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!

Grade the 2016 Recruiting Class

What is the grade of this class

  • A

    Votes: 4 2.2%

  • B

    Votes: 92 51.4%

  • C

    Votes: 76 42.5%

  • D

    Votes: 7 3.9%

  • F

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    179
vinniew_11 said:
Absolutely go after in-state talent. Ones that are P5 talent. This year, Carlos was hell bent leaving CO and fell for Harbaugh's speel. Jojo was going to NU no matter what. friends with the kid who committed last year (lee?) who's dad hates CU. In-state recruiting is not the death nell for CU. Who else was worth it? Getting a strong foot hold in TX is. Now it looks like GA and FL can be added.
Click to expand...

There's been 2-3 every year that have definitely been worth it, and MM hasn't landed any of them. It's been a problem. We always have a story with each of them, but any recruit you lose is going to have a story, it shouldn't excuse not getting any of them. Oh the kid that went somewhere out of state wanted to go out of state? No sh*t? That's using the assumption that a kid should just want to come to CU because it's CU, and MM's just sitting here with his hands tied. There's a recruiting job that's not getting done in some of those cases.
 
C+

I think that how well the JUCO guys contribute will really define this recruiting class. We NEED them to contribute immediately (especially Lewis) because they will affect our W/L column this season more than anyone on the class (except for Webb if you count him in the class). The fact they didn't use a spot on a good JUCO OL who could contribute immediately was a bit of a head-scratcher. Hopefully this is because our OL has developed significantly this off-season (ambitious, I know).

A lot of people have mentioned Chiv's impact on the other coaches' social media accounts, and I don't think that can be overstated. Following them before, there was just the occasional tweet (other than Leavitt). Now, they are cracking jokes, busting each other up, supporting one another, and their personalities are really coming through. They all seem like legitimately good guys that are fun to be around. Even Lindgren, who never posted anything and came off as a little boring, had some pretty humorous tweets and has changed my opinion on him. If all us old farts can see this, you know 16-18 year old recruits who spend a significant amount of time on Twitter everyday notice this.
 
I simply can't put the Buffs higher than a C. 1/100 for ave/star out of last place in the conference and last place by traditional total measures (while acknowledging the smaller class hurts us on this scale).

They finished very strong and it gives me great hope for next year's recruiting. I also believe Web, Bish, Winfree, and a handful of others will contribute immediately to break our non-bowl streak in 2016.

As a whole, hard to move it up. Next year, I anticipate Much stronger results.
 
Bernardi and Jeffcoat need to go if they can't bring in anything higher than 2* line projects. Lynott last year has been the exception not the rule.
 
I think we're crazy to think that our recruiting class could be good as the top programs in the PAC 12.
We're not there yet. Overnight recruiting does not bring in 4 star athletes just by saying, "come to us, we're going places."
With the record we've had ever since joining the PAC, this is a good class. it's a start. Win with these guys, get better recruits. It's a process.

It's way better than the classes we've had filled with 1 adn 2 star recruits.
 
If the OL would play over its perceived talent level, I'd be more forgiving of Bernardi's apparent lack of recruiting acumen. Problem is, he doesn't recruit well and compounds the problem by not coaching well, either.
 
sackman said:
If the OL would play over its perceived talent level, I'd be more forgiving of Bernardi's apparent lack of recruiting acumen. Problem is, he doesn't recruit well and compounds the problem by not coaching well, either.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to evaluate the OLs.

Somewhat depends on how many grayshirt.

Definitely guys that any objective observer would call "reaches" for a P5 program. I don't think I could argue otherwise.

But also guys who have the types of frames for the position that is hard to find. This is a roll of the dice. If you find a 6'5" or taller OL prospect who has orangutan arms, that's pretty rare and the upside is tremendous if he's also got good feet.

Safer play would be to take a 6'2" - 6'4" guy who can obviously play but has limited upside due to his frame. I'm sure CU could have gone that route and gotten some 3* guys who had other P5 offers. It's the route they went with the JUCOs they targeted since they'd want a guy like that to be plug & play in the 2-deep in 2016.

However, if you're developing an OL and looking at a 3-6 year process before you need him in the 2-deep... it does make a lot of sense to recruit the raw materials and build up their bodies and technique.

Philosophically, I get it. Pragmatically, my big question is whether the grayshirts taken in 2016 have higher upside than the guys CU might have been able to sign for those slots in 2017 and then redshirted instead of grayshirting. One reach this year I would have understood on the philosophy. But it was several guys. Seemed excessive to me.
 
Buffnik said:
It's hard for me to evaluate the OLs.

Somewhat depends on how many grayshirt.

Definitely guys that any objective observer would call "reaches" for a P5 program. I don't think I could argue otherwise.

But also guys who have the types of frames for the position that is hard to find. This is a roll of the dice. If you find a 6'5" or taller OL prospect who has orangutan arms, that's pretty rare and the upside is tremendous if he's also got good feet.

Safer play would be to take a 6'2" - 6'4" guy who can obviously play but has limited upside due to his frame. I'm sure CU could have gone that route and gotten some 3* guys who had other P5 offers. It's the route they went with the JUCOs they targeted since they'd want a guy like that to be plug & play in the 2-deep in 2016.

