Class of 2017 How is our recruiting not better at skill positions?

[nzm136]

They are most definitely unreasonable if you expected a class of "3 stars w/ the occasional 4 star" before he even finished half a season.

...and yet freaking Rutgers figured out how to do it.

 

[orange79]

...and yet freaking Rutgers figured out how to do it.

Rutgers has been to bowls in that last 4 years, 7 of the last 8. They have had some recent success to tell recruits about. Syracuse has not. Let's see how this plays out, especially the way the Girls' season has been going.

 

[PAcuse]

THIS YEAR:
Cameron Jordan is a rivals 2*
Russell Thompson is rivals 2*
Sharod Johnson is a rivals 2*

Josh Palmer is a rivals 3*
Nykeim Johnson is a rivals 3*

LAST YEAR:
Last year's class had a total of 5 2*'s in the entire class. Sean Riley was the only WR, and he was a 3*.

We don't have big WR classes every year, but if you go back to the '14 class, this one is below average at the position.

I'm asking the question because (1) I think it's crazy that we aren't seeing a bump, given that we are offering more than ever, and (2) a number of posters are concerned about the talent level on the team right now. Assuming their fears are justified, recruiting is worth following more so now than in the past.

Last year is a pass since they did not have a full cycle
Rivals hates us and always ranks us much lower
Most other since have those 2's listed as 3's
We where just talking about the players at the skill positions and if you watch the film on the skill positions guys they seem further along then past skill guys we where bringing in
Why would a 4/5 star kid want to come to Syracuse before yesterday?

 

[TheCusian]

This year's class doesn't look as strong as prior classes, and we weren't setting the world on fire then.

#45 nationally, so far. Best class in the last 10 years+...

 

[RF2044]

...but it hasn't improved this year. At least not ranking-wise.

Our coaching staff might be better at evaluating talent, so maybe the recruiting is better. Who knows? But it doesn't appear that way yet, and that surprises me given how much we have to offer them.

Sure it has--we've gotten the highest rated QB we've landed in the last 30 years, and a bunch of 3 star wideouts [including two with size].

Just an odd thing to complain about. Your post above about these recruits looking no better than SS's is completely off target. And no offense, not trying to call you out, but your premise here is wrong.

 

[nzm136]

Last year is a pass since they did not have a full cycle
Rivals hates us and always ranks us much lower
Most other since have those 2's listed as 3's
We where just talking about the players at the skill positions and if you watch the film on the skill positions guys they seem further along then past skill guys we where bringing in
Why would a 4/5 star kid want to come to Syracuse before yesterday?

1) I'm not down on last year at all. I only mentioned it to create a basis of comparison to counter the possibility of the bias that you claim rivals has.

2) We're 9th in passing yards per game and have a WR who is amongst the top in the nation in yards. Why wouldn't a number of 3*'s and one or two 4*'s want to come? Also, I never said 5*'s.

 

[nzm136]

Sure it has--we've gotten the highest rated QB we've landed in the last 30 years, and a bunch of 3 star wideouts [including two with size].

Just an odd thing to complain about. Your post above about these recruits looking no better than SS's is completely off target. And no offense, not trying to call you out, but your premise here is wrong.

We have exactly 2 3* WR's according to Rivals. That's "a bunch" to you? And no, my post isn't off target. Last year's class had exactly 5 2*'s in the entire class. This year's has 3 in the WR corps alone.

 

[nzm136]

#45 nationally, so far. Best class in the last 10 years+...

Class sizes impact rankings now more than they will when everybody finalizes. That number will climb (unless we bring in someone big or course)

 

[Whitey23]

Rutgers has been to bowls in that last 4 years, 7 of the last 8. They have had some recent success to tell recruits about. Syracuse has not. Let's see how this plays out, especially the way the Girls' season has been going.

Also, in a recruiting hotbed. Much easier to make the argument that the players should stay home and represent their community, get coaches and teams out to practices routinely, etc.

 

[PAcuse]

1) I'm not down on last year at all. I only mentioned it to create a basis of comparison to counter the possibility of the bias that you claim rivals has.

2) We're 9th in passing yards per game and have a WR who is amongst the top in the nation in yards. Why wouldn't a number of 3*'s and one or two 4*'s want to come? Also, I never said 5*'s.

Most 4/5 WR's where locked into their school of choice before the season started.

