Shafer vs. Marrone's approach to recruiting

[CuseACC]

In four years, Marrone was unable to snag a single 4+ star recruit. Now I understand that the program was a mess when he took over, and I also understand that the star system is not the holy grail of predictors, I am just saying. Getting some higher end recruits sure hasn't hurt those SEC schools lately, has it?

Anyway, I think Shafer turns the corner and starts snagging 4+ star recruits. I just like his attitude right out of the gates. Marrone seemed too 'blah' for me. Maybe the whole "do what's best for you" Marrone approach doesn't work. I do like the whole family atmosphere thing he brought, but that's it as far as his recruiting pitch went. Maybe you gotta tell these kids instead, "hey come to fu**ing syracuse where we will make you an animal on the field, a man in the real world, and a great student. This place is better for you than any of those other clowns recruiting you we guarantee it!" Maybe Marrone already said that,who knows, but maybe HOW he said it just wasn't working. I like Shafer because he strikes me as someone who will bring a more hard-nosed attitude to the table with these top-tier recruits. Maybe he is exactly what we need. Remember, Marrone failed to snag a single 4-star recruit in four years, even a guy like Ishaq, who's parents are Syracuse alums for Christ's sake! To me that says a lot.

 

[bnoro]

Stars don't matter. We weren't getting Ishaq no matter who was the coach.

 

[PhatOrange]

In four years, Marrone was unable to snag a single 4+ star recruit. Now I understand that the program was a mess when he took over, and I also understand that the star system is not the holy grail of predictors, I am just saying. Getting some higher end recruits sure hasn't hurt those SEC schools lately, has it?

Anyway, I think Shafer turns the corner and starts snagging 4+ star recruits. I just like his attitude right out of the gates. Marrone seemed too 'blah' for me. Maybe the whole "do what's best for you" Marrone approach doesn't work. I do like the whole family atmosphere thing he brought, but that's it as far as his recruiting pitch went. Maybe you gotta tell these kids instead, "hey come to fu**ing syracuse where we will make you an animal on the field, a man in the real world, and a great student. This place is better for you than any of those other clowns recruiting you we guarantee it!" Maybe Marrone already said that,who knows, but maybe HOW he said it just wasn't working. I like Shafer because he strikes me as someone who will bring a more hard-nosed attitude to the table with these top-tier recruits. Maybe he is exactly what we need. Remember, Marrone failed to snag a single 4-star recruit in four years, even a guy like Ishaq, who's parents are Syracuse alums for Christ's sake! To me that says a lot.

Stop with the stars. Players like Josh Parrish, James Washington, Wayne Morgan, Brandon Reddish and Gus Edwards (if we hang on) all have/had 4 star offers.

What our staff did recruiting wise was no small feat when considered where we were and what we had.

I will say this, Shafer is a very under rated recruiter and a little birdie told me that Shafer closed on many of the recruits (60% or more) over the past 4 years.

 

[OrangeMojo]

In four years, Marrone was unable to snag a single 4+ star recruit. Now I understand that the program was a mess when he took over, and I also understand that the star system is not the holy grail of predictors, I am just saying. Getting some higher end recruits sure hasn't hurt those SEC schools lately, has it?

Anyway, I think Shafer turns the corner and starts snagging 4+ star recruits. I just like his attitude right out of the gates. Marrone seemed too 'blah' for me. Maybe the whole "do what's best for you" Marrone approach doesn't work. I do like the whole family atmosphere thing he brought, but that's it as far as his recruiting pitch went. Maybe you gotta tell these kids instead, "hey come to fu**ing syracuse where we will make you an animal on the field, a man in the real world, and a great student. This place is better for you than any of those other clowns recruiting you we guarantee it!" Maybe Marrone already said that,who knows, but maybe HOW he said it just wasn't working. I like Shafer because he strikes me as someone who will bring a more hard-nosed attitude to the table with these top-tier recruits. Maybe he is exactly what we need. Remember, Marrone failed to snag a single 4-star recruit in four years, even a guy like Ishaq, who's parents are Syracuse alums for Christ's sake! To me that says a lot.

