Say what you want about our coaches

[reedny]

So much wrong in this post. Last year's class was ranked worse than this years. And there are some really good recruits in there who not only played but rose to the top and played better than the people they were replacing - as freshman. If this next class is as good as the last we can say we are trending up.

Last year we competed against peer schools and won a bunch (MD, NC State, BC, Wake)... With weaker recruits on paper or by ranking.

Finally - dropping every game into the the thoroughly dominated category is bunk. I'll give you Pitt, FSU, BC. The rest of the games we were competitive enough given our injury situation and starting a freshman QB. Good enough? No. But not near as bleak as you're painting.

You'll give me Pitt/FSU/BC ... how about Maryland and LV, or NC State for that matter??? We couldn't play with those teams either and were obviously lacking comparable talent. We also got beat pretty good (again, despite a valiant defensive effort) by ND. So .. that's what, 7 games? Thank god we didn't play G-Tech again.

Those quibbles aside .. early in the season, I said that our goal shouldn't be winning games (not realistic) .. just avoiding humiliation. In that one respect ... because of our defense, I think we achieved our goal because we never lost 50-something to 3 like last year. So I'll give you that. The rest ... looked horrible.

The point of this thread, I thought, was not to argue whether we stink (we do).. but rather, how do we get players that can compete in this league. Clearly, we haven't done that notwithstanding the occasional inaccuracy of star ratings.

And if you think my criticizing our "last in the ACC" recruiting is "wrong" .. then I would like to hear why. (I think the PS would like to know too).

 

[PhatOrange]

Phat, I'm not aware of the point system, and I'm not knowledgable about recruiting other than what I read here and see on the field. So you and tep624 should feel free to correct any misapprehensions.

As far as what I've read, the PS says our 2015 recruiting class is 48th in the nation and last in the ACC. Here's the link: http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...th_no_bowl_game_we_just_have_to_continue.html

Also, from the product on the field (albeit with lots of injuries), I can say without a shadow of doubt that we had a glaring talent deficit against every conference school we faced except WF. The rest of the way ... we couldn't pass, or defend the pass. And we couldn't run or defend the run. Oh ... and I almost forgot .. we got out-coached in nearly every game and special teams were routinely outplayed.

Even b/ Hunt was injured, after the EMU game I saw almost nothing to give me any hope. With few exceptions our receivers failed to get separation and got shut down (the exception being Fl St .. in which our receivers played well and our defense held its finger in the dike for most of the game). Our running game, our OL, our special teams ... all hopelessly dominated game in/game out. We played hard on defense, but without any offense to take off pressure, inevitably succumbed in the fourth quarter (several times to wheel routes which we were incapable of covering all year).

Lastly, in nearly every conference game I watched, our guys were lying all over the field at various points .. often because they got physically dominated, or dominated AND THEN HURT. It was a disaster.

So I'm not sure when we're going to start getting players that can compete ... but I can tell you that "last in the ACC" is exactly where we are now.

I think our rating this year is fair. I think our rating last year was off by a lot. I disagreed with all the early commits we took this year. What I thought would happen is happening. I'll leave it at that.

There are some under valued kids in this class though like spence , Levine, Adams and the other CT kid, plus Henderson and Shy.

 

[reedny]

I think our rating is fair this year. I think our rating last was off by a lot. I disagreed with all the early commits we took this year. What I thought would happen is happening. I'll leave it at that.

There are some under valued kids in this class though like spence , Levine, Adams and the other CT kid, plus Henderson and Shy.

I'm no judge of talent in FB ... so I'll take your word on this. I can certainly see that Ishmael and Franklin are very talented kids that can play ... regardless of stars. So if the new group is like those guys.. maybe there's reason for hope.

 

[OburgOrange]

Not to mention informed guys in the program were saying last year's group was the best they'd had in 5+ years.

Kyle Fetterly told a group of us at Fort Drum that this years Freshmen class is the best that he has seen in 15 yrs. And he has been in the program 30+ years.

 

[TheCusian]

Kyle Fetterly told a group of us at Fort Drum that this years Freshmen class is the best that he has seen in 15 yrs. And he has been in the program 30+ years.

That was the quote. Undersold it .

 

[papadoc]

Syracuse's incoming recruiting class is ranked dead last in the ACC. They have moved up on the national ranking by default of being in the ACC.