 

[nzm136]

Rutgers has been to bowls in that last 4 years, 7 of the last 8. They have had some recent success to tell recruits about. Syracuse has not. Let's see how this plays out, especially the way the Girls' season has been going.

I'm sure their class will get worse with attrition. But you're making it sound like RU has been way above SU as of late. That's very wrong. Honestly, there's a reason why the RU thread has the phrase "dumpster fire" in it.

And for the record, we've been to a bowl in the last 4 years. We may have actually been to two - when did we play WVU in the Pinstripe?

 

[nzm136]

Most 4/5 WR's where locked into their school of choice before the season started.

1) Once again, I've never said 5*.

2) I also said 3*'s with an occasional 4*.

3) It's not like anything that I said (style, practice facilities, Dome, ACC membership, schedule, etc.) was a secret.

4) We're averaging 2.4*'s as per Rivals. If you expected that, than you're more of a pessimist than I - especially given how we've looked on the recruiting trail in recent history.

 

[RF2044]

We have exactly 2 3* WR's according to Rivals. That's "a bunch" to you? And no, my post isn't off target. Last year's class had exactly 5 2*'s in the entire class. This year's has 3 in the WR corps alone.

Rivals ratings are, in a word, is garbage. I suggest you review Scout or ESPN ratings, and you'll not only see a much different story, but one that debunks the premise behind your hand wringing.

That Sharod Johnson is rated as a 2 star by Rivals is flat out absurd. Ditto Thompson-Bishop and Josh Palmer. You are complaining about a non-issue, particularly given that Devito is in the fold. And check out Allen Stritzinger's offer list--looks to me like the skilled talent we're landing is qualitatively HIGHER than its been in a long time, which comes as no surprise given our new offensive system. AND also consider that we will be heavily mining the 5th year transfer market for skilled talent, as well.

The sky isn't falling, and there's no reason to worry about the skilled talent we're bringing in for the class of 2017. For the record, those guys are an upgrade, who will begat the 4 star talent we all covet once the system continues to improve and sell itself.

 

[orange79]

I'm sure their class will get worse with attrition. But you're making it sound like RU has been way above SU as of late. That's very wrong. Honestly, there's a reason why the RU thread has the phrase "dumpster fire" in it.

And for the record, we've been to a bowl in the last 4 years. We may have actually been to two - when did we play WVU in the Pinstripe?

We've been to 3 in the last 6 years, and none since 2004 before that. Where did I say the Girls have been way above SU as of late? I said they had more success in terms of bowl games lately. And that makes a difference to recruits. A few games with a new coach isn't going to sway the big kids right away. Now, if we don't see an uptick in the next couple cycles, then we can start asking questions.

 

[baggerbob]

Sorry but I prefer ESPN, they don't have a stake in rating a school higher or lower, and this years class is shaping up better then previous classes. We have a 4 Star, and more high 3 stars then in previous years.

 

[nzm136]

Rivals ratings are, in a word, is garbage. I suggest you review Scout or ESPN ratings, and you'll not only see a much different story, but one that debunks the premise behind your hand wringing.

That Sharod Johnson is rated as a 2 star by Rivals is flat out absurd. You are complaining about a non-issue, particularly given that Devito is in the fold. AND that we will be heavily mining the 5th year transfer market for skilled talent, as well.

I'm "hand wringing" about the facts that:
1) There is a strong correlation between strong recruiting as per Rivals, Scout, ESPN, etc. and on field success
2) Despite endless poster complaints (other posters) about a lack of talent, the skilled position recruits aren't rated as well as their counterparts in the past.

But 3) more than anything, I'm surprised. I think that our value proposition is very high and better than it has been in the past.

 

[PAcuse]

1) Once again, I've never said 5*.

2) I also said 3*'s with an occasional 4*.

3) It's not like anything that I said (style, practice facilities, Dome, ACC membership, schedule, etc.) was a secret.

4) We're averaging 2.4*'s as per Rivals. If you expected that, than you're more of a pessimist than I - especially given how we've looked on the recruiting trail in recent history.

Did you read where I said Rivals sucks and ALL other sites have them at 3.
Sure you never said 4/5 AND I never said you did.
If you stick to just rivals the rankings suck, BUT the kids are still better overall.

 

[nzm136]

We've been to 3 in the last 6 years, and none since 2004 before that. Where did I say the Girls have been way above SU as of late? I said they had more success in terms of bowl games lately. And that makes a difference to recruits. A few games with a new coach isn't going to sway the big kids right away. Now, if we don't see an uptick in the next couple cycles, then we can start asking questions.

