When will recruiting improve? | The Boneyard

When will recruiting improve?

N

NHRich

Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
195
Reaction Score
480
I stopped following recruiting years ago because the results were too disappointing. I just looked at 2018 and see we rank 11th in the conference so far. Can we really expect to move up without better recruiting? I know the number of stars doesn’t always tell the whole story, but it’s not meaningless. Has there been any improvement lately?
 
I would like to know if the 11th ranked class includes the two most recent recruits- Krajewski and the Texan OL.
 
NHRich said:
I stopped following recruiting years ago because the results were too disappointing. I just looked at 2018 and see we rank 11th in the conference so far. Can we really expect to move up without better recruiting? I know the number of stars doesn’t always tell the whole story, but it’s not meaningless. Has there been any improvement lately?
Expand ...

Too early to say just yet. Need to see where we land after signing day.

If we land some of the better kids on our radar I think we finish top 80, maybe as high as top 70. Either way, yes we likely land no better than 8th in our conference and probably no worse than 10 (which is certainly not special).

We have to win in order to improve the recruiting. And even if we win, we will always be a school doing more with less as far as the recruiting score card indicates.

I'm real interested to see when we are down to our last 2 or 3 scholarships if the staff gets ambitious and trys to peel away some talent from P5 schools who suddenly have major coaching changes come November.

Also, I think Marvin Washington has the potential to be electric and if so, that could really change how we are viewed.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
I would like to know if the 11th ranked class includes the two most recent recruits- Krajewski and the Texan OL.
Expand ...

Krajewski yes, Ofari-Nyadu no. Also missing Pace and Maloney.
 
IMHO ... to win the conference, we'd have to at least get into the 60's and probably the 50's.

Getting to the 40's would be almost impossible without a conference change.
 
My observation ...

Very few of you can engage in a intelligent conversation with depth on this topic. So ... if you're not willing to do anything but whine, let's just place this to the same box as what decals we put on our helmets.

Seriously. The Numbers? When we ARE the school that saw no-talent no-physical attributes guy's like Byron Jones + Obi Melifonwu dominate the NFL combine, let's just say that WIDE geo/demo holes don't seem to exist to the Appraisal industry of these so-called services. Our 2 Star guys.

I take pride in coming in 11th. Let's fool them again when we rise to W-L levels in the top few in the conference and top 40 Program within FBS. Again.
 
Pudge said:
My observation ...

Very few of you can engage in a intelligent conversation with depth on this topic. So ... if you're not willing to do anything but whine, let's just place this to the same box as what decals we put on our helmets.

Seriously. The Numbers? When we ARE the school that saw no-talent no-physical attributes guy's like Byron Jones + Obi Melifonwu dominate the NFL combine, let's just say that WIDE geo/demo holes don't seem to exist to the Appraisal industry of these so-called services. Our 2 Star guys.

I take pride in coming in 11th. Let's fool them again when we rise to W-L levels in the top few in the conference and top 40 Program within FBS. Again.
Expand ...
Well, I don't remember what decal is on my helmet as I never take it off! ⛑☄️⛈
 
Pudge said:
My observation ...

Very few of you can engage in a intelligent conversation with depth on this topic. So ... if you're not willing to do anything but whine, let's just place this to the same box as what decals we put on our helmets.

Seriously. The Numbers? When we ARE the school that saw no-talent no-physical attributes guy's like Byron Jones + Obi Melifonwu dominate the NFL combine, let's just say that WIDE geo/demo holes don't seem to exist to the Appraisal industry of these so-called services. Our 2 Star guys.

I take pride in coming in 11th. Let's fool them again when we rise to W-L levels in the top few in the conference and top 40 Program within FBS. Again.
Expand ...
We need to get the guys with football talent that might be an inch too short or bit underweight or half a step slow on the clock that can play the game with a chip on their shoulder. There are so many players that are slightly off prototypical that turn out to be great football players as opposed to great physical prospects. Since this a game of football, not modeling, we always have a chance to find great players.
 
.-.
Redding Husky said:
IMHO ... to win the conference, we'd have to at least get into the 60's and probably the 50's.

Getting to the 40's would be almost impossible without a conference change.
Expand ...



I think if you get a dynamic QB you can win a conference championship.
It can even get an average coach a great job.
 
BlueDogs said:
We need to get the guys with football talent that might be an inch too short or bit underweight or half a step slow on the clock that can play the game with a chip on their shoulder. There are so many players that are slightly off prototypical that turn out to be great football players as opposed to great physical prospects. Since this a game of football, not modeling, we always have a chance to find great players.
Expand ...
We also live in an area that is full of good athletes, but has less polished football players. Makes it much easier to find a diamond in the rough than in over-recruited football areas. With this staff in place, I'm confident we can coach up physically talented guys into good football players.
 
What were our rankings when we won our multiple BE titles?

At this level it's about diamonds in the rough and coaching the players up.

We'll be fine, especially since we seem to be getting multiple skill players and our offense is designed to keep them coming.
 
Pudge said:
My observation ...

