Best Class Since 1997?

[Lou_C]

I understand where you are going with this and your point is made, but I think one possible explanation can be the general "star inflation" that Rivals has done in recent years. In other words, they may be giving out more 3 and 4 stars than ever to keep schools happy.

That's a part of it. "5-stars" sell subscriptions, there's no way around that. You're more likely to pay up to find out what a 5-star is thinking about your school than you are for a 4-star.

 

[TheCusian]

When we start getting recruits who have no mid major offers because they have no chance of getting the recruit, that is when you know we are back.

You just described most of the kids in this class.

 

[CusefanATL]

Jesus, I said it's the best class in ten years, which was the case last year to that point. Year over year there has been improvement since Robinson, but it's been steady and incremental, this class holds to that trend based on current verbals.

It's not an indictment of Shafer and McDonald to say that.

Robinson was kind of a good recruiter... better than marrone imo.

 

[tep624]

Robinson was kind of a good recruiter... better than marrone imo.

If you're definition is having top heavy classes, then yes. Robinson had higher quality at the top 1-5 recruits in his class, but a chunk of those guys never played or made it to campus, i.e. Pierce and Baskin.

 

[bnoro]

If you're definition is having top heavy classes, then yes. Robinson had higher quality at the top 1-5 recruits in his class, but a chunk of those guys never played or made it to campus, i.e. Pierce and Baskin.

Didn't Baskin count in 3 different classes too? That skews the ratings completely.

 

[Rocco]

Robinson was kind of a good recruiter... better than marrone imo.

Disagree.

Most of the kids that were playing this year were Marrone recruits except for one or two of the true freshmen this year that Shafer snagged last minute (Estime).

DM wasn't a bad recruiter, just couldn't get any blazers in the class. Could never land a stud, breakaway WR... jury still out on AC3.

As far as total talent levels... GRob left us with alot of washouts after 4 years of classes and Marrone greatly improved the classes and overall talent level, especially on D.

Shafer and Co already have a leg up on Marrone's best class, and that's a good thing for us.

 

[RF2044]

Robinson was kind of a good recruiter... better than marrone imo.

Completely disagree. Robinson wasn't a bad recruiter. He certainly landed more top end rated [i.e., 4 star] prospects than Marrone did, but many [most?] of them didn't pan out. See: Averin Collier, Lavar Lobdell, Jermaine Pierce, Parker Cantey, etc. He also landed numerous players who just weren't that good despite recruiting rankings [sorry to throw a kid under the bus, but since he transferred, what the heck--Mike Mele]--although there was obviously a correlation between on-field performance and how his later classes shaped up.

Marrone didn't land many highly rated prospects, an in general struggled to bring in difference making playmakers. He was also faced with a tremendous rebuild, and unfavorable perception nationally. The players he did land were solid, and improved the size / strength / speed of the program, from its nadir to a spot where we regained the ability to be competitive. The rebuild wasn't complete when he left, and the results weren't always pretty, but he left the program in much better shape than what he inherited.

I think overall, Go summed it up pretty well a few weeks ago: back when we were a top 20 team in the late 80s / early 90s, we had starting talent was as good as just about anybody, but there was a steep dropoff in talent / depth beyond those top guys. Under Marrone, we lacked the top end playmaking talent, but top to bottom the depth and ability to contribute from just about everybody on the roster was better than its ever been in the modern era.

 

[CusefanATL]

Completely disagree. Robinson wasn't a bad recruiter. He certainly landed more top end rated [i.e., 4 star] prospects than Marrone did, but many [most?] of them didn't pan out. See: Averin Collier, Lavar Lobdell, Jermaine Pierce, Parker Cantey, etc. He also landed numerous players who just weren't that good despite recruiting rankings [sorry to throw a kid under the bus, but since he transferred, what the heck--Mike Mele]--although there was obviously a correlation between on-field performance and how his later classes shaped up.

Marrone didn't land many highly rated prospects, an in general struggled to bring in difference making playmakers. He was also faced with a tremendous rebuild, and unfavorable perception nationally. The players he did land were solid, and improved the size / strength / speed of the program, from its nadir to a spot where we regained the ability to be competitive. The rebuild wasn't complete when he left, and the results weren't always pretty, but he left the program in much better shape than what he inherited.

I think overall, Go summed it up pretty well a few weeks ago: back when we were a top 20 team in the late 80s / early 90s, we had starting talent was as good as just about anybody, but there was a steep dropoff in talent / depth beyond those top guys. Under Marrone, we lacked the top end playmaking talent, but top to bottom the depth and ability to contribute from just about everybody on the roster was better than its ever been in the modern era.

Im not sure how you can "completely disagree" and than say he landed better recruits... it sounds like you at least partially agreed with my awfully quickly.

All i said was Grob was "kind of a good recruiter, better than marrone imo"

leaves it up for some debate.

 

[Brian Orange]

I assume someone mentioned the 2000 class? Johnnie Morant (our last true 5-star that I can remember), Diamond Ferri, Walter Reyes, Jared Jones, all were legit prospects with only big time offers.