Talent

[TheCusian]

Ouch. This speaks well for their coaching staff. Should be an interesting game.

They've been as bad or worse than us during that same time. Recruiting is only a part of the job - they've not been good on the field.

 

[Alsacs]

How well have they been doing in college?

Look at Michigan with a real coach. UVA's next coach will inherit a roster with some talent on the roster. It will be on that coach to get more out of that talent.

 

[tep624]

2 weeks ago outside of Leonard Fournette we seemed to have the talent to play toe toe to toe with a top 10 SEC team.

Now magically we don't have the talent to play with USF?

I don't buy it. There were absolutely some mismatches, which we'll run into with any team we play. But we came out flat, plain and simple. It was not an inspired effort until it was too late.

 

[SWC75]

It's too bad Ashton Broyld isn't still here. He was good in high school and would thus increase our talent level and we'd have a better chance against Virginia.

 

[SWC75]

https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/teamrank/2016/all/all

Here is a website that makes it easy to compare and sort recruits by school, state, league etc. If you want straight team rankings just change the year. Rivals is generally the most reputable talent grader. Obviously it doesn't take into account scheme, development curve, or work ethic. I checked the ranking of Cuse and USF the past five years.

I totaled Syracuse and each of their FBS opponents this season, counting the 5, 4, and 3 stars players recruited from 2011-2015, (which would include redshirted seniors) and then gave each team that number of points- I'll call them stars, (5 for 5 star players, 4 for 4 star players, etc). Here was the result.

Wake Forest five stars, 1 four star, 66 three star = 202 stars
Central Michigan 0-0-14 = 42 stars
Louisiana State 11-55-44 = 407 stars
South Florida 0-9-84 = 288 stars
Virginia 3-15-67 = 276 stars
Pittsburgh 1-14-58 = 235 stars
Florida State 15-55-42 = 421 stars
Louisville 0-12-80 = 288 stars
Clemson 8-41-58 = 378 stars
North Carolina State 0-9-80 = 276 stars
Boston College 0-9-57 = 207 stars

Syracuse 0-1-64 = 196 stars

So if this is a true measure of the talent of Syracuse and it's opponents, we should wind up 2-10 with wins only over Rhode Island and Central Michigan.

As noted above "it doesn't take into account scheme, development curve, or work ethic". I once suggested to Jim Boeheim that if a player at age 25 was an NBA starter he was probably about 20% of what he was going to become coming out of high school and 80% coming out of college. I think that's even more true in football.

But aside from that I look at these numbers and think that LSU, Florida State and Clemson are the teams we can't really match-up against talent wise. Central Michigan is the team that can't really match up against us and the rest are close enough that the game won't just be decided on talent. And, of course, Central Michigan was able to compete with us and we were able to compete with LSU.

So game on.

 

[DoctorBombay]

2 weeks ago outside of Leonard Fournette we seemed to have the talent to play toe toe to toe with a top 10 SEC team.

Now magically we don't have the talent to play with USF?

I don't buy it. There were absolutely some mismatches, which we'll run into with any team we play. But we came out flat, plain and simple. It was not an inspired effort until it was too late.

This^^^

 

[cuseguy]

I totaled Syracuse and each of their FBS opponents this season, counting the 5, 4, and 3 stars players recruited from 2011-2015, (which would include redshirted seniors) and then gave each team that number of points- I'll call them stars, (5 for 5 star players, 4 for 4 star players, etc). Here was the result. Wake Forest five stars, 1 four star, 66 three star = 202 stars Central Michigan 0-0-14 = 42 stars Louisiana State 11-55-44 = 407 stars South Florida 0-9-84 = 288 stars Virginia 3-15-67 = 276 stars Pittsburgh 1-14-58 = 235 stars Florida State 15-55-42 = 421 stars Louisville 0-12-80 = 288 stars Clemson 8-41-58 = 378 stars North Carolina State 0-9-80 = 276 stars Boston College 0-9-57 = 207 stars Syracuse 0-1-64 = 196 stars So if this is a true measure of the talent of Syracuse and it's opponents, we should wind up 2-10 with wins only over Rhode Island and Central Michigan. As noted above "it doesn't take into account scheme, development curve, or work ethic". I once suggested to Jim Boeheim that if a player at age 25 was an NBA starter he was probably about 20% of what he was going to become coming out of high school and 80% coming out of college. I think that's even more true in football. But aside from that I look at these numbers and think that LSU, Florida State and Clemson are the teams we can't really match-up against talent wise. Central Michigan is the team that can't really match up against us and the rest are close enough that the game won't just be decided on talent. And, of course, Central Michigan was able to compete with us and we were able to compete with LSU. So game on.

Nice work.

Just supports what I've been saying: most of the teams we play are more talented, on paper, than us.

 

[AZOrange]

Good post Phat.

Our lack of size on D, apart from the DL, is a major factor, IMO. It isn't just the very small safeties (although I would take Cordy any day). Once the LBs are engaged, they struggle to get off blocks (including Zaire, who is a warrior), and then it doesn't take much to push the 175 lbs safeties around. Some of us talked about the lack of size in the preseason. But the clear consensus was that this "great" D is built on speed and size was over rated.