However, if you're developing an OL and looking at a 3-6 year process before you need him in the 2-deep... it does make a lot of sense to recruit the raw materials and build up their bodies and technique.

Philosophically, I get it. Pragmatically, my big question is whether the grayshirts taken in 2016 have higher upside than the guys CU might have been able to sign for those slots in 2017 and then redshirted instead of grayshirting. One reach this year I would have understood on the philosophy. But it was several guys. Seemed excessive to me.
Click to expand...

That is one thing that stood out to me, while projects, the OL we took in this class are huge. Two of them close to 300lbs and 6'-6" to 6'-7". They may be a raw, but you can work with frames like that.
 
It seems like last years o-line class was actually solid so if they can continue that trend this year it will be okay but it doesn't seem like that will happen. The early reviews are good on Haigler and Lynott was a highly rated guy. Vaughn seems like he can be another Haigler type but Pursell and Lytle are definitely wait and see types. The Lytle and Pursell additions are different than the typical under the radar adds the last couple years because they already have size.
 
What did we take this year? Three OL?

Statistically, you can probably whiff on an entire year of OL recruiting so long as the classes around it are halfway decent. If just one of the guys in this class ends up starting at some point, it should be considered a mild success.
 
One other thing I like a lot about this class is that with the speed guys, LBs and a RB this should represent a significant upgrade to special teams. Lots of guys who can make an impact on coverage and return teams.
 
At any given time, you need 15 scholarship OL on the roster. You cannot have half of them long term projects that are 2* reaches that all your peers took a pass on. That is how you end up with a situation where the viability of your entire OL hinges on the ACL of just one player. No depth and a bunch futures nowhere near ready to play.
 
leftybuff said:
At any given time, you need 15 scholarship OL on the roster. You cannot have half of them long term projects that are 2* reaches that all your peers took a pass on. That is how you end up with a situation where the viability of your entire OL hinges on the ACL of just one player. No depth and a bunch futures nowhere near ready to play.
Click to expand...

Your words make perfect sense, but I don't know what it has to do with us. We have 11 guys that are redshirt sophomores or above, 15 that are redshirt freshmen or above. So we're at your 15 count prior to the new projects joining. We don't have half of 15 long term projects.

Nonetheless, I would have liked to see a JC OL to shore up the top of the class too. We couldn't run the ball, and we couldn't stop the run last year, not sure this class addressed these issues (from either trenches point of view).
 
Buff_nc said:
Your words make perfect sense, but I don't know what it has to do with us. We have 11 guys that are redshirt sophomores or above, 15 that are redshirt freshmen or above. So we're at your 15 count prior to the new projects joining. We don't have half of 15 long term projects.

Nonetheless, I would have liked to see a JC OL to shore up the top of the class too. We couldn't run the ball, and we couldn't stop the run last year, not sure this class addressed these issues (from either trenches point of view).
Click to expand...
It is a debateable point. I am not going to say any names. I think anyone who watched the last three years can draw their own conclusions. Depth is a problem. Numbers aren't. What I mean by that is there are some OL who are not ready to compete at the P12 level, and the numbers who ready are very thin because the depth is in development stage. That happens when you have project players in too large a number. Hopefully, several of those guys are now ready to compete. I hope so.
 
Buff_nc said:
Your words make perfect sense, but I don't know what it has to do with us. We have 11 guys that are redshirt sophomores or above, 15 that are redshirt freshmen or above. So we're at your 15 count prior to the new projects joining. We don't have half of 15 long term projects.

Nonetheless, I would have liked to see a JC OL to shore up the top of the class too. We couldn't run the ball, and we couldn't stop the run last year, not sure this class addressed these issues (from either trenches point of view).
Click to expand...
15, I think, is a bare minimum. 18 +/- 1 is ideal. What you really want is for no OL to see the field except for limited spot duty and injury backup until at least their 3rd or preferably 4th year on campus (unless they're a freak of nature talent that can't be denied). Look at Stanford's line last year: 4 4th year players (1 5*, 2 4*, 1 3*) and one 2nd year player (and that 2nd year player is a 4* who started over a 4th year 4*).

I don't know how many of their OL are planning on returning in 2016, but I'm pretty sure every one of them is eligible... or, if you thought they were good this year, they could be even better next.
 
skibum said:
15, I think, is a bare minimum. 18 +/- 1 is ideal. What you really want is for no OL to see the field except for limited spot duty and injury backup until at least their 3rd or preferably 4th year on campus (unless they're a freak of nature talent that can't be denied). Look at Stanford's line last year: 4 4th year players (1 5*, 2 4*, 1 3*) and one 2nd year player (and that 2nd year player is a 4* who started over a 4th year 4*).

I don't know how many of their OL are planning on returning in 2016, but I'm pretty sure every one of them is eligible... or, if you thought they were good this year, they could be even better next.
Click to expand...

5/22 starters = 22.7%

22.7% of an 85 man roster = 19.3

So, yeah. Factoring in specialists, there should be around 18 OLs on scholarship at any given time.

