A few thoughts aimed at everyone throwing shade on this class: 1) keep in mind that this is early in the cycle and the majority of the two and three star kids haven't received full evaluations (many of them haven't been evaluated at all). It's a long process that will carry into the early winter months. I'd pay more attention to the rankings after signing day, right now they are incomplete, the same as our class, so the rankings should be viewed with the caveat that they are also incomplete. Anything else is disingenuous if not malicious. 2) It's an open question whether rankings encompass the relative ability now, or the perceived potential of a given recruit. I would argue that the evaluators have no choice but to rank according to current skill and ability, since trying to project development is difficult at best and in truth is a fools errand. You never know how a kid is going to develop or how hard he is going to work, how much more he is going to grow or how close to his ceiling he is, etc. When ranking over 1000 prospects in a cycle, you really have no choice but to rank according to what you can see, and I think the rankings bear that out. The 5 stars are easy to identify as they are bigger, faster, and far more skilled than their peers. They are ready to contribute immediately at the P5 level. After that it gets murky, and as others have pointed out, the differences between similarly ranked recruits is barely perceptible, let alone significant. 3) This flies in the face of the recruiting strategy a program like Syracuse must employ. If you can't bring in recruits that are clearly ready to contribute you are forced to project development and ultimately gamble on those projections. It's another reason why you hear Dino constantly referring to depth. Half of the depth concern is practical in terms of having a competitive team on the field. The other half is in the context of development. The majority of recruits we land are not ready to contribute right away, they have to gain strength, learn and refine technique, and gain the football iq to function at a higher level of competition. That takes time and is ultimately a numbers game. Out of the 25 recruits brought in each year, if you develop 15 into competitive players over a 5 year career you are doing good. If that number can be closer to 20, you are really good. 4) Film doesn't lie. This staff has clearly identified traits that they believe translate to developmental success. To my eye they have gotten more and more selective with who they bring in, and it shows in the athletic and physical traits of the kids they have brought in each cycle. For instance, it is clear they covet speed/suddenness and length. They also recruit to very specific skill sets and are not afraid to throw numbers at a given skill set. More important than that though is they've shown the ability to actually develop players. The physical transformations alone are awe-inspiring to anyone who had been paying attention. It's a long process, but it will pay off... just give it time.
