harbaugh where he put a premium on size/toughness for how he was going to distinguish his program and win.

More than anything, I believe that having an identity and recruiting to it is how you build and sustain a program. This is an area where CU needs to start figuring some things out, particularly on offense. It's the big take away I had from Adams' interview yesterday about the offense. He stressed having an identity and not having to substitute so much. Go fast, give multiple looks so it looks more complicated than it is while being able to go faster and allow young guys to perform sooner on the development curve. Know what you want to accomplish with your offense. Basically, screw this business of trying to be "multiple" like the NE Patriots and recruit to your identity. Same notes on the defense and with what Eliot is saying he wants to be -- a slanting defensive front that brings pressure and creates chaos in the backfield, LBs with speed to blitz & cover, and DBs all with CB coverage skills who have the size to press cover and win jump balls. Recruit to that philosophy and don't deviate.

 

[vinniew_11]

Yep. The models that seem to work within "coachspeak" of rebuilding a program are when they're more tangible. For example, Rich Rod at UA and Greg Schiano back in the day at Rutgers putting a huge emphasis on getting faster. You could see it tangibly with their recruits - often sacrificing size or taking lower rated guys because they were burners and then finding a position for them. Or at Stanford with Harbaugh where he put a premium on size/toughness for how he was going to distinguish his program and win.

More than anything, I believe that having an identity and recruiting to it is how you build and sustain a program. This is an area where CU needs to start figuring some things out, particularly on offense. It's the big take away I had from Adams' interview yesterday about the offense. He stressed having an identity and not having to substitute so much. Go fast, give multiple looks so it looks more complicated than it is while being able to go faster and allow young guys to perform sooner on the development curve. Know what you want to accomplish with your offense. Basically, screw this business of trying to be "multiple" like the NE Patriots and recruit to your identity. Same notes on the defense and with what Eliot is saying he wants to be -- a slanting defensive front that brings pressure and creates chaos in the backfield, LBs with speed to blitz & cover, and DBs all with CB coverage skills who have the size to press cover and win jump balls. Recruit to that philosophy and don't deviate.

Question: when you recruit to a system fit, sometimes a 3* guy will outperform a 4* due to system fit, right? Not all the time, but fit matters.

 

[married2abuff]

Question: when you recruit to a system fit, sometimes a 3* guy will outperform a 4* due to system fit, right? Not all the time, but fit matters.

Fit is always more important than size. There you have it - my last profound contribution to AllBuffs in 2017.

 

[Buffnik]

Question: when you recruit to a system fit, sometimes a 3* guy will outperform a 4* due to system fit, right? Not all the time, but fit matters.

Absolutely. Or at least the guy will perform at a higher level in your system than in someone else's. RBs, for example. The type of RB to excel at CU is going to be someone who plays in space with quick cuts while also catching the ball well. That's very different than what Wisconsin is going to look for where the premium is going to be on the ability to get on the hip of a pulling guard and then bust through for yardage.

Or to use an old school example, Troy Aikman was a horrible recruit to be at Oklahoma in Switzer's wishbone offense but he was all-world after transferring to Donahue's pro style passing attack at UCLA.

 

[Bufffan68]

The more I look at this class, the more I like it. I don't understand the rating system cuz I'm wondering how full grown men like Jynes, Antwine and Johnson aren't rated higher. We got some DL depth with a few guys who should play next season, some DB depth and the OL guys look solid. Even added some RB depth. I also like Mac's emphasis on getting kids in early...the winter training and spring practice really helps get them ready faster...especially since we don't get a lot of 4-5* who are ready to play ASAP.

 

[Duff Man]

Yep. The models that seem to work within "coachspeak" of rebuilding a program are when they're more tangible. For example, Rich Rod at UA and Greg Schiano back in the day at Rutgers putting a huge emphasis on getting faster. You could see it tangibly with their recruits - often sacrificing size or taking lower rated guys because they were burners and then finding a position for them. Or at Stanford with Harbaugh where he put a premium on size/toughness for how he was going to distinguish his program and win.

More than anything, I believe that having an identity and recruiting to it is how you build and sustain a program. This is an area where CU needs to start figuring some things out, particularly on offense. It's the big take away I had from Adams' interview yesterday about the offense. He stressed having an identity and not having to substitute so much. Go fast, give multiple looks so it looks more complicated than it is while being able to go faster and allow young guys to perform sooner on the development curve. Know what you want to accomplish with your offense. Basically, screw this business of trying to be "multiple" like the NE Patriots and recruit to your identity. Same notes on the defense and with what Eliot is saying he wants to be -- a slanting defensive front that brings pressure and creates chaos in the backfield, LBs with speed to blitz & cover, and DBs all with CB coverage skills who have the size to press cover and win jump balls. Recruit to that philosophy and don't deviate.

Always why I tend to look at track times and verifiable height. The measurements matter in a big way. You might be able to skimp on one, but certainly not both. Unfortunately, there were a ****load of players in the latter Hawkins years who had neither.

