Virginia Tech #Hokies Recent @247Sports Recruiting Bumps:Gabe Williams - 91 -> 92Chanz Wiggins - 87 -> 89Andrew Hanchuk - 86 -> 88Emmett Laws - 86 -> 88 pic.twitter.com/RDVyGXJ0kI— Matej Sis (@MatejS247) January 25, 2024
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So confirmed, VT to the SEC or Big10 then!
Both interior DL prospects getting recruiting bumps!
IMO, there are only two ways VT gets talent in our current place in the current CFB landscape:
Hopefully we get to a point where we can actually beat Clemson, PSU, etc head to head (either by winning so much, or getting invited to the SEC), but for now, it's really nice to see Pry successfully doing both of these things.
We did beat PSU for a couple this fall. I get your point though. We are not many winning many head-head to those teams who are making the playoffs.
Yea - at some point, we need to land top 100 players from our footprint (the Chris Cole types). I can't think of the last time we did that? Devin Hunter? Tim Settle?
Doug Nestor was up there.
Edit: Both he and Settle were actually closer to 150 it looks like.
Can we not talk about Devon Hunter? That's got to be the biggest swing I can remember from being excited about a commitment to being disappointed with his career. All because that damned fan cursed his commitment announcement.
cody grimm- a zero star - was a much better player
Just think if Grimm had Hunters size/athletism, we'd all be like yeah Kam is great and all but...
edit typo
Still hurts to think about. Definitely felt like a "we're bak" moment - just had a 10-win season and landed a top 50 player who was from the 757.
Then he (Fuente's highest rated recruit) barely saw the field. Guh
Yeah, that fucking dude at the commitment cursed him.
I'm not sure I've ever cringed harder at anything related to our fan base.
I blame that fans hijacking of his commitment for the results of Fuentes tenure
Ari Watford this week
How do you mean exactly? He committed to Clemson this week.
I replied to the post about the need to land Top100 players when they are from the state.
Yep.
The next step is simply doing things like not letting all three of the blue-chip Virginia LB's in the top 6 in state, leave the state.
Georgia - Chris Cole 5* AND Kris Jones 4*
South Carolina - Fred Johnson 4*
For this upcoming 2025 class, I'd certainly like to eventually live in a world where Clemson doesn't already have commitments from the top two players in VA, and three of the top 7 before the 2024 classes have even been finalized.
Baby steps. In the national recruiting landscape it's unlikely we pull 7-9 of the top 10 instate prospects. We COULD realistically pull 4-6 of them with some regularity, even if it's usually on the lower end. We landed 3 (5, 7, and 8) from this year's 2024 class, an improvement from 0 in 2023 and 1 in 2022.
Additionally, we can dramatically increase our overall recruiting by also landing some of those top 10 guys from other places in our 6hr radius like North Carolina, Maryland/DMV, and South Carolina.
I'm not precisely certain what VT's recruiting ceiling is, but I think we can still improve quite a bit from where we are at right now.
Unfortunately, if we're going to be a program that regularly wins 10+ games and competes for the ACC title and a playoff spot, we'll need to be pulling in that higher end (7-9) of the top 10 in state that you mentioned. Otherwise, there's just not going to be enough talent on the roster to be a top-10/top-15 team.
I don't think it's unthinkable we could do that, though. Pry seems to be changing the narrative of the VT program. The 2024 season is going to be a big opportunity to boost Virginia Tech's national profile.
It was a significant failure, IMO, that the staff couldn't land a single one of these LBs considering that was the position with the most immediate and long term need. To caveat, I'm not totally convinced Chris Cole is the blue chip everyone thinks he is. I could certainly be wrong.
Secondly, to Clemson having commitments from two of the top players needs some review. Both of those kids attend Liberty Christian Academy. Dabo touts the "faith" thing robustly within the program and on the recruiting trail. It makes sense that he has a direct line there (not saying I disagree with your sentiment, but it is what it is).
LCA is going to be one of those "weird" schools in regards to actual state loyalty/other things at play for recruiting purposes. However, as it stands, it does appear that they are going to have talented players most years unless something changes.
Give me your best guess with Faheem Delane......Us or not us?
I think we start winning games, competing for ACC championships, and play in some bowls closer to New Year's and the recruiting will come. Pry is building great chemistry internally and with footprint schools. The wins will bring in more NIL money and that will help with recruits.
This is the key piece of the flywheel.
Send kids to the nfl, keep the culture good, get NIL ramped up.
Wait, our recruits received....increases?!?
Pry is clearly doing an excellent job.
But as far as this news...
Feels like if we're going to take that next step in recruiting it will come to bear in the next couple years. Pry has certainly improved significantly from where it was when he took over.
