Say what you want about our coaches

[javadoc]

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying we have a clear, obvious and serious talent deficit in our conference that needs to be addressed -- and not just to beat Florida Sate --- i mean to win more than one game a season.

It doesn't do you or me any good to quibble over stars or point systems. We need better players. The coach himself repeated this obvious conclusion at the end of the season. Even if the stars are meaningless, which they're clearly not, we haven't gotten a 5-start recruit in years, and we rarely get a 4-star who makes it to campus. You can quibble that stars are inaccurate -- but look at our players' ratings and the results on the field... pretty close if you ask me. That's why were in the conference basement.

I will agree that we have a talent deficit on the offensive side of the ball, especially at the skill positions. I think the young WR's will be good with some development time - I expect them to be decent this year, with lots of new faces contributing. I think we are setting up nicely for the future on the OL and at RB. None of it will matter if we don't (finally) get the QB right.

On defense I think we are fine, and the next step is to become really good.

The classes from this year (if it pans out as we expect) and last year are better than what went before. We'll see those results next year and beyond. The results this year and last reflect a lesser talent base. No argument there. We are bringing in guys now that should put us at 7-5 every year on average. If that's not enough and we should be getting 4- and 5-star guys right now, then by all means, go find a coach who can do that tomorrow and pay him whatever he wants. (I am skeptical that such a coach exists, or is within our realistic price range, which should not be low-balled - we could pay market now for a mainstream coach.)

No one is arguing that we need better players. Saint Doug himself said it to the team: my job is to recruit better players than you. We are now getting 7-5 talent and the trend is toward improvement.

All other boneheaded coaching decisions aside, we would not be having this conversation if we had reliable QB play this year.

 

[timkay99]

Read through the entire thread and have some points to make:

1) Yes, Shafer is recruiting better then anyone looking at rankings. However, we are not in the Big East anymore. ACC was supposed to make a jump in recruiting (and it has to for the team to compete). So, comparing Shafer to Marrone is truly comparing apples to oranges.

2) Evaluating the 2015 class on its own is pointless. Its a lesser class then 2014, but it was designed to be. The coaching staff made a decision to try and get most of 2015 done in the spring so they can move onto 2016 big fish. 2015 and 2016 classes need to be evaluated together. If 2016 lands a Robert Washington, a Patrice Rene, a Parker Boudreaux, then the 2015 class did its job. The biggest issue with this strategy was team performance this year and the demotion and uncertainty of McDonald. This class is a depth class. Whether you agree with the strategy or not (I don't), that was the purpose.

3) The OL coming in this class (mostly tackles) is the best OL haul that I can remember. Adams is a very underrated recruit for me. Everyone can blame QB play, but OL play was a problem in conference as well when it came to opening running holes especially.

4) No one can say definitively either way if this staff can recruit to an ACC level or not.

 

[Millhouse]

question about the conference rankings

i don't know whether to be concerned about being ranked last - silly fake example, if the last 8 acc teams are all clustered between, i don't know, 40 to 50, does it really matter that much who is ahead of who? the conference only rankings might appear too stark when really, all those 8 teams are about the same.

how many clear tiers are there?

 

[TheCusian]

That may help us against OOC teams but it won't help us win more than one or two games in conference, unless we start recruiting talent that is ACC-caliber.

False. Our first year in the ACC we won 4 games with worse recruiting classes (by rank anyways) than last season.

Our issues were QB, injuries, and scheme (weird situation with Lester).

 

[javadoc]

question about the conference rankings

i don't know whether to be concerned about being ranked last - silly fake example, if the last 8 acc teams are all clustered between, i don't know, 40 to 50, does it really matter that much who is ahead of who? the conference only rankings might appear too stark when really, all those 8 teams are about the same.

how many clear tiers are there?

The top tier this year is FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC. They are bringing in top-end talent in significant number.

Everyone else is more or less interchangeable. Most are bringing in a class of >70% 3-star guys with 1 or 2 4-star sprinkled in. NC St, Pitt, and VT have work to do as their commit count is a bit behind. UNC is actually last in the class with 14, but half of those are bona fide blue chips.

Your point about clustering and worrying about rankings is spot on. No one in the conference is really recruiting at a "non-ACC" or "non-P5" level.

 

[TheCusian]

question about the conference rankings i don't know whether to be concerned about being ranked last - silly fake example, if the last 8 acc teams are all clustered between, i don't know, 40 to 50, does it really matter that much who is ahead of who? the conference only rankings might appear too stark when really, all those 8 teams are about the same. how many clear tiers are there?

