Sun Belt Recruiting Class 2017

[firemoose]

[AppAttack]

How in gods sake can Texas St be the number one rated class? For that matter how can any Sunbelt team recruiting class be ranked above or below another? Based on what? Texas St stinks. Did they all of a sudden convince stud players to come there? This topic has been beaten to death. If half of the kids we signed end up playing in the next two years it's a win. We have potential All American guys who had zero stars- Mr Moore for example.

Simple. Look at where 90-95% of their players come from. They had 25 commits at one time and every one but 3 was from TX. 2 JUCO's that started in TX and one HS recruit out of LA. Then they got hit by the poaching bad, worse than us, and just reloaded with TX recruits. Now it's all but two from TX.

TX is one of the deepest talent states and a lot bigger than many other states. They've got about the same number of competition schools as we do in NC (adjusting a little for size) with 10 times the depth of talent. When you can recruit nearly every player from your home state then you get an advantage. Any of the huge group of 3 star rated kids that want to stay in state and that are passed over by the five P5's in TX (they can only take so many) go to the 7 FBS programs that TX has. Again the pool of talent is DEEP. And with a shiny new staff in place from last year they are the new kids on the block. Just is what it is and why so many schools hit TX like they hit GA and FL. You go where the deep talent is. They still have to win though in order to keep it up.

We should dip into TX then!

[firemoose]

Little easier for the western SB and CUSA teams to do that given they are closer. Little harder to get someone from TX to come to Boone when they have so many other choices much closer. And more importantly, since we get a limited number of days for visits and on site evaluations, not to mention coaches travel costs, as was said in the other thread where some were asking why we don't go into areas north, like PA, OH, etc, our time is better spent in areas where we have established relationships with HS coaches. We are slowly expanding our footprint but there are some areas where it's close to a bridge too far.

And FWIW, for the previous poster, Tx St also had the highest average rating in addition to the overall rating on several sites. Doesn't make it correct or any more accurate, which is why, again, I do not go by the star ratings. Average, overall, or anything in between.

I think I just need to make up a word .doc for each year since I and others have said the exact same things that have been posted in this thread multiple times. Would save some typing. Same things....different year.

[hapapp]

Interesting thing from 24/7.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Footba ... erence=SBC

Somebody from the Belt board did this little comparison.

AVG Conf Finish last three years vs 2016 24/7 team talent rank
App 2 / 6
ASU 2.7 / 1
GS 3.3 / 2
ULL 4 / 3
Troy 5.3 / 4
ID 6 / 11
USA 6.3 / 5
ULM 6.3 / 9
TXST 7 / 8
GSU 8 / 7
NMSU 8.3 / 10

There is some correlation but the take away for me is the job our coaches do in evaluating talent and more importantly developing it. I would say we have the best staff in the SBC.

[bigdaddyg]

I would love to see a stat showing (for every SB school for starters) the number of players still on each roster from say, the 2014 class (or 2015) and the number of games started by those players. Or pick some other measurable. Personally I would rather have a consistent number of contributing players from each class rather than a predicted high value from 15-20 unknowns. The stat listed above would probably bear this out. I understand what you are saying Moose. This topic gets brought up repeatedly and the same gripes and arguments for and against are also repeated. It's just fun to debate.

[firemoose]

I would love to see a stat showing (for every SB school for starters) the number of players still on each roster from say, the 2014 class (or 2015) and the number of games started by those players. Or pick some other measurable. Personally I would rather have a consistent number of contributing players from each class rather than a predicted high value from 15-20 unknowns. The stat listed above would probably bear this out. I understand what you are saying Moose. This topic gets brought up repeatedly and the same gripes and arguments for and against are also repeated. It's just fun to debate.

I know it's fun for most. I'm just on these sites for hours a day and I've seen hundreds of examples of ratings that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And I've been doing this for a long time. They make me want to beat my head against a wall sometimes.

I really should listen to myself. I've been avoiding threads outside of the recruiting area for a while. This one is not in there. I shouldn't be in here....

[Bearboy]

We've basically had one class that ranked near the top of the Sun Belt, which was in 2014. But even in that one, if you look at the individual players, most of the ones who were the highest-rated haven't panned out, while many of the lowest-rated ones (e.g., Boggs, Moore, Gibbs) have been stars.

