Sunday, December 21, 2008

Weekend round up

With the quiet period approaching there has been a uptick in BC commitments (Jake Sinkovec, Johnathan Coleman). The latest two guys seem to fit the mold of what works (late bloomers, good students, etc). This class is going to be filled with sleepers but as I've said recently, I am not concerned.


Vanderbilt is in full pads for some of their bowl practices.


The BC women lost to St. John's in St. John's holiday tournament.


Here's an interview with Jeremy Trueblood.


Preston Murphy has been looking out for Rakim Sanders for a few years.

Labels: ,

10 Comments:

At 9:26 AM, Blogger flutie22phelan20 said...

ATL- I admire your lack of concern regarding the recruiting class. BC certainly has the ability to develop sleepers, and this staff has shown particular talent in that regard (Castanzo, Gause, Harris, etc). But I'm worried. BC's D looked as slow as ever against Virginia Tech -- and one thing sleepers don't (ie. never) turn out to be is closet speedsters. Speed = recruiting stars, and this class has neither.

This year's BC team had a bunch of top-tier talent, but lacked depth behind it. We saw that on D -- the D-Line and LB rotations were half of what they once were. We saw that at QB. NONE of those positions have been upgraded at all by the incoming recruits. That's a problem, pure and simple. Tom O'Brien didn't leave the cupboard bare -- but his last two years were middling recruitng years (with some obvious exceptions).

Now we're working on the worst recruting year in my memory, including the year after the gambling scandal. It's almost inexplicable. At least five of our current commits had no D-1A offers, and a couple more had no other BCS conference offers. Either this staff has an uncanny knack for finding diamonds in the rough, or BC's in trouble.

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Big Jack Krack said...

How many recruits can we sign this year?

 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger Brookline12 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger ATL_eagle said...

Brookline: I am all for good satire, but this is becoming a bit much.

 
At 2:20 PM, Blogger Brookline12 said...

Already Eagle...I'll cool it down...Merry Christmas! But you do have to say that down the line that would be the first name to come up.

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger downtown_resident said...

flutiephelan and others-- After the Clemson loss, when several people including me started hinting they wanted a change on the staff, ATL suggested that we wait until everything played out before we rush to judgment. Obviously that was wise advice now that we've seen how things played out.

I think restraint is similarly warranted here. My overall feeling is that the staff has produced (1) wins on the field and (2) developed more than its share of overlooked talent in their two seasons. When one of these stops happening-- especially #1-- then, and only then, will I think that BC is "in trouble."

But, for the star-obsessed, BC still has a shot at some major recruits-- four-star WR Difton will most likely commit to the Eagles, I bet we get three-star DE Custis and possibly three-star Kuechly. Hopefully we land four star Brennan Williams. Let's talk about this stuff after signing day (with the giant caveat that even then it's still pure conjecture about how well any of these guys will do).

I also take issue with flutie22's statement that the DL and LB positions weren't upgraded in this class. DL Dillon Quinn is probably the most-heralded recruit we've got coming in, and Lawrence should bring a Dunbar-type of athleticism to the linebacking corps. And of course, to my original point, that says nothing about Custis and Kuechly and how the class finishes. (Is there another Montel Harris out there, ready to join up two weeks before signing day?)

Anyway, BC is on the verge of its second-straight double-digit win total, and the sleeper players this staff recruited have been instrumental in that. Let's calm down and revisit this issue in 2012 when we can ignore Rivals and Scout and see what kind of football players we got in 2008.

 
At 3:18 PM, Blogger ATL_eagle said...

The star rating debate is all over the message boards. I wrote the following response to the 4-star/2 star debate and reposted it below. Take it for what it is worth:

---------------

Four star BC guys using Rivals Database since 2002.

2002 -- Beekman, Blackmon, Moore, Unis, Simpson
Beekman was a great player. Blackmon great guy who was missused at times. But clearly a true talent. Unis -- injuries. Simpson -- never played/neck issues. Moore -- bust.
In hindsight, the best player of that class was clearly Beekman. The class was very thin to begin with (17) and had a large number of washouts yet BC managed to survive.

2003 -- Bryant, Callendar, Poles.
Bryant didn't get in and eventually pie charted to Purdue. Callendar and Poles were decent for three years and bloomed as SRs. Poles only played part of his senior year.
In hindsight, the best player of that class was Matt Ryan. Notable two stars include Jamie Silva and (eventually bumped to 3 stars) Paul Peterson.

