We get so worked up on recruiting

[upperdeck]

I may have misconstrued something or you could have not done a good job of articulating your point. A wide variety of possiblities. But my inability to actually read is not one of them. I did read your title though, We get so worked up on recruiting. If you care to clarify we may be closer in our opinions than initially thought.

we got solid plays out of the 1/3 of the class that saw the field. this kids were rated roughly 71 on the espn scale. we dont know what the other 2/3 of the class will bring. but if you just stick with the ESPN scale almost every player coming next year is rated much higher. Given that, there is reason to be optimistic that we will get even more play out of this years class and given that several of them are WR there is a solid chance we get one who steps in at a level that Esime provided.

we dont get the 4 star kids but if we are getting solid early play out of the low 3 star kids that bodes well that our coaches are doing a good job of bringing in kids.. if they can get results out of what others see as lesser talents, what might we get out of kids that are seen as better?

 

[qdawgg]

Says you. Recruiting rankings are correlative not causative. They've finished in the top 25 alot more we have over the last 10 years. I wonder why...

Clearly you have difficulties connecting pieces of information when that information is spread beyond more than one sentence. Please try to follow along here, I find reading passages more than once works really well for 12-13 year olds, that might prove useful for you if you've been able to comprehend everything up to this point.

They've finished in the top 25 in recruiting significantly more than we have, not even close. Despite their high levels of success in recruiting they do not consistently win at the highest possible level. Recruiting is one factor of a winning program, which refutes your incorrect hypothesis that recruiting is the single most important factor. If this were true Texas wouldn't be hiring a new coach and Oregon would have one (National Championship). Recruiting is not the single most important factor, that is incredibly short sighted thinking.

 

[Crusty]

Huh? You realize we were 6 seconds from having a losing season. We are a .500 team. Right in the middle of the pack. The players you list are Average players reflective of an average team and an average record. I want to get better and be in the top 25 and to do that we need better players and more of them. To beat teams on the field we need to beat them on the recruiting trail. Recruiting is the single most important factor to winning games. Talent wins out. No I'm not getting worked up about recruiting. Since I'm an alumni and a big fan of SU football my passion allows me to be interested in who we recruit to facilitate our improvement as a team to work our way up the top 25. Anyone who isn't really isn't much of a fan to me.

You realize we were seven points from 9-4? Last year's class was blown up when Marrone left. We lost Gus and LaRay and who knows what else.

It is not ALL recruiting. Coaching matters a great deal. Just look at ND, Pitt and a host of others than bring in top classes year underachieve.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

You realize we were seven points from 9-4? Last year's class was blown up when Marrone left. We lost Gus and LaRay and who knows what else.

It is not ALL recruiting. Coaching matters a great deal. Just look at ND, Pitt and a host of others than bring in top classes year underachieve.

Thank you Crusty for having a clear thesis statement. Those are now a requirement of posting on this site. I'm glad that you've reviewed the bylaws.

 

[timkay99]

we got solid plays out of the 1/3 of the class that saw the field. this kids were rated roughly 71 on the espn scale. we dont know what the other 2/3 of the class will bring. but if you just stick with the ESPN scale almost every player coming next year is rated much higher. Given that, there is reason to be optimistic that we will get even more play out of this years class and given that several of them are WR there is a solid chance we get one who steps in at a level that Esime provided.

we dont get the 4 star kids but if we are getting solid early play out of the low 3 star kids that bodes well that our coaches are doing a good job of bringing in kids.. if they can get results out of what others see as lesser talents, what might we get out of kids that are seen as better?

Where do these frosh play? Note - I consider frosh to be freshman, not newcomers to the program. Kelly should have played for us this year, for example.

QB - Hunt
RB - Morris/McFarlane
WR - Broyld, Cornelius, Estime (We talked a lot at how bad our WR have been, but they were better when these 3 were the main ones getting run)
TE - Parris
OL - No true frosh
DE - Unlikely
DT - Wayne Williams, possibly another frosh
LB - Losing Spruill, but Hodge likely replacing
DB - Likely opportunity, but will the new kids be ready?

This is where I think Cuse is entering a good place to be. Talent level has returned to average. So now, average freshman that would have played right away can now redshirt. Team will become stronger.

This class won't have a huge effect on next year's won-loss record and I don't know that I anticipate many playing as true frosh (I see maybe 1 WR, 2 of the LB's on specials, maybe 1 of the DB's), but they will make an impact on the program in 2 years as it returns to a consistent top 25 squad.

 

[Nahson]

Huh? You realize we were 6 seconds from having a losing season. We are a .500 team. Right in the middle of the pack. The players you list are Average players reflective of an average team and an average record. I want to get better and be in the top 25 and to do that we need better players and more of them. To beat teams on the field we need to beat them on the recruiting trail. Recruiting is the single most important factor to winning games. Talent wins out. No I'm not getting worked up about recruiting. Since I'm an alumni and a big fan of SU football my passion allows me to be interested in who we recruit to facilitate our improvement as a team to work our way up the top 25. Anyone who isn't really isn't much of a fan to me.