I think some of the guys from the '14 class were "missed" prospects by most of the recruiting sites. I think there's a real chance that some of them will make some noise in the draft in 2018. Those 3 you have listed have a great chance to be drafted in the middle rounds. What you guys think?

[EastHallApp]

We've basically had one class that ranked near the top of the Sun Belt, which was in 2014. But even in that one, if you look at the individual players, most of the ones who were the highest-rated haven't panned out, while many of the lowest-rated ones (e.g., Boggs, Moore, Gibbs) have been stars.

I think some of the guys from the '14 class were "missed" prospects by most of the recruiting sites. I think there's a real chance that some of them will make some noise in the draft in 2018. Those 3 you have listed have a great chance to be drafted in the middle rounds. What you guys think?

Hopefully 2019 for Moore and Gibbs.

I do think both of those guys have a shot to play in the NFL. Boggs I think would depend on his speed measurements. I also could see Stringer (another lower-rated recruit) getting a shot as a safety if he could show the coverage skills - athleticism is there IMO. And Gossett has already been projected as a possible draft pick.

[Bearboy]

We've basically had one class that ranked near the top of the Sun Belt, which was in 2014. But even in that one, if you look at the individual players, most of the ones who were the highest-rated haven't panned out, while many of the lowest-rated ones (e.g., Boggs, Moore, Gibbs) have been stars.

I think some of the guys from the '14 class were "missed" prospects by most of the recruiting sites. I think there's a real chance that some of them will make some noise in the draft in 2018. Those 3 you have listed have a great chance to be drafted in the middle rounds. What you guys think?

Hopefully 2019 for Moore and Gibbs.

I do think both of those guys have a shot to play in the NFL. Boggs I think would depend on his speed measurements. I also could see Stringer (another lower-rated recruit) getting a shot as a safety if he could show the coverage skills - athleticism is there IMO. And Gossett has already been projected as a possible draft pick.

I think Stringer and Boggs will get a shot in the NFL. Stringer certainly has the speed to play safety. Boggs is a lot faster than some people think he is. He's been the cover guy at the LB position the last two years. There's a reason he has all those picks.

[MtnDevil95]

It's damn near impossible to evaluate the talent level of these high school players and how what you see on Friday night may translate into what you see on Saturday afternoon. Many of these kids put up video game stats because their level of competition is not up to par. The "AAU babies" as Sir Charles calls them, at least allow scouts to see them perform against other top talent from around the country prior to hitting the NCAA, with very few exceptions football does not.

While I am curious about how App's 2017 signees stack up physically against the other SBC recruits, I know that can also be very misleading as good things can come in relatively undersized packages. From a building the base perspective, do the incoming down lineman have similar size to other SBC teams? Is App building a bigger defensive backfield to compete with the larger receivers that seem to be the trend?

[EastHallApp]

It's damn near impossible to evaluate the talent level of these high school players and how what you see on Friday night may translate into what you see on Saturday afternoon. Many of these kids put up video game stats because their level of competition is not up to par. The "AAU babies" as Sir Charles calls them, at least allow scouts to see them perform against other top talent from around the country prior to hitting the NCAA, with very few exceptions football does not.

While I am curious about how App's 2017 signees stack up physically against the other SBC recruits, I know that can also be very misleading as good things can come in relatively undersized packages. From a building the base perspective, do the incoming down lineman have similar size to other SBC teams? Is App building a bigger defensive backfield to compete with the larger receivers that seem to be the trend?

Good questions. I'm not going to go look up all the other schools' recruiting classes to compare, but I can say that the OL we signed appear to fit the mold that we've been targeting in recent years: 6'4" and up with the frame to bulk up to 300+. (The exception is Hannon, who's projected at C and has a good frame for that position at 6'2", 260). Not sure which guys will ultimately wind up on the DL, but the one we know (McDaniel) is 6'3", 235, which also fits that slightly larger frame we've been signing at DE since the FBS move.

We aren't bringing in 315 lb. O-linemen like some SBC teams do, and I think there's a reason for that: If you find a guy that size with the requisite height who can also move and block, he's probably not signing in the Sun Belt.

As far as DBs, the corners we signed are all listed at 5'10". S Ryan Huff is 6'1", which is in line with the group of bigger safeties we signed last year. I suspect the issue at corner is like the one at OL - if you find a 6'1" guy who runs a 4.4 and can cover, he's probably getting snapped up by bigger schools. And if we have to choose between speed and size, we're going to take speed. But we do at least seem to be going for 6-feet and up on the back end.

