Grade the 2022 Recruiting Class

[ahoelsken]

D likely. Just don't see a lot of movers unless this staff pulls rabbits out of their asses.

 

[bigbang2]

D likely. Just don't see a lot of movers unless this staff pulls rabbits out of their asses.

3rd ranked class in the pac 12 is a D ?

I wouldnt want you as a teacher.

 

[bigbang2]

It is a solid B or B- . The class could use more impact players. But I like the depth building. The strenght of the class is the Secondary recruiting. There are some sleepers that were under recruited. Wouldn't surprise me if X Smith and Salavea turn out to be gems.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Here we go again. BB2, you yourself just stated the class could use more impact players. In fact, that’s what makes or breaks any recruiting class. It’s been proven over and over, that stars matter. Save for the Nate Landman’s, who come along once every ten years or so, it’s the highly rated players who get on the field early in their careers, make plays, and win games for teams. Quality depth wins over quantity depth every single time.

This class is average to slightly below average while still being one of the best classes in the past ten years. That tells you everything you need to know about CU football in one sentence.

 

[JMBuffs]

Here we go again. BB2, you yourself just stated the class could use more impact players. In fact, that’s what makes or breaks any recruiting class. It’s been proven over and over, that stars matter. Save for the Nate Landman’s, who come aSolder, long once every ten years or so, it’s the highly rated players who get on the field early in their careers, make plays, and win games for teams. Quality depth wins over quantity depth every single time.

This class is average to slightly below average while still being one of the best classes in the past ten years. That tells you everything you need to know about CU football in one sentence.

Some of the most impactful players over the last 15 years have been under recruited guys. Landman, Chido, Phil, Bahk, Spruce, Brous, Solder, Dizon...

 

[SINKRATZ]

Some of the most impactful players over the last 15 years have been under recruited guys. Landman, Chido, Phil, Bahk, Spruce, Brous, Solder, Dizon...

When all you recruit is under recruited guys, every once in a while one or two of them will outperform. Meanwhile we’ll keep turning in 4-8 records with that level of recruiting because CU has proven for 2 decades now and multiple HC, that our coaches are NOT in fact smarter than every other coach in college football.

 

[SINKRATZ]

3rd ranked class in the pac 12 is a D ?

I wouldnt want you as a teacher.

3rd ranked based on what? We took more guys than anyone else in conference which boosts the ratings but isn’t a reflection on overall talent. By average player rating we’re 10th.

 

[bigbang2]

3rd ranked based on what? We took more guys than anyone else in conference which boosts the ratings but isn’t a reflection on overall talent. By average player rating we’re 10th.

What was Carson Wells and Nate Landman rank or rating?

Can't really tell how good the class is until year 2 or year 3 on campus. But from what I see on tape, X Smith is a sleeper. Jerry Mack has a chance to be good, You also have Hurtado no one is talking about. Tommy Brown was ranked as the 4th best OG in the nation when he came out of highschool. He can play tackle or Guard. The class is certainly not a D or below average.

 

[bigbang2]

There are a lot of underated players. The class is a good foudation. Could be better, but it is a start. I think it is the best class for like a decade.

 

[SINKRATZ]

What was Carson Wells and Nate Landman rank or rating?

Can't really tell how good the class is until year 2 or year 3 on campus. But from what I see on tape, X Smith is a sleeper. Jerry Mack has a chance to be good, You also have Hurtado no one is talking about. Tommy Brown was ranked as the 4th best OG in the nation when he came out of highschool. He can play tackle or Guard. The class is certainly not a D or below average.

Jake Moretti
Grant Polley
Kanan Ray
Jon Van Diest
Tyler Lytle
Jared Poplawski
Jacob Callier
Chris Miller
Maurice Bell
Dante Sparaco
Chase Newman
Jaylon Jackson
Shamar Hamilton
Kevin George
Heston Paige
Casey Roddick
Sebastian Olver

Thats a partial list of guys in the same recruiting class with Landman and Wells who didn’t do s**t at CU. When you recruit the way CU has, the couple guys who outperform don’t make up for the dozens who never contribute.

You have helped perfectly illustrate CU’s recruiting problem by pointing out Wells and Landman, but you don’t get it at all.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

There are a lot of underated players. The class is a good foudation. Could be better, but it is a start. I think it is the best class for like a decade.

With the benefit of hindsight on the 2017 and 2020 classes, I actually agree with you, but that’s such a low bar to clear. The standard deviation isn’t as high as the 2020 class, so I expect there to be more contributors from this class and fewer guys like Lectenhaun, Stacks, and Passarello from Tucker’s class, who will likely never contribute much. It is a baseline class that’s just merely fine.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Jake Moretti
Grant Polley
Kanan Ray
Jon Van Diest
Tyler Lytle
Jared Poplawski
Jacob Callier
Chris Miller
Maurice Bell
Dante Sparaco
Chase Newman
Jaylon Jackson
Shamar Hamilton
Kevin George
Heston Paige
Casey Roddick
Sebastian Olver

Thats a partial list of guys in the same recruiting class with Landman and Wells who didn’t do s**t at CU. When you recruit the way CU has, the couple guys who outperform don’t make up for the dozens who never contribute.

