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!

Recruiting so far...

What grade would you give Tucker and his staff for their recruiting efforts so far?

  • A

    Votes: 23 9.7%

  • A-

    Votes: 39 16.5%

  • B+

    Votes: 72 30.5%

  • B

    Votes: 60 25.4%

  • B-

    Votes: 19 8.1%

  • C+

    Votes: 9 3.8%

  • C

    Votes: 5 2.1%

  • C-

    Votes: 6 2.5%

  • D

    Votes: 2 0.8%

  • F

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Total voters
    236
MtnBuff said:
Also need to fix the DL recruiting. From a rankings standpoint pulling in a bunch of "under the radar" JUCOs and/or high school kids without significant offer list is going to drop your overall recruiting rankings. It also doesn't lend itself to a lot of success on the field.
Click to expand...

Yep, the problem is there’s only so many OL/DL recruits that rate in the 4-5* category and they all commit to the same 10 teams. So we’re left fighting with the other 100+ schools for mid-high 3 star players and we can’t sell them on any past success so can we blame them for wanting to go anywhere else?
 
Buffsrock85 said:
Yep, the problem is there’s only so many OL/DL recruits that rate in the 4-5* category and they all commit to the same 10 teams. So we’re left fighting with the other 100+ schools for mid-high 3 star players and we can’t sell them on any past success so can we blame them for wanting to go anywhere else?
Click to expand...
Linemen are definitely in shorter supply than other positions due to the shortage of guys who are big enough and athletic enough in one package.

The myth though is that we have to go out and get 4*/5* guys. Those guys are great to have but you can build a pretty decent depth chart with upper end 3*s, guys who are 5.6 and 5.7 guys.

Bottom line is that there are plenty of excuses for not recruiting the guys you need out of high school but excuses virtually always result in losing teams. If you are going to win you figure out how to recruit on the lines. If a coaching staff doesn't figure that out they better have their resumes polished because eventually they will be replaced.
 
The entire MM era we have been asking for more speed and size. MT is doing exactly that. Granted our DL recruiting hasn't been as great as we had hoped, but people need to keep in mind we are not even to the regular season- there is still a ton of time. If this team plays tough and some smash mouth football while garnering national attention from Viska and we don't still see a bump, then we should be more concerned.
 
91E11C11-B043-4BAA-93AE-E862472E6887.jpeg
MtnBuff said:
Linemen are definitely in shorter supply than other positions due to the shortage of guys who are big enough and athletic enough in one package.

The myth though is that we have to go out and get 4*/5* guys. Those guys are great to have but you can build a pretty decent depth chart with upper end 3*s, guys who are 5.6 and 5.7 guys.

Bottom line is that there are plenty of excuses for not recruiting the guys you need out of high school but excuses virtually always result in losing teams. If you are going to win you figure out how to recruit on the lines. If a coaching staff doesn't figure that out they better have their resumes polished because eventually they will be replaced.
Click to expand...

Edit: it’s all jacked up after I posted it, see photo.

There are lots of excuses, none of them good. I definitely don't envy the coaches nowadays, they have it rough with all this technology and the Lebron James NBA school of, "don't even try to beat them, just join them all." It's all about show, sure you can play at Colorado but you'll be seen at Alabama.

Anyways, more on topic. I wasn't trying to perpetuate the myth you need only 4/5* players to commit to have a successful line. But, if we're being honest, its why Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Georgia and Oklahoma are who they are. They take a LARGE piece of a very tiny pie and let's not kid ourselves here, impact OL/DL are the guys they're hogging to themselves.

For reference (see photo)

TOP 300 4/5* players Total players 86 or above Total 4/5* committed to 5
OT: 25 29 67 6 20%
OG: 11 14 47 4 36%
OC: 4 5 12 2 40%

WDE: 13 13 32 4 28%
SDE: 14 15 40 4 26%
DT: 26 32 66 11 34%



That's scary, I was mildly shocked by the lack of OT's committed to them, they're spread out pretty well, including our own Jake Wray. After those schools 31 4/5* recruits it leaves 77 players across 6 positions that rate in the 4/5* range, 77 players for 125 schools to fight over, yikes. But the meat and potatoes of this argument is building a line with guys in the 86/87 range.

OT: 38
OG: 33
OC: 7

WDE: 19
SDE: 25
DT: 34


There are 156 players in the 86/87 range and an additional 11 are taken by the 5 schools, so we have 145 players across 6 positions. Let's say we have 5 OL and run a 4/3 defense for 125 schools, that's 1000 positional players. Now, I obviously know you don't recruit every position, every year and build your line that way. But let's say you need 1 at every position every year. You're battling 125 schools to land 6 of 145 players. There just isn't enough quality and if I bumped my list by 5-6 teams its scary to see how much of that talent is going to the same places. Hell if I just add Texas, they have 7 of the 264 total overall players.
 