Size matters. it always has. And size really matters when the collective team speed on D is average. Take a long look at the rosters of everyone we have left. The size disparity is glaring. The other important factor here is that, over the course of the season, there is an accumulative physical impact to the kids as they consistently have to take on much larger players.

I feel like 2-3 years ago we had a lot of 6-2 guys, 220 lb guys that couldn't run. Now I feel like we have more 6 foot, 180 pounders that can run a bit faster. Now we need 6-4 240 lb guys that run even faster. Obviously my size metrics here are merely meant to be anecdotal...I think it's clear we've given up size for more speed. With that has come other issues though

 

[Alsacs]

I totaled Syracuse and each of their FBS opponents this season, counting the 5, 4, and 3 stars players recruited from 2011-2015, (which would include redshirted seniors) and then gave each team that number of points- I'll call them stars, (5 for 5 star players, 4 for 4 star players, etc). Here was the result.

Wake Forest five stars, 1 four star, 66 three star = 202 stars
Central Michigan 0-0-14 = 42 stars
Louisiana State 11-55-44 = 407 stars
South Florida 0-9-84 = 288 stars
Virginia 3-15-67 = 276 stars
Pittsburgh 1-14-58 = 235 stars
Florida State 15-55-42 = 421 stars
Louisville 0-12-80 = 288 stars
Clemson 8-41-58 = 378 stars
North Carolina State 0-9-80 = 276 stars
Boston College 0-9-57 = 207 stars

Syracuse 0-1-64 = 196 stars

So if this is a true measure of the talent of Syracuse and it's opponents, we should wind up 2-10 with wins only over Rhode Island and Central Michigan.

As noted above "it doesn't take into account scheme, development curve, or work ethic". I once suggested to Jim Boeheim that if a player at age 25 was an NBA starter he was probably about 20% of what he was going to become coming out of high school and 80% coming out of college. I think that's even more true in football.

But aside from that I look at these numbers and think that LSU, Florida State and Clemson are the teams we can't really match-up against talent wise. Central Michigan is the team that can't really match up against us and the rest are close enough that the game won't just be decided on talent. And, of course, Central Michigan was able to compete with us and we were able to compete with LSU.

So game on.

So Ron Thompson was the only 4 star talent we have recruited in the last 5 years damn. I tried telling TheCusian preseason that USF had recruited more talent than we had. But seeing it like you broke it down make it sad. Doug Marrone leaving hurt SS's first year recruiting but we still haven't recruited on par with our peer schools Pitt/BC.

We need more 4 star talents.

 

[SWC75]

Nice work.

Just supports what I've been saying: most of the teams we play are more talented, on paper, than us.

If estimates of their high school career is the measure of talent. It's a moment in time.

Do you really look at us and see another 3-9 team? We had that record last year because we got wiped out by injuries. We're relatively healthy now. Don't we have to be better than that? Or have we started an 8 game losing streak?

 

[TheCusian]

So Ron Thompson was the only 4 star talent we have recruited in the last 5 years damn. I tried telling TheCusian preseason that USF had recruited more talent than we had. But seeing it like you broke it down make it sad. Doug Marrone leaving hurt SS's first year recruiting but we still haven't recruited on par with our peer schools Pitt/BC. We need more 4 star talents.

I agreed with you. They have recruited well.

Where we disagreed was their ability to coach that talent (worse record in a worse conference) and I stand by what I said - despite this weeks game. They looked like a well coached team this week. And they very may well have finally turned the corner a bit.

 

[SoBristol]

...
Do you really look at us and see another 3-9 team? We had that record last year because we got wiped out by injuries. We're relatively healthy now. Don't we have to be better than that? Or have we started an 8 game losing streak?

On the defensive side, the 2014 team was better than the 3-9 record (and better than what we have now). Can look at this 2015 defense and wonder -- can we stop a good running attack, and what can be done about that secondary? So, yes, the odds-makers will look at our talent and our play, and make us under-dogs in every game left on the schedule.

The reason for hope is on the offensive side. Recruiting ratings tell a story about our relative talent, then consider that Fredericks, Dungey, Phillips, and Conway are all better than how they were rated.

 

[SWC75]

I think the issue is whether high school ratings are the equivalent of an intelligence or aptitude test to determine the presence and extent of a player's abilities such that subsequent results on the next level are just about coaching. I think high school results are just that- what they did in high school. You can't tell who will make the best doctors and lawyers in high school and you can't tell who will make the best football or basketball players, either.

The fact that Syracuse came into the USF game 13-16 in Shafer's tenure, which began with our first ACC year) and USF was 7-21 over the same period, (in the AAC), suggest that we had the talent to beat them. If we didn't, it was because of how we played, not what players we played.

The fact that we are now 13-17 but Virginia is 8- 21 suggests the same thing.

 

[cuseguy]

If estimates of their high school career is the measure of talent. It's a moment in time. Do you really look at us and see another 3-9 team? We had that record last year because we got wiped out by injuries. We're relatively healthy now. Don't we have to be better than that? Or have we started an 8 game losing streak?

Remains to be seen.

I think will have a better idea in a few weeks.