Recruiting higher rated kids.

[CuseLegacy]

Can you please list out the recruits you believe "should be at Syracuse" and the ones that shouldn't? This should be interesting...

EDIT: That Fizz article wasn't worth my click, but it's exactly the uninformed nonsense I'd expect to read from those guys.

That response will not be forthcoming any time soon.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I thought the article was reasonable.

 

[RF2044]

Hanna is a really really talented kid. The thing is how much time will he see behind Cisco, Nunn, and Cam Jonas. Our 2ndary is loaded. But depth on interior D-line and O-line in general is really concerning and non existent as it pertains to QUALITY experience right now. Red flag

Let me explain how building quality depth works, and how it applies specifically to bringing in a stud prospect like Hanna despite having a "loaded" secondary.

Cisco was a freshman last year; this year, he will be a sophomore. Meanwhile, Hanna will be a senior in high school. When he arrives next year, Cisco will be a junior. Ideally, Hanna redshirts while he learns the system, coinciding with Cisco's junior year, to acclimate to the pace / speed of the college game, familiarize himself with the playbook for his position, and spend a year in the S&C program to get ready for college ball.

By the time he completes this redshirt season, his first year of eligibility will be Cisco's SENIOR year. During that season, Hanna will then hopefully carve out a role on special teams, or perhaps on the two-deep where he can earn some developmental PT, to gain some experience to prepare himself for playing a more figural role the following season when Cisco is gone.

And - best of all - instead of being rushed out onto the field before he is ready and / or it is physically ideal for him to be on the field, the team has the luxury of getting him ready first, to maximize his long-term strategic value.

That's why you take a safety with Hanna's potential this year, in lieu of there being a hole in the depth chart. The perfect scenario is to build quality depth, develop said depth, and let players ascend as a natural progression of their developmental curve.

 

[upperdeck]

coaches have control over who they offer and when they accept an offer. If coaches thought there was a huge gap between the kids they have offered at the top of their list and the kids at the bottom of their list they wouldnt be accepting those offers 7-8-9 months ahead of when they have to sign them. If the kids we are getting now are their plan C-D they dont need to take the offers now since many of those types of kids will still be available later in the year as those kids want better offers too.

The only question is whether the kids we are getting are better than what we were getting 4-5-6 yrs ago and the track record says yes no matter what the stars say just by the product we see on the field.

its pretty obvious that the 4-5 stars are the elite athletes a bit bigger/faster out of the box and the star system completely falls apart in the 3 star range with kids succeeding and failing as much in the system they go into as because of lack of talent.

we could be getting kids marginally better or way better than what we got 5-10 yrs ago but i dont think there is any question most of them are better and the coaches track record suggests they fit the system better and are not just fillers to complete a roster and thats just a big a deal as what star number they are assigned by a system that doesnt match stars to a system..

 

[dollarbill44]

Does anyone think that skytop might be why we're not able to land the top kids we're after? Most schools we are losing out to seem to have nicer housing for their athletes.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Does anyone think that skytop might be why we're not able to land the top kids we're after? Most schools we are losing out to seem to have nicer housing for their athletes.

I was told by a parent of a player, who visited other campuses. that is a fallacy.

 

[dollarbill44]

I was told by a parent of a player, who visited other campuses. that is a fallacy.

Which is a fallacy? That Skytop is a problem or that other schools have nice athletes dorms?

 

[kcsu]

Does anyone think that skytop might be why we're not able to land the top kids we're after? Most schools we are losing out to seem to have nicer housing for their athletes.

Yes 100%. We need to upgrade our Athletes housing. My Daughter's both put a significant emphasis on housing when looking at colleges. The other issue is the monthly stipend. Are we competitive? Any extra monthly spending money has to be considered by these kids.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Which is a fallacy? That Skytop is a problem or that other schools have nice athletes dorms?

That the housing isn't nice.

 

[jgeorge322]

the only thing I see as somewhat concerning is that on 247, we have only one kid ranked nationally, and hes in the 800s. however, were preseason ranked and ill bet our class ends up no worse than prior ones, so...

 

[dollarbill44]

That the housing isn't nice.

I haven't been in a skytop apartment in a while, but I'd be surprised if they are on par with the "football" (& hoops) dorms at most of the schools we are losing recruits to. Skytop was definitely dumpier than most of the other dorms when I was at SU.
I'm just trying to figure out how we're missing on so many guys this cycle.

 

[721Comstock]

I haven't been in a skytop apartment in a while, but I'd be surprised if they are on par with the "football" (& hoops) dorms at most of the schools we are losing recruits to. Skytop was definitely dumpier than most of the other dorms when I was at SU.
I'm just trying to figure out how we're missing on so many guys this cycle.

Because we've offered so many guys this cycle.
It's math.

We make a TON of offers, so clearly we can't take them all.
If we make 200 offers, and land 20 guys, then we "miss out" on 90% of them.

 

[jgeorge322]

I haven't been in a skytop apartment in a while, but I'd be surprised if they are on par with the "football" (& hoops) dorms at most of the schools we are losing recruits to. Skytop was definitely dumpier than most of the other dorms when I was at SU.
I'm just trying to figure out how we're missing on so many guys this cycle.

