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 2022 Recruiting Class
- Thread starter BatBuff
- Start date
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
D
Avg recruit rating ranks about 60th nationally and is in the bottom third in the PAC12. The only way this class moves the needle toward the positive over time is via exceptional coaching. They do not have anything close to exceptional coaching.
Classes like this one further entrench the program to bottom third in the PAC12. It changes nothing.
Avg recruit rating ranks about 60th nationally and is in the bottom third in the PAC12. The only way this class moves the needle toward the positive over time is via exceptional coaching. They do not have anything close to exceptional coaching.
Classes like this one further entrench the program to bottom third in the PAC12. It changes nothing.
F... when your class average is ~3 points (85.42) below the PAC-12 average (87.12) and equivalent to that of a mid tier G5 conference school you're failing as a Power 5 school. If you want to compete in your conference you just can't be that far below the conference average. It's black and white metrics that lead to straight up non-competitive 9 out of 10 years with maybe one good outlier thrown in. We are .4 points out of last place in the Pac though, so we've got that going for us.
I reserve the right to change my grade if the staff pulls a rabbit out of their ass though.
Edit:
To be fair, our average last year was almost a full point lower than this year, so maybe that's a good story, but the PAC's average went up too so we really didn't improve compared to our peers, but at least we didn't continue to further degrade. That's something to keep an eye on as well, going forward.
I reserve the right to change my grade if the staff pulls a rabbit out of their ass though.
Edit:
To be fair, our average last year was almost a full point lower than this year, so maybe that's a good story, but the PAC's average went up too so we really didn't improve compared to our peers, but at least we didn't continue to further degrade. That's something to keep an eye on as well, going forward.
Last edited:
Is there a link to the Signing Day Press conference anywhere? I can't find it. Usually, it's pretty easy to find. Are they having one this year? lol
777BuffFan
Well-Known Member
That is spot on. Time and time again we see the buffs taking on a project kid and seeing them remain projects. Shannon Turley is a nice step in the right direction but still no OC, and still no O line coach. I think we will continue to see the exodus thru the transfer portal of either talented kids who could flourish if they had a supporting cast, or kids who just aren't at the talent level for D-1 ball. Flip the coin, who wants to transfer to CU and endure yet another (failed) rebuilding effort. This is a program that is hanging its hat on a 1990 contested national championship, a cool town, the Flatirons, Ralphie, but is otherwise a below average (I'm being kind) football program.
I'm a fan (alum) but it has reached the point where I am just fascinated watching to see if the Buffs ever become relevant. I am not holding my breath.
BatBuff
Well-Known Member
For context, here is the average 247 recruit rankings over the last ten years:
2022: 0.8542 (19 Commits)
2021: 0.8392 (19 Commits)
2020: 0.8563 (23 Commits)
2019: 0.8491 (26 Commits)
2018: 0.8449 (25 Commits)
2017: 0.8521 (30 Commits)
2016: 0.8353 (17 Commits)
2015: 0.8305 (19 Commits)
2014: 0.8011 (24 Commits)
2013: 0.8151 (21 Commits)
2012: 0.8407 (27 Commits)
2022: 0.8542 (19 Commits)
2021: 0.8392 (19 Commits)
2020: 0.8563 (23 Commits)
2019: 0.8491 (26 Commits)
2018: 0.8449 (25 Commits)
2017: 0.8521 (30 Commits)
2016: 0.8353 (17 Commits)
2015: 0.8305 (19 Commits)
2014: 0.8011 (24 Commits)
2013: 0.8151 (21 Commits)
2012: 0.8407 (27 Commits)
woooo, 2013-14 was something else.
BatBuff
Well-Known Member
That first sentence is really puts it into perspective. You have to compare it to the conference overall. USC is at the bottom right now, but I’m sure they will pass us in the end.
So... This--much maligned--class is (almost) the highest ranked by 247 ratings in the past 10 years (within .0021 of the Tucker class that got pretty good reviews)?
C-
I watched A LOT of film on each of these guys. And not just the highlight reels they each put out or CU put together. There are 4-5 somewhat impact players in this group. There are 4-5 solid players that could grow into solid role players with the right coaching. Then there are 8-10 guys that are absolute stretches. Guys whose best offer by far is CU and there's no question why they chose us (CU vs low, low G5 or FCS). Maybe 1-2 will hit and do something. The rest are career backups and ST guys.