Ron Thompson was 4 stars on Scout and Ashton Broyld ended up rated 4 stars on Scout as well

he couldn't close on the couple of 5 stars that actually had an interest - but don't think anyone could given the facilities disparity and the big-time programs he was competing against

 

[CuseACC]

Stop with the stars. Players like Josh Parrish, James Washington, Wayne Morgan, Brandon Reddish and Gus Edwards (if we hang on) all have/had 4 star offers.

What our staff did recruiting wise was no small feat when considered where we were and what we had.

I will say this, Shafer is a very under rated recruiter and a little birdie told me that Shafer closed on many of the recruits (60% or more) over the past 4 years.

Apparently my disclaimer meant nothing to you. Why are teams like Alabama, Oregon, Florida, Virginia Tech, and many others consistently in the top 20? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that their average star ratings per recruiting class are above 3.5 or 4 in many cases? Or do you think it's because the coaches are magicians? To completely dismiss the star ratings as you are is very ignorant, no offense. They do mean something, and there is a valid reason why many recruits receive higher stars than others. It's about probability. I think there is a higher probability a 4 star recruit is more successful than a 2 star recruit. Why did we want Ogundeko so badly? Because he looks like Patick Ewing, or because he was a 4 star ESPN top 150?

 

[TheCusian]

Apparently my disclaimer meant nothing to you. Why are teams like Alabama, Oregon, Florida, Virginia Tech, and many others consistently in the top 20? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that their average star ratings per recruiting class are above 3.5 or 4 in many cases? Or do you think it's because the coaches are magicians? To completely dismiss the star ratings as you are is very ignorant, no offense. They do mean something, and there is a valid reason why many recruits receive higher stars than others. It's about probability. I think there is a higher probability a 4 star recruit is more successful than a 2 star recruit. Why did we want Ogundeko so badly? Because he looks like Patick Ewing, or because he was a 4 star ESPN top 150?

We as fans get excited by ratings. I hope coaches saw something they liked on film and in meeting the kid. HCSS talked about that in his presser. Wants kids to passionate about football and talent comes 2nd.

Some of the ratings are self-fulfilling based on who has offered. There is a correlation between talent and stars and success - it's just more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

 

[JackBauer44]

Apparently my disclaimer meant nothing to you. Why are teams like Alabama, Oregon, Florida, Virginia Tech, and many others consistently in the top 20? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that their average star ratings per recruiting class are above 3.5 or 4 in many cases? Or do you think it's because the coaches are magicians? To completely dismiss the star ratings as you are is very ignorant, no offense. They do mean something, and there is a valid reason why many recruits receive higher stars than others. It's about probability. I think there is a higher probability a 4 star recruit is more successful than a 2 star recruit. Why did we want Ogundeko so badly? Because he looks like Patick Ewing, or because he was a 4 star ESPN top 150?

I get what you're saying, but stars aren't everything. Take a look at Miami who ONLY recruited off of stars. It didn't do them too well.

 

[CuseACC]

I get what you're saying, but stars aren't everything. Take a look at Miami who ONLY recruited off of stars. It didn't do them too well.

And I completely understand where you are coming from as well, but I am not saying that stars are "everything". This argument probably happens many times on these boards. You recruit players who fit schemes, systems, etc, but you also recruit speed, talent, and players who are simply considered better than others coming out of high school. While I will agree that the star system is not "everything", it is something in many cases, and probability for success sure favors them over 2-star recruits (unless you find a "diamond in the rough"). My point, I'd rather be consistently recruiting a few 4-star players instead of hoping we found a "damond in the rough" as our form of replacing the 4-star guys. Shafer and McDonald may be our answers to this enigma.

 

[bnoro]

Apparently my disclaimer meant nothing to you. Why are teams like Alabama, Oregon, Florida, Virginia Tech, and many others consistently in the top 20? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that their average star ratings per recruiting class are above 3.5 or 4 in many cases? Or do you think it's because the coaches are magicians? To completely dismiss the star ratings as you are is very ignorant, no offense. They do mean something, and there is a valid reason why many recruits receive higher stars than others. It's about probability. I think there is a higher probability a 4 star recruit is more successful than a 2 star recruit. Why did we want Ogundeko so badly? Because he looks like Patick Ewing, or because he was a 4 star ESPN top 150?