Very few of you can engage in a intelligent conversation with depth on this topic. So ... if you're not willing to do anything but whine, let's just place this to the same box as what decals we put on our helmets.

Seriously. The Numbers? When we ARE the school that saw no-talent no-physical attributes guy's like Byron Jones + Obi Melifonwu dominate the NFL combine, let's just say that WIDE geo/demo holes don't seem to exist to the Appraisal industry of these so-called services. Our 2 Star guys.

I take pride in coming in 11th. Let's fool them again when we rise to W-L levels in the top few in the conference and top 40 Program within FBS. Again.
Expand ...

If Obi or Byron played in TX, they would have been 5 stars just based on their athleticism. And if we had signed them as 5 stars, we would have jumped about 20 spots.
 
sportsart said:
At this level it's about diamonds in the rough and coaching the players up.
Expand ...

I get your point but plenty of those diamonds in the rough had NFL athleticism the day they moved into their dorm rooms as frosh.

You can see the film for our commits this year - they are the fastest guys on the field and its so obvious, you don't need a stopwatch, just eyes.
 
Oftentimes P5 schools over evaluate kids and look for kids that fit the prototypical mold. At this level you need athletic kids that fit your system. Don Brown did this at UConn and BC without many if any 4 star players.
 
.-.
UConn will never be a top 40 recruiting team, unless they end up in the Big Ten or ACC. They could be a top 60 or better which would be miles ahead of what we saw under Red pants.
 
blue93 said:
We also live in an area that is full of good athletes, but has less polished football players. Makes it much easier to find a diamond in the rough than in over-recruited football areas. With this staff in place, I'm confident we can coach up physically talented guys into good football players.
Expand ...
It's possible for RE2, Lashlee and Crocker to get 2, 3 and 4 star kids locally (CT, New England, NY, NJ, PA) but it is critical that UCONN keep it's academic ranking near the top. Many kids and their parents will factor that into their final decision. Those Republican cuts to UConn would be disastrous to the football program and to recruiting in football, basketball, soccer, women's basketball and baseball.
 
When UCONN gets a commitment from a kid without a profile on any of the sites, especially early on in the cycle, how much tape do you think the sites watch before throwing a 2-Star rating on them?

How much does the Boneyard impact that as well? UCONN doesn't have a huge PAID presence on those sites, and that matters. The bigger the subscribed fanbase, the easier it is to get the ear of one the guys doing the ratings.
 
After nearly a decade of recruiting rankings tanking that somehow coincided with our record tanking, we still have people on here arguing in the face of logic and reason.

But yes, please tell me again how 1 player every 30 may have been underrated and made the pros.

That's surely a better comparison than the other 29 who weren't highly sought after and lead us to where we are today.
 
You just need to look at the number of true freshmen playing now to see that recruiting is already up. But beyond that recruiting is about a number of things and Edsall has proven pretty good at many of them. 1 is player evaluation. A guy like Lutrus was unrated as a running back but Edsall got that he wasn’t going to be a running back. Same thing with Sherman who was listed in the services as a 2 Star linebacker. Edsal moved him to fullback. Another key piece is filling your needs. You can stockpile running backs from here to China but it doesn’t help much if you have no depth in the linebacker corps. Then there is the issue of offensive linemen. Edsall and Foley took athletic kids and developed them. Tom OBrien did a similar thing at BC. Edsall2.0 seems intent on doing a similar thing with JB Grimes.
 
.-.
While we all know about Randy's diamonds, to boil it down to a few key areas:

i) on offense I think pulling in Pindell (over Temple), Washington (no way the last administration pulls him in), and Krajewski has the potential to prove recruiting has improved. We need to see them play to confirm. The potential is there however. Also, on Oline last year's staff had no chance at Robert Holmes, nor would they likely had been able to bring in someone like Ofori-Nyadu (IMO).

ii) On defense not sure we would have pulled in Eli Thomas or even Travis Jones (although he seemed like a homestate lean no matter what). Last year the new staff got TJ Gardner (BC flip) late in the process and Caleb Thomas. All these kids need to play to make a judgement however.

The new staff also brought Jay Rose back to UConn as well. Not sure the old staff had a real chance to do that.

If we finish strong (so to speak) on the last few slots for this class (some RBs and DL help), then perhaps the sum will suggest things have improved....never really know until they play however.
 
uconnbill said:
UConn will never be a top 40 recruiting team, unless they end up in the Big Ten or ACC.
Expand ...

According to Rivals, we have 3 AAC teams in the top 40 for 2018 so far (Cincy, UCF, USF). There's no reason that we cannot be a top 40 recruiting school even in the AAC, although I understand your point that it makes life tougher to do so.

One of the things that folks have to understand when talking about recruiting classes vs. singular recruit evaluations is the type of scoring that occurs. For instance, if you look at the 247 site, you'll find that there are certain metrics assigned to the star values:

1) A 5-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as one 4-star recruit + about three 3-star recruits.
2) A 4-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as five 3-star recruits

In other words, if we were to land a Jarrell Miller today, we would go from #72 in the team rankings to somewhere in the mid 50's. If we were to land Jarrell Miller and Dwayne Difton this year, we would be top 40 (somewhere in the low 30's).