3-9 this year, losing a lot of players, with the last ranked recruiting class in the ACC coming in for next year. No sweat, we'll just have to out-coach the other ACC teams. Even though we were out-coached this year in every game it definitely won't happen next year.

 

[tep624]

I don't really recall who was actually committed before he left. I didn't think we already had 5 JUCO's at that point. I just know the core of the class was very strong.

I just don't see how in this class is must have after the 2 I listed.

I absolutely loved the 2014 class. I thought they did an excellent job sticking out battles, and winning their fair share. I had high hopes. But I also was told they used a different strategy. In 2014 they had a list of top players and went after the top guys on that list and worked their way down. This year they supposedly had a list with a cut off, and anyone above the cut off they would accept a commitment from. For example if they had a list 1-30, and they made the cut off at 15, they would take 14 if he wanted to commit even if some of the top guys were still interested. I think we saw this happen in a bunch of cases where we potentially missed out on some very good kids who were interested in, and ended up with a few kids we ended up pushing off their commitment once we thought about it more.

Take it fwiw.

We absolutely had 5 JUCO's, Trejo, Miller, Arciniega, Kelly, and Kirkland were all recruited by Marrone/Adkins. And Burton was an Adkins kid too. And I even left out Wayne Williams (don't really count him because we recruited him as a HS senior but he couldn't qualify). And we were going after others too, I remember Cleshawn Page who was Miller's teammate, we were hot after him but he committed to Boise St.

The weird thing about the 2013 class was Marrone's staff never heavily targeted JUCO's like that then all of a sudden 4 years in they go crazy with it. Tells me two things, either the team was desperate for veteran depth or they missed and missed a lot on HS recruits.

 

[otisco]

My only point is that they identified who they wanted and got them. In essence, that tells me they can recruit.

In terms of whether or not they'll pan out, who the hell knows. I completely agree that you cant judge these classes at this point, or quite honestly, probably for the majority of the next 3 years.

Delone Carter was a solid pickup, Marcus Sales, not so much. For every Carter there are 4 Averin Colliers, Lavar Lobdells, Marcus Sales and David Oku's. Stars be damned.

And part of the reason Shafer says what he says is because he needs to appease the fan base when they're constantly screaming over star ratings. The reality is that it's hard to get kids here, especially the cream of the crop.

So they got their number one targets, or a majority of them? How do you possibly know that? Simply because of the absolute number?

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Phat, I'm not aware of the point system, and I'm not knowledgable about recruiting other than what I read here and see on the field. So you and tep624 should feel free to correct any misapprehensions.

As far as what I've read, the PS says our 2015 recruiting class is 48th in the nation and last in the ACC. Here's the link: http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...th_no_bowl_game_we_just_have_to_continue.html

Also, from the product on the field (albeit with lots of injuries), I can say without a shadow of doubt that we had a glaring talent deficit against every conference school we faced except WF. The rest of the way ... we couldn't pass, or defend the pass. And we couldn't run or defend the run. Oh ... and I almost forgot .. we got out-coached in nearly every game and special teams were routinely outplayed.

Even b/ Hunt was injured, after the EMU game I saw almost nothing to give me any hope. With few exceptions our receivers failed to get separation and got shut down (the exception being Fl St .. in which our receivers played well and our defense held its finger in the dike for most of the game). Our running game, our OL, our special teams ... all hopelessly dominated game in/game out. We played hard on defense, but without any offense to take off pressure, inevitably succumbed in the fourth quarter (several times to wheel routes which we were incapable of covering all year).

Lastly, in nearly every conference game I watched, our guys were lying all over the field at various points .. often because they got physically dominated, or dominated AND THEN HURT. It was a disaster.

So I'm not sure when we're going to start getting players that can compete ... but I can tell you that "last in the ACC" is exactly where we are now.

I've seen the 14th out of 14 in the ACC and 48th rated class in the NCAA enough now that I have to say the ACC is on its way up as a conference. It means the ACC takes up roughly 1/3 of the top 48 ranked recruiting classes despite being only 1/5 of the P5. The P5 teams below us must be really bad at recruiting(sarcasm)!

 

[Finwad32]

So they got their number one targets, or a majority of them? How do you possibly know that? Simply because of the absolute number?

