Dino Presser

[SmilinBob]

The 2020 class imo is most important if it fills holes with quality recruits. The rest can be talented and developed. The positions of OL did well as did RB, DE, S and WR/TE and are all upgraded and I'm very pleased with these additions.

Not enough LB and no DT or QB, that hurts. I do not want to see another Grad LB because SU will just have to fill it over again and that loop is incredibly frustrating. The JC LB's seem to just be available to play in their last year and that too continues the loop.

 

[PhatOrange]

Kinsler is listed at 204 pounds-Putting on 40 (good) pounds isn't a gimme-Below is Alton Robinson's recruiting profile. He wasn't 220.

Alton Robinson, Seattle Seahawks, Edge

2014: Earned first-team all-district honors at DE and was Honorable Mention all-state by both the AP and TSWA as a junior

247sports.com

Latarie Kinsler, FIU Golden Panthers, Edge

Latarie Kinsler is a Defensive End from Pahokee, FL. 2017 Class 1A Defensive Player of the Year.

247sports.com

He was 220. I didn’t make it up.

he doesn’t need to be 260 either. There’s a million examples of 235/240 pound defensive ends wreaking havoc in the college game. But we do need an aggressive attacking style of D.

Stadium

Your Daily Fan Network

watchstadium.com

College Football Recruiting Classes - ESPN

Find what players have committed to your favorite school. Videos, analysis and more on ESPN.com

www.espn.com

Texas A&M Football Class of 2016 | Alton Robinson

Click here to view this item from theeagle.com.

www.theeagle.com

Alton Robinson, Defensive End, Judson | USC Scoop

Find the latest USC Trojans, football recruiting news, updates and video for Judson Defensive End () Alton Robinson from Converse, TX.

uscscoop.com

 

[billsin01]

Analyzing College Football's Relationship Between Recruiting Class Rankings and Wins - Stadium

Recruiting Matters: Why the rankings get it right

Another year, another reminder that recruiting sites remain our most useful resource for evaluating new talent and forming baseline expectations.

www.footballstudyhall.com

Interesting article but I'm not entirely sure it's either A) a scientific study of the system used to rate kids or B) necessarily telling us anything we don't know.

You or I could come up with a top 25 list of recruiting classes without looking at a thing and be pretty accurate. Take almost all of the SEC (let's say 8-9 schools), add clemson, ohio state, wisconsin, michigan, Penn state, usc, notre dame, oklahoma, Florida State, Miami and then sprinkle in a few schools that are good bets to pop up -- Oregon, Stanford and maybe a couple others and you've got your top 25. Not only is that likely the bulk of the top 25, it's also likely pretty accurate in terms of talent.

However, I don't really see any evidence that improved recruiting rankings predict future success. Take Minnesota: 10-2, ranked 16th in the country. Clearly have some level of talent. Previous four recruiting classes: 46, 59, 38, 45. Now that they won 10 games? Shocker -- class ranked at 31.

How about USC -- classes ranked 10-4-4-20 nationally up through 2019. The past two seasons, they have a combined 11 losses and, shocker, this year (with only 11 players signed, which I believe hurts the classes) they're ranked 78th. Further, they've never finished outside the top 20, at least going back to the early 2000s (and generally they crushed as in top 2 or 3 ranking and easily top 10) yet from '09 on they've averaged 4+ losses a year and finished outside the top 25 five times in that span. Now we'd still gladly trade results with them in that span, but they went from a team that was incredibly disappointed by two-loss seasons to a team that is averaging 4 and has had several worse seasons including a 5-7 year last season.

Same goes for Texas or ND -- results have been pretty up and down, recruiting rankings remain pretty steady.

For me, at the end of the day, it's likely a moot point b/c until we somehow start landing a couple handfulls of 4-stars, we're going to need to develop and coach up the talent we get. But I really feel if these things were accurate, they'd tell you that the talent was dipping at USC before a year or two before you saw the results on the field. Same thing at ND or Texas, etc.

 

[RandomGuy]

Analyzing College Football's Relationship Between Recruiting Class Rankings and Wins - Stadium

Recruiting Matters: Why the rankings get it right

Another year, another reminder that recruiting sites remain our most useful resource for evaluating new talent and forming baseline expectations.

www.footballstudyhall.com

Hard to argue, overall.

