Bright spots for 2018: Are there any?

[MtnBuff]

Plenty of potential to be in the 7-8 win range. Should be deeper overall, but will probably lack the superstars to be true contenders in the South.

I would be perfectly happy in 2018 if we win 7-8 as long as it comes with some changes in the assistant coaches that result in recruiting at a higher level for the futue.

 

[Trump's Eunuch]

Ryan Miller was a 4 year starter and I think still holds the CU record for most starts. Jon Major was a starter when he wasn't recovering from 2 serious knee injuries at CU - he and Mohler would start for this 2017 team. Anyway what's your point? It sounds like you're making the argument that we shouldn't be going after highly ranked players, is that what you're saying? If not, what is your point?

No my point is it's a building process, which we're seen improvements with each year (in terms of recruiting). Do you need 4 &5 star players to win? No. Does it help? Yes. But imo four and five star players are worthless without good coaching (with exception to a few freaks each year). That is the problem, imo we have a few position coaches that need to go.

I honestly believe that if you put all the for and five star players together and all the 0-3 star players together, you will have an equal amount of legit pro talent players. Yes I know the 0-3's outnumber the 4&5's by 100-1 but these are young men. **** half of them aren't even fully grown coming out of hs, where as say jadeveon clowney was basically a completely full grown man coming out of hs.

 

[Trump's Eunuch]

Plenty of potential to be in the 7-8 win range. Should be deeper overall, but will probably lack the superstars to be true contenders in the South.

After last year I'm expecting 10 win each year. We have the talent we're just not a team like last years squad was. Cu football should be at least top 25 team every year mixed in with some top 10/15 teams. We have had top 10 teams every decade, we just need to sustain it

 

[Duff Man]

After last year I'm expecting 10 win each year. We have the talent we're just not a team like last years squad was. Cu football should be at least top 25 team every year mixed in with some top 10/15 teams. We have had top 10 teams every decade, we just need to sustain it

We don't have the talent to win 10 games every year.

 

[lawdogg]

We don't have the talent to win 10 games every year.

Yeah, I think that 10 win season represented just about the ceiling of what the program can be with the level of talent it has. This year, to this point, looks like we may be heading for the floor of what the program can be with this level of talent. Somewhere in between is what the program is right now, a 7 to 9 win kind of team. Talent level would need to improve for 10 wins a year to become the expectation.

 

[Denver_sc]

Here are the bright spots I can think of:

• QB comparison:
  • QB A: 61.9% Completion, 7.0 Y/A, 6.7 AY/A, 3:2 TD:INT ratio, 125.7 rating
  • QB B: 61.8% Completion, 7.3 Y/A, 7.2 AY/A, 2:1 TD:INT ratio, 135.4 rating
  • QB C: 62.7% Completion, 7.4 Y/A, 7.3 AY/A, 11:6 TD:INT ratio, 132.6 rating
  • QB D: 62.5% Completion, 7.8 Y/A, 7.7 AY/A, 17:7 TD:INT ratio, 142.8 rating
  • See below for the reveal
• CU loses the "Blackout Boys" on offense, but with the exception of Fields-Nixon, every single player that will step in as a replacement was higher rated as a recruit than his predecessor. Fields and Nixon had the same rating.
• CU also will lose Irwin, Kough, and Huckins on the OL, but the entire OL should be JRs/SRs (as compared to this year, when a number of SOs have been counted upon). If an Underclassman is playing, it will be because he's better than the Upperclassman projected to start next season. Irwin to whoever replaces him will be a downgrade, but every other position on the OL should be bigger and better than this year.
• The only players in the 2 deep on the defense that are leaving are Jackson, Moeller, DMac, and Fo. We can bet that one of Akil Jones or Landman steps up and supplants Gamboa as a starter, and Callier and Sparaco will have another year in the program which overall should mean a more athletic and better LB core.

QB A is Sefo in his third year in the program, QB B is Montez in his 3rd year (This year), QB C is Sefo's 4th year, and QB D is what Montez would project to with the same sort of growth.

 

[BuffUp]

Here are the bright spots I can think of:

• QB comparison:
  • QB A: 61.9% Completion, 7.0 Y/A, 6.7 AY/A, 3:2 TD:INT ratio, 125.7 rating
  • QB B: 61.8% Completion, 7.3 Y/A, 7.2 AY/A, 2:1 TD:INT ratio, 135.4 rating
  • QB C: 62.7% Completion, 7.4 Y/A, 7.3 AY/A, 11:6 TD:INT ratio, 132.6 rating
  • QB D: 62.5% Completion, 7.8 Y/A, 7.7 AY/A, 17:7 TD:INT ratio, 142.8 rating
  • See below for the reveal
• CU loses the "Blackout Boys" on offense, but with the exception of Fields-Nixon, every single player that will step in as a replacement was higher rated as a recruit than his predecessor. Fields and Nixon had the same rating.
• CU also will lose Irwin, Kough, and Huckins on the OL, but the entire OL should be JRs/SRs (as compared to this year, when a number of SOs have been counted upon). If an Underclassman is playing, it will be because he's better than the Upperclassman projected to start next season. Irwin to whoever replaces him will be a downgrade, but every other position on the OL should be bigger and better than this year.
• The only players in the 2 deep on the defense that are leaving are Jackson, Moeller, DMac, and Fo. We can bet that one of Akil Jones or Landman steps up and supplants Gamboa as a starter, and Callier and Sparaco will have another year in the program which overall should mean a more athletic and better LB core.