The summer recruiting dead period takes a hiatus this week beginning on Thursday the 25th. Hopefully during the week long quiet period the Buffs will have some visitors.
 
Part of me wonders if Tucker will cut ties with a dead weight recruiting coach sooner rather than later since the FHCMM payments cease at end of next year correct after the mediation? Either way payouts to MM end sooner than initially scheduled and I could see him moving on from Tillman or Brumbaugh if their recruiting doesn't improve big time because of the increase in AC salary pool.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
Agree with Creebuzz. Recruiting in the 30s on a year in year out basis, with an occasional foray into the 20s, is what I want to see.

Expecting anything more is delusional.
Click to expand...
So what exactly are your expectations for the football program? A bowl game every year? Will perennial 6-7 records make you happy? Or do you expect to compete for Pac 12 titles? If so, you are the one that's delusional if you think we're going to do that with consistently bottom half of the Pac 12 recruiting classes...
 
DrunkPanda said:
So what exactly are your expectations for the football program? A bowl game every year? Will perennial 6-7 records make you happy? Or do you expect to compete for Pac 12 titles? If so, you are the one that's delusional if you think we're going to do that with consistently bottom half of the Pac 12 recruiting classes...
Click to expand...
Consistently recruiting in the 20-35 range will have CU legitimately competing for the conference championship, and will have them as a 7-10 win team most seasons, assuming Tucker and his staff can actually coach, too. It's just not realistic to expect CU to ever consistently recruit in the teens or top 10 in the country. As Creebuzz has mentioned, there are just too many programs out there that roll out of bed and recruit in that range.
 
TSchekler said:
Consistently recruiting in the 20-35 range will have CU legitimately competing for the conference championship, and will have them as a 7-10 win team most seasons, assuming Tucker and his staff can actually coach, too. It's just not realistic to expect CU to ever consistently recruit in the teens or top 10 in the country. As Creebuzz has mentioned, there are just too many programs out there that roll out of bed and recruit in that range.
Click to expand...

Recruiting in that range will give CU good enough talent that they can have the success on the field that will make recruiting higher possible and then winning at the level that that higher recruiting makes possible. Winning makes winning possible, recruiting is necessary to win. This program has been down so long that it will be a process to get it back where we would like to see it but it can be done.
 
I gave Tucker a B- at this point. We can see that recruiting has taken an uptick with the staff he has assembled. It still seems like there may be a couple holding the rest of the group back, but will see how that plays out.

Tucker has essentially recruited the best QB and LT the program has had in the last 15-20 years, within the first 6 months on the job. I'd like to think he can do this at all positions, given time.

Once the Mike M contract is fully paid off, I think we see some of the dead weight let go and hopefully see Tucker go after some big time assistants.
 
Last edited:
Duff Man said:
Joe just makes it up as he goes along when it comes to recruiting. He thought MM recruiting was good enough to make us a top ten team.
Click to expand...
In 2016 they were a top ten team... The year I predicted a 10-1 season (before the season) with a drop off the following year. I do not predict playoff games. (Any given Saturday) If they hadn’t run into the coaching problems at year end, they might have held it.
 
Duff Man said:
Joe just makes it up as he goes along when it comes to recruiting. He thought MM recruiting was good enough to make us a top ten team.
Click to expand...
I'm all for the no excuses/why not CU rah rah stuff from Tucker and Rick George, and I would be happy to admit I was wrong if Tucker truly is able to get CU recruiting in the top 10-15 on a consistent basis, but to ever suggest that as the expectation is insane.
 
JOEinDenver said:
In 2016 they were a top ten team... The year I predicted a 10-1 season (before the season) with a drop off the following year. I do not predict playoff games. (Any given Saturday) If they hadn’t run into the coaching problems at year end, they might have held it.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.
 
JOEinDenver said:
In 2016 they were a top ten team... The year I predicted a 10-1 season (before the season) with a drop off the following year. I do not predict playoff games. (Any given Saturday) If they hadn’t run into the coaching problems at year end, they might have held it.
Click to expand...
They were 10-2 that season in an absolute unicorn of a year that was a complete outlier as it pertains to the recruiting vs on-field success correlation. And regardless the coaching turmoil toward the end of that season, nothing was going to stop UW and OSU from taking us behind the woodshed in those respective games.
 