We get the dreaded 1 star rating, outside the top 60. It does appear we've moved into the powerhouse 2 star rating, which is good for exactly zero more wins. In fact, the one star group out performed the 2 stars... great.

UCF, Boise state were a 1 star, so I guess there is hope?
Minny, Wisconsin, GT a 2 star

 

[billsin01]

Hard to argue, overall.

We get the dreaded 1 star rating, outside the top 60. It does appear we've moved into the powerhouse 2 star rating, which is good for exactly zero more wins. In fact, the one star group out performed the 2 stars... great.

Minny was a 2 star, so I guess there is hope?

Simple to argue -- if the recruiting rankings mattered we would have seen Minnesota as a solid top-30 class for at least a couple seasons before they put up an impressive, 10-win season that could easily have been 11. We won 10 freaking games last year and beat a ton of teams that routinely rank ahead of us by wide margins. Would we all be happier to finish with higher rated classes? Yes. Does our lower ranked class truly mean we can't compete? No.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Interesting article but I'm not entirely sure it's either A) a scientific study of the system used to rate kids or B) necessarily telling us anything we don't know.

You or I could come up with a top 25 list of recruiting classes without looking at a thing and be pretty accurate. Take almost all of the SEC (let's say 8-9 schools), add clemson, ohio state, wisconsin, michigan, Penn state, usc, notre dame, oklahoma, Florida State, Miami and then sprinkle in a few schools that are good bets to pop up -- Oregon, Stanford and maybe a couple others and you've got your top 25. Not only is that likely the bulk of the top 25, it's also likely pretty accurate in terms of talent.

However, I don't really see any evidence that improved recruiting rankings predict future success. Take Minnesota: 10-2, ranked 16th in the country. Clearly have some level of talent. Previous four recruiting classes: 46, 59, 38, 45. Now that they won 10 games? Shocker -- class ranked at 31.

How about USC -- classes ranked 10-4-4-20 nationally up through 2019. The past two seasons, they have a combined 11 losses and, shocker, this year (with only 11 players signed, which I believe hurts the classes) they're ranked 78th. Further, they've never finished outside the top 20, at least going back to the early 2000s (and generally they crushed as in top 2 or 3 ranking and easily top 10) yet from '09 on they've averaged 4+ losses a year and finished outside the top 25 five times in that span. Now we'd still gladly trade results with them in that span, but they went from a team that was incredibly disappointed by two-loss seasons to a team that is averaging 4 and has had several worse seasons including a 5-7 year last season.

Same goes for Texas or ND -- results have been pretty up and down, recruiting rankings remain pretty steady.

For me, at the end of the day, it's likely a moot point b/c until we somehow start landing a couple handfulls of 4-stars, we're going to need to develop and coach up the talent we get. But I really feel if these things were accurate, they'd tell you that the talent was dipping at USC before a year or two before you saw the results on the field. Same thing at ND or Texas, etc.

You're doing the thing where you're confusing individual cases with general trends.

Correlation isn't perfect. It's directional.

 

[billsin01]

You're doing the thing where you're confusing individual cases with general trends.

Correlation isn't perfect. It's directional.

But to call it scientific when there is absolutely no way they can compare a 3-star out of rhode island to a 3-star out of Nevada is equally as absurd.

I agree generally that those are merely a few data points, but the entire point is that a predictive method should be able to tell us at schools when the talent level is improving or declining before we see it on the field. We could name the top 25 every year and until a school is either great for a few years or sucks for a few years, their rankings don't change. It's not like you couldn't point to a ton of schools and find comparable data -- Boise, Utah, UConn in the glory years under edsall, Notre Dame's record has been all over the map, the recruiting is always top 25 ...

When is the last time we saw recruiting rankings improve significantly for a couple years and then saw a school play at a much higher level? Or the opposite? It never happens that way.

To me, what you're arguing is that the SEC and the other big dog schools are generally getting more talent than the mid-level power 5s, which are getting more talent than other half of FBS teams from non-power 5 conferences. That's something we all know or basically assume. But as far as the details and comparing individual recruits at a lower level and sniffing out who is making a move and who is struggling -- I don't see any value in it.

And, to their defense, I assume that's because there are so many other factors involved. Coaching, development, talent retention etc

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Simple to argue -- if the recruiting rankings mattered we would have seen Minnesota as a solid top-30 class for at least a couple seasons before they put up an impressive, 10-win season that could easily have been 11.

