Virginia Tech's 2016 recruiting class ranks among the middle-of-the-pack nationally. The Hokies finished 41st in the 247Sports Composite, and 49th by Rivals' score. Why does this matter?
"We want to be competing and, ideally, winning our side of the division," athletic director Whit Babcock told The Key Play in January. "Because if we win our side of the division, then we can have a chance to win the ACC, and when you win the ACC, more often than not, you're in the final four. So we didn't set any victory goals or squeeze them hard, but that's just what we expect at Virginia Tech."
Star power correlates to championships.
These were the last four recruiting class rankings (using Rivals) for the past 10 national champions: pic.twitter.com/JPfftL3K5X— Paul Myerberg (@PaulMyerberg) February 3, 2016
Although, star rankings aren't infallible.
.@coachcornelsen quote "this kid killed a bear...and for some reason Vance Vice likes that about him."— Jon Laaser (@LazeVT) February 5, 2016
You can't put a number on the intangibles (like work ethic and football acumen), or bear killing skills, but more often than not, recruiting rankings govern both the floor and ceiling for future results on the field.
The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure – injuries, academics, even coaching – individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies.
If you watched Virginia Tech's Signing Day Live 2016 broadcast, you might have heard Bud Foster downplay the importance of recruiting rankings.
"I think the star rating has blown this thing completely out of whack," Foster said. "It's not important the number of stars the guy has as what kind of football player he is, what kind of person he is."
On the surface, Foster's perspective — one from a highly regarded football coach who evaluates prospects he's recruiting with more detail and frequency than the recruiting services — flies in the face of the statistical analyses above.
However, there's a fit component too, which cannot be overlooked, yet doesn't follow an explicit set of guidelines. There will be 3-star prospects better suited for, and therefore will have more opportunity to thrive in, a particular scheme than a 5-star recruit. A blue chip defensive tackle who lacks twitch and can't ferociously attack a gap will wind up playing offensive line for the Hokies, or transferring.
Moreover, the recruits Tech targets and the ones the recruiting services highly rank often overlap at a high rate. According to the 247Sports Composite, Tech offered all 6 Virginia recruits in 2016 rated 4-stars or higher, and 11 of 12 in 2017 have scholarships on the table from the Hokies.
"We will do our own evaluation here," Justin Fuente said at his introductory press conference. "We will not read other people's evaluations in determining who to recruit."
This is a good thing. It's how Virginia Tech did business under Beamer Co.'s management and it served them well. Fuente is regarded as an excellent talent evaluator. No program, not even Alabama, will sign an entire class of blue chippers. Identifying which low-offer prospects could fill needs is as important as landing the big fish.
For most recruitniks among Hokie Nation, national signing day was a letdown. Even though Tech added two commits (Eron Carter and Tyree Rodgers), there was no marquee flip (Dominique Ross, Tomon Fox, Coney Durr) or splash commit (JaQuan Bailey) on the heels of an impressive week of official visitors and one much ballyhooed ride to the airport.
Just dropped off at the airport. The Future. 4 great young men. Can't wait to see them in Maroon and Orange pic.twitter.com/TCSDrxvscM— Justin Fuente (@CoachFuente) January 31, 2016
Tech addressing its need at wide receiver and landing 4-star JUCO quarterback Jerod Evans was forgotten by many. Evans and WRs Divine Deablo, Eric Kumah and Samuel Denmark all enrolled early, and the misses are fresh on the mind.
Even though signing day was met with a whimper, Justin Fuente's recruiting prowess shouldn't be judged solely by the first crop of recruits he signed as head coach of the Hokies.
Successful relationship building and salesmanship are crucial to recruiting well. Fuente's 9 weeks on the job isn't enough to time to conclusively assess if he is adept or ineffective at either. While it's reasonable to expect an uptick in 2017's class, 2018 might be the earliest to conclude how well Virginia Tech's staff recruits. The recruiting process can start as early as a high schooler's freshman year. Relationships, with prospects, their coaches and families, are cultivated over years. Once Fuente's team plays and wins actual games, he will have his product to sell.
Overwhelming results have not come to fruition, but Fuente is mixing together the ingredients for success. The Hokies recently hired more recruiting staffers. Facilities are top notch. Fuente and Tech's coaches racked up miles on the road throughout December and January. Furthermore, Tech's using some outside the box approachs to spread its brand, build relationships and service Virginia's high school coaches.
ALL 757 coachesWe are coming to YOU #757Hokies #HokieNation #RelationshipGoals pic.twitter.com/zURGdhu8r4— Zohn Burden (@CoachBurdenVT) February 3, 2016
If Virginia Tech wants to compete for ACC Championships and a spot in the playoff, it will have to recruit better. (The Hokies will have to develop and deploy its talent too.) Fuente has a plan in place, he just needs time to see it through.