They get the 5 stars correct. But once you get into low 4 stars/3 stars it becomes a crapshoot, and no matter who those teams land, they are upgraded to appease the fan bases and those sites' subscribers. Rankings should be evaluated based on team needs and the offers a kid has. There are a few 3/4 stars on some sites with very few offers. Kids lie about offers, too.

 

[RMH44]

Ron Thompson was 4 stars on Scout and Ashton Broyld ended up rated 4 stars on Scout as well

he couldn't close on the couple of 5 stars that actually had an interest - but don't think anyone could given the facilities disparity and the big-time programs he was competing against

Spruill was also 4-star on one of the sites.

 

[PhatOrange]

And I completely understand where you are coming from as well, but I am not saying that stars are "everything". This argument probably happens many times on these boards. You recruit players who fit schemes, systems, etc, but you also recruit speed, talent, and players who are simply considered better than others coming out of high school. While I will agree that the star system is not "everything", it is something in many cases, and probability for success sure favors them over 2-star recruits (unless you find a "diamond in the rough"). My point, I'd rather be consistently recruiting a few 4-star players instead of hoping we found a "damond in the rough" as our form of replacing the 4-star guys. Shafer and McDonald may be our answers to this enigma.

Here's a research project for you - and maybe you can convince us.

Within the last 5 years cross reference all of the star ratings for the All Conference 1st Team players (SEC, ACC, BIG10, BIG12, PAC10, Big East) as well as the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft.

 

[DPCuse]

In general, I personally have never had a huge problem with the star ratings being based in part on offers. I give more credibility to Nick Saban and other top coaches who offer a kid a scholarship than some guy who is judging a 17 year old based on film in his office. If the top 5 programs offer a kid and all want him bad, he must be a 4 or 5 star kid or else they wouldn't offer.

 

[VaSaltine]

I admit I like the "stars" reference Shafer made during his press conference. At least he acknowledges more stars means more potential talent. Also, I never liked the Marrone "do what's best for you" pitch. It's sincere and kids/parents may appreciate it, but its not selling and that's what gets kids to campus, selling.

 

[RF2044]

In four years, Marrone was unable to snag a single 4+ star recruit. Now I understand that the program was a mess when he took over, and I also understand that the star system is not the holy grail of predictors, I am just saying. Getting some higher end recruits sure hasn't hurt those SEC schools lately, has it?

Anyway, I think Shafer turns the corner and starts snagging 4+ star recruits. I just like his attitude right out of the gates. Marrone seemed too 'blah' for me. Maybe the whole "do what's best for you" Marrone approach doesn't work. I do like the whole family atmosphere thing he brought, but that's it as far as his recruiting pitch went. Maybe you gotta tell these kids instead, "hey come to fu**ing syracuse where we will make you an animal on the field, a man in the real world, and a great student. This place is better for you than any of those other clowns recruiting you we guarantee it!" Maybe Marrone already said that,who knows, but maybe HOW he said it just wasn't working. I like Shafer because he strikes me as someone who will bring a more hard-nosed attitude to the table with these top-tier recruits. Maybe he is exactly what we need. Remember, Marrone failed to snag a single 4-star recruit in four years, even a guy like Ishaq, who's parents are Syracuse alums for Christ's sake! To me that says a lot.

If Shafer starts "snagging" 4-star recruits, it will be due to the fact that the program has fought its way from being the doormat of all BCS conference teams to a respectable one that is positioned better than it was four years ago when Marrone took over. Recruiting is partially a function of perception--and highly rated kids weren't beating down the door to come here in the aftermath of the GRob debacle--which makes the turnaround even more impressive in some ways.

Also, you are wrong about Marrone not landing any four star recruits. Ron Thompson, Spruill, and Funderburk were all -stars.

 

[PhatOrange]

For me, I use the term 4 star recruit just to signify a kid with a lot of offers. In the old days (the 90's) we used to call this kid a 'blue chip'.

 

[OrangeFoo]

Here's a research project for you - and maybe you can convince us.

Within the last 5 years cross reference all of the star ratings for the All Conference 1st Team players (SEC, ACC, BIG10, BIG12, PAC10, Big East) as well as the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft.