2004 -- Toal (five stars), Robinson
Toal was very good but injured for the second part of his career. But even healthy was he really a five star player? Robinson was good but is he that much better than some of the 3 star WRs we have had over the past five years?
In hindsight, 2 star BJ Raji was probably the best player in the class. 2 star Clif Ramsey was all conference. Francois and Ayers (two very productive players) were also two stars.

2005 -- Jones, Sheil
Jones never made it to campus. Sheil has been buried on the depth chart behind many two stars.
In hindsight, the best player in this class was Matt Tennant. Notable two stars include Rossi (played both ways this year) Ramella (played as a true fresh), Bowman(that was him outrunning all of FSU's four stars).

2006 -- Lapham, McMichael
Lapham finally got on the field this year. Improved as the season progressed but was he any better than many of the two and three star linemen around him? McMichael has been a special teamer and is behind 3 star guys on the depth chart.
In hindsight, the best player in this class was Herzy. Two stars of note: Wes Davis (played as a true fresh), Flutie (contributer), Geiser (played as a true fresh), Jarvis (best hands on the team).

2007 -- Elliott, Eason
Elliott has been plagued by back issues. Eason was a kid not that into football/BC. Since he's been kicked out of UMass.
In hindsight, the best player of this class was 2 star Castonzo. Other 2 stars of note, Dominique Davis, Gause, and Newman

2008 -- Goodman, Haden, Okoroha.
Way too early to judge this class. Of note, 2 star Montel Harris led the team in rushing. 2 star Quigley contributed right away. 2 star Mike Stone won the team's scout player award (traditionally a good indicator).

 
At 3:32 PM, Blogger flutie22phelan20 said...

I'm fully aboard the Jags and Co. bandwagon after this year -- it was a phenomenal coaching performance. And they've done good work on the recruting trail until this year, so they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And we can play the "stars" game all day, no doubt about it. BC has had its share of success with highly recruited players (Trueblood, Woody, William Green) and under-the-radar guys (Kiwi, Silva, Derrick Knight, etc).

Obviously I'd rather have an under-recruited guy who busts his ass (see Castanzo) versus an over-recruited guy who doesn't (plenty of examples, no need to call anyone out). But I don't ever recall a recruiting season that involved so many commits with no other offers of note. BC's been great at filling out the class with no-offer guys; or jumping on under-recruited players early, only to see them blow up.

This year, though, the staff has rarely out-recruited peer schools. Check out the "other offers" list of the recruits -- they're all marginal D-1 and D-1AA schools. That's fine if you're taking a flyer on a few guys; it is not a foundation upon which to build a class. I don't think it's pessimistic to point that out.

And one D-Lineman, and one borderline quick LB does not a class make. I'd love to think otherwise. And as downtown resident pointed out, there's still time. Let's hope the trajectory changes.

 
At 5:44 PM, Blogger eagleboston said...

Folks,

I have two words to describe the fallacy of the star rating system - Notre Dame. We have never beaten ND in recruiting but we always beat them where it counts - on the field.

You cannot even begin to judge a recruiting class until 3 years after signing. So, read about the incoming BC players, but don't waste a lot of time imagining the future as it will certainly change. Montel Harris anyone? Anthony Costanozo? They were barely rated.

Jags understands that he needs great players. He has stated it is not about the X's and O's, but the Jim's and Joe's. He also said he does not want 5-star recruits, but rather, 5-star football players. I love that.

 
At 6:30 PM, Blogger Anonymous said...

I love Jags and I love the idea of the "BC guy," but I will say this. "Stars" matter. They do. There is a strong correlation between the Rivals top 50 and NFL draft position (Mgoblog and Sunday Afternoon Quarterback did a multi-year study on it a few years back). But the reality is, the world is made up more of 3 star guys than 5 stars (mostly, because databases cap the number of 5 stars they give out). So with a finite number of "5 stars", what matters most is evaluting HS talent that is slightly overlooked by the recruiting databases. Also, recruiting databases often just mirror the offer sheet lists of the kids. I.e., dudes with offers to UF, UM, USC get an extra star based on their offers - i.e., again, I think databases are generally stupid.

So, while stars matter, talent evaluation and development matter more. I don't love the ND-BC example, because 1.) it's a small sample size, though a helpful anecdote in the context, and 2.) ND recruits get the "star bump" based on the fact that they had ND offers, but in another sense, it illustrates the underlying point - development, development, development. If Jags continues to develop players, and continues to find guys that fit his scheme, ratings are irrelevant. That's not to say that a 5 star kid that fits his scheme probably won't be better than a 3 star kid that fits his scheme (assuming no personal issues, or anything), but it IS to suggest that a 3 star kid with a better coach and scheme will trump a 5 star kid with an inferior coach and scheme.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home