It's not about the X's and the O's...

Crusty

Living Legend
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
12,609
Like
15,727
...it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. We have all heard that numerous times - and it is true. The data regarding the projection attributes of recruit ratings over the years is pretty solid. Colleges spend gigantic amounts on facilities for a reason - they have to in order to attract 18 and 19 year old kids with dreams of glory or even an NFL career.

Certainly, other things matter but injuries, scheme, strenght of schedule and coaching are all factors, but the single most important factor is recruiting. Injuries happen to all teams, SOS many times turns out to be different than originally thought as games are scheduled years in advance and today's hero coach is tomorrow's goat.

Are there exceptions that prove the rule? Of course, but please don't rely on anectdotal eveidence in the face of strong data. Betting against the law of large numbers is like dodging lightning bolts for a living.

In our case the numbers have been pretty acurate as predictors of future team results. We have to stop deluding ourselves with rationalization about the low ratings of our classes, which consitently rank at the bottom of the ACC.

I took alook at the numerical grades by ESPN of all classes since 2009, which encompases Marrone, Shafer and Babers (288 players). This sems like a reasoanble subset of data for the topic.
Babers clases average 75.16
Marrone 74.67
Shafer 74.08

Not a significant difference between all three over 12 recruiting classes.

Until this changes, we are going to be mired in mediaocrity at best.
 

HRE Otto IV

All Conference
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
2,274
Like
3,129
Talent is why we are not good. Coaching is why we are god awful. If it was all about the talent, then why are we right around 100th (depending on the computer ranking) in the nation but our recruiting class were all well above that? If our classes averaged 60 and we were 70th best team your comment woudl hold weight. But when we are 100th it does not.
 

PAcuse

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
6,143
Like
11,617
100% agree
So what does the school need to do, something is seriously wrong if recruiting keeps being that bad through multiple coaches.
 

longislandcuse

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
34,886
Like
42,091
Scheme/Development and, most importantly - QB play, can overcome recruiting woes against teams that aren’t Clemson.

You’ll never have CFP aspirations, and NY6 aspirations may only come along once or twice a decade, but you can at least be bowl eligible if you identify and develop QB’s, then scheme/build your guys into solid contributors as upperclassmen.

Dino and his staff do none of those things. It’s remarkable how every box of what’s needed to succeed at Syracuse has been left unchecked by the current leadership of this program.
 

skurey

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
9,493
Like
11,877
I agree we need much better talent

But I'm tired of everyone giving the coaches making millions of dollars a pass. It seems like a lot of people think every coach is good no matter what and it's all the players.
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
25,891
Like
27,140
Talent is why we are not good. Coaching is why we are god awful. If it was all about the talent, then why are we right around 100th (depending on the computer ranking) in the nation but our recruiting class were all well above that? If our classes averaged 60 and we were 70th best team your comment woudl hold weight. But when we are 100th it does not.
Age matters
 

money3189

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,223
Like
14,077
Getting more studs is the need for any team. Generating a winning culture where coaches develop and scheme to maximize production is what most teams have to rely on. Some more than others. There are many examples of less talented teams consistently winning. Indiana is just a recent example of this. The key is for them to capitalize off this success and bring in high end talent to keep it going.
 

GoSU96

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
14,287
Like
19,078
...it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. We have all heard that numerous times - and it is true. The data regarding the projection attributes of recruit ratings over the years is pretty solid. Colleges spend gigantic amounts on facilities for a reason - they have to in order to attract 18 and 19 year old kids with dreams of glory or even an NFL career.

Certainly, other things matter but injuries, scheme, strenght of schedule and coaching are all factors, but the single most important factor is recruiting. Injuries happen to all teams, SOS many times turns out to be different than originally thought as games are scheduled years in advance and today's hero coach is tomorrow's goat.

Are there exceptions that prove the rule? Of course, but please don't rely on anectdotal eveidence in the face of strong data. Betting against the law of large numbers is like dodging lightning bolts for a living.

In our case the numbers have been pretty acurate as predictors of future team results. We have to stop deluding ourselves with rationalization about the low ratings of our classes, which consitently rank at the bottom of the ACC.