QB A is Sefo in his third year in the program, QB B is Montez in his 3rd year (This year), QB C is Sefo's 4th year, and QB D is what Montez would project to with the same sort of growth.

also should be in good shape at CB, especially if Oliver returns, and I can only see the 30 year old kicker Stefanou being better along with Kinney.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

Recruiting rankings get it right, when you look at the whole set, not just individuals. A recruiting ranking should really be thought of as the probability that a player will be good, not as all 5-star players are guaranteed to be better than all 4-star players.

Here are 3 attempts to examine how much recruiting ratings get it wrong or right:

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...numbers-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right/
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

So despite comprising less than 1 percent of all recruits, five-stars accounted for a quarter of 2015 first-rounders. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of all recruits are designated as being three stars or less, yet their representation in the first round is nearly half that.
Put it this way: About one in four five-star recruits like No. 1 pick Jameis Winston goes on to become a first-rounder, but only about one in 64 three-star recruits like No. 2 Marcus Mariota does. Any generalizations about star-ratings that use NFL rosters as justification are giving disproportionate weight to the outliers.

There are countless other analyses like these, that consistently show that 4 and 5 star talent are far more likely to be successful players than 3 star or below players.

 

[MtnBuff]

Recruiting rankings get it right, when you look at the whole set, not just individuals. A recruiting ranking should really be thought of as the probability that a player will be good, not as all 5-star players are guaranteed to be better than all 4-star players.

Here are 3 attempts to examine how much recruiting ratings get it wrong or right:

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...numbers-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right/
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116


There are countless other analyses like these, that consistently show that 4 and 5 star talent are far more likely to be successful players than 3 star or below players.

Bigger issue and I don't have the stats but feel pretty comfortable in the assumption.

For a program like CU, how many years, how many games does a typical 4* or 5* start and play.

I understand the concept of recruiting and developing players but by nature a lot of these players aren't ready to contribute until well into their career. They are taking up scholarships for their first 2-4 years but not contributing much of that time.

The higher rated kid much more often is contributing early in his career and for a much longer time in the program. Compare Lynott to some of the 2*/3* OL we have recruited. Baring an early entry in the NFL or a significant injury that scholarship is going to give up 4 years of contributions on the field. I know that Lynott was borderline 3*/4* but the point stands. He was recruited by other P5 programs because he was seen as a guy more physically ready to contribute.

Depth matters, players who are ready to play matter. Recruiting kids who are more ready to play makes a difference in success.

 

[BlackNGold]

Bigger issue and I don't have the stats but feel pretty comfortable in the assumption.

For a program like CU, how many years, how many games does a typical 4* or 5* start and play.

I understand the concept of recruiting and developing players but by nature a lot of these players aren't ready to contribute until well into their career. They are taking up scholarships for their first 2-4 years but not contributing much of that time.

The higher rated kid much more often is contributing early in his career and for a much longer time in the program. Compare Lynott to some of the 2*/3* OL we have recruited. Baring an early entry in the NFL or a significant injury that scholarship is going to give up 4 years of contributions on the field. I know that Lynott was borderline 3*/4* but the point stands. He was recruited by other P5 programs because he was seen as a guy more physically ready to contribute.

Depth matters, players who are ready to play matter. Recruiting kids who are more ready to play makes a difference in success.

This where I am confused - according to Scout CU was ranked -

2014 - 12th in the Pac12
2015 - 12th in the Pac-12
2016 - 12th in the PAC-12
2017 - 8th in the PAC-12
2018 - 10th in the PAC-12 (Projected)

I am not seeing that we are getting the talent to keep up with the rest of the conference if you rely on rankings.

 

[Duff Man]

This where I am confused - according to Scout CU was ranked -

2014 - 12th in the Pac12
2015 - 12th in the Pac-12
2016 - 12th in the PAC-12
2017 - 8th in the PAC-12
2018 - 10th in the PAC-12 (Projected)

I am not seeing that we are getting the talent to keep up with the rest of the conference if you rely on rankings.

We are really paying for a poor 2014 class right now. The classes before and after that class look much better, even if the rankings are similar. Obviously, recruiting needs to be much closer to 2017 going forward.

 

[MtnBuff]

We are really paying for a poor 2014 class right now. The classes before and after that class look much better, even if the rankings are similar. Obviously, recruiting needs to be much closer to 2017 going forward.

Depth chart shows this to be true.

We have some huge holes that should be filled with players from 2014 (and 2015) that are not and some players on the depth chart from those classes that would have a hard time finding themselves playing for most of the other schools in the conference.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Is it time to send some on their way? I know most don't like or approve of that but it happens.