Here you go for a starter... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...23/nfl-draft-prospects-as-recruits/index.html
"So, if the numbers hold, 53 percent of the first-rounders will come from the top eighth of the recruits" - from the article

​

 

[anomander]

one thing you know you are getting with 4/5 "star" players, are players with great measurables. I'll take those type of kids all day because if you have a staff that is good at developing talent, like our prior staff the ceiling is just so much higher. for instance i honestly believe our teams potential was maxed out, and we were what 8-5. that's because we had mostly 2-3 star players. while a team like bama who i also believe get all of their potential maxed out, they win back to back titles. all these kids for the most part are so raw coming out of HS, so give me the kids with the huge measurables, and then let me develop them.

 

[RF2044]

one thing you know you are getting with 4/5 "star" players, are players with great measurables. I'll take those type of kids all day because if you have a staff that is good at developing talent, like our prior staff the ceiling is just so much higher. for instance i honestly believe our teams potential was maxed out, and we were what 8-5. that's because we had mostly 2-3 star players. while a team like bama who i also believe get all of their potential maxed out, they win back to back titles. all these kids for the most part are so raw coming out of HS, so give me the kids with the huge measurables, and then let me develop them.

This thread reminds me of that Steve Martin skit about how to be a millionaire and NEVER pay taxes. Step one of his plan: get a million dollars...

Who the WOULDN'T take 4/5 star players? The problem is, how do you position your program such that you can effectively begin recruiting prospects of that caliber?

The question isn't whether it makes sense or not to recruit them. Oh Lord Believe me, I'm sure that Marrone and staff would have LOVED to land a few 5 star recruits had they been able. That sure would have helped them jump start the rebuild. But the program wasn't in a position to attract those types of players, so they made chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what in replenishing the roster. The net result was that the team got bigger, stronger, and faster during Marrone's tenure, and got us to the point where we could physically compete and not be overmatched against every opponent. Don't underestimate how big of a transformation this was.

Does that put them on a level playing field with Alabama [from your example]? Hell no--but being 8-5 and a bowl winner makes for an easier sell on the recruiting trail than when we were universally considered to be the worst BCS program in the nation. If we continue to win and get to bowl games, then recruiting overall will likely improve.

 

[anomander]

This thread reminds me of that Steve Martin skit about how to be a millionaire and NEVER pay taxes. Step one of his plan: get a million dollars...

Who the WOULDN'T take 4/5 star players? The problem is, how do you position your program such that you can effectively begin recruiting prospects of that caliber?

The question isn't whether it makes sense or not to recruit them. Oh Lord Believe me, I'm sure that Marrone and staff would have LOVED to land a few 5 star recruits had they been able. That sure would have helped them jump start the rebuild. But the program wasn't in a position to attract those types of players, so they made chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what in replenishing the roster. The net result was that the team got bigger, stronger, and faster during Marrone's tenure, and got us to the point where we could physically compete and not be overmatched against every opponent. Don't underestimate how big of a transformation this was.

Does that put them on a level playing field with Alabama [from your example]? Hell no--but being 8-5 and a bowl winner makes for an easier sell on the recruiting trail than when we were universally considered to be the worst BCS program in the nation. If we continue to win and get to bowl games, then recruiting overall will likely improve.

did you read my post? this wasn't a syracuse vs alabama. this was a post about the star system, and why the star system is some what correct. syracuse and alabama just happened to be the perfect examples.

 

[RMH44]

This thread reminds me of that Steve Martin skit about how to be a millionaire and NEVER pay taxes. Step one of his plan: get a million dollars...

Who the WOULDN'T take 4/5 star players? The problem is, how do you position your program such that you can effectively begin recruiting prospects of that caliber?

The question isn't whether it makes sense or not to recruit them. Oh Lord Believe me, I'm sure that Marrone and staff would have LOVED to land a few 5 star recruits had they been able. That sure would have helped them jump start the rebuild. But the program wasn't in a position to attract those types of players, so they made chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what in replenishing the roster. The net result was that the team got bigger, stronger, and faster during Marrone's tenure, and got us to the point where we could physically compete and not be overmatched against every opponent. Don't underestimate how big of a transformation this was.

Does that put them on a level playing field with Alabama [from your example]? Hell no--but being 8-5 and a bowl winner makes for an easier sell on the recruiting trail than when we were universally considered to be the worst BCS program in the nation. If we continue to win and get to bowl games, then recruiting overall will likely improve.