You have helped perfectly illustrate CU’s recruiting problem by pointing out Wells and Landman, but you don’t get it at all.

I have it on good authority that Jacob Callier was an integral part in the 2018 win over Nebraska in Lincoln.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Let’s say CU hits the jackpot on two or three of the 2022 class. That would seem to be close to a best case scenario. When you’ve hit the jackpot on ten to fifteen under recruited players over a 20 year span, you know what you get? A 40% winning percentage and that’s what we’ve got and should continue to expect.

 

[bigbang2]

You can't say just because you have a 2 star rating or 3 star rating you are less talented than another guy without actually seeing the guy play. There are a lot of good 2 star or 3 star players currently playing in the NFL. Chidobie Awuzie and Topou will be playing in the Super bowl. It is riddicolous to read statements saying you are a 2 star, you are not talented. CU has a 100 percent failure rate with 4 and 5 star recruits. I can't recall the last good 5 star or 4 star recruit that we got that worked out. Katoa, Moretti, Houston, D Scott, Miller and etc. I also include Clayton and C Gonzales as busts becaue they left.

 

[bigbang2]

Also Alfano.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

While admitting that the recruiting services do miss on players, it is irrefutable that they hit the bullseye on the vast majority of players coming out of high school. Why, you ask? Because the people who make their livings evaluating players actually have seen the players play, on film and in person.

So, it’s pretty easy to say if you have a 2 star or 3 star rating coming out of high school you are very likely to be less talented than players with 4 or 5 star ratings. I’d take that bet 100 times out of 100.

 

[SINKRATZ]

You can't say just because you have a 2 star rating or 3 star rating you are less talented than another guy without actually seeing the guy play. There are a lot of good 2 star or 3 star players currently playing in the NFL. Chidobie Awuzie and Topou will be playing in the Super bowl. It is riddicolous to read statements saying you are a 2 star, you are not talented. CU has a 100 percent failure rate with 4 and 5 star recruits. I can't recall the last good 5 star or 4 star recruit that we got that worked out. Katoa, Moretti, Houston, D Scott, Miller and etc. I also include Clayton and C Gonzales as busts becaue they left.

Now do the same with the lower rated guys. How many were busts? Hint, it’s a long list.

 

[bigbang2]

That is not the issue here. The issue is saying you are a 2 star and automatically assume the guy can't play or less talented. Just because some unkonwn Journalist that I don't know created a rating system. It is actually not an outlier, there are a lot of so called misses. Yes there are the obvious can't miss prospects hat get the 5 star and 4 star ratings. But there are actually not a lot of 5 star players rated, The vast majority are 3 stars. My arguement is you can't really tell how good a player is until you see them on campus, after. Maybe after year 2. OL is the most difficult position to project.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

While admitting that the recruiting services do miss on players, it is irrefutable that they hit the bullseye on the vast majority of players coming out of high school. Why, you ask? Because the people who make their livings evaluating players actually have seen the players play, on film and in person.

So, it’s pretty easy to say if you have a 2 star or 3 star rating coming out of high school you are very likely to be less talented than players with 4 or 5 star ratings. I’d take that bet 100 times out of 100.

Eh, they are in the ball park on the vast majority of prospects, but they certainly don’t hit the bullseye on the majority, and it’s kind of a self fulfilling prophecy as ratings are definitely based in large part and get adjusted with offers and ongoing, active recruitment by various programs, not necessarily constant, in person evaluation.

 

[bigbang2]

Jake Moretti
Grant Polley
Kanan Ray
Jon Van Diest
Tyler Lytle
Jared Poplawski
Jacob Callier
Chris Miller
Maurice Bell
Dante Sparaco
Chase Newman
Jaylon Jackson
Shamar Hamilton
Kevin George
Heston Paige
Casey Roddick
Sebastian Olver

Thats a partial list of guys in the same recruiting class with Landman and Wells who didn’t do s**t at CU. When you recruit the way CU has, the couple guys who outperform don’t make up for the dozens who never contribute.

You have helped perfectly illustrate CU’s recruiting problem by pointing out Wells and Landman, but you don’t get it at all.

CU failure rate with 2 stars is better than 5 stars. Atleast it is not 100 percent.

 

[patebuff]

With the benefit of hindsight on the 2017 and 2020 classes, I actually agree with you, but that’s such a low bar to clear. The standard deviation isn’t as high as the 2020 class, so I expect there to be more contributors from this class and fewer guys like Lectenhaun, Stacks, and Passarello from Tucker’s class, who will likely never contribute much. It is a baseline class that’s just merely fine.

