Roster breakdown

GoSU96 · Apr 29, 2021

Quick breakdown, includes walk-ons and incoming freshmen.

Super young team.

	SR	JR	SO	FR	Total
DL	4	1	1	10	16
LB	0	0	3	9	12
DB	0	1	3	11	15
OL	2	4	6	10	22
TE	0	0	1	3	4
WR	0	3	3	9	15
QB	0	1	1	4	6
RB	2	1	1	3	7
PK	0	1	0	2	3
LS	0	1	0	2	3
	8	10	19	63	103

LeMoyneCuse · Apr 29, 2021

A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

sutomcat · Apr 29, 2021

LeMoyneCuse said:
A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

This is one of the fundamental keys to turning a program around.

You have to find a way to stop churn, to keep players in the system for 4 or 5 years consistently.

When you take in kids with character issues, academic issues, health issues, you introduce risk and if you do it enough times, you end up with a senior class of 5 or 6 people instead of 20-25.

Some of our churn has just been bad luck. We have had a lot of kids declared unfit to play well before their senior season. Some had previous injury issues. Some did not.

If Dino is going to stick here and stay long term, he has to find a way to keep kids healthy, solid academically and loyal enough that they don't pack up and leave at the first sign of adversity.

javadoc · Apr 29, 2021

LeMoyneCuse said:
A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

IMO that's what happens when you change coaches every 4 years. The first year's recruiting class is often a bit of a reach, so many of those guys won't pan out. In general, I think that we've had that problem with our recruiting up to this day. Too many guys didn't pan out. Plus, when you switch coordinators and play styles, some guys are going to be pushed out due to system fit.

The only hurdle I think Dino had/has yet to overcome is taking guys who legitimately have a shot in the ACC ased on physical measurables alone. We shouldn't be taking flyers on undersized prospects any more. IMO.

money3189 · Apr 29, 2021

sutomcat said:
This is one of the fundamental keys to turning a program around.

You have to find a way to stop churn, to keep players in the system for 4 or 5 years consistently.

When you take in kids with character issues, academic issues, health issues, you introduce risk and if you do it enough times, you end up with a senior class of 5 or 6 people instead of 20-25.

Some of our churn has just been bad luck. We have had a lot of kids declared unfit to play well before their senior season. Some had previous injury issues. Some did not.

If Dino is going to stick here and stay long term, he has to find a way to keep kids healthy, solid academically and loyal enough that they don't pack up and leave at the first sign of adversity.

Agree

Chip · Apr 29, 2021

LeMoyneCuse said:
A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

We are perpetually young and I agree that's an issue. Couple things though:

1. The number of freshmen should have a covid asterisk because it's really showing people with 4 years of eligibility remaining which could span over a few classes. Some of whom gained great experience last year and are game ready this year.

2. We're about to have 3 DBs drafted. None of those 3 (forgetting Covid) played their full 4 years of eligibility. For a program like ours, who doesn't often recruit ready made players, it's almost unthinkable. (heck, getting 1 player drafted has been unthinkable).

Given our numbers right now, it will be interesting to see who is still there in a couple years. Seems like recruiting or personnel decisions might get pretty challenging given the spread.

money3189 · Apr 29, 2021

javadoc said:
IMO that's what happens when you change coaches every 4 years. The first year's recruiting class is often a bit of a reach, so many of those guys won't pan out. In general, I think that we've had that problem with our recruiting up to this day. Too many guys didn't pan out. Plus, when you switch coordinators and play styles, some guys are going to be pushed out due to system fit.

The only hurdle I think Dino had/has yet to overcome is taking guys who legitimately have a shot in the ACC ased on physical measurables alone. We shouldn't be taking flyers on undersized prospects any more. IMO.

Yup I think Dino biggest problem is how he's handle the offensive line. From a recruiting and coaching perspective. I think he has learned his lesson

syrBossHogg · Apr 29, 2021

LeMoyneCuse said:
A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

Yeah I remember looking earlier and being surprised at how few guys remain from that 2018 class. We had a little bad luck with injuries and guys like Cisco and Trill are leaving early, but we needed a few more from that class to pan out and be starters now.