[JTApps1]

It's damn near impossible to evaluate the talent level of these high school players and how what you see on Friday night may translate into what you see on Saturday afternoon. Many of these kids put up video game stats because their level of competition is not up to par. The "AAU babies" as Sir Charles calls them, at least allow scouts to see them perform against other top talent from around the country prior to hitting the NCAA, with very few exceptions football does not.

While I am curious about how App's 2017 signees stack up physically against the other SBC recruits, I know that can also be very misleading as good things can come in relatively undersized packages. From a building the base perspective, do the incoming down lineman have similar size to other SBC teams? Is App building a bigger defensive backfield to compete with the larger receivers that seem to be the trend?

Good questions. I'm not going to go look up all the other schools' recruiting classes to compare, but I can say that the OL we signed appear to fit the mold that we've been targeting in recent years: 6'4" and up with the frame to bulk up to 300+. (The exception is Hannon, who's projected at C and has a good frame for that position at 6'2", 260). Not sure which guys will ultimately wind up on the DL, but the one we know (McDaniel) is 6'3", 235, which also fits that slightly larger frame we've been signing at DE since the FBS move.

We aren't bringing in 315 lb. O-linemen like some SBC teams do, and I think there's a reason for that: If you find a guy that size with the requisite height who can also move and block, he's probably not signing in the Sun Belt.

As far as DBs, the corners we signed are all listed at 5'10". S Ryan Huff is 6'1", which is in line with the group of bigger safeties we signed last year. I suspect the issue at corner is like the one at OL - if you find a 6'1" guy who runs a 4.4 and can cover, he's probably getting snapped up by bigger schools. And if we have to choose between speed and size, we're going to take speed. But we do at least seem to be going for 6-feet and up on the back end.

Clark doesn't appear to be as hung up on height as Ledford was, and athleticism is what we go after first and foremost at OL. To your point about other teams in the Sun Belt I think its pretty clear that many don't have OL's that can move very well especially against our quick DL. UL and GSU immediately come to mind from the past few years.

[EastHallApp]

It's damn near impossible to evaluate the talent level of these high school players and how what you see on Friday night may translate into what you see on Saturday afternoon. Many of these kids put up video game stats because their level of competition is not up to par. The "AAU babies" as Sir Charles calls them, at least allow scouts to see them perform against other top talent from around the country prior to hitting the NCAA, with very few exceptions football does not.

While I am curious about how App's 2017 signees stack up physically against the other SBC recruits, I know that can also be very misleading as good things can come in relatively undersized packages. From a building the base perspective, do the incoming down lineman have similar size to other SBC teams? Is App building a bigger defensive backfield to compete with the larger receivers that seem to be the trend?

Good questions. I'm not going to go look up all the other schools' recruiting classes to compare, but I can say that the OL we signed appear to fit the mold that we've been targeting in recent years: 6'4" and up with the frame to bulk up to 300+. (The exception is Hannon, who's projected at C and has a good frame for that position at 6'2", 260). Not sure which guys will ultimately wind up on the DL, but the one we know (McDaniel) is 6'3", 235, which also fits that slightly larger frame we've been signing at DE since the FBS move.

We aren't bringing in 315 lb. O-linemen like some SBC teams do, and I think there's a reason for that: If you find a guy that size with the requisite height who can also move and block, he's probably not signing in the Sun Belt.

As far as DBs, the corners we signed are all listed at 5'10". S Ryan Huff is 6'1", which is in line with the group of bigger safeties we signed last year. I suspect the issue at corner is like the one at OL - if you find a 6'1" guy who runs a 4.4 and can cover, he's probably getting snapped up by bigger schools. And if we have to choose between speed and size, we're going to take speed. But we do at least seem to be going for 6-feet and up on the back end.

Clark doesn't appear to be as hung up on height as Ledford was, and athleticism is what we go after first and foremost at OL. To your point about other teams in the Sun Belt I think its pretty clear that many don't have OL's that can move very well especially against our quick DL. UL and GSU immediately come to mind from the past few years.

Yeah, I think Clark still wants height at the tackles, but he's not as insistent on it for the interior. Hopefully that means next time our center gets hurt the whole offense won't fall apart because we don't have anyone else who can play the position.