That's an incomplete interpretation.

 

[javadoc]

Or hire guys that can close the deal. We have the offensive scheme, run game and receivers. Find the kid and close the deal.

I think there might be an angle to Dino's comments about this class, something he is skirting but expressing frustration with.

 

[RandomGuy]

Simple to argue -- if the recruiting rankings mattered we would have seen Minnesota as a solid top-30 class for at least a couple seasons before they put up an impressive, 10-win season that could easily have been 11. We won 10 freaking games last year and beat a ton of teams that routinely rank ahead of us by wide margins. Would we all be happier to finish with higher rated classes? Yes. Does our lower ranked class truly mean we can't compete? No.

Why I added overall. Overall it's pretty accurate. Need to be one of the few outliers. Last year, we were.

 

[Chip]

If he talks about anything but the positive attributes of the kids that have signed on he’s an idiot, and Dino doesn’t strike me as an idiot.

He’s doesn’t owe anyone an answer for anything .

Some on this board have gone completely OFF the rails.

 

[NJneer12]

Anyone know what Dino was referencing when he said he doesn't get told much or something like that?

That stuck out for me.

 

[qdawgg]

Interesting article but I'm not entirely sure it's either A) a scientific study of the system used to rate kids or B) necessarily telling us anything we don't know.

You or I could come up with a top 25 list of recruiting classes without looking at a thing and be pretty accurate. Take almost all of the SEC (let's say 8-9 schools), add clemson, ohio state, wisconsin, michigan, Penn state, usc, notre dame, oklahoma, Florida State, Miami and then sprinkle in a few schools that are good bets to pop up -- Oregon, Stanford and maybe a couple others and you've got your top 25. Not only is that likely the bulk of the top 25, it's also likely pretty accurate in terms of talent.

However, I don't really see any evidence that improved recruiting rankings predict future success. Take Minnesota: 10-2, ranked 16th in the country. Clearly have some level of talent. Previous four recruiting classes: 46, 59, 38, 45. Now that they won 10 games? Shocker -- class ranked at 31.

How about USC -- classes ranked 10-4-4-20 nationally up through 2019. The past two seasons, they have a combined 11 losses and, shocker, this year (with only 11 players signed, which I believe hurts the classes) they're ranked 78th. Further, they've never finished outside the top 20, at least going back to the early 2000s (and generally they crushed as in top 2 or 3 ranking and easily top 10) yet from '09 on they've averaged 4+ losses a year and finished outside the top 25 five times in that span. Now we'd still gladly trade results with them in that span, but they went from a team that was incredibly disappointed by two-loss seasons to a team that is averaging 4 and has had several worse seasons including a 5-7 year last season.

Same goes for Texas or ND -- results have been pretty up and down, recruiting rankings remain pretty steady.

For me, at the end of the day, it's likely a moot point b/c until we somehow start landing a couple handfulls of 4-stars, we're going to need to develop and coach up the talent we get. But I really feel if these things were accurate, they'd tell you that the talent was dipping at USC before a year or two before you saw the results on the field. Same thing at ND or Texas, etc.

I didn't anticipate at all you would find fault with the article and brush it off. Completely surprised.

 

[qdawgg]

Such a ridiculous statement. ED wasn't recruited by DB, TD was though. Schools aren't following SU recruiting around trying to find the next great QB of the country so they can offer them too. The staff has shown we can identify QB talent like nobody else in the country? Come on, we don't even have any QB's. This is a couple notches below the little engine that could and ISIS, the ISIS statement actually made sense though.

 

[orangeinohio]

Such a ridiculous statement. ED wasn't recruited by DB, TD was though. Schools aren't following SU recruiting around trying to find the next great QB of the country so they can offer them too. The staff has shown we can identify QB talent like nobody else in the country? Come on, we don't even have any QB's. This is a couple notches below the little engine that could and ISIS, the ISIS statement actually made sense though.

I kind of feel bad that other schools don’t have enough resources to put into recruiting and they have to spy on SU’s staff

 

[zjscuse]

Such a ridiculous statement. ED wasn't recruited by DB, TD was though. Schools aren't following SU recruiting around trying to find the next great QB of the country so they can offer them too. The staff has shown we can identify QB talent like nobody else in the country? Come on, we don't even have any QB's. This is a couple notches below the little engine that could and ISIS, the ISIS statement actually made sense though.