Scooch · Apr 29, 2021

Chip said:
1. The number of freshmen should have a covid asterisk because it's really showing people with 4 years of eligibility remaining which could span over a few classes. Some of whom gained great experience last year and are game ready this year.

Agreed. Not that I'm going to put this work in, but a breakdown based on 'years in the program' would be a bit more enlightening in that regard. The usual nomenclature has been rendered largely useless due to COVID.

JimBoston · Apr 29, 2021

GoSU96 said:
Quick breakdown, includes walk-ons and incoming freshmen.

Super young team.

SR JR SO FR Total
DL
4
1
1
10
16
LB
0
0
3
9
12
DB
0
1
3
11
15
OL
2
4
6
10
22
TE
0
0
1
3
4
WR
0
3
3
9
15
QB
0
1
1
4
6
RB
2
1
1
3
7
PK
0
1
0
2
3
LS
0
1
0
2
3
8
10
19
63
103

Syracuse has to develop players so the the young roster is a problem in Baber's 6th season. Baber's previous 2 HC stops were both for 2 seasons so he didn't really have much experience managing and developing a roster. He has proven that he can coach, but now he has to prove he can manage and develop a roster.

Look at the experience on the team for his most successful season at Syracuse, 2018. 6 R-Srs, 10 Srs, 12 R-Jrs, 15 Jrs, 12 R-So. That's 55 players in their 3rd year or more on the roster.

OrangeAl · Apr 29, 2021

LeMoyneCuse said:
A friend of mine (a lurker, so I can't credit him) made a great point when we were talking about the roster yesterday.

We seem to be perpetually young, and for a program that NEEDS guys to develop during their tenure, that's not good.

Isn't that what brought the Pasqualoni era to an end? Recruiting classes that looked good suffered attrition from year 1 and broke the flow of development.

CA Monk · Apr 29, 2021

Williams, Iffy and Cisco were developed players. Bye, bye damn it.
Jonathan, Black and Bear are developed players. Right on. They returned.

ImperialOrange · Apr 29, 2021

It's tough to look at this in a vacuum, would need some comps from other ACC teams to compare. Also, almost have to break down by number of years in college football 1-6 to account for covid, transfers, etc. In listed format players in year 3 of football and have redshirted would still list as freshman.

Cream rises and attrition happens so numbers always decline through the classes. That said, we could have kept more older players at SU to placate these metrics but we're nowhere the level we needed. Transfer portal allows for some that didn't pan out to be moved on rather than ride out their entire scholarships. HOPEFULLY the volume of those types of players falls moving forward but there have been guys in years past that, talent wise, the team is better having off the books in less than 4 years.

OttoinGrotto · Apr 29, 2021

Scooch said:
Agreed. Not that I'm going to put this work in, but a breakdown based on 'years in the program' would be a bit more enlightening in that regard. The usual nomenclature has been rendered largely useless due to COVID.

Yeah, the senior/junior groups make up a weird Frankenstein of players that may be competing for their last season.

money3189 · Apr 29, 2021

JimBoston said:
Syracuse has to develop players so the the young roster is a problem in Baber's 6th season. Baber's previous 2 HC stops were both for 2 seasons so he didn't really have much experience managing and developing a roster. He has proven that he can coach, but now he has to prove he can manage and develop a roster.

Look at the experience on the team for his most successful season at Syracuse, 2018. 6 R-Srs, 10 Srs, 12 R-Jrs, 15 Jrs, 12 R-So. That's 55 players in their 3rd year or more on the roster.

That's a good break down.

baggerbob · Apr 29, 2021

money3189 said:
That's a good break down.

Think the biggest problem was the number of Offensive Lineman that were DQ for medical reasons.

money3189 · Apr 29, 2021

baggerbob said:
Think the biggest problem was the number of Offensive Lineman that were DQ for medical reasons.