I took alook at the numerical grades by ESPN of all classes since 2009, which encompases Marrone, Shafer and Babers (288 players). This sems like a reasoanble subset of data for the topic.
Babers clases average 75.16
Marrone 74.67
Shafer 74.08

Not a significant difference between all three over 12 recruiting classes.

Until this changes, we are going to be mired in mediaocrity at best.
What's the trend?
 

JKinPhilly

Starter
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,585
Like
2,014
Its been said here many times, and I thought Luginbill laid it out pretty clearly during the game as well. Not enough local talent to build a team around, and we have to rely on going into others teams backyards to get enough talent to build a competitive roster. We are going to lose out more than we win in that scenario. Its a sobering reality that we have to face.
 

OrangeXtreme

The Mayor of Dewitt
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
133,748
Like
184,706
100% agree
So what does the school need to do, something is seriously wrong if recruiting keeps being that bad through multiple coaches.
1. Move the entire University to a talent rich/football crazy state down South.
2. Build an 80,000 seat stadium.
3. Find 80,000 diehard fans willing to pay $1000/year for season tickets.
4. Set aside $15-20 mil a year for coaches salaries.
5. Set aside another few million for "bags".

Problem solved.
 

PAcuse

All American
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
6,143
Like
11,617
1. Move the entire University to a talent rich/football crazy state down South.
2. Build an 80,000 seat stadium.
3. Find 80,000 diehard fans willing to pay $1000/year for season tickets.
4. Set aside $15-20 mil a year for coaches salaries.
5. Set aside another few million for "bags".

Problem solved.
Oh that’s it, easy peasy!
 

skurey

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
9,493
Like
11,877
1. Move the entire University to a talent rich/football crazy state down South.
2. Build an 80,000 seat stadium.
3. Find 80,000 diehard fans willing to pay $1000/year for season tickets.
4. Set aside $15-20 mil a year for coaches salaries.
5. Set aside another few million for "bags".

Problem solved.
Syracuse University at Miami

SUM
 

OttoinGrotto

Run clowns in Archbold
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
38,338
Like
83,771
While I agree we need more talent and the talent we have needs to develop, the thing that has me scratching my head is that it's not like we have a roster full of guys that aren't at least D-I talents. They were all recruited to play at least at the G5 level, if not P5. We should at least look competent. We don't often enough.

Someone years back, I think during the Robinson years, maybe it was All4SU made a comment during the talent vs coaching debate that if talent is there, every once in a while that would shine through on a play or two, and if you don't see that, the issue likely is talent.

On defense we see guys make plays. Like LaBrosse yesterday, made a great read and ran a guy down for a tackle behind the LOS in the red zone. All the young guys on defense, for whatever mistakes they've made or when they've been overmatched, have made some things happen.

On offense though, when it comes to the young guys... I don't know. Queeley looks like he's figuring things out. Tucker obviously can play. Lutz has his moments. Benson looks awesome the few times he gets to catch the ball. Morgan had some moments. Jordan was a bright spot last season and really sucks this year he's been injured. Hard to judge the OL.

Is that enough going forward? Maybe if the OL rounds into shape. That's a big maybe.
 

money3189

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,223
Like
14,077
While I agree we need more talent and the talent we have needs to develop, the thing that has me scratching my head is that it's not like we have a roster full of guys that aren't at least D-I talents. They were all recruited to play at least at the G5 level, if not P5. We should at least look competent. We don't often enough.

Someone years back, I think during the Robinson years, maybe it was All4SU made a comment during the talent vs coaching debate that if talent is there, every once in a while that would shine through on a play or two, and if you don't see that, the issue likely is talent.

On defense we see guys make plays. Like LaBrosse yesterday, made a great read and ran a guy down for a tackle behind the LOS in the red zone. All the young guys on defense, for whatever mistakes they've made or when they've been overmatched, have made some things happen.

On offense though, when it comes to the young guys... I don't know. Queeley looks like he's figuring things out. Tucker obviously can play. Lutz has his moments. Benson looks awesome the few times he gets to catch the ball. Morgan had some moments. Jordan was a bright spot last season and really sucks this year he's been injured. Hard to judge the OL.

Is that enough going forward? Maybe if the OL rounds into shape. That's a big maybe.
We have enough talent to win 7-8 games a year, some want to ignore our recent classes with players that had mutiple P5 offers. The postions Ive been critcal on the last 5 years is OL and QB. I think we could have done better recruiting in those areas. Sure enough we can see the lack of depth at those positions now.
 