I'm ok saying the 2022 class will be better than the 2020 class (although we will never really know). The bottom of that 2020 class was not good.

As you said this is a baseline class that needs at least 2-3 of the Gonzo/Rice type players in each class. KD is obviously not willing to take a chance on a Harris' type players, but he will have to simply out recruit programs for the Gonzos and Rices of the world. That has yet to happen, so I am thinking this 2022 class is probably where this program will recruit more times than not.

 

[SINKRATZ]

That is not the issue here. The issue is saying you are a 2 star and automatically assume the guy can't play or less talented. Just because some unkonwn Journalist that I don't know created a rating system. It is actually not an outlier, there are a lot of so called misses. Yes there are the obvious can't miss prospects hat get the 5 star and 4 star ratings. But there are actually not a lot of 5 star players rated, The vast majority are 3 stars. My arguement is you can't really tell how good a player is until you see them on campus, after. Maybe after year 2. OL is the most difficult position to project.

We have recruited at roughly the same level for the past 20 years give or take. And in that time we’ve been one of the worst football programs in the country. How much larger of a sample size do you need to realize that this level of recruiting does not lead to winning football? Wells and Landman, for all their talent went 18-24 in their CU careers. That’s f**king terrible.

It’s not good enough at all.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Eh, they are in the ball park on the vast majority of prospects, but they certainly don’t hit the bullseye on the majority, and it’s kind of a self fulfilling prophecy as ratings are definitely based in large part and get adjusted with offers and ongoing, active recruitment by various programs, not necessarily constant, in person evaluation.

This class is the best class in the last ten years and it‘s still pretty clearly below average. Bottom third to quarter in the PAC12 and in the bottom twenty for the entire P5.

My hope is lost. I stopped drinking the Kool Aid a while ago. Feel free to guzzle.

 

[SINKRATZ]

CU failure rate with 2 stars is better than 5 stars. Atleast it is not 100 percent.

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. You’re suggesting we load up on 2star guys because at least 1 in 10 or 20 will turn out pretty good. That’s idiotic, you see that right?

 

[bigbang2]

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. You’re suggesting we load up on 2star guys because at least 1 in 10 or 20 will turn out pretty good. That’s idiotic, you see that right?

Where exactly did I say that?

 

[bigbang2]

I don't even look at ratings or rankings. I look at the tape and I ask the following questions.

1. How fast or is he athletic? I am not impressed with a 350OL destroying 200 pound players or playing against mediocre competition. Speed and athleticism is more important.
2. Is he a good student? character
3. Is he a good fit for the system I want to run.

 

[FM-Buff]

Bigbang is on one this morning. Let's go BB! Don't let these guys deter you.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

This class is the best class in the last ten years and it‘s still pretty clearly below average. Bottom third to quarter in the PAC12 and in the bottom twenty for the entire P5.

My hope is lost. I stopped drinking the Kool Aid a while ago. Feel free to guzzle.

I’m just saying that recruiting rankings are mostly a function of which programs are actively involved in the recruitments with a little bit of 247 scout evaluation. It’s why you see unrated or 2* players get the P5 bump to low 3* at minimum when a program like CU offers or accepts their commitment, but also why you sometimes see a drop in rating when a high 4* player chooses CU over a number of “better” offers, which may or may not be commitable.

 

[patebuff]

That is not the issue here. The issue is saying you are a 2 star and automatically assume the guy can't play or less talented. Just because some unkonwn Journalist that I don't know created a rating system. It is actually not an outlier, there are a lot of so called misses. Yes there are the obvious can't miss prospects hat get the 5 star and 4 star ratings. But there are actually not a lot of 5 star players rated, The vast majority are 3 stars. My arguement is you can't really tell how good a player is until you see them on campus, after. Maybe after year 2. OL is the most difficult position to project.

I am not really sure I follow. I don't think anyone disagrees that a 2-star player can become a great contributor. However, the evidence (yes, there is plenty of evidence) says that the recruiting sites that give players their star ratings proves that a player in the 87-89 range will outperform a 82-84 player (production on the field). This is not debatable because there is evidence of this being true. CU needs to live in the 86-88 range for half to slightly more than half of its class. Living in that 82-84 range will almost never get you a consistently winning program.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I am not really sure I follow. I don't think anyone disagrees that a 2-star player can become a great contributor. However, the evidence (yes, there is plenty of evidence) says that the recruiting sites that give players their star ratings proves that a player in the 87-89 range will outperform a 82-84 player (production on the field). This is not debatable because there is evidence of this being true. CU needs to live in the 86-88 range for half to slightly more than half of its class. Living in that 82-84 range will almost never get you a consistently winning program.

Yea, but what about their academic and character rankings? Did you factor those in?