Not even sure if the DQ's lineman would have made a impact. Heckel is the only one I can think of. How good was he? Line development and management is a issue. Last year Elmore having to play line, Tisdale not being ready. He said in the interview that he is bringing in extra lineman so that doesn't happen again. Overall, offensive line play has not been great since his tenure.

syrBossHogg · Apr 29, 2021

money3189 said:
. Not even sure if the DQ's lineman would have made a impact. Heckel is the only one I can think of. How good was he? Line development and management is a issue. Last year Elmore having to play line, Tisdale not being ready. He said in the interview that he is bringing in extra lineman so that doesn't happen again. Overall, offensive line play has not been great since his tenure.

I thought Clark could’ve been a solid Tackle for us. But he barely played so who knows

BANYC · Apr 29, 2021

GoSU96 said:
Quick breakdown, includes walk-ons and incoming freshmen.

Super young team.

SR JR SO FR Total
DL
4
1
1
10
16
LB
0
0
3
9
12
DB
0
1
3
11
15
OL
2
4
6
10
22
TE
0
0
1
3
4
WR
0
3
3
9
15
QB
0
1
1
4
6
RB
2
1
1
3
7
PK
0
1
0
2
3
LS
0
1
0
2
3
8
10
19
63
103

Great job and thank you for doing this.

The 2 RBs that are seniors- is that Adams and Howard?

Does Howard have 1 or 2 years of eligibility left?

GoSU96 · Apr 29, 2021

BANYC said:
Great job and thank you for doing this.

The 2 RBs that are seniors- is that Adams and Howard?

Does Howard have 1 or 2 years of eligibility left?

Elmore and Adams are the seniors.

Howard has two years under his belt so he is a junior

BANYC · Apr 29, 2021

GoSU96 said:
Elmore and Adams are the seniors.

Howard has two years under his belt so he is a junior

Thx - I forgot that Elmore was now a RB

mickbird44 · Apr 29, 2021

Chip said:
We are perpetually young and I agree that's an issue. Couple things though:

1. The number of freshmen should have a covid asterisk because it's really showing people with 4 years of eligibility remaining which could span over a few classes. Some of whom gained great experience last year and are game ready this year.

2. We're about to have 3 DBs drafted. None of those 3 (forgetting Covid) played their full 4 years of eligibility. For a program like ours, who doesn't often recruit ready made players, it's almost unthinkable. (heck, getting 1 player drafted has been unthinkable).

Given our numbers right now, it will be interesting to see who is still there in a couple years. Seems like recruiting or personnel decisions might get pretty challenging given the spread.

Further there are 18 Players with senior experience, 19 with junior experience, not sure how many with a year under their belt Soph experience vs. True 0 experience freshmen? Which evens this skew some .

RandomGuy · Apr 29, 2021

money3189 said:
Not even sure if the DQ's lineman would have made a impact. Heckel is the only one I can think of. How good was he? Line development and management is a issue. Last year Elmore having to play line, Tisdale not being ready. He said in the interview that he is bringing in extra lineman so that doesn't happen again. Overall, offensive line play has not been great since his tenure.

# wise, if Heckel and Clark were DQ'd after the 2019 season? Too late to add 2020's, and there may not have been acceptable transfers.

Heckel would have certainly been an upgrade. (He was decent in 17, and rotated at G in 18)

money3189 · Apr 29, 2021

RandomGuy said:
# wise, if Heckel and Clark were DQ'd after the 2019 season? Too late to add 2020's, and there may not have been acceptable transfers.

Heckel would have certainly been an upgrade. (He was decent in 17, and rotated at G in 18)

Fair points

Sudano · Apr 29, 2021

CA Monk said:
Williams, Iffy and Cisco were developed players. Bye, bye damn it.
Jonathan, Black and Bear are developed players. Right on. They returned.

If we had those 3 players in our secondary this year I'd be excited. Without them we are going to struggle vs the pass this year IMO

Roster breakdown

Living Legend

All American

No recent Cali or Iggy awards; Mr Irrelevant

All American

Living Legend

Creature of Bad Habits

Living Legend

Living Legend

Living Legend

Scout Team

2023 Cali Award Receiving Touchdowns

I'm Woke, But I'm Very Groggy.

Living Legend

2023-24 Iggy Award Most 3 Pointers Made

Living Legend

All American

Living Legend

Living Legend

Scout Team

Living Legend

Scout Team

Walk On

All American

Living Legend

All Conference

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page

Online statistics