I feel the same way. But, since I realize how low the bar was, I worry that my optimism is skewed and I will be disappointed where the ceiling ends up.
Insert the ceiling is the roof gif. But Lane doesn't have a roof, so the sky is the limit.
So this puts us at 43rd in the composite rankings and 55th in 247's rankings (10th and 12th in the ACC, respectively), BUT with five 4-stars in a class of 16 players, we are 29th in the country/4th in the ACC in average recruit rating.
Not great, but Pry is building. This needs to get better year by year
I mean, not blue blood great (or flash in the pan recruiting wiz great) but I think this gets us closer to where the average rankings were most years during the prime Beamer years right? I remember being in the mid to lower 20s a lot. So considering where we've been in recent history this is pretty great relatively speaking when considering first time coordinators, first time HC, too many recent losing seasons, fractured in state relationships, a weaker power 5 conference (perceived anyway, whether true or not), and a staff that has only had 2 years to build relationships with recruits. I completely agree that to achieve the things we are capable and wanting to achieve we will absolutely need to keep improving on the recruiting trail. I think this will help with what someone else mentioned - grabbing those bounce backs in the transfer portal that maybe chased glitz and glamor instead of the "at home" feeling they got from us
It's a very small class, which is why there is a disparity in total class rank vs avg recruit rank (4th).
In this case the latter is more important. There will be years moving forward where we need to see that total class rank higher if we are to believe that Pry's main focus (as stated) is building the roster primarily through the high school rankings.
That avg recruit rank is a sign of significant improvement. Another notable improvement, we got 3 of the VA top 10 players this cycle, and we got only one across the previous two cycles.
I agree that he needs to keep building on this though. We need to continue to see improvement in recruiting.
You are right on focusing on this year's average rank as being a key component. Consider this.... where could we find a high school recruit that in your mind you would want to have signed instead of Mr. Peebles or Gilliam? You have to look at the incoming 2024 team as a whole and evaluate our recruiting success from a wholistic team approach. The old metrics only tell a piece of the story and some years that is a very small piece.
I am with you. As long as play on the field gets better, the inroads they are re-establishing should continue to flourish, and recruiting will get better. I don't need huge jumps that aren't sustainable, so a steady increase is fine.
I never liked the fact that quantity plays in to recruiting rankings as teams with a higher number of open schollies will have an artificially high ranking. Give me that average all day long as the measure of success. I would rather have a class of 16 4* players and then 8 walk ons than a class of 24 3* players.
I get it, but it cuts both ways. Fewer recruits means busts and injuries hit you harder. If your 5 star goes down week 1, do you want a walk on or a 3 star filling in for him? The average can't be taken on its own to tell you the health of your roster long term. It should probably have a weighted score of 70-30 or something like that (average to total).
the 247 class calculator does weight both. highest-rated recruits count the most towards class score with a decay
https://247sports.com/college/byu/article/how-are-247-recruiting-ranking...
interesting quote from that:
so, basically, they are saying that recruiting ranking, even a weighted one, isn't the be-all, end-all for a coach's recruiting strategy.
Also, "Saturday's?" Really? I know my grammar sucks, but I'm an rando poster on a fan site, not a paid analyst on a "news" site.
I know my grammar sucks, but I'm an rando poster on a fan site
He's right, you know.
I'm not random, I'm sporadic, it sounds better
Should be Saturdaies!
16 4* a year means 64 4* on the team eventually, so the entire 2 deep is 4*, so BOOM
So 247 uses that Gaussian distribution formula. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that each additional recruit counts less and less in the rankings.
You also have to remember that large classes will often have lower average than what is actually deserved. Suppose you have a 25 person class with three 5-stars, seven 4-stars, and 15 3-stars. Then you have a 15 person class with one 5-star, four 4-stars, and ten 3-stars.
The first class is clearly better, but could absolutely have a lower average than the latter.
Some one actually cuts the average off after so many recruits which is kind of odd too.
I don't think there is a great way to really compare two classes especially from two separate years.
But even in the same year, you could have a team with a 99 (5 star), a 97, 96, 91 and 90 (4 star) and 10 85s which is an 88.2 vs
a 98 (5 star), 94, 93, 90 (4 star) and 11 89s which gets you a 90.2. Is having more 3* better? Is having lower ranked 5* and 4* better? One could argue both ways. I would be over thr moon with the 2nd class. The first class would be a huge pull for Pry for the 5* but arguably not better than the current class other than the 5*
This hurts my heart
Saw on the webs that this was the highest average recruit ranking we've had since 2010???
Pry led us to a tie for 4th with what he had.
Why do they keep having to "tell both coaches" when its GT over and over again