Pretty sure the athlete housing is different than the typical student skytop apartments.

 

[FloridaFan]

I haven't been in a skytop apartment in a while, but I'd be surprised if they are on par with the "football" (& hoops) dorms at most of the schools we are losing recruits to. Skytop was definitely dumpier than most of the other dorms when I was at SU.
I'm just trying to figure out how we're missing on so many guys this cycle.

"so many guys" who have we missed on really outside of Van Dyke? From what ive ehard the coaches are very happy at the guys they have gotten so far including a good chunk of their "A" guys

 

[bnoro]

I haven't been in a skytop apartment in a while, but I'd be surprised if they are on par with the "football" (& hoops) dorms at most of the schools we are losing recruits to. Skytop was definitely dumpier than most of the other dorms when I was at SU.
I'm just trying to figure out how we're missing on so many guys this cycle.

The kids don't live in the Skytop dorms after freshman year. They show the kids the UV apartments on visits.

 

[Bayside44]

The kids don't live in the Skytop dorms after freshman year. They show the kids the UV apartments on visits.

I could be mistaken but I think they all will go straight to UV now (football and hoop). Was told but didn't completely pay attention other than thinking "problem solved."

 

[Sudano]

Because we've offered so many guys this cycle.
It's math.

We make a TON of offers, so clearly we can't take them all.
If we make 200 offers, and land 20 guys, then we "miss out" on 90% of them.

The assumption is missing out on players, is missing out on better players than we're getting. Not just total volume, it's the talent of those we are missing out on.

 

[RF2044]

The assumption is missing out on players, is missing out on better players than we're getting. Not just total volume, it's the talent of those we are missing out on.

Are we, though? It works both ways -- and I think people get too hung up on names that they recognize from early on in recruiting. Consider:

• We lost out on several LB prospects last year, and then bounce back with two four-star caliber LBs late in the cycle, both of whom were rated in the top 300 by various recruiting services, who were assuredly "better" gets than some of the other guys we were involved with.

• We lose out on the tall DT prospect we were all over to Missouri, but then land one that Clemson wanted late in the cycle [Dawson]. So did we miss out, or did we end up better off?

• We lose out on a bunch of QB prospects last year, but end up with David Summers, who is a terrific fit for our system.

We lost out on Van Dyke -- that sucks. But it works both ways.

 

[JackBauer44]

Here's an interesting industry standard. I've been to a couple of different conferences where athletic recruiting and best practices are discussed. The number has been the same at every conference i've attended. If you want to fill one spot or one scholarship, you have to recruit between 5-8 players minimum to make sure you're yielding that one spot. That means in terms of football, you have to make sure you're talking to a lot of prospects to ensure you're yielding your class. This is why so many offers go out and so many "prospects" go other places. I put prospects in parantheses because there are different types of recruiting that takes place. An offer determines what type of interest there is between the prospect and program. There is the passive recruiting that you have for prospects that aren't in your "take category". There's the hard recruiting for the people who are high in your "take category". Then there's a middle ground for the prospects you would absolutely take, but there's numerous prospects that fill that whole.

I've been told a couple of times that this staff does their due diligence with prospects and accepting commitments. That involves numerous coaches signing off on players. Going hard after their top guys, but also having a take line that fluctuates. If there's a prospect above the take line that wants to commit, they get the spot. If that happens to be the last allotted slot for that position, all the other recruits at that position are removed and the take line moves higher.

Any of the above words may not be anything people didn't already know, but I figure I would chime in.

 

[Sudano]

Are we, though? It works both ways -- and I think people get too hung up on names that they recognize from early on in recruiting. Consider:

• We lost out on several LB prospects last year, and then bounce back with two four-star caliber LBs late in the cycle, both of whom were rated in the top 300 by various recruiting services, who were assuredly "better" gets than some of the other guys we were involved with.

• We lose out on the tall DT prospect we were all over to Missouri, but then land one that Clemson wanted late in the cycle [Dawson]. So did we miss out, or did we end up better off?

• We lose out on a bunch of QB prospects last year, but end up with David Summers, who is a terrific fit for our system.

We lost out on Van Dyke -- that sucks. But it works both ways.

The discussion can go round and round. One side says we can't lose a player we offered but chose else where so he really didn't want to come here, then the other side says we lose out on any player we offered or within a close proximity, then the other side says we really won't know until 4-5 yrs from now, then the other side says but based on what we know right now we are losing players with more stars and better offer list, then the other side mentions JJ Watt and every under the radar players who ever played, then the other side mentions all the top players generally get drafted higher, then the other side mentions all the players we signed are a perfect fit for our system, then the other side mentions all the talented players we lost would be a perfect fit too, then one side says trust the coaches, then the other side says that begs the question and even the coaches get upset losing out on players but can't publicly say anything, then one side says its early with only half the class verbally committed, then the other side says that its still disappointing at where we're at and hope it improves, and so on and so on and so on...