If you think Estime is an average football player then you either haven't watched much cuse football or you just don't know much about football. Kids what? Third all time in receptions for freshman at cuse? Don't know if you know but Syracause has had some pretty damn good receviers in it's time. Not only is he a good WR but he's a great return man. Average? Sir, I couldn't have asked much more out of a true freshman.

 

[Sudano]

You realize we were seven points from 9-4? Last year's class was blown up when Marrone left. We lost Gus and LaRay and who knows what else.

It is not ALL recruiting. Coaching matters a great deal. Just look at ND, Pitt and a host of others than bring in top classes year underachieve.

Woops, so close. We were 7 points from being 7-4-2. That would be 9 points away from 9-4. And I was 2 numbers away from being a millionaire. But sadly I'm not. To quote the great Dick MacPherson, 'if ifs and buts were candies and nuts it'd be Christmas every day'

 

[Nahson]

Sorry if that came off as attacking, I'm just pretty proud of what Bris has done this year.

 

[Sudano]

Clearly you have difficulties connecting pieces of information when that information is spread beyond more than one sentence. Please try to follow along here, I find reading passages more than once works really well for 12-13 year olds, that might prove useful for you if you've been able to comprehend everything up to this point.

They've finished in the top 25 in recruiting significantly more than we have, not even close. Despite their high levels of success in recruiting they do not consistently win at the highest possible level. Recruiting is one factor of a winning program, which refutes your incorrect hypothesis that recruiting is the single most important factor. If this were true Texas wouldn't be hiring a new coach and Oregon would have one (National Championship). Recruiting is not the single most important factor, that is incredibly short sighted thinking.

Correlation is not Causation.

 

[Sudano]

If you think Estime is an average football player then you either haven't watched much cuse football or you just don't know much about football. Kids what? Third all time in receptions for freshman at cuse? Don't know if you know but Syracause has had some pretty damn good receviers in it's time. Not only is he a good WR but he's a great return man. Average? Sir, I couldn't have asked much more out of a true freshman.

Average WR at Syracuse or Average WR throughout the US? No and Yes.

 

[Sudano]

we got solid plays out of the 1/3 of the class that saw the field. this kids were rated roughly 71 on the espn scale. we dont know what the other 2/3 of the class will bring. but if you just stick with the ESPN scale almost every player coming next year is rated much higher. Given that, there is reason to be optimistic that we will get even more play out of this years class and given that several of them are WR there is a solid chance we get one who steps in at a level that Esime provided.

we dont get the 4 star kids but if we are getting solid early play out of the low 3 star kids that bodes well that our coaches are doing a good job of bringing in kids.. if they can get results out of what others see as lesser talents, what might we get out of kids that are seen as better?

So if your conclusion is we are recruiting better so they'll ultimately play better, that's a no brainer without much debate. But if you are trying to make a comment based on the context of your title that we shouldn't get worked up over whom we recruit, then that's my issue.
Its not about any individual players ESPN score rating. I just don't want to go back to the days of recruiting lesser known talent and trying to convince ourselves with a false narrative that we can coach them up. Let's recruit really good players then coach them up.

 

[Crusty]

Where do these frosh play? Note - I consider frosh to be freshman, not newcomers to the program. Kelly should have played for us this year, for example.

QB - Hunt
RB - Morris/McFarlane
WR - Broyld, Cornelius, Estime (We talked a lot at how bad our WR have been, but they were better when these 3 were the main ones getting run)
TE - Parris
OL - No true frosh
DE - Unlikely
DT - Wayne Williams, possibly another frosh
LB - Losing Spruill, but Hodge likely replacing
DB - Likely opportunity, but will the new kids be ready?

This is where I think Cuse is entering a good place to be. Talent level has returned to average. So now, average freshman that would have played right away can now redshirt. Team will become stronger.

This class won't have a huge effect on next year's won-loss record and I don't know that I anticipate many playing as true frosh (I see maybe 1 WR, 2 of the LB's on specials, maybe 1 of the DB's), but they will make an impact on the program in 2 years as it returns to a consistent top 25 squad.

Yes, quite to the point. Many of our best players are underclassmen. Talented frosh are red shirting. In the aggregate, we are looking much better at the skill positions than we have in ten years, maybe longer.

On our long journey back to the top 25 we have become somewhat relevant because or our defense. What has ailed us has been the inability to score points. Last year is the only season we have averaged more than 25 point per game in at least the last ten years (30.0).

This coaching staff is on the verge of bringing in the best class in ages, especially at the skill positions. When this translates to scoring 30 points per game we can win 8 or 9 games a year but probably not before.