 

[Heywood]

These kind of statements drive me nuts.

Pretty sure he was a 3-star but regardless for every Witherspoon who overachieves you have a Isaiah Holland, Wyatt Smith, Michael Mathews, Sully Wiefuls, Sam Bennion, or Hayden Jones who were low rated and basically never contributed.

The one guy who outperforms his ranking doesn't make up for the 5-6 that don't contribute.

Re the bold. I’m not arguing with you about the stars issue but I do have a comment. I hear this a lot, so and so never contributed, but I do assume that they practiced which is contributing. They could have helped in the film room or with team chemistry or motivation in the off season workouts. There are only 22 spots on the field, by definition a percentage of the players on the team (with scholarships) will never really have meaningful playing time, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t contribute in a meaningful way.

Nothing personal with you just a soapbox moment for me.

With that said, I would rather have the overall talent level be higher so that our backups are pushing harder and improving special teams etc. the way you do that is by recruiting at a high level consistently and not having big talent gaps with questionable recruits. I feel like we are headed that direction and have far fewer diamonds in the rough each year. Let’s hope it continues

 

[SINKRATZ]

Re the bold. I’m not arguing with you about the stars issue but I do have a comment. I hear this a lot, so and so never contributed, but I do assume that they practiced which is contributing. They could have helped in the film room or with team chemistry or motivation in the off season workouts. There are only 22 spots on the field, by definition a percentage of the players on the team (with scholarships) will never really have meaningful playing time, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t contribute in a meaningful way.

Nothing personal with you just a soapbox moment for me.

With that said, I would rather have the overall talent level be higher so that our backups are pushing harder and improving special teams etc. the way you do that is by recruiting at a high level consistently and not having big talent gaps with questionable recruits. I feel like we are headed that direction and have far fewer diamonds in the rough each year. Let’s hope it continues

I don't disagree that some of these kids probably "contribute" in some way but I don't think coaches are offering scholarships to kids with the expectation that they will only be good in the film or weight rooms or as practice squad players. That's what walk-ons are for.

 

[Buffnik]

I don't disagree that some of these kids probably "contribute" in some way but I don't think coaches are offering scholarships to kids with the expectation that they will only be good in the film or weight rooms or as practice squad players. That's what walk-ons are for.

You don't win on Saturdays with Rudy types in your 2-deep or even taking up scholarships.

 

[lawdogg]

More than anything, I believe that having an identity and recruiting to it is how you build and sustain a program. This is an area where CU needs to start figuring some things out, particularly on offense. It's the big take away I had from Adams' interview yesterday about the offense. He stressed having an identity and not having to substitute so much. Go fast, give multiple looks so it looks more complicated than it is while being able to go faster and allow young guys to perform sooner on the development curve. Know what you want to accomplish with your offense. Basically, screw this business of trying to be "multiple" like the NE Patriots and recruit to your identity. Same notes on the defense and with what Eliot is saying he wants to be -- a slanting defensive front that brings pressure and creates chaos in the backfield, LBs with speed to blitz & cover, and DBs all with CB coverage skills who have the size to press cover and win jump balls. Recruit to that philosophy and don't deviate.

Maybe a discussion for another thread, but what do you think Chev and Adams' vision for the offensive identity will be. What other team will they look like? Same question for Eliot's defense.

 

[brockbuff]

I get the scheme/fit but there’s no reason we shouldn’t have been all over Wildemann rather than let him go to Nebraska. We should be trying to get the top 5 in state players every year regardless of fit. We are not in a position to be choosy. I mean we’ve barely got a top 50 class and we’ve signed almost all we’re going to get. A lot of others will take more come February. By the time it shakes out we’ll be out of the top 50 which is unacceptable.

 

[Buffnik]

I get the scheme/fit but there’s no reason we shouldn’t have been all over Wildemann rather than let him go to Nebraska. We should be trying to get the top 5 in state players every year regardless of fit. We are not in a position to be choosy. I mean we’ve barely got a top 50 class and we’ve signed almost all we’re going to get. A lot of others will take more come February. By the time it shakes out we’ll be out of the top 50 which is unacceptable.

I agree with this, especially with the scheme change Eliot is doing away from catching/occupying blockers. Strange recruitment with Wildeman.

 

[Buffnik]

Maybe a discussion for another thread, but what do you think Chev and Adams' vision for the offensive identity will be. What other team will they look like? Same question for Eliot's defense.

We're going to be more of a passing offense. I expect to look a lot more like Texas Tech.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

That's the worst kind of coach speak. UVA should be signing only five stars in the coming seasons if he's going to continuously get better players than the ones he has.

Yes, it’s actually impossible to do what he said and it’s cringeworthy when coaches say dumb **** like that

 

[Sykobuff]

We're going to be more of a passing offense. I expect to look a lot more like Texas Tech.

That's too bad, I was hoping the offense would improve in 2018...