I said that you're making it sound like they have been way above us. And read ~90% of your last 2 posts to see where.

 

[RF2044]

I'm "hand wringing" about the facts that:
1) There is a strong correlation between strong recruiting as per Rivals, Scout, ESPN, etc. and on field success
2) Despite endless poster complaints (other posters) about a lack of talent, the skilled position recruits aren't rated as well as their counterparts in the past.

But 3) more than anything, I'm surprised. I think that our value proposition is very high and better than it has been in the past.

The mistake you are making is that:

1] You are basing this entirely upon Rivals ratings, and not the other scouting services, and then...
2] Drawing definitive conclusions, based upon the worst service of the three

This is starting to turn into a "you can lead a horse to water" discussion -- if you want to believe that the sky is falling, be my guest.

And BTW, the "endless poster complaints" about a lack of talent is more about the defensive talent not fitting the new scheme, and the need to improve on the OL.

 

[nzm136]

Did you read where I said Rivals sucks and ALL other sites have them at 3.
Sure you never said 4/5 AND I never said you did.
If you stick to just rivals the rankings suck, BUT the kids are still better overall.

Did you read where I said I'm looking at relative rankings? Switching from one ranking paradigm to another is problematic. I haven looked at Scout/ESPN/247 for this year vs past years, but I'd be surprised if this year is better for WR's, which is surprising.

And I'm not sure what your point about the 4/5* players is if it's not relevant to any claims that I've made.

But lastly, I hope you're right. Obviously rankings are far from perfect, and several schools truck the rankings every year (good and bad). I hope that we're one of them. It would be great to finally be the team that undeniably has more talent than the other team again.

 

[orange79]

I said that you're making it sound like they have been way above us. And read ~90% of your last 2 posts to see where.

Where are you getting 'way' above? I said they have been to more bowls lately than SU has. Nowhere did I say they were WAY above us. More bowls is better than less. No brainer. Way better than us. No. You're reading way too much into this.

 

[PAcuse]

Did you read where I said I'm looking at relative rankings? Switching from one ranking paradigm to another is problematic. I haven looked at Scout/ESPN/. . . for this year vs past years, but I'd be surprised if this year is better for WR's, which is surprising.

And I'm not sure what your point about the 4/5* players is if it's not relevant to any claims that I've made.

But lastly, I hope you're right. Obviously rankings are far from perfect, and several schools truck the rankings every year (good and bad). I hope that we're one of them. It would be great to finally be the team that undeniably has more talent than the other team again.

Okay you clearly have your opinion enjoy it an the rest of your weekend.

 

[nzm136]

The mistake you are making is that:

1] You are basing this entirely upon Rivals ratings, and not the other scouting services, and then...
2] Drawing definitive conclusions, based upon the worst service of the three

This is starting to turn into a "you can lead a horse to water" discussion -- if you want to believe that the sky is falling, be my guest.

And BTW, the "endless poster complaints" about a lack of talent is more about the defensive talent not fitting the new scheme, and the need to improve on the OL.

1) I'm comparing SU past and present. It really doesn't matter if Rivals gives the guy a 2 and scout a 3. What matters is that in prior years X gave us a Y and now X is giving our players a Y-Z. Unless you think that Rivals is a huge outlier when it comes to trends, then all your points about Rivals are irrelevant. And for the record, there is a very high correlation between a ranking in one service and a ranking in another. It's not 100%, sure. But there is a very high correlation.

And 2) true, but our offense is what's going to carry our team with our current schemes. We have to over index. Anyway, my original comment was that we aren't doing better, which is surprising, given we are running a scheme that's wildly more WR-friendly (and QB and RB).

I don't understand how any of that's hard to grasp.

 

[nzm136]

Okay you clearly have your opinion enjoy it an the rest of your weekend.

*Opinion based on actual numbers, and not blind faith

But I will. You too.

 

[PhatOrange]

...but it hasn't improved this year. At least not ranking-wise.

Our coaching staff might be better at evaluating talent, so maybe the recruiting is better. Who knows? But it doesn't appear that way yet, and that surprises me given how much we have to offer them.

We're currently ranked #45 at rvls. That's an improvement.

Go look at our kids offer sheets. Some solid blue chips for sure