I'm trying to find where I said they got their number 1 target or a majority of them? How could you possibly know that I meant that if I never said that? What I said was they identified recruits they wanted and went out and got them. Which, is indicated by the large number of commitments prior to September.

As a matter of fact, seeing some of our recruits getting recruited over lends itself to the fact that we didn't get 1's then and have continued to seek out and win the commitments of better prospects. More better recruiting, yay!

I know that they were extremely pleased with their recruiting efforts because I was on campus during the summer and had multiple discussions about it with them.

 

[PhatOrange]

We absolutely had 5 JUCO's, Trejo, Miller, Arciniega, Kelly, and Kirkland were all recruited by Marrone/Adkins. And Burton was an Adkins kid too. And I even left out Wayne Williams (don't really count him because we recruited him as a HS senior but he couldn't qualify). And we were going after others too, I remember Cleshawn Page who was Miller's teammate, we were hot after him but he committed to Boise St.

The weird thing about the 2013 class was Marrone's staff never heavily targeted JUCO's like that then all of a sudden 4 years in they go crazy with it. Tells me two things, either the team was desperate for veteran depth or they missed and missed a lot on HS recruits.

There were the two juco safeties to weren't there ? One picked wisky and one picked mizzou - or were they the same kid, I forget. But we absolutely wanted them

 

[PhatOrange]

You'll give me Pitt/FSU/BC ... how about Maryland and LV, or NC State for that matter??? We couldn't play with those teams either and were obviously lacking comparable talent. We also got beat pretty good (again, despite a valiant defensive effort) by ND. So .. that's what, 7 games? Thank god we didn't play G-Tech again.

Those quibbles aside .. early in the season, I said that our goal shouldn't be winning games (not realistic) .. just avoiding humiliation. In that one respect ... because of our defense, I think we achieved our goal because we never lost 50-something to 3 like last year. So I'll give you that. The rest ... looked horrible.

The point of this thread, I thought, was not to argue whether we stink (we do).. but rather, how do we get players that can compete in this league. Clearly, we haven't done that notwithstanding the occasional inaccuracy of star ratings.

And if you think my criticizing our "last in the ACC" recruiting is "wrong" .. then I would like to hear why. (I think the PS would like to know too).

MD, nc state, Pitt, bc and lville don't have more talent than us. Md, state, lv, those games were due to crushing mistakes.. Duke is right there to, competitive, a few mistakes turned the game.

 

[Full_Rebar]

The weird thing about the 2013 class was Marrone's staff never heavily targeted JUCO's like that then all of a sudden 4 years in they go crazy with it. Tells me two things, either the team was desperate for veteran depth or they missed and missed a lot on HS recruits.

Other than Trejo, those other JUCO guys were certainly valuable and it would seem as they would have been ready to play earlier than any HS recruit SU was going to land. SU stayed with Williams for a couple of reasons- his talent, and his relationship to Holley.

 

[SoBristol]

There were the two juco safeties to weren't there ? One picked wisky and one picked mizzou - or were they the same kid, I forget. But we absolutely wanted them

Two different players, same juco, both real good.
Marrone took a few juco players each year - an important part of his rebuilding. Shafer has cut way back on that, despite obvious needs. Example - obvious lack of a back up to Hunt heading into 2014. Looks like Shafer is willing to take his lumps until his high school recruiting takes hold, where Marrone had a different approach.

 

[Alsacs]

We are getting exactly what we are paying for with this coaching staff in relation to the ACC. Scott Shafer is a good man but he lost a significant portion of the fanbase and he is going to have to show us next year we are wrong. Our offense has been horrible for 2 years if it doesn't show significant improvement then the AD office will need to pony up some cash and get a new staff.

Last year's recruiting class was solid, this year's class looks okay. Thus, I wouldn't call the staff great recruiters I would call them okay.

 

[javadoc]

Phat, I'm not aware of the point system, and I'm not knowledgable about recruiting other than what I read here and see on the field. So you and tep624 should feel free to correct any misapprehensions.

As far as what I've read, the PS says our 2015 recruiting class is 48th in the nation and last in the ACC. Here's the link: http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootb...th_no_bowl_game_we_just_have_to_continue.html

[...]