So that's it. That's how the team rankings work. Essentially landing two players that we've already landed in the past in the same year puts you in that rarefied air. For me, I'd rather have ten 3-star recruits on my team than two 4-star recruits, even if they are worth the same value. It means you have great depth and a better chance to find a star impact player...
 
UConnDan97 said:
According to Rivals, we have 3 AAC teams in the top 40 for 2018 so far (Cincy, UCF, USF). There's no reason that we cannot be a top 40 recruiting school even in the AAC, although I understand your point that it makes life tougher to do so.

One of the things that folks have to understand when talking about recruiting classes vs. singular recruit evaluations is the type of scoring that occurs. For instance, if you look at the 247 site, you'll find that there are certain metrics assigned to the star values:

1) A 5-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as one 4-star recruit + about three 3-star recruits.
2) A 4-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as five 3-star recruits

In other words, if we were to land a Jarrell Miller today, we would go from #72 in the team rankings to somewhere in the mid 50's. If we were to land Jarrell Miller and Dwayne Difton this year, we would be top 40 (somewhere in the low 30's).

So that's it. That's how the team rankings work. Essentially landing two players that we've already landed in the past in the same year puts you in that rarefied air. For me, I'd rather have ten 3-star recruits on my team than two 4-star recruits, even if they are worth the same value. It means you have great depth and a better chance to find a star impact player...
Expand ...

Not to be argumentative, but when you look at bread and butter 3 star recruits, we - as usual - are not doing as well as our conference mates when looking at any of the sites. However, I agree, I'd like to have 10 three star kids and zero four star vs 5 three star and one four star.

The staff pulled off some nice gets over just four weeks of Jan. I'd like to see the same strong finish this year. Senior year tape is so much better than junior year tape.
 
UConnDan97 said:
According to Rivals, we have 3 AAC teams in the top 40 for 2018 so far (Cincy, UCF, USF). There's no reason that we cannot be a top 40 recruiting school even in the AAC, although I understand your point that it makes life tougher to do so.

One of the things that folks have to understand when talking about recruiting classes vs. singular recruit evaluations is the type of scoring that occurs. For instance, if you look at the 247 site, you'll find that there are certain metrics assigned to the star values:

1) A 5-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as one 4-star recruit + about three 3-star recruits.
2) A 4-star recruit is worth about as many points to your team score as five 3-star recruits

In other words, if we were to land a Jarrell Miller today, we would go from #72 in the team rankings to somewhere in the mid 50's. If we were to land Jarrell Miller and Dwayne Difton this year, we would be top 40 (somewhere in the low 30's).

So that's it. That's how the team rankings work. Essentially landing two players that we've already landed in the past in the same year puts you in that rarefied air. For me, I'd rather have ten 3-star recruits on my team than two 4-star recruits, even if they are worth the same value. It means you have great depth and a better chance to find a star impact player...
Expand ...

Recruiting rankings don't mean nothing and they don't mean everything. But you can't compare the recruiting rankings of schools that recruit in the northeast -- where the services don't pay a lot of attention -- to schools that recruit primarily in the south, where the services are all over it. It's apples to oranges. It's more meaningful to compare where we are versus Syracuse, BC, Pitt and Temple.
 
Exit 4 said:
Not to be argumentative, but when you look at bread and butter 3 star recruits, we - as usual - are not doing as well as our conference mates when looking at any of the sites. However, I agree, I'd like to have 10 three star kids and zero four star vs 5 three star and one four star.

The staff pulled off some nice gets over just four weeks of Jan. I'd like to see the same strong finish this year. Senior year tape is so much better than junior year tape.
Expand ...

Oh, I'm not saying that we are currently where we need to be. I'm saying that we are not necessarily relegated to being a bottom 50 recruiting school. That's all.

As for the current staff, they definitely did a fantastic job in Jan/Feb of last year, landing four 3-star kids and a bunch of 5.4RR kids (highest 2-star rating without being a 3-star). They've already picked up an additional four 3-star kids for 2018, with nine additional 5.4RR kids. The classes are already starting to look better. Imagine what happens when we start winning the next few games, too... ;)
 
businesslawyer said:
Recruiting rankings don't mean nothing and they don't mean everything. But you can't compare the recruiting rankings of schools that recruit in the northeast -- where the services don't pay a lot of attention -- to schools that recruit primarily in the south, where the services are all over it. It's apples to oranges. It's more meaningful to compare where we are versus Syracuse, BC, Pitt and Temple.
Expand ...

Again, when comparing ourselves to those schools, one has to use the same "point system". If Syracuse lands a 4-star recruit and we land three 3-star recruits, then Rivals or 247 says that Syracuse is winning the battle based on their point system. Even though I would argue that I would rather have the latter than the former, unless the 4-star recruit was at the QB position and you could make the argument that it is always more valuable there.

So what I'm essentially saying is take the team metrics with a very large grain of salt...
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,285
Messages
4,561,396
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom