3
Started By
Message
Lookback: 2016 class
Posted on 12/12/19 at 9:13 am
Posted on 12/12/19 at 9:13 am
The board seems a little quiet the past day or so, so here's my lookback at the last 4 or 5 recruiting classes.
Elite recruits:
Eason - bust (transfer)
Nauta - good
Hardman - great
Rochester - good but could be great depending upon 2020.
Cleveland - good
Manac - bust
Michail Carter - bust
Only 1 elite out of 8 players (12%). 3 good out of 8 (37%). 50% were good or better.
Mid tier
Woerner - good
Holyfield - great
Laguins - bust
Tyler Clark - good/great
Riley Ridley - great
Javon Wims - great
3 great out of 8 (37%). 7 out of 8 were good contributors or better (87%)
Lower tier recruits
Tyler Simmons - good for .8822 ranking
Chad Clay - bust (transferred)
David Marshall - contributor (thanks for the correction)
Chris Barnes - noncontributor
Brian Herrien - good/great
Solomon Kindley - good/great
Marshall Long - noncontributor (required a grad transfer to fill in and take a scholarship in another class: could be bust)
Joshua Moran - noncontributor
2 great out of 9 (22%). 3 contributors out of 9 (33%).
Elite recruits:
Eason - bust (transfer)
Nauta - good
Hardman - great
Rochester - good but could be great depending upon 2020.
Cleveland - good
Manac - bust
Michail Carter - bust
Only 1 elite out of 8 players (12%). 3 good out of 8 (37%). 50% were good or better.
Mid tier
Woerner - good
Holyfield - great
Laguins - bust
Tyler Clark - good/great
Riley Ridley - great
Javon Wims - great
3 great out of 8 (37%). 7 out of 8 were good contributors or better (87%)
Lower tier recruits
Tyler Simmons - good for .8822 ranking
Chad Clay - bust (transferred)
David Marshall - contributor (thanks for the correction)
Chris Barnes - noncontributor
Brian Herrien - good/great
Solomon Kindley - good/great
Marshall Long - noncontributor (required a grad transfer to fill in and take a scholarship in another class: could be bust)
Joshua Moran - noncontributor
2 great out of 9 (22%). 3 contributors out of 9 (33%).
This post was edited on 12/12/19 at 9:51 am
Posted on 12/12/19 at 9:44 am to meansonny
I wouldn’t say David Marshall is a non-contributor. He’s just been more of rotation guy and hasn’t seen as many snaps as he did early on.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 9:46 am to meansonny
David Marshall has been anything but a non contributor. In fact, he has been one of our better DL. Laughable.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 9:52 am to NCDawg52
thanks for the correction.
I also downgraded Kindley and Herrien.
Great should be top 25% in the conference at the position (at this point in their careers). They are borderline.
I also downgraded Kindley and Herrien.
Great should be top 25% in the conference at the position (at this point in their careers). They are borderline.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 10:36 am to meansonny
Might have been better to have this all in one thread with several posts, but I'll pick this one to comment in. Frankly, it looks to be a pretty good hit rate for Kirby. It's essentially not realistic to have much more than 50% quality contribution rate out of your classes for the sheer fact that guys will have to sit behind other contributors. Defensively we find ways to get more guys on the field. Class typically ~25 recruits... 12ish from each class contributing gives you roughly 48 "key contributors" which is roughly a 2 deep on both sides of the ball.
It's also probably a bit unfair to label transfers/departures as outright busts... there's a difference between taking a commitment from a guy who can't contribute, and a guy who did/does contribute but elects to leave or gets kicked off the team. Not saying that their talent impacts the on-field product, but it's worth noting that above and beyond the hit rate you've established in these posts, there were a number of very talented guys that we simply were not able to keep around... so the staff is targeting even more quality athletes than they get "credit" for via the "hit rate".
I can see the argument that they were unable to keep them, but I still think it's worth acknowledging they weren't targeting untalented players in those cases, rather they didn't manage their time at the university well enough to keep them happy and/or out of trouble.
It's also probably a bit unfair to label transfers/departures as outright busts... there's a difference between taking a commitment from a guy who can't contribute, and a guy who did/does contribute but elects to leave or gets kicked off the team. Not saying that their talent impacts the on-field product, but it's worth noting that above and beyond the hit rate you've established in these posts, there were a number of very talented guys that we simply were not able to keep around... so the staff is targeting even more quality athletes than they get "credit" for via the "hit rate".
I can see the argument that they were unable to keep them, but I still think it's worth acknowledging they weren't targeting untalented players in those cases, rather they didn't manage their time at the university well enough to keep them happy and/or out of trouble.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 10:52 am to fibonaccisquared
That's fair.
You only get 25 a year. If someone doesn't even provide scout team or "backup plan depth", then I would still consider a bust. Someone out there could have provided more for that scholarship spot.
I also think someone who is talented but provides bad press (Natrez Patrick, Justin Fields via his lawyer's leaks to the media) would fit in the bust category because they do as much harm to the program/image as they provided in talent.
You only get 25 a year. If someone doesn't even provide scout team or "backup plan depth", then I would still consider a bust. Someone out there could have provided more for that scholarship spot.
I also think someone who is talented but provides bad press (Natrez Patrick, Justin Fields via his lawyer's leaks to the media) would fit in the bust category because they do as much harm to the program/image as they provided in talent.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 11:03 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
It's also probably a bit unfair to label transfers/departures as outright busts... there's a difference between taking a commitment from a guy who can't contribute, and a guy who did/does contribute but elects to leave or gets kicked off the team. Not saying that their talent impacts the on-field product, but it's worth noting that above and beyond the hit rate you've established in these posts, there were a number of very talented guys that we simply were not able to keep around... so the staff is targeting even more quality athletes than they get "credit" for via the "hit rate"
Good point but these are two different things. Measuring the ratio targeted recruits that are contributors is the more holistic approach - the best way to evaluate recruiting, management, and development. Identifying talent is the biggest part of recruiting, but if a guy is a head-case or elects to leave that means that's a slot that wasn't used to better the team so it's still a failure.
I like that UGA doesn't seem to have that much attrition, but I'd have to see other programs to really make a comparison.
Posted on 12/12/19 at 11:16 am to chillmonster
Sure... As I said, I understand the counterargument... I just think it's worth acknowledging that it wasn't due to failure to assess talent. It's next to impossible to predict which kids are going to have trouble growing up beyond the obvious red flag recruits. Cox was probably one of those guys, but Holloman, for example, was not to my knowledge...
I'm not saying give the staff a big pat on the back or anything, just worth breaking things down a little more specifically than just any failure = bust, regardless of the cause. Eason for example was a key contributor in his freshman year, injury and getting surpassed on the depth chart isn't really his fault and the staff knew they had to keep recruiting over the position. Mismanaging Fields on the other hand was something else. It's wild just how much of that situation went to shite because of freaking Stetson Bennett transferring. If he had stayed, I think you calm down Fields and the family by saying lets give him his redshirt year with 4 games to "show off", and on the heels of Fromm's poor bowl game performance, you have a legitimate QB competition in year 2, he'll see meaningful minutes no matter what the outcome, and he's starting by year 3 even if he loses the competition at that point.
I'm not saying give the staff a big pat on the back or anything, just worth breaking things down a little more specifically than just any failure = bust, regardless of the cause. Eason for example was a key contributor in his freshman year, injury and getting surpassed on the depth chart isn't really his fault and the staff knew they had to keep recruiting over the position. Mismanaging Fields on the other hand was something else. It's wild just how much of that situation went to shite because of freaking Stetson Bennett transferring. If he had stayed, I think you calm down Fields and the family by saying lets give him his redshirt year with 4 games to "show off", and on the heels of Fromm's poor bowl game performance, you have a legitimate QB competition in year 2, he'll see meaningful minutes no matter what the outcome, and he's starting by year 3 even if he loses the competition at that point.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News