Well said RF.

But I'm still attempting to figure the intent of the OP. Since Scott Shafer has only been HC for a REALLY short time (days actually), I'm reasonably sure that no one on this board is remotely close to figuring out his "approach" to recruiting.

I'm very excited about Shafer's rumored hires and hope they'll be able to upgrade our recruiting efforts. But, IMO, it's far too early to compare his "recruiting approach" to Marrone's.

 

[CuseACC]

Here's a research project for you - and maybe you can convince us.

Within the last 5 years cross reference all of the star ratings for the All Conference 1st Team players (SEC, ACC, BIG10, BIG12, PAC10, Big East) as well as the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft.

You just don't get it you really don't.

 

[CuseACC]

Well said RF.

But I'm still attempting to figure the intent of the OP. Since Scott Shafer has only been HC for a REALLY short time (days actually), I'm reasonably sure that no one on this board is remotely close to figuring out his "approach" to recruiting.

I'm very excited about Shafer's rumored hires and hope they'll be able to upgrade our recruiting efforts. But, IMO, it's far too early to compare his "recruiting approach" to Marrone's.

It's amazing how defensive some people get when we point out the 4+ star recruit issue. The bottom line- there is a significant improvement in on-the-field results when 4+ star players go to your school. I think Shafer, based on his attitude in is speeches, and based on the recruits he is going after this week, is someone who can start bringing in said recruits. Do you want me to bug is office for you? Will that be enough? It's an opinion bud.

 

[tep624]

It's amazing how defensive some people get when we point out the 4+ star recruit issue. The bottom line- there is a significant improvement in on-the-field results when 4+ star players go to your school. I think Shafer, based on his attitude in is speeches, and based on the recruits he is going after this week, is someone who can start bringing in said recruits. Do you want me to bug is office for you? Will that be enough? It's an opinion bud.

Wayne Morgan was 4* on ESPN Scouts Inc.
Ron Thompson was 4* on Scout
Ashton Broyld was 4* on Scout as a Prep
Marquis Spruill was 4* on Rivals as a Prep

It helps when the first line of your "issue" you're pointing out is accurate.

One of the problems that we have for SU recruits is that it isn't remotely apples to apples when comparing our classes to most other BCS schools, specifically the Big 10 and SEC. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a recruit get a "big boy" offer then suddenly he moves from a 2* to a 4* based upon nothing other than that offer. Is he any different a recruit today than he was yesterday? The reason why we're at a disadvantage is that for our early recruits, the staff really gets no credit for identifying high quality early recruits unless they've been offered by other schools. You will not likely see in your lifetime an early commit to Syracuse who only has an offer from Syracuse that's a 4* recruit, regardless of his talent level. (We just don't get the coverage from the recruiting analysts - the site writers, yes, the analysts, no.) They commit and then they fall into a recruiting black hole as far as rankings until another school comes along later with a higher profile and tries to steal them - and that change only happens if they decommit and the new interest becomes public. Why is that? Because the site writers for the big boy schools pick up on it, publish something, and then the analysts pull their head out of the sand and update the ranking.

 

[kcsu]

I thought that the The big full of it balogne did a good job recruiting. I liked his approach to NYC kids Jucos and the kids from the south. It is actually one area that i think TBFOIB did a decent job. Still we have not had a recruiter like the the OC in a long time. If we can break ground on the new football stuff coupled with the ACC i think that Shaf and crew will end up doing a better job.

 

[qdawgg]

It's amazing how defensive some people get when we point out the 4+ star recruit issue. The bottom line- there is a significant improvement in on-the-field results when 4+ star players go to your school. I think Shafer, based on his attitude in is speeches, and based on the recruits he is going after this week, is someone who can start bringing in said recruits. Do you want me to bug is office for you? Will that be enough? It's an opinion bud.

Ummm, no. People are pointing out reality. Read RF's post again. Nobody on here is arguing that if we had a team full of 4 - 5 star recruits we wouldn't be better. That is like asking whether you would be richer with a million dollar salary instead of a 100K salary.

If you could just go out "and get" 4 - 5 star recruits so easily, everybody would do it.