 

[Crusty]

Woops, so close. We were 7 points from being 7-4-2. That would be 9 points away from 9-4. And I was 2 numbers away from being a millionaire. But sadly I'm not. To quote the great Dick MacPherson, 'if ifs and buts were candies and nuts it'd be Christmas every day'

Wait a minute. You can say we were 6 seconds from a losing season but when I say we were a few points away from two more wins that doesn't count? What is valid for your opinion is certainly valid for mine or they are both BS - you decide.

 

[Sudano]

Wait a minute. You can say we were 6 seconds from a losing season but when I say we were a few points away from two more wins that doesn't count? What is valid for your opinion is certainly valid for mine or they are both BS - you decide.

Its simple Math. We were 7 points away from 2 ties. Its 9 points not 7.

 

[Crusty]

Its simple Math. We were 7 points away from 2 ties. Its 9 points not 7.

Agreed 7 not 9 but 7 would have sent both to overtime if you want to be technical. Either both your point and mine are valid or both are not.

You decided to ignore my reply and use your own talking points like some politician running for office. If you want a quote then how about Purcell's - "You are what your record says you are."

 

[Sudano]

Agreed 7 not 9 but 7 would have sent both to overtime if you want to be technical. Either both your point and mine are valid or both are not.

You decided to ignore my reply and use your own talking points like some politician running for office. If you want a quote then how about Purcell's - "You are what your record says you are."

To quote the great American philosopher Doug Marrone: "Let's not confuse effort with results".
Sometimes I think people forget that we were 7-6 this year. We haven't been ranked in the top 25 in over 10 years and yet we talk like we have been. We will continue to be an average team by recruiting these same level players. I see glimpses of a recruiting upgrade this year but we have to do this for 3-4 more years to really see any significant impact in our record for the future. To quote the great American philosoper Sudano: 'Let's not use fan optimism to hide the reality staring us right in the face.' We have to recruit better.

 

[baggerbob]

Agreed 7 not 9 but 7 would have sent both to overtime if you want to be technical. Either both your point and mine are valid or both are not.

You decided to ignore my reply and use your own talking points like some politician running for office. If you want a quote then how about Purcell's - "You are what your record says you are."

Actually having a placekicker, we win the last 3 games without any last second heroics. Some people like to make statements, not actually looking at what transpired on the field of play. We dominated Pitt, BC, and Minnesota, but not having a field goal kicker cost us the Pittsburgh game almost cost us BC, and Minnesota. Norton Missed a 30 yarder early against BC, which caused Scott to go for a touchdown the next drive, rather then kick a 2nd Field goal. Those 6 points, and BC never leads in the game.

 

[FAL]

Sorry if that came off as attacking, I'm just pretty proud of what Bris has done this year.

NOBODY would accuse you of "attacking"! You had a strong opinion and you supported it well. Good job!

(Just limit your posts when you *maybe* have had one too many after a game. (Not that I or other posters would ever do that, mind you.))

 

[upperdeck]

shoot auburn is 2 crazy plays away from 2 losses much easier than we were.

 

[Statesman1]

I agree with you. I said most kids need a few years to develop, but a few can make it out there year 1.

If we're playing half a dozen true frosh every year it means we have no talent in front of them. In our glory years it took exceptional talents like Rob Konrad to see the field as freshman. Although I'd love to be bringing in a half dozen talents like him every year I'd prefer to have a deep roster where that is the exception not the rule.

 

[Crusty]

NOBODY would accuse you of "attacking"! You had a strong opinion and you supported it well. Good job!

(Just limit your posts when you *maybe* have had one too many after a game. (Not that I or other posters would ever do that, mind you.))

What he said.

 

[bnoro]

We're right at that time of year where all the same threads start creeping up again.

Where a player is ranked makes no difference. Judge them after 4 years.

 

[Crusty]

We're right at that time of year where all the same threads start creeping up again.

Where a player is ranked makes no difference. Judge them after 4 years.

OMG that should start the star rating threads all over again. Ayeyah!

 

[Sudano]

We're right at that time of year where all the same threads start creeping up again.

Where a player is ranked makes no difference. Judge them after 4 years.

There is a correlation between their ranking, who's offered them scholarships, their talent, and how that is reflected in the team's success. The team's ranking has an even higher correlation. And yes many will incorrectly provide of examples of those who didn't because they think its direct causation.

 

[Crusty]

There is a correlation between their ranking, who's offered them scholarships, their talent, and how that is reflected in the team's success. The team's ranking has a higher correlation. And yes many will incorrectly provide of examples of those who didn't.

I have never seen a study that proves or disproves the ranking theory. I am not sure it can even be done given the independent variables. Any statement pro or con is based purely on anecdotal evidence. So, everybody is free to have their own opinion - which is nice.