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
I think 16 is the magic # of OL going into spring ball.

That gives a team 3 full lines - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strins, with a spare part left over in case of an absence. Plus, you split the 16 for the spring game, 8 linemen per side. 5 starters and 3 to work in in various combos or scenarios.

16 or bust for spring. Oops, we only have 15. Shame, shame.
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
I think 16 is the magic # of OL going into spring ball.

That gives a team 3 full lines - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strins, with a spare part left over in case of an absence. Plus, you split the 16 for the spring game, 8 linemen per side. 5 starters and 3 to work in in various combos or scenarios.

16 or bust for spring. Oops, we only have 15. Shame, shame.
Click to expand...

I'd rather be tracking quality than #s of bodies.
 
After thinking it over and letting it settle in a bit, I'm very pleased with this class. The top end of the class is quite solid. Two 4* players and two high (5.7) 3* players at skill positions and areas of need (linebacker). Where a lot of us seem to have some issues is with the bottom of the class. For sure, there were a few reaches there. But I tend to come down on the side that looks at the top end of the class as those are the guys who we will need to contribute.
 
I gave the class a C but think that's a significant improvement over what it looked like a month ago. Not sure how to give it any higher than that for a class that finished pretty far down in the bottom half of the conference.
 
So, Howell's Buffzone.com article interviews Brandon Huffman, Scout's director of scouting. Huffman says our ranking in the Pac has a bit to do with how well the Pac did but thinks we are closing the gap a bit.

BTW, seems like Howell uses Scout for his info. I know little about this stuff. Are Scout and Rivals on par? I thought Rivals was the go to recruiting service? Although their rankings seem pretty comparable.
 
DBT said:
So, Howell's Buffzone.com article interviews Brandon Huffman, Scout's director of scouting. Huffman says our ranking in the Pac has a bit to do with how well the Pac did but thinks we are closing the gap a bit.

BTW, seems like Howell uses Scout for his info. I know little about this stuff. Are Scout and Rivals on par? I thought Rivals was the go to recruiting service? Although their rankings seem pretty comparable.
Click to expand...
Rivals nationally, Scout on the west coast is my impression.
 
I prefer Scout, but have been Rivals-focused due to Adam & his team with all the content they create. Scout is much better on western recruits and also has very good scouting directors. I'm not quite sure who assigns ratings at Rivals.
 
I hadn't looked at scout in forever. I just checked the site and it's awful. Really hard to navigate and sloppy. I couldn't even find the CU homepage.

I'm not a customer anywhere except here, but Rivals appears to be much more organized and well ran. Adam has been a badass!
 
Jaximus said:
I hadn't looked at scout in forever. I just checked the site and it's awful. Really hard to navigate and sloppy. I couldn't even find the CU homepage.

I'm not a customer anywhere except here, but Rivals appears to be much more organized and well ran. Adam has been a badass!
Click to expand...
I hadn't been to Scout in a while either. Typed colorado.scout.com in the address bar which took me right there. Go figure.
 
For me, getting Webb (I consider him part of this recruiting class) was a huge home run that erased the disappointment of losing Watts.
 
I gave it a D (somewhere in the D+ to C- range). Yes they closed strong but we are still at the bottom of the PAC 12 which is unacceptable. Class was not balanced - we took 4 OL which mostly look like big reaches. Hopefully with DC running the recruiting we will end some of the strange recruiting protocols we see at CU.
 
B- Our offense gets pieces needed to make it go. A Big, experienced, hungry QB. Help at WR and size at RB. Solid signings and few reaches in this group. I'm encouraged by the LB additions. Curious as to why we signs gray shirts with such a big class next year. Overall we did okay with a smaller class, best overall recruit was DC!!
 
B

WR, QB, RB. LB will present the biggest challenge, but expecting some player moves on the team to help address this. Just did not have enough openings.
 
And they say grade inflation at the college level is bad. Yeesh
 
D+. Yes this class is better then previous years but it's still arguably the worst in the conference and we're still being badly out-recruited by the upper-half of the conference. It's tough to win when every year the schools you're playing are bringing in more talent then you are. It's all relative, this would be a great Mountain West class and even if we were in one of the other power conferences (expect for the SEC) this grade would be more like a C. Unfortunately the Pac continues to recruit at a very high level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top