We've got the 37th ranked class, per Rivals. Some needs were addressed on the defensive line and at line backer. The Florida/Georgia pipeline remains strong. We lost one, a highly coveted one, to a flip. I think Purdy would have been the icing on the cake, but as it stands, I'll give the class a B. Satt seems to know what he's doing.
What grade would you give the recruiting class?
- Thread starter CardX
- Start date
C+ as I expect it to fall steadily into the 40’s as other teams sign more players.
A C is where you pass and do everything you need. We got a lot of numbers for depth and what we need to compete in the ACC.
It doesn’t rise to B or A level because there wasn’t really anything outstanding to ride beyond just a good/solid class.
And it’s not really amazing for his first year. Coaches usually do a lot better in their first full class because they can sell rebuilding and immediate play time. UNC is #17 and GT #23. Plus Charlie and Bobby did bring in higher rated classes, so It’s not like it cannot he come here.
But its still a good class he can build on. Redshirt and develop.
A C is where you pass and do everything you need. We got a lot of numbers for depth and what we need to compete in the ACC.
It doesn’t rise to B or A level because there wasn’t really anything outstanding to ride beyond just a good/solid class.
And it’s not really amazing for his first year. Coaches usually do a lot better in their first full class because they can sell rebuilding and immediate play time. UNC is #17 and GT #23. Plus Charlie and Bobby did bring in higher rated classes, so It’s not like it cannot he come here.
But its still a good class he can build on. Redshirt and develop.
There is no question it's a B. Damn impressive for Satt's first real class. We are about 2 years away from some monster classes.
Meeting my wants probably a C-...I wanted somebody like Becton who could step in on Day One as a finished product physically as a freshman at OT. I also wanted similar on the defensive line.
Meeting Steve Satterfield's...probably a solid B. I think he feels like with the early enrollees he has added immediate, athletic defensive depth and if you believe what some are saying perhaps a starter in Wilson at LB affording some movement with a Burns or an Avery. It continues to underscore how thin we have been since the realities of transfers out and basically an abandoned early Signing Class a year ago became obvious. From where we were back in April to wear we sit today...there is some hope of improvement but a clear realization we are a long way from being rebuilt.
I also think something he may have gained that he might not have thought a week ago is a score to settle with somebody in his Division.
Meeting Steve Satterfield's...probably a solid B. I think he feels like with the early enrollees he has added immediate, athletic defensive depth and if you believe what some are saying perhaps a starter in Wilson at LB affording some movement with a Burns or an Avery. It continues to underscore how thin we have been since the realities of transfers out and basically an abandoned early Signing Class a year ago became obvious. From where we were back in April to wear we sit today...there is some hope of improvement but a clear realization we are a long way from being rebuilt.
I also think something he may have gained that he might not have thought a week ago is a score to settle with somebody in his Division.
Good question... Before I set a grade or expectation, I like to set the standards...
I believe the highest ranked class we've ever had was 29th. You gotta call that an 'A'.
Charlie Strong's classes averaged in the 40s, granted that was not recruiting to a P5 conference. Strong was regarded as a pretty good recruiter overall. He certainly landed Bridgewater, a lot of good receivers, and pretty solid defensive players.
Rivals has half of the ACC ranked around 50 or lower.
In a typical year for U of L recruiting to the ACC, I'm gonna say 25 or so is an 'A'. And I'm gonna drop 10 ranking positions per letter grade: 35 is a 'B', 45 is a 'C', etc.
Considering this is Satterfield's first year, a ranking of 37 is a solid 'B'. Next year, that same ranking would probably be a 'B-'...
I believe the highest ranked class we've ever had was 29th. You gotta call that an 'A'.
Charlie Strong's classes averaged in the 40s, granted that was not recruiting to a P5 conference. Strong was regarded as a pretty good recruiter overall. He certainly landed Bridgewater, a lot of good receivers, and pretty solid defensive players.
Rivals has half of the ACC ranked around 50 or lower.
In a typical year for U of L recruiting to the ACC, I'm gonna say 25 or so is an 'A'. And I'm gonna drop 10 ranking positions per letter grade: 35 is a 'B', 45 is a 'C', etc.
Considering this is Satterfield's first year, a ranking of 37 is a solid 'B'. Next year, that same ranking would probably be a 'B-'...
I'll be damned! The side of J&H that I like. Good job there Zipp. Merry Christmas.
I see an 'Incomplete' until we see what happens in the Feb signing period. At that time, knowing that plenty can happen between now and then, the grade may not only go up, but go up significantly. We shall see. For the early signing date, my grade is a solid B based on the needs of the team.
I would give it a B. It is a balanced class which is nice to see.
The bulk of my grade is because of the job on the 2 lines. The Oline has some nice pieces that can play immediately and redshirt. The Dline has some guys that fit their scheme unfortunately they are going to have to play early. Both sides of the ball have good skilled players.
They landed guys after being 2-10 and before the season started. That is quite an accomplishment. The other thing is they out recruited the teams in their division besides Clemson and FSU.
They just need to be consistently in the 25-35 range. That is really challenging because playing time becomes a issue.
The bulk of my grade is because of the job on the 2 lines. The Oline has some nice pieces that can play immediately and redshirt. The Dline has some guys that fit their scheme unfortunately they are going to have to play early. Both sides of the ball have good skilled players.
They landed guys after being 2-10 and before the season started. That is quite an accomplishment. The other thing is they out recruited the teams in their division besides Clemson and FSU.
They just need to be consistently in the 25-35 range. That is really challenging because playing time becomes a issue.
I’d give it a “B” as well. It’s got everything except for running back, which was not a priority this year. By my count, we added: 1 QB, 1 K, 5 OL, 5 WR, 1 TE, 1 H-Back, 4 DL, 2 LB, and 5 DB. We also add back two great prospects from last years class in DE Boykin and DB Starks who are not counted in those numbers. The above average grade comes from getting so many of them into the program next month.
did we meet our needs? I would say yes, with some solid players.
will they contribute next year? hard to "Tell" (get it?). I would say 3-4 of the defensive guys do - we need them in the rotation. however, the more guys that can redshirt, the better. this is where the 4 game rule might really help build depth. I would say we will get above average participation, but that is a reflection of the talent level on defense. some guys might show up on ST as well (Fitzpatrick, maybe?). We also have new kickers and punters coming in.
I would give the class a B, because it meets needs and builds a solid base for the future. I'm grading with respect to our needs, not the star ratings that competitors classes racked up.
will they contribute next year? hard to "Tell" (get it?). I would say 3-4 of the defensive guys do - we need them in the rotation. however, the more guys that can redshirt, the better. this is where the 4 game rule might really help build depth. I would say we will get above average participation, but that is a reflection of the talent level on defense. some guys might show up on ST as well (Fitzpatrick, maybe?). We also have new kickers and punters coming in.
I would give the class a B, because it meets needs and builds a solid base for the future. I'm grading with respect to our needs, not the star ratings that competitors classes racked up.
Of 20 years of U of L recruiting rankings. And using the 39th ranking for this class . It is number 9 in U of L classes. So all this whining and crying makes no sense they are were they have been historically .