Great point. Especially in recruiting - it's a crapshoot in 3 star land.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

A class of 3 star guys will get you results that we have been experiencing, 5-7/6-6/7-5 type seasons. Would you agree that those results are "mediocre"? Your winning half of your games. You are successful half the time. To get to the next step, an aggregate of all the recruiting rankings is showing that we need to get at minimum a combination of 10 4 and 5 star kids. Until that starts happening, we are what we are.

Hahaha. We just need 10- 4 and 5 star kids, eh? That would put us top 15 in the country ahead of Oklahoma and South Carolina, Nebraska, Tennessee, Oregon, and Texas in 2013 or 2014 Riv$ls rankings. Hahahahahaha. I love SU. Freaking love SU. Won't and can't happen. Moreover, doesn't need to happen. Recruiting in the 30-50 range with Kansas St, TCU, Ga. Tech, WVU, Pitt, BC can win a team 10 games if coaching is top notch. We've got that on defense. ST and offense aren't being coached in any effective way or this was a 7-8 win team with this past year's personnel. If ST and Offense were coached really well? 9-10 wins.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Phat, seriously? You watched those games and think we have the same talent? Where was the "early" in our secondary? Where on our team were all those receivers we couldn't cover, the runningbacks we couldn't catch, the QB's we couldn't chase down, the defensive lines we couldn't block?

I can't tell you how many times we started at the 35 on offense and wound up at or own goal line or close to it.

Our defense played like men ... but were still outskilled and outmatched by almost every conference foe except one.

I'm not saying these things b/c I'm bashing SU. Far from it. I'm a huge fan and STH. I'm just sick of watching us go nowhere on offense, and delaying the inevitable on defense. The quicker we realize that we're not competitive the faster change happens.

Secondary? Esk
WR? Ish and West were open often and couldn't be covered effectively
RB? Erv
QB that couldn't be chased down? Hunt and AJ
DLine? Sugar Bear

Those items aren't our problems and we don't have an absence of that. What we didn't have this year was a QB who could get the ball to WR consistency and very poor offensive and ST coaching.

How many times did we start on our 35 yard line and end up on or very near our goal line? Maybe twice. The bigger problem was that we didn't start on our 35 consistently. That would have been great by comparison! We didn't go 35 yards backward often, but we had tons of drives that started at worse field position and didn't go anywhere.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying we have a clear, obvious and serious talent deficit in our conference that needs to be addressed -- and not just to beat Florida Sate --- i mean to win more than one game a season.

It doesn't do you or me any good to quibble over stars or point systems. We need better players. The coach himself repeated this obvious conclusion at the end of the season. Even if the stars are meaningless, which they're clearly not, we haven't gotten a 5-star recruit in years, and we rarely get a 4-star who makes it to campus. Argue all you want about the ratings -- a quick look at the results on the field will tell you that we haven't recruited the talent we need. That's why were in the conference basement. Whether the 15 class is an improvement or not .. I'll let you and the other experts debate.

Actually watching games will tell you our problems were truly horrible coaching of offense and ST and lack of a QB who looked like a D-I QB who could get the ball to our WR, which I actually think was poor coaching not recruiting because we had a QB last year in Drew that was a highly recruited QB signed by Oklahoma and effective there before he came here and a QB this year in AJ that was highly recruited and could have gone to a bunch of P5 schools and instead he plays here and looks like a below avg high school QB. That shows its not recruiting but instead poor coaching, horrible play calling and scheme and game plan. On top of those issues, we suffered more injuries than our opponents and just about any team in the country and shuffled Oline all year, which made it a very unstable and ineffective unit and hindered QB success even further.

 

[reedny]

False. Our first year in the ACC we won 4 games with worse recruiting classes (by rank anyways) than last season.

Our issues were QB, injuries, and scheme (weird situation with Lester).

4 then, 1 this year. maybe it'll get better .. since there seems to be enthusiasm about the kids we're bringing in. To my untrained eye, it looks like the field is tilted and we're overmatched by superior speed and talent in all 3 phases. But maybe if we can get our offensive guys healthy, and develop some cohesion on the OL, things will improve. Pretty ugly season.

 

[TheCusian]

4 then, 1 this year. maybe it'll get better .. since there seems to be enthusiasm about the kids we're bringing in. To my untrained eye, it looks like the field is tilted and we're overmatched by superior speed and talent in all 3 phases. But maybe if we can get our offensive guys healthy, and develop some cohesion on the OL, things will improve. Pretty ugly season.

I can not defend the results of the season - no matter the reasons...

