Why do we not have any depth?

[OburgOrange]

Seems to be a recurring theme in some of these posts as to why we are losing. So, how come we don't have any depth, ever?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Seems to be a recurring theme in some of these posts as to why we are losing. So, how come we don't have any depth, ever?

Partly because we burn too many red shirts. Partly because of some bad luck with injuries, defections and lack of qualifiers.

 

[OburgOrange]

Partly because we burn too many red shirts. Partly because of some bad luck with injuries, defections and lack of qualifiers.

For the last 15 years?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

For the last 15 years?

Ah, thought you meant recently.

For P I think his stuff grew tired, other programs rose up around us and we fell behind the arms race.

Robinson was able to reel in some decent talent, just not nearly enough of it, and had all the challenges P did.

Marrone made things a little better, but the recruiting challenges remained and I suspect his attitude towards recruiting didn't help him. Plus, I always got the weird sense he was satisfied with the players that committed to him. I'm not sure how to describe it. It's like he didn't believe in the numbers game. If he got one player at a position he thought would be good, he was content. I think that left us vulnerable when that player didn't turn out.

With Shafer I think it has gotten better, but it still comes down to the things I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[OburgOrange]

Ah, thought you meant recently.

For P I think his stuff grew tired, other programs rose up around us and we fell behind the arms race.

Robinson was able to reel in some decent talent, just not nearly enough of it, and had all the challenges P did.

Marrone made things a little better, but the recruiting challenges remained and I suspect his attitude towards recruiting didn't help him. Plus, I always got the weird sense he was satisfied with the players that committed to him. I'm not sure how to describe it. It's like he didn't believe in the numbers game. If he got one player at a position he thought would be good, he was content. I think that left us vulnerable when that player didn't turn out.

With Shafer I think it has gotten better, but it still comes down to the things I mentioned earlier in this thread.

I said "ever"

I can't recall when we ever had significant depth in the last 15 years. The glory years before that we just reloaded. What has happened?

 

[rrlbees]

Seems to be a recurring theme in some of these posts as to why we are losing. So, how come we don't have any depth, ever?

Lost a lot of starters and 2nd string kids that bumped the depth up. I listed many of them in another thread.

 

[OburgOrange]

Lost a lot of starters and 2nd string kids that bumped the depth up. I listed many of them in another thread.

We haven't had depth in the last 15 years. That's my point. Not just this year, it's been years

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I can't recall when we ever had significant depth in the last 15 years. The glory years before that we just reloaded. What has happened?

Too many Northeastern schools fishing from too shallow a pond.

In the glory years the only two schools in the far NE that took football seriously were SU and BC.

UConn went FBS in 2000. Rutgers hired Shady in 2001.

That's about when our recruiting dropped off (and our depth problems began).

 

[OburgOrange]

Too many Northeastern schools fishing from too shallow a pond.

In the glory years the only two schools in the far NE that took football seriously were SU and BC.

UConn went FBS in 2000. Rutgers hired Shady in 2001.

That's about when our recruiting dropped off (and our depth problems began).

Thank you. That certainly makes sense. Now, how do we fix that?

Edit: maybe Penn St had something to do with it as well?

 

[cuseguy]

Too many Northeastern schools fishing from too shallow a pond. In the glory years the only two schools in the far NE that took football seriously were SU and BC. UConn went FBS in 2000. Rutgers hired Shady in 2001. That's about when our recruiting dropped off (and our depth problems began).

This.....in a nutshell.

It's also when Pitt started gaining the benefits of playing at Heinz Field.

We also stopped making upgrades in our facilities about 10 years before that while those schools were making serious upgrades.

We started losing about a half dozen recruits a year that used to choose Syracuse.

Over 10 years, that's 60 recruits.

There's your depth.

There's your problem.

 

[Scooch]

For the last 15 years?

We've never really had depth. Just look back to the late 90s. We lost a few games in large part because we were starting reserves who weren't quite ready to play. IMHO in our glory days of 1987-2001 our staring 22 typically was good enough to compete with almost anyone in the country. But we rarely had the 23-44 to compete with the elite programs. Just a fact of life.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Thank you. That certainly makes sense. Now, how do we fix that?

Edit: maybe Penn St had something to do with it as well?

Contraction?

The state of Texas put out a total of 1,337 3/4/5 star recruits over the last 5 years. Florida put out 1,295

NY/NJ/PA/NE combined for about 650.

