Expectations for the 2013 class?

[leftybuff]

My guess is there will be at least 13 schollies available. Maybe 15-16 depending on attrition. Assuming 14, I would like to see:

DL 2 (1 is already taken with Derek McCartney)
LB 3
DB 2
WR 2
TE 1
OL 3
RB 1

CU will have 5 schollie QB's next year: Burnette (Sr.) Wood and Hirschman (Soph.) Dorman (RS-Fr.) and Dillon (Fr.) plus Jon Schrock (RS-Fr.). Unless a true blue chipper falls into CU's lap, this is the year to take a pass on a QB.

 

[KingPants]

All of the above

I would also add getting some 4 stars early on, also Fox early

Needs to be said again. I would love some early blue chip action. It seems we always have to wait till January/February to get the 4 and 5 stars. Give me some in April, get this thing off to a big start.

 

[Duff Man]

CU needs burners at WR and RB more than we need linemen and linebackers, IMO. Also, a blue-chip qb would be great.

We do need more speed on offense, no doubt about it. But we also need speed at LB. I feel like we increased the speed and athleticism along the DL and in the secondary. Now let's address the final level of the defense. As far as the OL, you always need more of them.

My guess is there will be at least 13 schollies available. Maybe 15-16 depending on attrition. Assuming 14, I would like to see:

DL 2 (1 is already taken with Derek McCartney)
LB 3
DB 2
WR 2
TE 1
OL 3
RB 1

CU will have 5 schollie QB's next year: Burnette (Sr.) Wood and Hirschman (Soph.) Dorman (RS-Fr.) and Dillon (Fr.) plus Jon Schrock (RS-Fr.). Unless a true blue chipper falls into CU's lap, this is the year to take a pass on a QB.

I doubt we have five schollie QBs come fall and we will only have four regardless come next spring. Take a QB every year.

 

[somebody]

I'm not that concerned about instate talent either. It seems we can find plenty of kids that would love to put on a Buff uniform from other states so I'm inclined to roll with that.

I sort of disagree with this. If you show the love for in-state kids, when the blue-chippers do come from in-state, you have a better shot at landing them. That doesn't mean taking flyers on kids just because they're in-state, but given roughly the same talent, why not go local and get a kid more dedicated to the program?

 

[manhattanbuff]

In order of perceived need, I see us focusing on the following...

1) LB
2) OL
3) Interior DL
4) Safety
5) Size/Speed at any other position

I don't think that many of the current kids on the roster make it to fall with another brutal spring coming for them in the next couple of months. I think this reality, player cuts, and the second semester has us losing 5-7 scholarship players who'll need to be replaced. Then, we'll graduate some kids and have more turn-over as the year progresses.

My expectation is that we won't have a gigantic class like the 2012 class; but, the quality will be very high, especially if we can put together 6-7 W's by the end of the year. I like that we've made early offers to some intriguing players!

 

[DBT]

If and when we sign any four/five star guys, I hope a couple are LBs and a couple are skill guys (WR, RB, QB). We also need high quality OLinemen.

 

[DBT]

I sort of disagree with this. If you show the love for in-state kids, when the blue-chippers do come from in-state, you have a better shot at landing them. That doesn't mean taking flyers on kids just because they're in-state, but given roughly the same talent, why not go local and get a kid more dedicated to the program?

We need to regain the love in state. To me, that means always targeting the top guys. Whether that be 3 guys or 6 guys or whatever number. Also, if level of talent between an in state kid and out of state kid is close, barring other factors, give the in stater the benefit of a doubt.

 

[BeBe]

We know it will be a small class, so the overall class ranking might not be the best metric to use. With that in mind, what expectations do you have for the next class?

More in-state success?
More 4* players?
Certain positions that need to be addressed?

Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[bigbang2]

I can see us taking 18 guys.


1 QB-
5 OL-
3LB-
1DE-
2DB
2WR
1RB
2TE

 

[Swish]

I sort of disagree with this. If you show the love for in-state kids, when the blue-chippers do come from in-state, you have a better shot at landing them. That doesn't mean taking flyers on kids just because they're in-state, but given roughly the same talent, why not go local and get a kid more dedicated to the program?

If they are dedicated. I have no issue with what you say in principle. But the current culture among many top instate prospects seems that staying around and playing for the home team is a waste of their time and talent. Baylis, Callahan committed to other programs last May, Thurston last June, Flores last July and O'Conner made it pretty clear he had very little interest in playing for CU. Were the Buffs really even on their map? By contrast, the whorns had 14 Texas kids from their most recent class committed by the middle of last April. And the kids were no slouches either, four 5* and six 4* kids who obviously had plenty of other choices but didn't take them because they were hungry to play for UT. Did I want the top prospects from Colorado to commit to the Buffs? Heck, I wanted every last one them. If only there were more Norgards and Henningtons. But until the prevailing attitude changes I would much rather see a talented out of state kid who is excited about coming to CU on the roster. And I'd rather see the staff using the time and resources available and established by the NCAA on premiere out of state talent that will really give us more than a passing glance.
I may stand in the minority here but I'd rather have a John Lopez from out of state who is truly excited to be a Buff than a Chris Fox who has to be talked and begged into it.

 

[Quattro]

Comparing Colorado ad Texas recruits is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

I think a class ranked around the thirties would be solid. It's going to be a small class, or at least that's what we're hearing now, so we probably won't get a high ranking imo.

Unless...opcorn:

 

[somebody]

If they are dedicated. I have no issue with what you say in principle. But the current culture among many top instate prospects seems that staying around and playing for the home team is a waste of their time and talent. Baylis, Callahan committed to other programs last May, Thurston last June, Flores last July and O'Conner made it pretty clear he had very little interest in playing for CU. Were the Buffs really even on their map? By contrast, the whorns had 14 Texas kids from their most recent class committed by the middle of last April. And the kids were no slouches either, four 5* and six 4* kids who obviously had plenty of other choices but didn't take them because they were hungry to play for UT. Did I want the top prospects from Colorado to commit to the Buffs? Heck, I wanted every last one them. If only there were more Norgards and Henningtons. But until the prevailing attitude changes I would much rather see a talented out of state kid who is excited about coming to CU on the roster. And I'd rather see the staff using the time and resources available and established by the NCAA on premiere out of state talent that will really give us more than a passing glance.
I may stand in the minority here but I'd rather have a John Lopez from out of state who is truly excited to be a Buff than a Chris Fox who has to be talked and begged into it.

Going after talent in-state also makes sense from this perspective. Those kids you mention had different reasons for leaving, some just wanted out of the state, others didn't want to build, at least one went for the position coach. We get a better product on the field, I still contend we'd be foolish not to try to lock up the top in-state guys. Do you really think you're going to find more guys out of state that just love CU before they get a coach's pitch? Not realistic, IMO.