Comments
We agree.
Great perspective! Hope to see improvement in 2017 but honestly don't think you can judge recruiting until 2018 or so. Couple years of on the field product and getting established in 757, NoVa and elsewhere and then we can evaluate fairly. We will never be top 10 in recruiting but just need to keep doing what we are doing, expanding our footprint but start keeping some of the big name in state kids home again.
Excellent perspective.
But I don't want to have to wait.
My daddy always said "Wait broke the wagon down!"
I don't think this class is damning of Fuente. It is more damning the staff that was in place trying to build these relationships. Fuente can hang his hat on Evans, Moore, and Rodgers (the more I watch, the more I think he could be an outstanding corner) and the fact that he kept kids from defecting, especially in high need spots like wide receiver.
Still, this class will have long term negative ramifications. After watching film on all the kids, I feel confident that Evans, Deablo, Kumah, Ladler (if healthy), Rodgers, Moore, Kearns, and Hewitt will be contributors. They jump out on film. When measuring the rest, there are kids that can surprise us and can be developed, but I don't see much jumping out on film. When I do, it is usually balanced out by some other concern. For this class not to turn into a 2011 type disaster, development is going to be critical.
We know Bud has a history of developing talent on defense, do you think its fair to assume Fuente at least has potential in this department given his time turning Memphis around? Clearly he can coach up a quarterback, does that extend to the rest of the offense?
they scored 30+ a game with a bunch of walk-on's. So, yes.
well, when you put it like that it really excites people (me)
Do you ever just hear a name and get a feeling that he is going to be a difference maker? "Khalil Ladler in on the tackle for the Hokies" has a nice ring to it.
How about "LADLER!... TO THE HOUSE!"
What's the specific concern with Denmark?
Needs to improve his route running.
The staff acknowledges that. The one thing he has that they can't be taught is speed. And he has speed.
Dmitri Knowles was fast too
Knowles was "track fast", but when it came to dodging tacklers or switching direction (i.e. kickoff returns) he was as slow as a lineman.
Remember, Coach Beamer built Tech on 3* players who didn't suffer from LOLUVA egos but played well as a team. Fuente has a great plan and is rebuilding at a much faster pace.
Yes, Fuente is bring some strong recruits, but I have confidence he will continue to build a complete program.
Will or could? Do you think this class is so off-target that the needed player development is unlikely to happen?
This situation seems soo different than 2011 to me: overall roster, offensive staff, surrounding classes are still TBD. But I haven't done the film work you have, so I am curious how your eyes see it. Thanks French
Which recruit killed a bear?
I think it was either Kearns or Hopple. Coach Cornelsen passed along that tidbit and also had this quote from Vice about TJ Jackson, "he is the biggest OL recruit I've ever seen"
I vote we start ranking our oline recruits by what kind of wild animal they have or hypothetically would kill. Example: Wyatt Teller would take down a lion, especially if a bag of tacos was on the line
It's not even his class: it's Beamer's class.
Amen!
Excellent work, Joe. The number and talent of the early enrollee's is remarkable. I think we had more than anybody in the ACC. That's better than getting them in February but less splashy. As Fuente molds an offense around the current players, we may see a better deploying and development of players already here. Adding otherwise non-contributors from previous years through development, is a key component of why Whit recruited Fuente so hard. We have a lot of not-quite-yet unlocked potential. That's what made CJF an "A+ hire." Hopefully most fans are happy with that as a starting point to turning things around.
Anyone that is judging Fuente based on this class is a fool.
That being said, it does concern me that he's in a situation where he is very much behind the 8 Ball due to the previous staff and neither he nor his staff are necessarily known as top notch recruiters. If you were to make a pros and cons list of his hiring his previous recruiting experience would be more on the con side, but it should be more of an incomplete at it's hard to judge anyone who is recruiting at Memphis. Perhaps with the current Virginia Tech facilities, tradition and recruiting budget he can become an ace recruiter...but only time will tell.
I'm still very happy with Fuente's hire, and I think that he needs several years before anyone can make any judgements on anything.
During Fuente's time at Memphis, according to Rivals team rankings:
2012: Virginia Tech had the 22nd ranked class, Memphis 71st.
2013: Virginia Tech 23, Memphis 89.
2014: Virginia Tech 25, Memphis 88.
2015: Virginia Tech 24, Memphis 76.
The win-loss record the last two years at Memphis does not reflect those poor recruiting rankings. I think we will be just fine with our middle-of-the-pack class this year, and eventually the results should speak for themselves and recruiting will improve as the win totals increase.