It is what it is, I guess. Good luck to all. Hope you get a new staff soon that can actually elevate each of you to your utmost potential.
I watched A LOT of film on each of these guys. And not just the highlight reels they each put out or CU put together. There are 4-5 somewhat impact players in this group. There are 4-5 solid players that could grow into solid role players with the right coaching. Then there are 8-10 guys that are absolute stretches. Guys whose best offer by far is CU and there's no question why they chose us (CU vs low, low G5 or FCS). Maybe 1-2 will hit and do something. The rest are career backups and ST guys.
It is what it is, I guess. Good luck to all. Hope you get a new staff soon that can actually elevate each of you to your utmost potential.
1. The standard is very, very, VERY low.
2. Tucker's class had cream at the top - which was exciting.
3. It was also the first class to be decent nationally and was also supposed to be a building block class. Lots of positive signs that year!
4. However, it did have a lot of head scratchers and filler at the bottom.
5. The ranking system cares a lot more for high level guys than it does for mid and low level guys. A few high level guys is way more important than a bunch of middle level guys.
6. This class has little that excites you in it. Lots of JAGs until otherwise proven.
7. High level talent jumps out at you and breaks the X's and O's. That's how you consistently win, because scheme can only put players in position to make plays. And this staff hasn't done that very much!
8. It's really easy to get JAGs in the portal or next year. Special players require high level recruiting. This is not it.
9. At least it's not the bottom falling out. That would be an unfair description.
By CU standards, it is about as good of a class as we have seen the last decade or so. Problem is, that type of class does not move the needle.
McCown is an interesting QB. 4A competition is TX is still pretty good (they go up to 6A now). He is very much a pro style prospect. So we can make an educated guess as to where the O will go in the future when you look at Shrout and McCown being the two QB's the staff brought in. There is a major strategic flaw that should be apparent, and it is the OL.
Venn is a pretty good looking RB. The WR class turned into a pretty respectable group, especially with the late addition of the kid from Fairview.
LB and the DB's look pretty solid as well. Not superstars, but very solid.
The OL and DL, the building blocks of any program, continue to rely on guys who appear to be lightly recruited. OL, in particular, has been an achilles heel for the Buffs for years, and I question aloud the wisdom of heading for a pro style pocket passing attack when you cannot hold a pocket. Having a dual threat QB like Lewis can be a nice equalizer that takes some of the heat off your OL with some designed QB runs, Mc Cown and Shrout do not offer that threat.
CU recruited about where they are in the conference, at the bottom, certainly lower third. I give it a C-. CU has to continue to build in the trenches.
McCown is an interesting QB. 4A competition is TX is still pretty good (they go up to 6A now). He is very much a pro style prospect. So we can make an educated guess as to where the O will go in the future when you look at Shrout and McCown being the two QB's the staff brought in. There is a major strategic flaw that should be apparent, and it is the OL.
Venn is a pretty good looking RB. The WR class turned into a pretty respectable group, especially with the late addition of the kid from Fairview.
LB and the DB's look pretty solid as well. Not superstars, but very solid.
The OL and DL, the building blocks of any program, continue to rely on guys who appear to be lightly recruited. OL, in particular, has been an achilles heel for the Buffs for years, and I question aloud the wisdom of heading for a pro style pocket passing attack when you cannot hold a pocket. Having a dual threat QB like Lewis can be a nice equalizer that takes some of the heat off your OL with some designed QB runs, Mc Cown and Shrout do not offer that threat.
CU recruited about where they are in the conference, at the bottom, certainly lower third. I give it a C-. CU has to continue to build in the trenches.
darth-horax
Well-Known Member
Pretty sad when the guys we sign aren’t even given offers from P5 schools OTHERS THAN CU.
This is why we eill continue to be mediocre.
Big deal getting a signer from a guy who’s only options were UTSA and Idaho.
This is why we eill continue to be mediocre.
Big deal getting a signer from a guy who’s only options were UTSA and Idaho.
BrokenPrinter
Well-Known Member
My issue with this class is that it exacerbates the flaws that we already have on the roster.
I think there are kids that can play in this class. I generally like the wr's, rb's and db's that we are bringing in. I suspect that when we look back there will be solid contributors in each of those position groups.
The problem is that those are already the best position groups on this roster. We only have two offensive linemen and Gray is a major project. It's entirely possible that we don't end up with a significant contributor on either line in this class. For a team that already gets bullied on the LOS that is not good enough. We need to bring in a lot of talent in the portal.