JOEinDenver said:
In 2016 they were a top ten team... The year I predicted a 10-1 season (before the season) with a drop off the following year. I do not predict playoff games. (Any given Saturday) If they hadn’t run into the coaching problems at year end, they might have held it.
Click to expand...
We did not finish in the Top 10. That level of recruiting, when it all comes together, can lead to a team that wins a lot of games and can compete on any given Saturday. However, the problem is that there isn't enough depth to hold up over the course of a season. You might have a special year with the right leaders and playmakers, you might be able to fill the rest of the starting lineup with JAG types who won't be a liability -- but way too much of your depth will be liabilities. We saw that team wear down because of this and be almost spent by the time the WSU game was played. Got through that and Utah, but then there was nothing left in the tank.
 
Buffnik said:
We did not finish in the Top 10. That level of recruiting, when it all comes together, can lead to a team that wins a lot of games and can compete on any given Saturday. However, the problem is that there isn't enough depth to hold up over the course of a season. You might have a special year with the right leaders and playmakers, you might be able to fill the rest of the starting lineup with JAG types who won't be a liability -- but way too much of your depth will be liabilities. We saw that team wear down because of this and be almost spent by the time the WSU game was played. Got through that and Utah, but then there was nothing left in the tank.
Click to expand...
The pattern was there for a run up, and a drop off... they could never fill the necessary pieces to make a per run... hence the new coaching staff. Reality is always so much fun from the rear view mirror.
 
Buffnik said:
We did not finish in the Top 10. That level of recruiting, when it all comes together, can lead to a team that wins a lot of games and can compete on any given Saturday. However, the problem is that there isn't enough depth to hold up over the course of a season. You might have a special year with the right leaders and playmakers, you might be able to fill the rest of the starting lineup with JAG types who won't be a liability -- but way too much of your depth will be liabilities. We saw that team wear down because of this and be almost spent by the time the WSU game was played. Got through that and Utah, but then there was nothing left in the tank.
Click to expand...
Also our offense had become stale. What was working in the first half of the season was downright mediocre by the end. Teams adjusted to what we were doing and we had nothing.
 
JOEinDenver said:
The pattern was there for a run up, and a drop off... they could never fill the necessary pieces to make a per run... hence the new coaching staff. Reality is always so much fun from the rear view mirror.
Click to expand...

Considering plenty of people saw recruiting issues for years, it is not really hindsight or anything.
 
Duff Man said:
Considering plenty of people saw recruiting issues for years, it is not really hindsight or anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We all knew that we weren't pulling in high ranked classes. We all pretty much accepted that building a culture, player development and smart recruiting where we got a bit lucky was what it was going to take in order to have a breakthrough season. And we all pretty much knew that the breakthrough on season results had to lead to a breakthrough on recruiting results or the FHCMM program was never going to rise to the level we want and expect for CU football. In other words, we don't want to be Duke football with its current ceiling and that's what FHCMM was delivering at maybe a lesser degree since he's not as good as Cutcliffe. FHCMM did not get his breakthrough in recruiting from 2016, so when he missed 2 straight bowls he had to go.

Where I am with HCMT is that I'll afford him the same standard I did FHCMM in terms of wanting to see how he parlays success into a recruiting boost. But he's also starting from a much better place than FHCMM did with the facilities in place and a team set up for mediocrity instead of inheriting a hopeless roster. HCMT should have successes more quickly. I will be very disappointed if when he makes a bowl he doesn't upgrade recruiting as a payoff. I'll also be very disappointed if he doesn't do like FHCDH did with being able to sell his vision ahead of success to upgrade recruiting quickly to the best years under recent regimes.
 
Creebuzz said:
im not as sold on recruiting as some others here, either. But you’re being delusional if top 20 is the standard. Not going to happen with CUs recruiting base and recent 15 years of futility. Somewhere around 35 would be very good.
Click to expand...

Agreed that being in the top-20 is unrealistic (at least as a norm). But we’re not even recruiting in the 20’s or 30’s or even lower 40’s. So why are so many people happy with this new staff’s recruiting?

I don’t expect elite classes but I do expect something better then 45-50 and anyone who doesn’t want more 5-7 seasons should expect that as well.
 
Last edited:
This thread makes me sad. You can truly see the despair and disappointment in everyone’s comments. Sucks, being a CU fan used to be so much fun. Now I spend all my time just hoping we can somehow get back to a bowl and win.
 
I understand the difficulties in landing high-end players but it would help to make more of a concerted effort to do so. Stanford and UW offer very few players but the ones they do offer are almost exclusively blue-chip or upper-tier three star. And then they recruit the hell out of them. It’s unlikely that we would have quite the same level of success as those schools but nonetheless it would be nice to see this kind of emphasis put on landing these types of recruits.

Why even offer and subsequently devote time and resources to recruits unlikely to become difference makers? Especially when it’s only spring/summer. Go all-in on quality talent. If needed you can always put out more offers as you get close to signing day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top