Are you in the war room with the coaches ? Do you personally talk to recruits and truly know whats going on behind the scenes? Because i know dino is and i know hes a rational person. He wouldnt be saying it for no reason and it takes alot to get him to show some cards behind the curtain. I believe him, And instead of trying to hide from it . he addresses it and doesnt run from the situation. Which makes me even more confident he will figure it out.

 

[qdawgg]

Are you in the war room with the coaches ? Do you personally talk to recruits and truly know whats going on behind the scenes? Because i know dino is and i know hes a rational person. He wouldnt be saying it for no reason and it takes alot to get him to show some cards behind the curtain. I believe him, And instead of trying to hide from it . he addresses it and doesnt run from the situation. Which makes me even more confident he will figure it out.

Sorry, I don't believe it. He might believe it's true.

Other schools are watching what SU does, a school with a record 4 and 5 wins 3 out of the last 4 years and no QB depth. We're the school everyone is watching to see who we're interested in. Even typing it is absurd.

 

[billsin01]

I didn't anticipate at all you would find fault with the article and brush it off. Completely surprised.

The article is unequivocally true for what it’s stating which is that the teams that are ranked toward the top of the recruiting rankings win more games. I get that there is validity to that.

What it doesn’t address is how they rank kids nationally beyond that top 250 or 300 or so and how often those recruiting rankings reflect a team that is about to emerge as really good or a traditional power that is waning.

If we assume they can accurately rate every kid scouted and offered by FBS programs — I don’t see how this is humanly possible, but I’m fine if you believe that — then we need to figure out something with scheme, S&C, technique, etc. We simply aren’t going to be landing 10 4-stars a class u less Dabo gets sick of Clemson and brings the whole crew and his boosters to the hill.

But again — for the record — I’m not arguing that the SEC, Clemson, Ohio State etc aren’t getting more talent.

 

[supp]

Finally had a chance to listen to this. Anyone care to speculate about what Dino meant when he said "This is the year of people not telling me things"?

 

[blizz]

They also offer the most kids in the country.

If this doesn't support the idea that we have a significant disadvantage compared to other P5 programs, I'm at a loss. Some serious discussion around what this actually is (undoubtedly multiple) would be appreciated.

 

[PAcuse]

Finally had a chance to listen to this. Anyone care to speculate about what Dino meant when he said "This is the year of people not telling me things"?

Alexander leaving the team is what most people believe he is talking about

 

[blizz]

Such a ridiculous statement. ED wasn't recruited by DB, TD was though. Schools aren't following SU recruiting around trying to find the next great QB of the country so they can offer them too. The staff has shown we can identify QB talent like nobody else in the country? Come on, we don't even have any QB's. This is a couple notches below the little engine that could and ISIS, the ISIS statement actually made sense though.

Have been thinking about this lately and agree, but I think it's more alarming than anything. I want to give Dino the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he just had a moment where he was inarticulate. The guy is clearly frustrated, and rightfully so, imho. I think it's really as simple as trying to express the conviction that his staff has been successful identifying high quality prospects and establishing contact early, which is a significant advantage. Yet, for unnamed reasons, are unable to compete at later stages in the process and have consistently lost prospects to other programs that did not identify them early, and were only involved after Syracuse had established a relationship and invested a lot of time and resources. That fits the pattern that we have witnessed over and over in recruiting, and it's not just with quarterbacks.
But the notion that more secrecy is the solution, in this day and age, paints him as out of touch.
The whole thing is alarming.

 

[PhatOrange]

Finally had a chance to listen to this. Anyone care to speculate about what Dino meant when he said "This is the year of people not telling me things"?

I didn’t listen to it what was the context?

 

[kingtidge]

My only concern is QB at the moment. I’d ask Dino if the staff has a plan to close out 2020’s class with a competitive QB recruit, and whether or not he feels he has the support within his own cabinet to get this job done.

Barring rabbits from hats, I'd be guessing a year with a grad transfer at QB a la colt Brennan.

 

[Trueblue25]

Barring rabbits from hats, I'd be guessing a year with a grad transfer at QB a la colt Brennan.

DeVito had a solid year despite our O line, he’s not get unseated unless a stud/someone comparable comes in. That seems unlikely at best right now.

id like young depth gaining experience behind Tommy, or pushing him in a camp. Mercenary qb’s wont help us here