I think there are kids that can play in this class. I generally like the wr's, rb's and db's that we are bringing in. I suspect that when we look back there will be solid contributors in each of those position groups.
The problem is that those are already the best position groups on this roster. We only have two offensive linemen and Gray is a major project. It's entirely possible that we don't end up with a significant contributor on either line in this class. For a team that already gets bullied on the LOS that is not good enough. We need to bring in a lot of talent in the portal.
The players in this class could be good. My concern is that there’s not much help in our positions of greatest need. New OL coach needs to earn his salary bringing in some help.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
So class on par with Tucker’s CU class? Thought he was said to get it?
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Agree. Lines should be #1 priority every year.
BrokenPrinter
Well-Known Member
Another big frustration that I have with this class.
Does anybody have a clue as to what the recruiting footprint of this program is anymore?
For signed players we have:
8 players from Texas
3 players from Georgia
2 players from California
2 players from Colorado
1 player from Mississippi
1 player from Oregon.
I understand there are historical reasons as to why we recruit Texas. I think that recruiting Texas is good. Have we just given up on recruiting California? You know, the state that really should be our primary recruiting ground. That is a big concern. If we want to compete again nationally we have to win recruiting battles and build pipelines out west. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyy skeptical that we are going to compete in the Pac-12 without winning recruiting battles in California.
Does anybody have a clue as to what the recruiting footprint of this program is anymore?
For signed players we have:
8 players from Texas
3 players from Georgia
2 players from California
2 players from Colorado
1 player from Mississippi
1 player from Oregon.
I understand there are historical reasons as to why we recruit Texas. I think that recruiting Texas is good. Have we just given up on recruiting California? You know, the state that really should be our primary recruiting ground. That is a big concern. If we want to compete again nationally we have to win recruiting battles and build pipelines out west. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyy skeptical that we are going to compete in the Pac-12 without winning recruiting battles in California.
Joe Theismann's Leg
Well-Known Member
B-
We flipped a top in state recruit from Nebraska. (Talk of them cooling on him is an inferiority complex creeping in.)
This is an excellent crop of LBs and one of the best WR classes we've had in years. McCown looks like an extremely solid QB with a great pedigree and we added some tall, athletic DBs... Not too bad, but we didn't really win any big battles. Getting Finkley and Okunlola would have bumped things up a ton. Get back on track and do better next year.
We flipped a top in state recruit from Nebraska. (Talk of them cooling on him is an inferiority complex creeping in.)
This is an excellent crop of LBs and one of the best WR classes we've had in years. McCown looks like an extremely solid QB with a great pedigree and we added some tall, athletic DBs... Not too bad, but we didn't really win any big battles. Getting Finkley and Okunlola would have bumped things up a ton. Get back on track and do better next year.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
Posted this earlier. I keep coming back to this...on paper, this class doesn’t move the needle at all. With great focus and coaching, perhaps needles in haystacks can emerge. CU doesn’t have that.
So, they’re left with second and third tier talent that won’t get the coaching it needs to improve. Hence, no needle movement.
So, they’re left with second and third tier talent that won’t get the coaching it needs to improve. Hence, no needle movement.
It is inferiority complex when we landed a guy with very few commitable offers?
Joe Theismann's Leg
Well-Known Member
No, but it would be a superiority complex if we acted like our coaches were smarter than every other school who "missed" on them
B-
I think that the numbers are comparable to what MT did. I think that MT's class had some higher ranked guys but some of those guys were a bit overrated and I think some of these guys are a bit underrated.
I think we got a heck of a QB, some really good WR's, some good DB's and LB's, and a heck of a good RB. I definitely think we need to get better in the trenches but given everything, I am mildly pleased.
I do get the sense that we have a lot of great kids. We will see.
I think that the numbers are comparable to what MT did. I think that MT's class had some higher ranked guys but some of those guys were a bit overrated and I think some of these guys are a bit underrated.
I think we got a heck of a QB, some really good WR's, some good DB's and LB's, and a heck of a good RB. I definitely think we need to get better in the trenches but given everything, I am mildly pleased.
I do get the sense that we have a lot of great kids. We will see.
I think that contradicts your original argument.
Preston Slaughter
Well-Known Member
Where are the linemen? Hopefully there are some left for the second signing day. Maybe getting a coach in here would help.