So I'm not sure when we're going to start getting players that can compete ... but I can tell you that "last in the ACC" is exactly where we are now.

Some questions for you, since you have cited an article to support your position.

What algorithm does 247 use to rate prospects? The Skowt site says we are 7th in the ACC, 38th nationally. Why do you trust one more than the other?

The 247 site lists us with 23 commits, 19 of them 3-star. Ahead of us they have Utah and Iowa, with 20/19 and 16/16 similar commits, respectively. Does that make sense to you? None of those teams have any higher rated commits, btw.

What is the difference between the teams? Colorado is "dead last" in the PAC-12 with 16/8. Vanderbilt is "dead last" in the SEC with 14/12, but they also have 2 4-star commits. How far off the rest of the conference is the team in last place?

"Dead last" implies that your score is so low as to put you are far outside your peer group. According to the site you have quoted, we have 19 3-star commits. A team comprised of 3-star guys will be competitive with just about anyone, except possibly the teams at the very top.

The doom and gloom in this thread is disheartening. Because behind the claims that "we can't be competitive with these guys" is the unstated, but unavoidable belief that they will cause our coaches to be fired, and that when the next guy comes on board, he'll have to clean house, to get rid of these "uncompetitive" guys. Kids aren't even on campus yet and folks are belittling them. Great.

 

[Alsacs]

Some questions for you, since you have cited an article to support your position.

What algorithm does 247 use to rate prospects? The Skowt site says we are 7th in the ACC, 38th nationally. Why do you trust one more than the other?

The 247 site lists us with 23 commits, 19 of them 3-star. Ahead of us they have Utah and Iowa, with 20/19 and 16/16 similar commits, respectively. Does that make sense to you? None of those teams have any higher rated commits, btw.

What is the difference between the teams? Colorado is "dead last" in the PAC-12 with 16/8. Vanderbilt is "dead last" in the SEC with 14/12, but they also have 2 4-star commits. How far off the rest of the conference is the team in last place?

"Dead last" implies that your score is so low as to put you are far outside your peer group. According to the site you have quoted, we have 19 3-star commits. A team comprised of 3-star guys will be competitive with just about anyone, except possibly the teams at the very top.

The doom and gloom in this thread is disheartening. Because behind the claims that "we can't be competitive with these guys" is the unstated, but unavoidable belief that they will cause our coaches to be fired, and that when the next guy comes on board, he'll have to clean house, to get rid of these "uncompetitive" guys. Kids aren't even on campus yet and folks are belittling them. Great.

My point is that this the belief this staff is great at recruiting is not accurate. They had a good class last year, but it wasn't an elite class nationally, at best it was middle of the ACC if we want to be optimistic. This year's class isn't as highly rated. If SS was a great recruiter we would be getting top 300 guys. Why is this opinion unfair? I am not going to spin and make an average recruiter seem great because we have been poor at recruiting. This staff lost a significant portion of the fanbase. In 2009 DM showed progress that the win-loss record didn't matter. Last year looked like a Greg Robinson season. That is why he lost part of the fanbase. The Isis PC was no right horrible. If we had a 2011 season I wouldn't be worried as were 5-7 and competitive. This year was horrible.

 

[javadoc]

My point is that this the belief this staff is great at recruiting is not accurate. They had a good class last year, but it wasn't an elite class nationally, at best it was middle of the ACC if we want to be optimistic. This year's class isn't as highly rated. If SS was a great recruiter we would be getting top 300 guys. Why is this opinion unfair? I am not going to spin and make an average recruiter seem great because we have been poor at recruiting. This staff lost a significant portion of the fanbase. In 2009 DM showed progress that the win-loss record didn't matter. Last year looked like a Greg Robinson season. That is why he lost part of the fanbase. The Isis PC was no right horrible. If we had a 2011 season I wouldn't be worried as were 5-7 and competitive. This year was horrible.

Your opinion is fair, even if we disagree a bit on the quality of the recruiting work. Not speaking specifically to your articulated viewpoint, angling more toward the view that the recruiting work is terrible and we're getting guys we can't win with, worst in the ACC to the point of being uncompetitive. Which is horse dung.