Last edited:

IthacaBarrel

Shaky Potatoes
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,590
Like
12,536
If you can’t coach them up and develop the talent that you recruit you will simply not be successful at Syracuse and it’s extremely difficult to do. Waiting for HUGE improvement in recruiting will never happen here for reasons that have been discussed at nauseum. Marrone was clearly the best we have had in the last 20 years doing that.

The defense is good enough to win 6-7 games if the offense was at least pulling some weight. Not a ton of defense in any football these days
 

Millhouse

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
25,891
Like
27,140
If you can’t coach them up and develop the talent that you recruit you will simply not be successful at Syracuse and it’s extremely difficult to do. Waiting for HUGE improvement in recruiting will never happen here for reasons that have been discussed at nauseum. Marrone was clearly the best we have had in the last 20 years doing that.

The defense is good enough to win 6-7 games if the offense was at least pulling some weight. Not a ton of defense in any football these days
They are wasting years with a ton of turnovers. I don't pay for Stathead the old cfb reference site but it's incredible that a team that forces so many turnovers is so bad
 

HRE Otto IV

All Conference
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
2,274
Like
3,129
If you can’t coach them up and develop the talent that you recruit you will simply not be successful at Syracuse and it’s extremely difficult to do. Waiting for HUGE improvement in recruiting will never happen here for reasons that have been discussed at nauseum. Marrone was clearly the best we have had in the last 20 years doing that.

The defense is good enough to win 6-7 games if the offense was at least pulling some weight. Not a ton of defense in any football these days
The O really is a head scratcher. The first two games we were inept. But one could excuse that given new OC, Covid, road games, good teams, etc. Then they clicked vs GA Tech. So you expect that maybe we are heading in the right direction going into the bye week. Then we look lost again vs a bad Duke team and follow it up with Liberty. Those two games make little sense. Why the regression? Somehow we seem to right the ship and play well for 3 Qs vs Clemson, 3 Qs vs Wake, and 3 Qs vs BC on O. So going into the bye week we seem to be heading in the right direction. He had seemed to settle in as an OC. But nope. Against a bad Louisville team we have one of the worst O performances we have seen here. That makes no F-ing sense. Why the gigantic regression?

We have two games left to right the ship and show some progress. The team needs something to build upon. This season is a gigantic practice session. But a lack of reps and having really bad reps will not make your team better. We need good practices these last two games. Is that so much to ask of the O?
 

Orangejet

All Conference
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
2,756
Like
3,154
I agree what Luginbill had to say last night but what about the other teams in similar geographic situations. Nebraska, K-State, Iowa State and many others don’t have a pool of high school talent around them but they seem to succeed on the field. Think this is all about coaching the kids and Dino/staff are failing big time.
 

OttoinGrotto

Run clowns in Archbold
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
38,338
Like
83,771
We have enough talent to win 7-8 games a year, some want to ignore our recent classes with players that had mutiple P5 offers. They postions Ive been critcal on the last 5 years is OL and QB. I think we could have done better recruiting in those areas. Sure enough we can see the lack of depth at those positions now.
I want to believe that we do have enough talent to get to 7-8 wins.

That said, if we do... it's definitely on the coaching that we're playing so poorly.

I really hope next season we can be a functional, normal football team, and get to 6 wins (or more) and a bowl game.
 

Bayside44

Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,500
Like
18,133
I agree what Luginbill had to say last night but what about the other teams in similar geographic situations. Nebraska, K-State, Iowa State and many others don’t have a pool of high school talent around them but they seem to succeed on the field. Think this is all about coaching the kids and Dino/staff are failing big time.

Nebraska seems to have similar issues. The days of the walk-on 300 pound farmboys seem to be a thing of the past.
 

Crusty

Living Legend
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
12,609
Like
15,727
Talent is why we are not good. Coaching is why we are god awful. If it was all about the talent, then why are we right around 100th (depending on the computer ranking) in the nation but our recruiting class were all well above that? If our classes averaged 60 and we were 70th best team your comment woudl hold weight. But when we are 100th it does not.
Look at the past 15 years and it does. Our recruiting rank and power ranks match up pretty well.
 

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
761
Total visitors
933

Top Bottom