 

[BuffLuke80]

I don't really wanna go Texas Tech. If that's the best chance for this squad to be successful, so be it. I could never be convinced of that statement unless I flat see it unfolding that way. I'm more "old school" with how I see the game though.

 

[Sykobuff]

I don't really wanna go Texas Tech. If that's the best chance for this squad to be successful, so be it. I could never be convinced of that statement unless I flat see it unfolding that way. I'm more "old school" with how I see the game though.

With this defense, I see it backfiring.

 

[BuffLuke80]

With this defense, I see it backfiring.

It certainly could, that's the bitch of it.

 

[vinniew_11]

I think it’s the old, no huddle, spread passing attack, but they soak up the entire play clock before the snap.

 

[buffaholic]

These kind of statements drive me nuts.

Pretty sure he was a 3-star but regardless for every Witherspoon who overachieves you have a Isaiah Holland, Wyatt Smith, Michael Mathews, Sully Wiefuls, Sam Bennion, or Hayden Jones who were low rated and basically never contributed.

The one guy who outperforms his ranking doesn't make up for the 5-6 that don't contribute.

In the name of preserving his honor, Wyatt Smith should not be in this group.
And recruiting is always a mixed bag. You can replace Smith with others, and I can replace Witherspoon.
Everyone should see that we've move this program up to the point where we are competing with ASU and Cal for recruits. We weren't for a long time.
Time to keep moving it up, just as Petersen has done at UW. He never had a reputation as a great recruiter, but as a great evaluator and developer. At UW he was able to recruit better than at Boise and with wins, he's continuing to up that Ante each year at UW. That's what MM needs to do. We're not there, but we're not where we were either.

 

[SINKRATZ]

In the name of preserving his honor, Wyatt Smith should not be in this group.
And recruiting is always a mixed bag. You can replace Smith with others, and I can replace Witherspoon.
Everyone should see that we've move this program up to the point where we are competing with ASU and Cal for recruits. We weren't for a long time.
Time to keep moving it up, just as Petersen has done at UW. He never had a reputation as a great recruiter, but as a great evaluator and developer. At UW he was able to recruit better than at Boise and with wins, he's continuing to up that Ante each year at UW. That's what MM needs to do. We're not there, but we're not where we were either.

My sincere apologies to Wyatt, thank you for correcting me. My point still stands however that for every underrated 2-star who goes on to be a great player, there are 4-5 that play like...well 2-star players.

 

[MtnBuff]

In the name of preserving his honor, Wyatt Smith should not be in this group.
And recruiting is always a mixed bag. You can replace Smith with others, and I can replace Witherspoon.
Everyone should see that we've move this program up to the point where we are competing with ASU and Cal for recruits. We weren't for a long time.
Time to keep moving it up, just as Petersen has done at UW. He never had a reputation as a great recruiter, but as a great evaluator and developer. At UW he was able to recruit better than at Boise and with wins, he's continuing to up that Ante each year at UW. That's what MM needs to do. We're not there, but we're not where we were either.

Spot on post.

We are not a program that should be about trying to find the shortcut to the top. History has shown that the NCAA likes to hammer us for the things necessary to do that.

What we need is steady but constant upward movement both on the field and in recruiting. A few years ago we were getting excited when we got a few kids with other P5 offers, even from bottom feeding P5 programs. This year's class virtually every one of the commits had at least a couple P5 offers and a fair number of those offers came from teams that are at least middle of the road or higher teams.

Next step is to show recruits that we have something happening on the field worth looking at and to start getting more kids that the upper end programs wanted.

MM has shown an ability to find and develop talent but now we need those kids to contribute solidly for 2-3 years instead on 1-2 and we need more to have higher ceilings at other positions similar to what he has shown he can do with DBs.

 

[Agent Dave Kujan]

I changed my vote to an A-. The more I go through their profiles, the more I like these guys. Each one of the had high level P5 offers from the likes of OKST, ND etc. I think we hit on a lot of players who are going to have an immediate impact and a lot of players who will help us in a couple of years. I think it would be rated a bit higher if it didn’t have so many JUCO’s but these guys are hitting areas of need right away. Well down HCMM, Chev and dare I say Elliot. (Hi Sink and Psycho)

 

[somebody]

I changed my vote to an A-. The more I go through their profiles, the more I like these guys. Each one of the had high level P5 offers from the likes of OKST, ND etc. I think we hit on a lot of players who are going to have an immediate impact and a lot of players who will help us in a couple of years. I think it would be rated a bit higher if it didn’t have so many JUCO’s but these guys are hitting areas of need right away. Well down HCMM, Chev and dare I say Elliot. (Hi Sink and Psycho)

So the 6 Pac-12 teams with better classes get A, A+, and A++?

 

[Agent Dave Kujan]

So the 6 Pac-12 teams with better classes get A, A+, and A++?

No I’m saying that I think our class is better than 6th in the pac 12. Our star ratings aren’t as high as some because of an emphasis on JUCO players but I think this is a really good class.
It seems every player in this group has speed, toughness and character. Those are attributes that win a lot of football games.