 

[SoBristol]

I can not defend the results of the season - no matter the reasons...

Sure - but if you can't identify the reasons you can't fix the problem. Issue one - no backup QB who can compete at ACC level. Issue two - no backup OT. Issue three - not much speed at WR. Injuries compounded or revealed those issues.
For 2015 what are the issues and can they be addressed? Same issue at QB - juco help please!

 

[TheCusian]

Sure - but if you can't identify the reasons you can't fix the problem. Issue one - no backup QB who can compete at ACC level. Issue two - no backup OT. Issue three - not much speed at WR. Injuries compounded or revealed those issues. For 2015 what are the issues and can they be addressed? Same issue at QB - juco help please!

I've spent a lot of time posting and defending those reasons . I just think in the end, it's impossible to feel good about this past season. I disagree with most who say we have no hope, clean house. Plenty of room for optimism.

But, the QB position needs to get better in a hurry.

 

[SUskibum]

Great point. Especially in recruiting - it's a crapshoot in 3 star land.

3 Star to me says the following: Hey we are pretty damn sure that he can play BCS/P5 football. At what level you ask... well I have no freaking idea...

 

[TheCusian]

3 Star to me says the following: Hey we are pretty damn sure that he can play BCS/P5 football. At what level you ask... well I have no freaking idea...

I always look at rankings in terms of chances that the end up as a solid contributor.

2 stars: 50%
3 stars: 65%
4 stars: 75%
5 stars: 95%

 

[SUskibum]

I always look at rankings in terms of chances that the end up as a solid contributor.

2 stars: 50%
3 stars: 65%
4 stars: 75%
5 stars: 95%

Completely agree and would overlay the chances they become an impact player (eg. NFL pick) feel free to adjust since i just made the numbers up!

2 stars: 10%
3 stars: 30%
4 stars: 50%
5 stars: 70%

 

[tep624]

Our bread and butter is always going to be 3 star players, like it or not. Even if we become a top 20 player again, we probably will get a handful of 4 stars and maybe in some really good years a 5 star here or there (if Rutgers can do it we can do it), but because of where we are located geographically and because we're not a factory, 3 star players are going to drive the bus for us. And there's nothing wrong with that. We can build a very good program with top 30/top 40 type classes.

 

[reedny]

Our bread and butter is always going to be 3 star players, like it or not. Even if we become a top 20 player again, we probably will get a handful of 4 stars and maybe in some really good years a 5 star here or there (if Rutgers can do it we can do it), but because of where we are located geographically and because we're not a factory, 3 star players are going to drive the bus for us. And there's nothing wrong with that. We can build a very good program with top 30/top 40 type classes.

I appreciate your posts about recruiting .. you ( and some other posters) seem to have a great deal of insight about the recruiting process. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, you're optimistic about the talent we have coming in even though (from my limited understanding) we're fielding 3 star players in a league seemingly loaded with 4 and 5 star talent.

Geographically ... yes we're in the North. Huge factor. We don't put church and football in the same sentence. We don't organize our civic life around interscholastic or intercollegiate football games, or pay our coaches 5 million dollars a year, etc, etc.. That won't (and shouldn't) change. However, we have a Dome and a great school for kids that have any interest in academics at all. If they don't want to attend (meaningful) classes ... they can go south (or play for Rutgers).

That said, there are some pretty good FB teams being fielded by quality academic schools ... Northwestern comes to mind. Duke comes to mind (they flattened us this year and before the season, I didn't even know they had a FB team). So certainly there's hope for a private school with rigorous academics being able to compete -- with the right coaching. Northwestern's a private school in Chicago .. and the wind off of lake michigan in the winter makes syracuse seem like miami. So with a dome I can't imagine why weather is so damaging to our recruiting.

On balance, I can live with taking 3 star kids that are academically qualified and "develop" in our program. However, we need a sprinkling of 4/5 star talent at the skill positions, or I don't see us rising up from the basement of the ACC anytime soon. This is where I have serious reservations about our current staff and would appreciate your thoughts about our competitiveness in the future.

 

[tep624]

I appreciate your posts about recruiting .. you ( and some other posters) seem to have a lot of insight about the recruiting process and the quality of players we've gotten. If I'm reading you correctly, you're optimistic about the talent we have coming in even though (from my limited understanding) we're fielding 3 star players in a league that seems to be loaded with 4 and 5 star talent.