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Dino is almost done flipping the roster, he pretty much has his guys at this point and certainly in 2020. I didn't see many teams other than Clemson and ND that out talented Syracuse last year. One game we very well could have won and the other we got beat like a drum after losing Dungey.

that said, the talent and recruiting will get a bit better if we can continue to win but I wouldn't expect miracles. top 35 or so would be the MAX, IMO.

Pretty easy to see that the talent and depth has gotten much better since Dino has been here, how much better can it get? I really have no idea but this will be what Syracuse recruiting classes typically look like. Always takes a HC that can develop to be successful at Syracuse just the way it is.

People holding their breath for top 20 classes are kidding themselves IMO. And can anyone really say that the 37th class is that much better than 49 or 57? I highly doubt it. Take a coach with a plan and a proven system any day of the week.

 

[tep624]

Dino is almost done flipping the roster, he pretty much has his guys at this point and certainly in 2020. I didn't see many teams other than Clemson and ND that out talented Syracuse last year. One game we very well could have won and the other we got beat like a drum after losing Dungey.

that said, the talent and recruiting will get a bit better if we can continue to win but I wouldn't expect miracles. top 35 or so would be the MAX, IMO.

Pretty easy to see that the talent and depth has gotten much better since Dino has been here, how much better can it get? I really have no idea but this will be what Syracuse recruiting classes typically look like. Always takes a HC that can develop to be successful at Syracuse just the way it is.

People holding their breath for top 20 classes are kidding themselves IMO. And can anyone really say that the 37th class is that much better than 49 or 57? I highly doubt it. Take a coach with a plan and a proven system any day of the week.

It is EXTREMELY subjective when you primarily play in the 3 star recruit range, so to your point, having a coach with a proven system is incredibly important here because of where we have primarily played recruiting wise over the past 10-15 years.

Although I’d like to see more blue chips and see us beating out PSU for recruits like the next guy, I find it refreshing that the 4 star recruits we are landing aren’t academic risks, or guys who peaked as high school sophomores, or disciplinary issues. The guys we are getting that are the 4 stars are heavily recruited, fully qualified and more often than not early enrollees.

So things are going in the right direction, just not quickly enough for a fan base that has suffered as much as we have. But to your point, I think we’re going to have to see another 1-2 years of proving it on the field, putting out too 3 round pros, etc before the flywheel really catches.

 

[dollarbill44]

The kids don't live in the Skytop dorms after freshman year. They show the kids the UV apartments on visits.

Thanks, bnoro, I was unaware of that. I had to look those up. They look pretty nice. They didn't even mention those apartments on my daughter's visit. I can go to bed now that i have learned my one new fact for today.

 

[PhatOrange]

I could care less about stars and I could care less about the ratings. they're stupid. I want to make sure we're getting kids that our competition wants to; that's the only assurance where we are talent wise. The majority of kids we're landing now are peer Power5 offered kids and that's a great thing. It would appear the days of recruiting against Akron are over. The kids that are 'under the radar' are all kids that have been evaluated 1st hand at camp. You can't put a price tag on that.

Where we are falling short is beating the blue blood schools - but not entirely falling short. I'm talking the Miami, Florida State's, Michigans and Penn States etc. BUT HCDFB and crew have done a good job in this arena, much better than we've done historically. We've plucked a few - the last class was great in this regard and the best since the 90's. Some of us who've followed recruiting for nearly 30 years know our history with it. Getting these 'blue chip' kids just to visit and take a look is more than we've done since maybe 1999. You really can't ask for more than that if you're Syracuse. HCDFB is putting us back on the map and if he's still here and everything is continuing to trend up we'll be landing our share of these kids over the next few years. bank it.

 

[General Joe]

Let me explain how building quality depth works, and how it applies specifically to bringing in a stud prospect like Hanna despite having a "loaded" secondary.

Cisco was a freshman last year; this year, he will be a sophomore. Meanwhile, Hanna will be a senior in high school. When he arrives next year, Cisco will be a junior. Ideally, Hanna redshirts while he learns the system, coinciding with Cisco's junior year, to acclimate to the pace / speed of the college game, familiarize himself with the playbook for his position, and spend a year in the S&C program to get ready for college ball.

By the time he completes this redshirt season, his first year of eligibility will be Cisco's SENIOR year. During that season, Hanna will then hopefully carve out a role on special teams, or perhaps on the two-deep where he can earn some developmental PT, to gain some experience to prepare himself for playing a more figural role the following season when Cisco is gone.

And - best of all - instead of being rushed out onto the field before he is ready and / or it is physically ideal for him to be on the field, the team has the luxury of getting him ready first, to maximize his long-term strategic value.

That's why you take a safety with Hanna's potential this year, in lieu of there being a hole in the depth chart. The perfect scenario is to build quality depth, develop said depth, and let players ascend as a natural progression of their developmental curve.

While I agree with your premise (which is why I mentioned Cam Jonas who is a example of what you spell out) i think you missed my whole entire point. Once again it doesnt look like we are building ANY and definitely not experienced quality depth in the trenches. Just look at the backup DT and interior O-line.

But let me say once again how much I like Hanna. I think I have positively mentioned him as the type of recruit QE SHOULD be getting.