Landing Moe today was one of those moments... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Landing Moe today was one of those moments...

cusefan12 said:
His Junior year stats, he had 2,018 yards rushing, 550 receiving. 29 TD's rushing, and 9 TD's receiving. I don't care about any stars, those are some VERY impressive stats.

In a good football state too. He wasn't doing it in Maine.
 
Our class is still rated 45-55 range. Not a huge leap. Nor should that surprise. I think we've become so accustomed to mediocrity that we've moved the goalposts.

I think the biggest positive to take away from all this is that the staff might be poised to take recruiting to the next level if they can actually win some -in games. Alas, we're still serenading what-ifs and maybes for the better part of the last decade. I'm tired of waiting for the pieces to come together. Doesn't mean I've given up though.
 
Moe's 4.39 and 4.41 times sure are impressive. But shifty and quick feet are likewise important...like Joe Morris. Anyone have an idea what Quadry Ishmail and his brother's times were in the 40? Just curious. Thanks.
 
FrancoPizza said:
Our class is still rated 45-55 range. Not a huge leap. Nor should that surprise. I think we've become so accustomed to mediocrity that we've moved the goalposts. I think the biggest positive to take away from all this is that the staff might be poised to take recruiting to the next level if they can actually win some -in games. Alas, we're still serenading what-ifs and maybes for the better part of the last decade. I'm tired of waiting for the pieces to come together. Doesn't mean I've given up though.

We haven't been in that range for a decade.
 
If you don't mind me asking, if he's such an exceptional talent, why is he only rated 3 stars? Nice get for sure but let's not judge through orange colored glasses.

Alabama has eight 3 star kids and 1 2-star kid in their class right now. I'm sure all of them stink because of the stars assigned to them by dorks.

Rvls does give Moe a 5.7 rating which is just shy of 4 stars
 
donniesyracuse said:
Yeah, not since the good ol' Greg Robinson days.

And just about where the comparison stops.
 
Our class is still rated 45-55 range. Not a huge leap. Nor should that surprise. I think we've become so accustomed to mediocrity that we've moved the goalposts.

I think the biggest positive to take away from all this is that the staff might be poised to take recruiting to the next level if they can actually win some -in games. Alas, we're still serenading what-ifs and maybes for the better part of the last decade. I'm tired of waiting for the pieces to come together. Doesn't mean I've given up though.

Our class is rated 45-55 with only 14 kids committed, not 25. Keep that in mind, most services are cumulative where the more kids you have the more points you get. We are that high with half the kids that we usually take in a class. Normally with 14 kids, we would be well into the 60-70's.
 
If you don't mind me asking, if he's such an exceptional talent, why is he only rated 3 stars? Nice get for sure but let's not judge through orange colored glasses.
Because rvals is chock full of "experts".
 
TheCusian said:
We haven't been in that range for a decade.

2016 - 50
60
51
74
66
76
78
118
48
48
52
56
50
53
44
 
Moe's 4.39 and 4.41 times sure are impressive. But shifty and quick feet are likewise important...like Joe Morris. Anyone have an idea what Quadry Ishmail and his brother's times were in the 40? Just curious. Thanks.

They were elite, Rocket was 4.24 or some crazy shlit and Quadry was a very low 4.31.
 
CuseOnly said:
Our class is rated 45-55 with only 14 kids committed, not 25. Keep that in mind, most services are cumulative where the more kids you have the more points you get. We are that high with half the kids that we usually take in a class. Normally with 14 kids, we would be well into the 60-70's.

Going by average stars it's even lower. So you're incorrect.
 
CuseOnly said:
Yea, 46-50 with only 13-14 kids committed. Not 25.

Oh, I thought I responded to a post that said we haven't been in the 45-55 range for a decade.

You're response has no merit since right now it's lower using average instead of total.
 
Oh, I thought I responded to a post that said we haven't been in the 45-55 range for a decade.

You're response has no merit since right now it's lower using average instead of total.

You know me as someone that really doesn't agree or like the star ratings in general but those team rankings are cumulative, the more kids the more points, the higher the class is rated. Going by average star rating doesn't tell the whole story either. You can have a higher average ranking and still have a lower rated class based on total points.
 
CuseOnly said:
You know me as someone that really doesn't agree or like the star ratings in general but those team rankings are cumulative, the more kids the more points, the higher the class is rated. Going by average star rating doesn't tell the whole story either. You can have a higher average ranking and still have a lower rated class based on total points.

No clue what you just said there. It's simple math.
 
rrlbees said:
Oh, I thought I responded to a post that said we haven't been in the 45-55 range for a decade. You're response has no merit since right now it's lower using average instead of total.

What service are you using? I worked up the avg 3 months ago and we were sitting pretty. Plus most of our 2 or unranked kids got a big bump.
 
2 4 7 composite ratings, average grade:

2016: .8358
2015: .8229
2014: .8326
2013: .8128
2012: .8081
2011: .8099
2010: .8117
2009: .7958
2008: .8044
2007: .8056
2006: .7951
2005: .7938
2004: .7774
2003: .7913

That's as far back as the 2 4 7 ratings go for us. So right now, our 2016 has the highest average composite rating of any class we've had since at least 2003.
 
jekelish said:
2 4 7 composite ratings, average grade: 2016: .8358 2015: .8229 2014: .8326 2013: .8128 2012: .8081 2011: .8099 2010: .8117 2009: .7958 2008: .8044 2007: .8056 2006: .7951 2005: .7938 2004: .7774 2003: .7913 That's as far back as the 2 4 7 ratings go for us. So right now, our 2016 has the highest average composite rating of any class we've had since at least 2003.

Looks pretty consistent.
 
jekelish said:
2 4 7 composite ratings, average grade: 2016: .8358 2015: .8229 2014: .8326 2013: .8128 2012: .8081 2011: .8099 2010: .8117 2009: .7958 2008: .8044 2007: .8056 2006: .7951 2005: .7938 2004: .7774 2003: .7913 That's as far back as the 2 4 7 ratings go for us. So right now, our 2016 has the highest average composite rating of any class we've had since at least 2003.

Yep - and that compared with the rest of the ACC (at least 3 months ago) looked several spots higher in the ACC. And it makes more sense, a clearer picture.
 
rrlbees said:
Looks pretty consistent.

That's actually a decent swing. 79 is a lot of 2, unranked, and low 3's.
 
I think it's also interesting to note that the three highest rated classes based on 2 4 7's composite scores are all Shafer's classes, which backs up the belief that he and his staff are superior recruiters to their predecessors. Now, hopefully they can get it to translate into wins.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,411
Messages
4,890,217
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
270
Guests online
1,684
Total visitors
1,954


...
Top Bottom