Geographically ... yes we're in the North. Huge factor. We don't put church and football in the same sentence. We don't center our civic life around interscholastic or intercollegiate football games, or pay our coaches 5 million dollars a year, etc, etc.. That won't (and shouldn't) change. However, we have a Dome and a great school for kids that have any interest in academics at all. If they don't want to attend (meaningful) classes ... they can go south (or play for Rutgers).

On the other hand, I've noticed that there are some pretty good FB teams being fielded by quality academic schools ... Northwestern comes to mind. Duke comes to mind (they flattened us this year and before the season, I didn't even know they had a FB team). So certainly there's hope for a private school with rigorous academics being able to compete -- with the right coaching. Northwestern's in Chicago .. and the wind off of lake michigan in the wintertime makes syracuse seem like miami. So with a dome I can't imagine that weather is that damaging to our recruiting.

On balance, I can live with 3 star kids that are academically qualified and develop in our program. However, there has to be a sprinkling of 4/5 star talent at the skill positions, or I don't see us rising up from the basement of the ACC anytime soon.

Thoughts?

Building your program on quality 3 star recruits and sprinkling in some top 250 "blue chip" types here or there that fit the profile of your program is basically how Northwestern and Duke have built quality program at like institutions. So it's a model that definitely works for schools of Syracuse's profile.

 

[baggerbob]

Marrone was recruiting MAC kids and we were winning battles for kids with 1 offer from Akron. That's where we were 3 - 5 years ago. His first year coming in right before LOI he signed Charley Loeb and even guys with FBI, DEA, and milk carton connections couldn't figure out who the hell Charley Loeb was. In retrospect it was pretty funny, we were all on here trying to talk up a guy that even his High School didn't know who he was. A true diamond in the rough.

But Marrone with real MAC level recruits could coach and I felt I knew what he was trying to do. His ability at times not to do it, to me was based on the talent and not coaching... most of the time (all those freaking penalties for a real hard nosed coach, ugh).

Moral of the story. Talent isn't our problem. Coaching is. A better coach would have produced significantly better offensive efficiency, NO... DOUBT... ABOUT... IT

Remember we were 11-17 in the Big East, with a 5-2 last year with Temple replacing West Virginia, we were not a good football program, when Doug left. Our talent level at that time was at most, middle of the pack in the Big East.

 

[orangeinjersey]

Hahaha. We just need 10- 4 and 5 star kids, eh? That would put us top 15 in the country ahead of Oklahoma and South Carolina, Nebraska, Tennessee, Oregon, and Texas in 2013 or 2014 Riv$ls rankings. Hahahahahaha. I love SU. Freaking love SU. Won't and can't happen. Moreover, doesn't need to happen. Recruiting in the 30-50 range with Kansas St, TCU, Ga. Tech, WVU, Pitt, BC can win a team 10 games if coaching is top notch. We've got that on defense. ST and offense aren't being coached in any effective way or this was a 7-8 win team with this past year's personnel. If ST and Offense were coached really well? 9-10 wins.

Not really sure why you think this is funny? In order to win 9+ games a year consistently that is how you need to recruit. If you're saying this is never going to happen then why the does everyone get so worked up when we only win 5 to 7 games a year?? What you're saying is that 7 wins is our ceiling unless we have some statistical once a decade annomolly that gets us to 8 or 9. Looks like we need to simply temper expectations.

You mention TCU, KState, Wva and Gatech. The other half of my post which you didn't quote said, you could win with mediocre recruiting provided you had top notch coaching. The schools listed have that, bc and Pitt don't, they win 7 games a year too. Our staff is what it is, I wouldn't put them in that category.

 

[TheCusian]

Not really sure why you think this is funny? In order to win 9+ games a year consistently that is how you need to recruit. If you're saying this is never going to happen then why the does everyone get so worked up when we only win 5 to 7 games a year?? What you're saying is that 7 wins is our ceiling unless we have some statistical once a decade annomolly that gets us to 8 or 9. Looks like we need to simply temper expectations. You mention TCU, KState, Wva and Gatech. The other half of my post which you didn't quote said, you could win with mediocre recruiting provided you had top notch coaching. The schools listed have that, bc and Pitt don't, they win 7 games a year too. Our staff is what it is, I wouldn't put them in that category.

Pitt and BC are not great examples. We won 7 games with this staff just last season, no? Finished ahead of both of them in the ACC and went to a better bowl that year as well.

Don't be a prisoner of the moment. Our recruiting is getting better and the jury is out on the offensive staff (OC mostly).

 

[orangeinjersey]

Pitt and BC are not great examples. We won 7 games with this staff just last season, no? Finished ahead of both of them in the ACC and went to a better bowl that year as well.