1. Alex Kelley
2. Shane Callahan
3. Connor Center
4. Aaron Haigler
5. Jonathan Huckins
6. Jeromy Irwin
7. Josh Kaiser
8. Gerrad Kough
9. Sam Kronshage
10. John Lisella
11. Tim Lynott
12. Dillon Middlemiss
13. Isaac Miller
14. Colin Sutton
15. Sully Wiefels

Signees: 16. Chance Lytle, 17. Colby Pursell (possible GS), 18. Terriek Roberts (possibly DE), 19. Hunter Vaughn (GS)

We're a hair light, but considering a small class and the fact that we only had one scholarship OL graduate from last year's team, I just don't know that it made sense to increase the numbers more than that unless a "take regardless of position" type talent or "immediately in the 2-deep juco" wanted to come to CU.
 
Buffnik said:
5/22 starters = 22.7%

22.7% of an 85 man roster = 19.3

So, yeah. Factoring in specialists, there should be around 18 OLs on scholarship at any given time.

1. Alex Kelley
2. Shane Callahan
3. Connor Center
4. Aaron Haigler
5. Jonathan Huckins
6. Jeromy Irwin
7. Josh Kaiser
8. Gerrad Kough
9. Sam Kronshage
10. John Lisella
11. Tim Lynott
12. Dillon Middlemiss
13. Isaac Miller
14. Colin Sutton
15. Sully Wiefels

Signees: 16. Chance Lytle, 17. Colby Pursell (possible GS), 18. Terriek Roberts (possibly DE), 19. Hunter Vaughn (GS)

We're a hair light, but considering a small class and the fact that we only had one scholarship OL graduate from last year's team, I just don't know that it made sense to increase the numbers more than that unless a "take regardless of position" type talent or "immediately in the 2-deep juco" wanted to come to CU.
Click to expand...
I come to 18 a whole different way:
- Assume you want at least 5 guys as 4th & 5th year guys every year.
- Assume you lose 1/2 a player from every class, every year (good attrition, bad attrition, injury, etc)

2.5 5th year Seniors
3 Seniors
3.5 Juniors
4 Sophomores
4.5 Freshmen
Total = 17.5 players.

Obviously, you can't have half players, but if you think of the fractions as "two or three 5th year seniors" or "four or five freshmen" you end up with 16-19 roster slots. And if you have less than those numbers in a given class (e.g. only one senior, or 3 sophomores), you know you have (or will eventually have) a hole to fill w/ JUCOs or transfers to get back to having class balance.

Class balance, IMO, is more important at OL than any other position group on the field (because physical maturity is so much more important there). It started to get a little out of whack Barnett's last year or two (but was still easily correctable at that point), and then Hawkins ****ed it up beyond all recognition. Embree knew it needed fixing, but didn't know how. HCMM had a plan to fix it, has been executing that plan, and it appears that he'll have the class balance issue nearly completely straightened out next year. The overall talent level may still be a problem, but at least he's stabilized the disaster.
 
Our OL play last year was very bad, and we bring in a bunch of 2* / unrated projects -- mostly greyshirts -- and some of us are hesitant to say that OL recruiting is a problem? I will not hesitate at all. It is a huge problem.
 
Daaah said:
Perhaps. But I was looking at average stars.

Either way, if C is average, I'd contend that we came in below average for the conference. Perhaps I'm grading too hard, but it's hard for me to not be in show me mode at this point and I'm not really up for giving the benefit of the doubt after 10+ long years.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're being too hard, I agree with you. If we were grading the last month, I'd give it an A. But the bottom 2/3 of our class brings us way down. Overall, we were solidly in the bottom third of the conference, below average. D
 
Buffnik said:
One other thing I like a lot about this class is that with the speed guys, LBs and a RB this should represent a significant upgrade to special teams. Lots of guys who can make an impact on coverage and return teams.
Click to expand...

Great point. Hopefully this class gave us quality depth so we don't have to play guys like Awuzie on special teams anymore. Not a lot of All PAC 12 guys having to cover kicks.
 
I just think Bernardi has convinced MM that this is the better route to go and recruit. I can't find any other reason why.
 
I'd give them a C+ based on the strong close and the immediate impact that is likely and needed on offense. Defense needs upgrades, too, obviously, but there are three guys on the offensive side who could have a big impact this coming season. We had to have that.
 
buffs04 said:
Our OL play last year was very bad, and we bring in a bunch of 2* / unrated projects -- mostly greyshirts -- and some of us are hesitant to say that OL recruiting is a problem? I will not hesitate at all. It is a huge problem.
Click to expand...
Rep, but can't give it a "like".
 
gone native said:
We got loads of quality names! I especially like Ca'Ron Baham, Beau Bisharat, Juwann Winfree and Derrion Rakestraw.
Click to expand...

And no Pookie.....? The fans will love hearing his name called for years to come.

And did we really need a change vote option? Are these people the "undecideds" we always rail about during election time?

I think this class will be a building block for next year. We've got to keep the momentum going. You only get to show recruits a "new" football facility for so long before it becomes a cliche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top