 

[TheCusian]

My point is that this the belief this staff is great at recruiting is not accurate. They had a good class last year, but it wasn't an elite class nationally, at best it was middle of the ACC if we want to be optimistic. This year's class isn't as highly rated. If SS was a great recruiter we would be getting top 300 guys. Why is this opinion unfair? I am not going to spin and make an average recruiter seem great because we have been poor at recruiting. This staff lost a significant portion of the fanbase. In 2009 DM showed progress that the win-loss record didn't matter. Last year looked like a Greg Robinson season. That is why he lost part of the fanbase. The Isis PC was no right horrible. If we had a 2011 season I wouldn't be worried as were 5-7 and competitive. This year was horrible.

Ragging on the coaches for this year is fair game. Saying that they are just okay recruiters is open to interpretation - since we just don't know how good the players will be.

But if you go based just on class rankings - this staff has out recruited every staff since coach P's hey day.

Is it enough? Last year coming off a win, it was progress and people were happy. This year off of a horrible year so people are doubting everything...

 

[Louie and Bouie]

My point is that this the belief this staff is great at recruiting is not accurate. They had a good class last year, but it wasn't an elite class nationally, at best it was middle of the ACC if we want to be optimistic. This year's class isn't as highly rated. If SS was a great recruiter we would be getting top 300 guys. Why is this opinion unfair? I am not going to spin and make an average recruiter seem great because we have been poor at recruiting. This staff lost a significant portion of the fanbase. In 2009 DM showed progress that the win-loss record didn't matter. Last year looked like a Greg Robinson season. That is why he lost part of the fanbase. The Isis PC was no right horrible. If we had a 2011 season I wouldn't be worried as were 5-7 and competitive. This year was horrible.

Why do you repeatedly say that this staff has lost a significant portion of the fanbase? Where does this come from besides you continuing to beat the drum?

 

[Alsacs]

Ragging on the coaches for this year is fair game. Saying that they are just okay recruiters is open to interpretation - since we just don't know how good the players will be.

But if you go based just on class rankings - this staff has out recruited every staff since coach P's hey day.

Is it enough? Last year coming off a win, it was progress and people were happy. This year off of a horrible year so people are doubting everything...

If we went 5-7 and the injuries really killed us, but we didn't have a pathetic offense I wouldn't be upset. Scott Shafer led Syracuse team last year looked like it had Greg Robinson coaching. We were undisciplined, and looked horrible in the second half. Honestly, that press conference after the Louisville game should be must watch. The ISIS stuff is unconscionable for any HC to be saying.

Our recruiting is better than P, but that doesn't make them great recruiters. It makes them better than what we have had, but not great.

 

[orangeinjersey]

Some questions for you, since you have cited an article to support your position.

What algorithm does 247 use to rate prospects? The Skowt site says we are 7th in the ACC, 38th nationally. Why do you trust one more than the other?

The 247 site lists us with 23 commits, 19 of them 3-star. Ahead of us they have Utah and Iowa, with 20/19 and 16/16 similar commits, respectively. Does that make sense to you? None of those teams have any higher rated commits, btw.

What is the difference between the teams? Colorado is "dead last" in the PAC-12 with 16/8. Vanderbilt is "dead last" in the SEC with 14/12, but they also have 2 4-star commits. How far off the rest of the conference is the team in last place?

"Dead last" implies that your score is so low as to put you are far outside your peer group. According to the site you have quoted, we have 19 3-star commits. A team comprised of 3-star guys will be competitive with just about anyone, except possibly the teams at the very top.

The doom and gloom in this thread is disheartening. Because behind the claims that "we can't be competitive with these guys" is the unstated, but unavoidable belief that they will cause our coaches to be fired, and that when the next guy comes on board, he'll have to clean house, to get rid of these "uncompetitive" guys. Kids aren't even on campus yet and folks are belittling them. Great.

The reason it is disheartening is because to be elite, you have to have a combo of these two things, elite talent and/or superior coaching. We can all agree that while although not all recruits pan out, it is more likely a 4 or 5 star guy does pan out than a 2/3 star right? I think we can all agree with that, right? All of the elite teams typically sign more 4 and 5 star talent, than they do 3 star talent. It usually will shake out that in a class of 25, they will sign 15 (4 and 5 star kids) and 10 3 star kids. The tier 2 schools (ranked 15-35) will typically have the reverse. A class of 15+ 3 stars, and 10 or less 4 stars with an occasional 5 star sprinkled in here or there.