I think this is true. Fuente has done more with less and now he has even more. I think we will compete well in the Coastal this season and will see an uptick in recruiting from that.
The only terrible thing in this story is Coach Burden's use of the YOU in his tweet. Makes me cringe thinking of Timecop.
I'm more concerned that this is a wasted class for Fuentes offense. Not because of ratings or anything but because of skill set. There is a specific mold of WR that Fuente has gravitated to in his career. The guys we have coming in were not picked out by Fuente, but kept on by him, presumably not to ruin relationships around the state. You'll notice that almost all the guys that Fuente offered once he got here were sub 6' receivers (who we didn't get any of) and those are the guys that have put up the best numbers for him over the years. We are bringing in a handful of 6'2" and up receivers that likely don't do exactly what Fuente needs.
On the flip side that's why I'm so psyched for Evans. He was a guy that Fuente picked out for his offense
List of WR offered after Fuentes arrival
Kyle Mayberry, 5'11"
Velus Jones Jr 5'11"
Dre Massey 6'
Cedric Wilson 6'3"
Latrell Williams 5'11"
Nate Johnson 5'11"
TaDarryl Marshall 6'
To be clear, I'm not saying he flat out doesn't want the guys we have coming in, but the clearly DID want some small slot receivers and signed none.
I wonder though if Fuente always wanted 6'+ guys but could never land them.
Look at who he offered since he got here and tell me if you still think that. Cedrick Wilson is the only guy that doesn't fit
Cedrick Wilson 6'2, TaDarryl Marshall 6'0, Kiel Pollard 6'2, Nate Johnson 5'11, Tyrell Pigrome 5'9, Latrell Williams 5'11. Rick wells 6'0. Your argument doesn't stack up
Remember that he also was offering kids he previously recruited at Memphis.
I'm not seeing that in what the staff has said so far. They actually want Patterson and the other incoming WR's to add some muscle from what I've heard. Fuente & Cornelson have been stressing repeatedly how they will mold the offense around the talent and that it will change from year to year. I think it's more likely the fact that at Memphis they couldn't land many guys that had the necessary skill set plus the size that would make a high-value P5 recruit. Also, Denmark has been given a lot of credit for his track-speed. I just think if the incoming WR's don't make an impact next year I don't think it will be because they are too tall or too big.
FWIW the new staff pursued Patterson hard to get him to re-commit and fought for Denmark as well when he was getting in-home visits from Muschamp.
I hope that's true, but the fact that when he came in he went after shorter receivers has me doubting that. Especially when the guys he went after weren't "easy" to pick up late in the year guys. They were guys like Latrell Williams (5'11, Tennessee commit), Nate Johnson (5'11", Michigan commit), Velus Jones (5'11", USC commit), Dre Massey (6', Florida commit). That shows where his mind was
maybe with all the taller WR's we had committed, he wanted to balance it out with some smaller speed guys to play in the slot.
That's also likely, which concerns me that he didn't get any
Looking at where those guys committed to, I'm not surprised. The next couple of years will prove your take right or wrong, but you do have a point.
Well, this weekends offers shed some light. Hokies offered two WR's for 2017-- 6'3" Trey Blount and 6'0" Austin Connor. Obviously since they are young they could still grow a little.
Not sure some of that is not who he could get to go to Memphis. I think he looks for playmakers at WR, but when most programs are more desirable than your school as a destination you have to compromise on something. Maybe he compromised on size instead of quickness or speed, but would have loved to get the athletes in our system now if he could have.
Mayberry was a DB
Played both and I doubt Fuente would be going after DBs for Fosters system
The offer was at DB, and Fuente went after other DB too, Durr was recruited by Scott
I disagree with the premise. I would argue that the need for traditional X's was filled with the current commits. All are bigger guys, and all (except for Deablo who can do some damage on jet sweeps) are going to be pass catchers and blockers on screens.
There is a huge void in the traditional slot, jitterbug, Ryan Switzer role- a guy who can be dangerous in his jet sweep series and run the bubble and jailbreak screens that we have not seen here recently. He was looking for "that guy." Velus Jones or Nate Johnson would have been getting work day 1 in that role. Right now, it is Deablo and a bunch of nothing unless Stroman moved back or Deon Newsome can actually produce something.
Spot on- was really disappointed we could not get one of those guys. Maybe Denmark can fill the void given his speed
Sean Daniel.
In like what Fuente did as soon as he came in. In fact I think we might have lost only 2 kids recruited under the previous staff because of the change. And that's ok.