Don't be a prisoner of the moment. Our recruiting is getting better and the jury is out on the offensive staff (OC mostly).

Huh? BC and Pitt arent great examples of what? They fit in that they show what a good or bad coaching staff can do. Pitt should ABSOLUTELY be winning more than 6 games a year. BC on the other hand, is winning more than they should be. A testament to good coaching as opposed to bad coaching with Pitt.

That being said, in the grand scheme of things neither, is a Tier 2 program. Both are mediocre at best. If you want to win 9 games a year, you have to be recruiting 10 - 4 and 5 stars, filling out with 3 stars.

Pitt last 4 recruiting rankings, 43, 32, 42, 63: avg 45
Pitt records last 4 years...
6-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-6

BC last 4 recruiting rankings, 52, 87, 71, 41: avg 62.75
BC records last 4 years...
7-5, 7-6, 2-10, 4-8

 

[TheCusian]

Huh? BC and Pitt arent great examples of what? They fit in that they show what a good or bad coaching staff can do. Pitt should ABSOLUTELY be winning more than 6 games a year. BC on the other hand, is winning more than they should be. A testament to good coaching as opposed to bad coaching with Pitt.

That being said, in the grand scheme of things neither, is a Tier 2 program. Both are mediocre at best. If you want to win 9 games a year, you have to be recruiting 10 - 4 and 5 stars, filling out with 3 stars.

Pitt last 4 recruiting rankings, 43, 32, 42, 63: avg 45
Pitt records last 4 years...
6-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-6

BC last 4 recruiting rankings, 52, 87, 71, 41: avg 62.75
BC records last 4 years...
7-5, 7-6, 2-10, 4-8

I didn't read the post carefully enough, I guess. But my main point stands...

Pitt has def underperformed. BC has over performed recently (though I think their QB situation was directly responsible for this years w-l - and he's a transfer from Florida - so there is a hole in your analysis.)

Syracuse last 4 recruiting rankings, 50, 73, 61, 73: avg 64.25
Syracuses records last 4 years...
3-9, 7-6, 8-5, 5-7

Recruiting avg/w-l
Pitt recruiting avg: 45/25-25 (.500)
BC recruiting avg: 62.75/20-29 (.408)
Cuse recruiting avg: 64.25/23-27 (.460)

The numbers make the case that Marrone got more out of his talent so far (obviously); Marrone went 13-10 his last two seasons and Shafer went 10-15. But this year was marred by injuries and bad coaching and player execution on offense. The numbers also prove that this coaching staff is better at recruiting (not just by the rankings, but by production on the field this season). This years recruiting haul is on par with last years (by the numbers) - and we're still waiting on a few high level 3 star guys.

If you make the case for upperclassmen being important, it's much easier to see why BC had a better year this year (+ with the transfer at QB. Their #41 ranked class were all Sr.) While our #73 ranked class were seniors.

So - like I said - jury is out on our offensive staff. I also think we changed strategy this year in recruiting to get a jump on some 4 star guys in the next class. We'll see if it pays dividends. If you want to shout that having more 4 star guys is better than having more 3 star guys - go ahead. No one will argue with that.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Not really sure why you think this is funny? In order to win 9+ games a year consistently that is how you need to recruit. If you're saying this is never going to happen then why the does everyone get so worked up when we only win 5 to 7 games a year?? What you're saying is that 7 wins is our ceiling unless we have some statistical once a decade annomolly that gets us to 8 or 9. Looks like we need to simply temper expectations.

You mention TCU, KState, Wva and Gatech. The other half of my post which you didn't quote said, you could win with mediocre recruiting provided you had top notch coaching. The schools listed have that, bc and Pitt don't, they win 7 games a year too. Our staff is what it is, I wouldn't put them in that category.

What I think is funny is your suggestion that we can pull 10 different 4 and 5 star players a year in a recruiting class. Less than 15 teams, really about 10-12, do that nationally. I don't believe we can do that. We don't devote the financial resources it would take to do that like, for example, Oregon does. That's an investment of tens of millions of dollars. We don't have that and never will. If you win a National Championship and contend annually, you get such recruiting classes while investing slightly less dollars, but still have to invest in facilities, etc. However, that takes literally decades to build up to. It is funny to me because what you are suggesting is an absolute impossibility. That doesn't mean I'm not a fan of this school and team or that I think this football team will be average or below average from now on.

You don't have to recruit in the top 10 or 12 or 15 to finish with 9 wins a year consistently. If you recruit between 25-45 ranked classes every year, you can easily win 9 games or more if you have good to great coaching. On that point, we agree entirely.