The reason why folks are down here is that our classes are typically a downward trend of the tier 2 schools. We sign 15+ 3 stars, and then fill it out with 10 or so 2 stars or NR with an OCCASIONAL 4 star here or there.

Talent isnt the end all be all though. You then have to factor coaching/scheme. A staff who puts kids in position to execute and succeed can overcome the talent gap and be succcessful. Look at GaTech (via 247)

2014 - 56
2013 - 76
2012 - 52
2011 - 44

Now that we have that out of the way, to get better at SU, we need 1 or 2 things to happen. The talent pool has to go up, or the coaching has to get better. Our recruiting rankings (via 247)...

2014 - 50
2013 - 73
2012 - 61
2011 - 60

We can conclude that our recruiting hauls have been middle of the pack statistically speaking right? 138 programs, the middle would be right at 69. Our last 4 classes are averaging 61. With two seasons of HCSS, i am thinking it is safe to assume that the coaching is what it is. We are not running an innovative offensive philosophy, and we are certainly not executing on offense. Defense is another story, and i will leave it alone for now.

So, all that being said, if we take the orange colored glasses off, we are losing 7 defensive starters, our recruiting is right around where it has been the last few classes, and Tim Lester is our OC. So the recruiting hasnt changed drastically, the coaching doesnt appear to be changing drastically, so unless the EXECUTION improves, its not unreasonable to conclude another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 type of year depending on which way the ball bounces. If you're ok with being "competitive" while going 6-6 ish, then congrats, it looks like we will accomplish that.

I on the other hand, yearn for our games to mean something, for us to play in front of national audiences becuase of us, not our opponent. Why cant SU wil 8 games a year, with an occasional 10 win season here or there??

It has been 13 YEARS since we were ranked by our peers as a top 25 team. That is disheartening.

 

[Alsacs]

Why do you repeatedly say that this staff has lost a significant portion of the fanbase? Where does this come from besides you continuing to beat the drum?

Do yourself a favor stop reading my posts you don't like them and you aren't worth my time to debate. Unlike others who disagree with me like TheCusian who atleast debate and is reasonable.

If you don't think a significant portion of the fanbase wanted a change you aren't right. I never said a majority or put a percentage.

 

[javadoc]

Now that we have that out of the way, to get better at SU, we need 1 or 2 things to happen. The talent pool has to go up, or the coaching has to get better. Our recruiting rankings (via 247)...

2014 - 50
2013 - 73
2012 - 61
2011 - 60

This is all that I need to quote. According to that site, our class from last year was 24 commits, 20 3-star, 1 4-star (who did not make it to campus). I don't care about the relative team rankings, jockeying for "rating service" relative measures, etc. If our classes are predominantly "3-star guys" then we should be competitive with almost anyone on our schedule. I am only interested in what those sites can tell us, in broad terms, about the talent level we are bringing in, because IMO once you are filled with 3-star guys as the baseline, you have what you need.

(To get to the next level (not what we need, what we want), it will take more winning and some buzz. I do think the IPF will help as well.)

I am only addressing the opinion that our staff is doing a bad job recruiting, and getting guys we can't be competitive with.

 

[orangeinjersey]

This is all that I need to quote. According to that site, our class from last year was 24 commits, 20 3-star, 1 4-star (who did not make it to campus). I don't care about the relative team rankings, jockeying for "rating service" relative measures, etc. If our classes are predominantly "3-star guys" then we should be competitive with almost anyone on our schedule. I am only interested in what those sites can tell us, in broad terms, about the talent level we are bringing in, because IMO once you are filled with 3-star guys as the baseline, you have what you need.

(To get to the next level (not what we need, what we want), it will take more winning and some buzz. I do think the IPF will help as well.)

I am only addressing the opinion that our staff is doing a bad job recruiting, and getting guys we can't be competitive with.

A class of 3 star guys will get you results that we have been experiencing, 5-7/6-6/7-5 type seasons. Would you agree that those results are "mediocre"? Your winning half of your games. You are successful half the time. To get to the next step, an aggregate of all the recruiting rankings is showing that we need to get at minimum a combination of 10 4 and 5 star kids. Until that starts happening, we are what we are.