Considering that he knew we needed a QB, he got in a transfer and Secured Josh Jackson in the process. He just created competition at a critical spot for us.
2nd - he got Demetri moore, another need for us at OL.
2 more recruits which he managed to get here outside of transfers and then on top of that the staff was able to convince the committs who gave a verbal to the previous staff. That's pretty hard to do.
I think they will lay the groundwork and get better players.
The other aspect to our problem has been attrition since going back to about the 2010 recruiting class. Lots of dropouts, injuries, academic issues and other related losses. I'm hoping that the new staff can get guys and keep them along with developing them. There are a lot of stories with hokies of what could have been (Nick Dew, Drew Harriss, J.Stanford). Lets keep our fingers crossed.
but he let UGA flip Long!!!
On a serious note here, we can't praise the man for bringing recruits from his old school's targets, and then slam him for letting Shane do the same.
Speaking of which, who is our punter for next year?
Sam Rogers could probably handle it
Probably Mitchell Ludwig
Does anyone know why our only DL recruit besides the late addition of Hewitt didn't sign? Just curious.
Still weighing his options per other thread. Signing day is just the first day to sign.
Are Vick, Tyrod, Dhall, and Kam going to be helping with the coaches clinic, or are we just using their pictures because they're from the 757?
Either way, that's photoshop is glorious.
On a somewhat related note, Paul Myerberg on the Football Four podcast yesterday went to far as to say top 10 recruiting classes are essentially required for winning a NC. The definitive nature of the statement rubbed me the wrong way, so it got me to thinking what Rivals rankings have looked like for the loser in the NC. Spent my productive day pulling the information together for this. Nothing conclusive, but certainly interesting.
All stats are per Rivals. Their website isn't great for analysis, so if anyone wants the back up Excel for 2002-2015 rankings for all top 100 teams each year let me know.
Strong work.
It would be interesting to do a weighted average based on the number of players in each class. I might take it a step further and apply arbitrary weights more heavily to the older more mature classes as they most likely compose the majority of the starters and two deep.
I like the thought process, let me give it some thought on potential to incorporate. Initial reaction is the weighting in the most recent class would be pretty low given number of first year starters typically seen.
Great stuff, if you do any more advanced work, you should definitely start a new thread for exposure.
Thanks Joe. Was thinking about it, I'm just still not sure of the conclusion. Suppose that would be the whole point of a new thread. I guess I just took issue with Paul's tweet / comments, which is what led me to the analytics. When I saw your post; kind of fit in to the theme.
The numbers on NC winners are difficult to argue. However, it implies that the same applies to teams 2-125 in regards to year end results, which I believe ignores other factors, many mentioned within this thread.
I am a firm believer in player development, which is why I kept getting more excited about Fuente leading up to his hiring. If you can work with lesser talent, and help them improve; imagine what happens when you start to get better talent.
We want the shift in the program to be immediate, heck I'd love it to be this season, but gradual suspense will only further the excitement when it is achieved. Maybe that's just what I tell myself, but it seems to be playing out with Buzz right now.
There is something I heard once, a show, movie, who knows, but I'll butcher it in any case. When you made it and live on the top floor, there is nowhere to go but down.
I'll tell ya what I see - the winning team and how they recruited 4 years prior. This tells me the obvious which is you have to recruit exceptionally well, but THEN you have to coach them up. You can't do just one.
Agreed. I would probably do .35 / .30 / .25 / .1
However you did the work so I'm curious to see your weights.
Thanks for doing this.
So I have been thinking something similar. Is this a chicken or egg situation. Does it take a NC under your belt to land a a top 10 class? And then the more important question, what does it take for a team to break through and win a NC for the first time? Is there a bare minimum of classes that meat a certain threshold to achieve that first Natty?
It does not appear likely that we all off a sudden land a top 10 several years in a row. Is there a model?
I always have more questions than answers.
Sign of intelligence my hokie friend.
Also. Take note of the coaches who won those national championships?
There's 8 total. Saban Meyer Miles M.Brown Fisher Tressel Chizik P .Caroll
That's a pretty heavy class of coaches. I don't think it just takes elite talent. Talent certainly helps (Chiziks on that list because of Cam Newton)
It would be interesting to see with all this recruiting ranking matters bit, how many of the teams with success also have across the board 5 star once in a class unaminous evaluations from coaches?
Like, a class in the top 10 with a bunch of 4 star kids vs a team in the top 20 with onenor two kids that are lights out elite, like a Tyrod Taylor or Vick for us. Cam Newton. etc. And if that position at Quarterback has more relevance than other positions?
Ex. Does this class top kid Gary who everyone's in consensus is elite have the same impact Desaun Watson has had?
via GIPHY