Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2015 Recruiting Class Impact for CU

DiggerBuffs

Well-Known Member
While this class will not be mistaken for a "home run" class and ranks amongst the bottom feeders of the Pac 12, the good news is it addresses a few "issues" fans and critics of CU have talked about.

1. Keeping kids in-state: 4 of the Top 10 players in-state signed with CU.
2. Talent & Numbers in Trenches: CU added 4 DT and a DE in this group while adding 3 OL. Out of this group, the 2 JUCO kids (Carrell and Robbins) signed provide immediate help while the freshman DTs (Umu could contribute quickly while Tonz and Tuiloma need to cut fat, put on muscle and get better on technique i.e. standing straight up) provide long-term help with 2 graduating seniors in Solis and Tupou. On the OL, the Buffs get the top in-state in Guard Tim Lynott and add the second best in-state OL in Middlemiss while getting an athletic development OT in Haigler.
3. RB depth-A year after losing the only RB in the class in Washington flip Jomon Dotson and missing out on Ballage, the Buffs got two late additions, in Patrick Carr (Top 15-50 back depending on pub) and a '13 recruit along the same numbers as Carr in Aaron Baltazar, to commit Donald Gordon. All bring something different; Carr-speed burst and amazing fluid hips, Baltazar a good cut and go with speed and size and Gordon just a don't go down attitude. These 3 will push the group of Adkins II, Powell and Phillip Lindsay immediately.
4. A QB that minimizes mistakes-After enduring a year of turnovers above the majority of P5 QBs, the Buffs realize a QB that has the tools and vision to not make mistakes is key. While Montez was not a 4* player, he outshined the 4* QBs he went to CU camp with and have Buffs fans saying Sefo better eliminate turnovers or this kid (with 15 more lbs on him) will push him quickly.
5. Even after a 2-10 season they didn't have to reach a ton and got some long-term depth and players that can step in immediately via the JUCO/transfer group. They added secondary help.

Ranking the Top 5 (or s) commits including JUCO for immediate and then long-term (3 years P.T. min):
Immediate: Carrell, Kinney, Baltazar, Robbins, Carr, Lynott-Dark Horse
Long-term: Lynott, Carr/Baltazar, Fisher, Kinney, Middlemiss, Umu
 
I think this class addresses a lot of needs, particularly at RB and DL. We also added some necessary quality depth along the OL. It's clear to me that MM is trying to build this team from the inside-out.
 
I agree with a lot, but think #4 is pretty much a non-factor right now. Montez taking care of the football in high school means very little to me. We will know more when the lights go on in college. Sefo had a 4:1 TD to INT ratio as a junior and senior in high school.
 
Good analysis. I think DL and RB were needs and were met really well with this class. I hope Montez works out as we imagine. I don't think this class addressed LB enough, but overall, I'm pleased with the direction if not the stars.
 
Duff Man said:
I agree with a lot, but think #4 is pretty much a non-factor right now. Montez taking care of the football in high school means very little to me. We will know more when the lights go on in college. Sefo had a 4:1 TD to INT ratio as a junior and senior in high school.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and agree we don't know, but it has to be a consideration since seeing the field and having more than one read and looking off receivers are part of what eliminates turnovers. Sefo also played in WA vs TX and Montez had over a 12:1 ratio. That is a pretty big difference.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
I hear what you are saying and agree we don't know, but it has to be a consideration since seeing the field and having more than one read and looking off receivers are part of what eliminates turnovers. Sefo also played in WA vs TX and Montez had over a 12:1 ratio. That is a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...
Competition level is negligible.
 
What I like about Montez is his ability to move. A dual threat QB is a lot harder to defend. Pocket passers at the college level need to have everything go right in order to make a play. Mobile QBs can salvage a play even if it's well defended. Sefo, while not completely immobile, certainly isn't a big threat to win a game with his feet.
 
His words say exactly what the class shoes. Expects not to have to play all but JUCO guys and 1 or 2 of the backs, but hopes some guys stand out and MAKE the coaches and team realize "that guy" needs to be on the field.
 
Not sure where to ask this question. What is the reasoning behind factoring the number of signees into the overall recruiting ranking for a school? It seems silly to factor that number into an overall score when P5 schools just fill the spots they have open.
 
azbuff said:
Not sure where to ask this question. What is the reasoning behind factoring the number of signees into the overall recruiting ranking for a school? It seems silly to factor that number into an overall score when P5 schools just fill the spots they have open.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. CU could land 12-4 star guys and have a worse class than this year with this BS math. CUs class is still 10-11 w/ star ratings and I would say mid 50s overall. Not the 70-75 I have seen. This class is better than last year's overall IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like this class much better than last years. Is it where we want to be, no, but today we upgraded the players the players in our program.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
I hear what you are saying. CU could land 12-4 star guys and have a worse class than this year with this BS math. CUs class is still 10-11 w/ star ratings and I would say mid 50s overall. Not the 70-75 I have seen. This class is better than last year's overall IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's weird math for sure considering Michigan only signed 14 guys (6 4*s, 6 3*s, 2 2*s) and was ranked 49th with an average star rating of 3.29

I imagine 12 4*s and nothing else would rank quite a bit higher than their class.
 
I like the OP and agree. While this class doesn't have star power, and I expect to see more star power next year, I think we got a lot of solid pieces and potentially a few playmakers. I feel better about this class today than I did a week ago.
 
HCMM was on The Fan yesterday and said they plan to redshirt all their freshman. Obviously, that all hinges on injuries and performance, but if that's their plan, they must feel OK with their current personnel/depth, when the JUCO guys and Baltazar are taken into consideration.

Look for the Mike MacIntyre segment on the Drive's Podcast: http://www.1043thefan.com/the-drive/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top