whatthebuff
Club Member
D for delightful.
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!
Upon going back and looking through our class and where ESPN ranked us, that was too harsh. Maybe not the letter grade because I don't know what the criteria was, but definitely the grade relative to other Pac-12 programs. Given the grades handed out to some of the other programs, the Buffs probably should have gotten a C- at worst. It's almost as if the author had an axe to grind.
Illegal Pete
New Member
and ESPN quickly fired him, yet another reason to despise ESPN. On the bright side we get to look forward to the tremendous announcing abilities and insights of guys like Rod Gilmore and Bob Davie...NOT.
Can't wait!
lawdogg
Club Member
As sketchy as ESPN can be, their Scouts Inc folks do have two of our guys rated in the top 15 draft prospects. Jimmy is at #10 as the 3rd best CB and Nate is at #12 as the best OL. So sometimes the analysis is on point. Also, Maisel has a decent article up on the inexact science that is recruiting.
This cannot be a serious post.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
i like C+. just barely good enough (given the situation)....but a lot of room to move up.
somebody
Well-Known Member
How about post madonas? What the heck is a madona anyway???
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Uh, hard to explain, but basically it's like a virgin.
If all these so called recruiting experts knew close to what they claim to they would be getting paid a lot of money by the schools in the SEC who are willing to pay big money for any advantage that will help them win. The fact is that recruiting ratings are for the most part a giant group love fest among the people trying to get subscription money from the fans of the schools with big spending fan bases. That is the reason why any kid that commits to Notre Dame instantly becomes a top prospect, those fans are willing to pay big money to have people tell them how good they are. Texas, Florida, Tennessee and others fit this description.
Are a lot of these players excellent prospects? Of course they are, that is why they are being recruited by major programs but how many of them end up disappointing? a pretty high percentage.
For CU this was not a great class, with only a matter of weeks to recruit to a program that had been an embarrasment on the field the past five years most of the top prospects were not interested in giving our staff an opportunity to recruit them. A lot of recruiting is built on relationships developed over time and this staff just didn't have time to do that.
That all said was it a good class? I look at a few questions, first did they get players that draw attention and notice from the media and top schools? In thsi regard we didn't get a lot of "top prospects" Based on stars, based on Rivals top 150, based on kids offered by Texas, USC, Florida, Auburn, Ohio State, etc. we didn't do well. The recruiting gurus didn't stop and talk about a lot of our players.
On the other side of the question did we get guys who could be contributers and/or starters to winning teams? It looks like yes. Even in the short time we had to recruit we got more kids who were offered by other BCS schools than Hawk was getting in his last couple of years. We got players with the physical size, speed, and skills to compete on the BCS level. Some of these guys will be bust, that is the nature of the beast, even happens to the so called top classes. At the same time a lot of these guys are late developers who have room to grow and advance and become quality players.
Which brings me to the last question. Did the class make the program better? In two ways it did. To start with we got a number of guys who are better quality athletes than the guys who are already here. This class will make this program bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled. This class also got us into some important recruiting areas for the future, hopefully leading to better recruiting classes in the future.
The idea that some writer can objectively grade the recruiting classes of 120 BCS division schools or even those schools in the AQ conferences is ridiculous. For fans to worry about what these writers say is even more ridiculous. If these guys knew all that much then Notre Dame would have at least 3-4 MNCs in the past couple of decades, Texas would have at least 10 and Oregon would not have been close to the championship game last year.
Truth is we and everyone else won't know if this was a good class or not until we actually see these guys develop and play. Remember that the DS class from Hawk was highly rated but the results were anything but. A lot of the guys who got the national attention never even contributed on the field while some others who were afterthoughts are some of our better players.
Are a lot of these players excellent prospects? Of course they are, that is why they are being recruited by major programs but how many of them end up disappointing? a pretty high percentage.
For CU this was not a great class, with only a matter of weeks to recruit to a program that had been an embarrasment on the field the past five years most of the top prospects were not interested in giving our staff an opportunity to recruit them. A lot of recruiting is built on relationships developed over time and this staff just didn't have time to do that.
That all said was it a good class? I look at a few questions, first did they get players that draw attention and notice from the media and top schools? In thsi regard we didn't get a lot of "top prospects" Based on stars, based on Rivals top 150, based on kids offered by Texas, USC, Florida, Auburn, Ohio State, etc. we didn't do well. The recruiting gurus didn't stop and talk about a lot of our players.
On the other side of the question did we get guys who could be contributers and/or starters to winning teams? It looks like yes. Even in the short time we had to recruit we got more kids who were offered by other BCS schools than Hawk was getting in his last couple of years. We got players with the physical size, speed, and skills to compete on the BCS level. Some of these guys will be bust, that is the nature of the beast, even happens to the so called top classes. At the same time a lot of these guys are late developers who have room to grow and advance and become quality players.
Which brings me to the last question. Did the class make the program better? In two ways it did. To start with we got a number of guys who are better quality athletes than the guys who are already here. This class will make this program bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled. This class also got us into some important recruiting areas for the future, hopefully leading to better recruiting classes in the future.
The idea that some writer can objectively grade the recruiting classes of 120 BCS division schools or even those schools in the AQ conferences is ridiculous. For fans to worry about what these writers say is even more ridiculous. If these guys knew all that much then Notre Dame would have at least 3-4 MNCs in the past couple of decades, Texas would have at least 10 and Oregon would not have been close to the championship game last year.
Truth is we and everyone else won't know if this was a good class or not until we actually see these guys develop and play. Remember that the DS class from Hawk was highly rated but the results were anything but. A lot of the guys who got the national attention never even contributed on the field while some others who were afterthoughts are some of our better players.
In this example, D is for Dick.
dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick.
Edit: How smart do I make MtnBuff look?
Last edited:
That's a lot of dick [/reservoir dogs]
aik
Well-Known Member
This for all intensive purposes is a solid post.
fatbuff
Member
You can be Norm to his Cliffy.