[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 19:15:33 06/16/17 Fri
It's important to remember that class rankings are really a predictive measure that *ONLY* has weight before/until the kids get to fall camp and really show themselves. Over multiple years, the class ranking average are usually right, but less so for a specific class/year.
Having said that, the CU 2017 class is a drop off when you consider FCS ranking (way lower), Ivy Ranking and rankings of individual kids. If you look closely, not only less ranked kids, but only 2 of the top ranked kids in 2017 match the lowest ranked kids in 2016. Lot's of hype around a couple of kids (meaning CU excited they got who they wanted).
Also remember, that in any incoming class, kids will be moved to positions that match their size/style of play. Several kids in 2017 class as not exactly fits (smallish) for what they played in HS, so expect coach adjustments in fall camp or more bake time for kids to add bulk. All of this means not as many frosh will get on field this year, and that's probably a good thing mostly because CU doesn't need it unless bad luck hits on injury side.
Also the hyped "stars" for each class sometimes don't work out as expected for LOTS of reasons, many non-football related. Info will leak out of fall camp that's far more accurate on who to watch. Reasons are simple. Frosh are going thru massive life changes on and off the field, so IMHO don't like post that say "expect so in so to start" because these kid have enough pressure already. They all cook differently! And you may laugh, but more than one kid has fallen apart because of girlfriend issues (even in 2016 class).
Some think the rankings arguments are bogus, which of course is mostly wrong. Seen MANY anti-ranking posts in past, some suggesting precedence of All-xxx, Ivy offers, and other "eyeball" tests over rankings. It's all valid data, and no one methods dominates, but the ALL-xxx is especially prone to fail simply because local accolades are just that - local. Not a big surprise when a D3 All-xxx from NY isn't close to a D1 All-xxx kid from Texas. A quick digress: good news on this front is CU did get a good haul of CA, Texas and FL kids who usually face far better HS competition and are usually better athletes and closer to "ready" early in their career.
So why was 2017 not equal to 2016 in rankings? Mostly because it didn't need to be, and the 2017 class is a more selective "filler" class. "Filler' doesn't mean anything bad, but rather 2017 not meant to match 2016 in width and size and talent cross board. The 2016 was very large, wide and deep mostly because it's was the "base" rebuilding class for Bagnoli. Goal was to bring AS MUCH strength and competition to as MANY positions as they could, and now a year later they know what they got and need to fill out the holes.
So, 2017 is a more selective class, meaning that focus was on recruiting to fill holes and then to provide overall depth at thinner roster spots. Although the "filler" class approach is probably right for CU, it's not the best PR to keep all the sideline coaches "happy", especially on rankings. For example, bringing in 4 ranked OT 'cause they're available might be great strategy for class ranking, but would do little to improve overall team performance especially when line already strong but RB's are not.
So, I suggest class rankings mean most when rebuilding or maintaining a program, and I think CU is right in middle this year (although could have gone either way).
So 2017 looks good so far despite mediocre rankings, but we'll see more in camp. Select DBs, RB's and OL should be a big help during long season and hope some get into rotations or special packages. Several solid backups on DL and LB too, hopefully bringing more depth/rotations and injury insurance as well, but I don't see many 2017 starters. But CU doesn't need starters but rather depth for good rotations.
So, in summary, the difference in class rankings is the results of different needs in 2017. 2016 was a bigger class, and purposely a higher ranked class. It changed all the competitive dynamics at CU by design and intention. All 2017 needs to do is fill holes and improve the team.
One other thing. Clear that opinions on this board vary all over the place on 2017 class (and remember, there were many doubtful about 2016 class). All fun, and all good. Anyone can be right at this point. But remember that we sideline wannabee "coach/analysts" often see a far different picture than the coaches, not knowing what kids in the program are ready to peak or quit, and we tend to favor recruiting at positions that match our "limited" expectations/views rather than what the team really needs. That makes most of the info on this board fun but not terribly accurate, and we're all prone to miss the real surprises, which is often from rising sophomores and juniors that just "turn-on".
IMHO, many on this board don't fully yet realize the existing talent jump on this squad simply because they haven't had chances to see many of the kids yet in the system. So we wannabe's get "too" wanting for the shinny new players from HS that we can observe. Again, fun, but probably not accurate and we over-emphasize the effect. But then again, we all love frosh SURPRISES!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]