 

[OburgOrange]

We've never really had depth. Just look back to the late 90s. We lost a few games in large part because we were starting reserves who weren't quite ready to play. IMHO in our glory days of 1987-2001 our staring 22 typically was good enough to compete with almost anyone in the country. But we rarely had the 23-44 to compete with the elite programs. Just a fact of life.

But, we had a string of winning seasons which we haven't repeated. Wasn't that because of depth? Just reload year after year

 

[OburgOrange]

Contraction?

The state of Texas put out 1,337 3/4/5 star recruits last year. Florida put out 1,295

NY/NJ/PA/NE combined for about 650.

There ya go. We are doomed. And everyone stresses how important recruiting the NE is?

 

[cuseguy]

We've never really had depth. Just look back to the late 90s. We lost a few games in large part because we were starting reserves who weren't quite ready to play. IMHO in our glory days of 1987-2001 our staring 22 typically was good enough to compete with almost anyone in the country. But we rarely had the 23-44 to compete with the elite programs. Just a fact of life.

Now we don't even have the quality in our starting 22 to compete with elite programs.

So it's more than just depth.

 

[OburgOrange]

Now we don't even have the quality in our starting 22 to compete with elite programs.

So it's more than just depth.

So this is our lot in life. I'm really in a dark place now

 

[cuseguy]

So this is our lot in life. I'm really in a dark place now

The job is much harder than it was 15-20 years ago.

We need something to kick start the program.

Dome renovation?

An innovative coach?

A dynamic QB?

Maybe all of the above.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

So this is our lot in life. I'm really in a dark place now

We need either a "pied piper" who can convince kids to play here, or a "mad scientist" who can get the most out of what we have.

 

[cuseguy]

When things started to turn in the late 80s, the Dome was new, unique and a great recruiting tool. We had a "mad scientist" in George DeLeone who ran an innovative offense. And we were among a handful of schools in the country that featured an effective, dual-threat QB. We thought it would never end.

 

[Scooch]

The job is much harder than it was 15-20 years ago. We need something to kick start the program. Dome renovation? An innovative coach? A dynamic QB? Maybe all of the above.

Yes, all of that.

 

[RoatanCuse]

My thinking is that if you recruit well, you have depth. No?

 

[CuseLegacy]

But, we had a string of winning seasons which we haven't repeated. Wasn't that because of depth? Just reload year after year

Retention of players also effects depth. You have kids that get career ending injuries, kids that transfer, you have kids that are thrown off a team for off field behavior, you have kids that don't make it academically, you have kids that are recruited that never make it to campus and you have kids that never meet their potential of being a D1 player.

Then there is a cap on how many kids you can recruit each class. And unless you are Kansas State recruiting Jucos to fill spots is a stop gap measure because you lose years. You can't refill depth in one recruiting class.

 

[SoBristol]

Retention of players also effects depth. You have kids that get career ending injuries, kids that transfer, you have kids that are thrown off a team for off field behavior, you have kids that don't make it academically, you have kids that are recruited that never make it to campus and you have kids that never meet their potential of being a D1 player.

Then there is a cap on how many kids you can recruit each class. And unless you are Kansas State recruiting Jucos to fill spots is a stop gap measure because you lose years. You can't refill depth in one recruiting class.

Most of that adds up to how well are we recruiting. The 2013 class was affected by Marrone's departure. The 2014 class was better on paper, but a third of that class never made or has left. Right there is the current depth issue -- what happened with Shafer's 2013 and 2014 classes.
In contrast, the 2015 class is solid and deep. Repeat that in the 2016 cycle, add 3 or 4 jucos, and we have normal depth. Teams don't need 85 good players to have good depth. You win or lose with the top 45.

 

[Nick44]

Simple - Either a few marginally talented role players surrounded by recruiting "projects" that never materialized. This was one of the problems during the late P years and GROB years.

Or, a few talented underclassman forced to carry a team because they are surrounded by "projects" that haven't panned out or upperclassmen who have failed to step up and/or have regressed. Partly coaching to blame for this.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Most of that adds up to how well are we recruiting. The 2013 class was affected by Marrone's departure. The 2014 class was better on paper, but a third of that class never made or has left. Right there is the current depth issue -- what happened with Shafer's 2013 and 2014 classes.
In contrast, the 2015 class is solid and deep. Repeat that in the 2016 cycle, add 3 or 4 jucos, and we have normal depth. Teams don't need 85 good players to have good depth. You win or lose with the top 45.

You have to go back to when Marrone was hired. How many kids left the team when he took over, how many did not meet their potential? How many were kicked off the team because they were arrested or suspended for failure to pass the drug test?