Well, the second-best way since none of us are actually patient enough to wait a couple years.
I spend an inordinate amount of time on these boards bashing the star system (yes, I would like 5 star kids, I just find it useless for deciphering the differences between kids outside the top 200 or so). I also tend to think a program's development plan and S&C have much more to do with on-field success than recruiting since I believe most coaches have a pretty good idea of what a football player looks like.
But, despite all my objections, I still think it's fun to evaluate a class and -- admittedly as a non-recruitnik (I have three kids) -- this is how I find best to do it.
1. Numbers
Numbers aren't exciting but I tend to think, generally, that you're more likely to find a good DT if you bring in 3 every year than you are if you bring in one -- even if he has a magical 4th star. But we needed help on the DL and got it in the form of five players. Our offensive line is thin and only marginally effective -- we needed help and we got 4 bodies. Two key areas. Also, we need playmakers. Tough to really judge that but I think it's fair to be excited about the Morgans and Whighams and Thompsons. Morris seems like a good athlete and fills a need at RB. Broyld getting a shot at QB certainly ups the talent quotient there, though we'll see if he sticks. Needed another LB so Whitehurst hurts. But overall, I think they were able to address needs, particularly on the lines.
2. Commit date/offers
I tend to think players probably tend to fudge offers a bit and I sincerely doubt Scout or Rivals are reporting them accurately. That said, it's good to have BCS offers. I also think you can feel pretty comfortable with a recruit if he commits very early in the process since it means the staff truly wanted him. For example, the Barrett kid from CBA. Not sure how good he'll be and i know he didn't have other offers listed, but I like that he committed in March of last year. To line him up 11 months out, the staff must have liked something about him. Same for Palmer, Cornelius, Coleman and Knapp -- Not the most impressive offer list; not much insinuation that they were courted late by other schools. But they were locked up early so I tend to trust the staff on those.
Guys who committed later in the process tended to be guys with plenty of options: Morgan, MPB, Hilliard, Manley, Morris. The only guy that appeared to maybe be somewhat "B-listish" is Zian Jones from the standpoint that he didn't have a huge offer list and may have been something of a safety net with Brantley waffling (just pure conjecture on my part) but even he appears to be a legit option and should help from a depth perspective at a minimum.
Key states: NY/NJ/FL and to a lesser extent OH
We don't have to (and won't) get every NYS prospect and we don't need to sign 5 FL kids every year. But it's hard to ignore that it's good to recruit well at home and there seems to be a lot of talent (and always has been) in FL and NJ. How did we do? Meh. Decent in NYS if you consider the Broyld/Morgan/McFarlane trio. Weak in NJ, OK in FL (Whigham and Washington) but a bit thin. If we can continue to mine GA and PA for some key guys, that helps but we need to be better in NJ and FL and Marrone said as much.
Late defections vs. flips
A seedy part of the process but it's just going to be like this (unless the NCAA actually just allows kids to sign earlier in the process). Losing Brantley hurts, but when you bring in five other quality DL, it's not the end of the world. Whitehurst hurts. Flipping Hilliard is outstanding and JPO would have been icing on the cake. All in all, we survived and probably basically broke even. I'll take that.
Overall evaluation
Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not sure there's any real way to evaluate with a lot of accuracy. But this class appears to be filled with two types of players: Kids identified and signed early and kids that signed later but had plenty of options. Those are both "good" types of recruits. If there aren't major academic issues, I think it's safe to say this class appears to be a step forward (though some of that will lie with the fate of the few skill guys like cornelius/Lewis/Morris/Broyld sice we desperately need difference making types). I don't think it's dramatic (as many have suggested) but I'd have to say there hasn't been a point in the last 8 years or so that we ever would have flipped a Pitt recruit. Headed in the right direction, love the focus on the trenches and trust this staff's eye for talent. Now we just need facilities upgrades (i buy into this since I know what I would have been interested in at 18) and a better performance in NJ (very possible give what's happening there) and we should be in good shape.
I spend an inordinate amount of time on these boards bashing the star system (yes, I would like 5 star kids, I just find it useless for deciphering the differences between kids outside the top 200 or so). I also tend to think a program's development plan and S&C have much more to do with on-field success than recruiting since I believe most coaches have a pretty good idea of what a football player looks like.
But, despite all my objections, I still think it's fun to evaluate a class and -- admittedly as a non-recruitnik (I have three kids) -- this is how I find best to do it.
1. Numbers
Numbers aren't exciting but I tend to think, generally, that you're more likely to find a good DT if you bring in 3 every year than you are if you bring in one -- even if he has a magical 4th star. But we needed help on the DL and got it in the form of five players. Our offensive line is thin and only marginally effective -- we needed help and we got 4 bodies. Two key areas. Also, we need playmakers. Tough to really judge that but I think it's fair to be excited about the Morgans and Whighams and Thompsons. Morris seems like a good athlete and fills a need at RB. Broyld getting a shot at QB certainly ups the talent quotient there, though we'll see if he sticks. Needed another LB so Whitehurst hurts. But overall, I think they were able to address needs, particularly on the lines.
2. Commit date/offers
I tend to think players probably tend to fudge offers a bit and I sincerely doubt Scout or Rivals are reporting them accurately. That said, it's good to have BCS offers. I also think you can feel pretty comfortable with a recruit if he commits very early in the process since it means the staff truly wanted him. For example, the Barrett kid from CBA. Not sure how good he'll be and i know he didn't have other offers listed, but I like that he committed in March of last year. To line him up 11 months out, the staff must have liked something about him. Same for Palmer, Cornelius, Coleman and Knapp -- Not the most impressive offer list; not much insinuation that they were courted late by other schools. But they were locked up early so I tend to trust the staff on those.
Guys who committed later in the process tended to be guys with plenty of options: Morgan, MPB, Hilliard, Manley, Morris. The only guy that appeared to maybe be somewhat "B-listish" is Zian Jones from the standpoint that he didn't have a huge offer list and may have been something of a safety net with Brantley waffling (just pure conjecture on my part) but even he appears to be a legit option and should help from a depth perspective at a minimum.
Key states: NY/NJ/FL and to a lesser extent OH
We don't have to (and won't) get every NYS prospect and we don't need to sign 5 FL kids every year. But it's hard to ignore that it's good to recruit well at home and there seems to be a lot of talent (and always has been) in FL and NJ. How did we do? Meh. Decent in NYS if you consider the Broyld/Morgan/McFarlane trio. Weak in NJ, OK in FL (Whigham and Washington) but a bit thin. If we can continue to mine GA and PA for some key guys, that helps but we need to be better in NJ and FL and Marrone said as much.
Late defections vs. flips
A seedy part of the process but it's just going to be like this (unless the NCAA actually just allows kids to sign earlier in the process). Losing Brantley hurts, but when you bring in five other quality DL, it's not the end of the world. Whitehurst hurts. Flipping Hilliard is outstanding and JPO would have been icing on the cake. All in all, we survived and probably basically broke even. I'll take that.
Overall evaluation
Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not sure there's any real way to evaluate with a lot of accuracy. But this class appears to be filled with two types of players: Kids identified and signed early and kids that signed later but had plenty of options. Those are both "good" types of recruits. If there aren't major academic issues, I think it's safe to say this class appears to be a step forward (though some of that will lie with the fate of the few skill guys like cornelius/Lewis/Morris/Broyld sice we desperately need difference making types). I don't think it's dramatic (as many have suggested) but I'd have to say there hasn't been a point in the last 8 years or so that we ever would have flipped a Pitt recruit. Headed in the right direction, love the focus on the trenches and trust this staff's eye for talent. Now we just need facilities upgrades (i buy into this since I know what I would have been interested in at 18) and a better performance in NJ (very possible give what's happening there) and we should be in good shape.
