The class of 2024 marks 20 years of 'good' (aka mostly complete) recruiting rankings from 247. It's also Pry's second complete class, coming after Tech's first winning season in 4 years, so I thought it would be fun to do take a look at how VT has been trending lately. Last time I did one of these was a year and a half ago (I think?). Also did one a couple years prior to that.
ANYWAYS, one tool I really like to help visual recruiting year over year is a box plot:
But it's also interesting to visualize as a 'heat map' (for lack of a better term):
My big takeaway is that Pry is undoubtedly improving recruiting:
- Pry is really raising the recruiting floor - the worst recruit in Pry's 2024 class is better than the median recruit in two-thirds of Fuente's 6 classes.
- The 2024 class has the highest rated median and average player in VT history
- Thankfully, Pry's classes include zero unranked players
- Pry still yet to get a player above the .95 threshold (a 'high 4-star) - We need these players to win the ACC. They can come from the portal or high school, but we need to start landing those guys.
Other notes, thoughts, and callouts:
- Damn, Fuente's last few classes really were bleak.
- Beamer's classes had high highs and low lows - I attribute this mostly to (a) the lack of accuracy in recruiting services (relative to today) and (b) that staff's ability to scout and identify talent.
- Transfers are included in these numbers, but I used their transfer rating (not their high school rating)
- Unrated players could be guys from COVID who didn't get ranking because they couldn't camp, or special teams players, or PWOs. Regardless, it's preferable not to have those in your class. Unrated players are excluded from the minimums, but none of the other calculations.
Enjoy, and discuss!
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
You say we need the .95+ recruits buy we only got them in 8 of the 20 years, do we really need these players?
Those 8 classes with .95+ composite recruits were included Kendall Fuller, Tyrod Taylor, Macho Harris, Ryan Williams, Devon Hunter, Holland Fisher, Logan Thomas, David Wilson, Doug Nester, and Tim Settle. 7 were drafted. Two were complete busts Fisher and Hunter). Logan Thomas (Noted TE recruit and NFL TE) single handedly kept our team bowl eligible from 2013-2015.
We might have landed a .95+ player in just 8 out of 20 years, but those guys play for 3 years each. If you remove any of the remaining players (except for maybe Nester) from any season they saw significant snaps, that team finishes with at least one less win. Hell, from 2012 onward, we never had more than one .95+ recruit on either side of the ball.
So do we really need these guys? Yea, if we ever want to be a perennial top 25 team again.
In the new world this won't be the case anymore, so you going to have to start including portal recruit rankings in terms of recruiting success. In the current climate there would be tons of schools going after these guys with a bag for their senior years. Could we have kept all of those guys in the current model? Maybe, but not likely.
Pry just kept Drones, Jennings, Tuten, Lane, Felton, Strong, and Delane. What makes you think we couldn't have kept the other guys? If the pay is in the same ballpark, and the culture is good, guys will stick around until they get drafted.
Sure, I think we keep most of them. Just saying that one or two could have jumped for a huge bag for one year if that was around back then.
So Macho Harris solo tackle in 2007 kept UNC from scoring more than 10 points and thus with out him we lose that game? Seems a bit of a stretch.
I'd argue that in 2010 remove any RB we still win every game we won because GT was the only single score win and Williams and Wilson only had 7 carries each, though Wilson won that game with the return so maybe just remove Williams from the team that year.
Goes to show you how amazing tyrod was in 2010 that anyone thinks we could remove Ryan MF Williams from the team without costing any wins.
Granted he was not 100% for a lot of the gear but still, Williams was a beast. I am definitely not on board with the idea that we don't need recruits like him (unless somehow bud Foster comes out of retirement)
Even if Chris Marve evolves into CBF 2.0, we still need recruits like Ru to win the ACC. Otherwise, we're basically 2023 Clemson.
Or 2006 VT
No, but Macho's presence/skillset allowed Foster to employ way more schemes. Not to mention Macho's home run ability on special teams forced teams to kick away from him, which allowed us to change coverage. Also, Bill C says that interceptions are worth about 2 points... I get that interceptions are mostly luck (every year, the interception to PBU ratio across all programs is ~22%, at NFL and college level) - think about how many PBU's Macho got, how many of those were converted into interceptions, and how many of those interceptions either stopped opponents from score or enabled VT to score.
Look, I get it's not as scientific as 'Wins above replacement' in baseball, but I think it's pretty clear that (a) Macho was significantly better than the next best option on the our team, and (b) as a result, we probably drop at least one more game each season if he's not on this team.
I think it's pretty obvious looking at the data that teams with more high-4-stars and 5-stars tend to do better than teams without them... not sure why this is debated topic in 2024?
DJ Parker and Kam Chancellor we both good safeties.
And it's not wins above replacements it's that in those two seasons we won handily most games. We had 1 game that was within 1 score. Do you think Macho was worth two TDs every game? I can't see any defensive player being that disruptive. Suh might have been worth that at Nebraska.
Outside of QB and maybe a RB like Wilson in 2011 or Williams in 2009, I dont see a player being worth 2 TDs. Even then Suggs is the only RB to have two TDs a game for us.
I would like to also point out the statement was needing high 4* players. Tyrod, Fuller, Macho were 5* and we need a 5* qb, 100%. We had 12 recruits over 20 years where 3 were 5* and 4.5 were busts (half for Nestor). So 4.5 high 4 star players that started for about 8 seasons, a number of those after Beamer retired. We won a lot of games with out a high 4* player starting. Would they make our team better, yes, but we've had so few that my question still stands, can't we win with out the high 4*s, or is that something of the 2000s not the 2020s
You can win, yes. You can have a bowl streak and a couple 10-win seasons.
What you can't; is compete year-in and year-out with the top tier football programs
You're also not going to win a natty
Were a long way from a natty, we just need wind right now.
So, you're acknowledging that we need 5-star players, but arguing there's not much difference between a high 4-star and a high 3-star?
I'm not really understanding your view?
High 4 and low 4 not high 3. If the knock is that Pry can't recruit high 4*, we need to beat the bad teams first. We don't need high 4* to win games in the ACC. Lots of teams beat Purdue with less talent last year. Let's win the games we should win with our talent level before we proclaim the reason we're not winning 10 games is talent. If you can't win the games you're supposed to win talent won't matter when you're still losing games you should win.
Historical we've needed a 5* qb. Add Dax, nijman, Ekanan, Teller, Clark, Hodges, Isaiah Ford, Shai, Williams type players who are all rated 4* but not high 4 * and we can win a lot of games. All signs show that the bust rate of a high 4* is similar to a low 4 *
I'm so with you on the need to beat the teams we should beat first before even dreaming about high four star or 5 star players. I mean, based on an earlier thread on here where they showed who we were predicted to beat or had more talent then (cannot remember exactly), we would be something like 10-2 if we beat everyone we "should" beat and lose to everyone we should lose to. If we can get to 9 or 10 wins a year and win the bowl game half the time, we are a good solid team. Then get the higher recruits and try to get to the next level.
And please note, I'm all for going after the high recruits now. Will be needed to be a consistent top team and hopefully we can land a few. But for now, I'll be really happy with being consistently good and in a position to land more of those top players ... assuming we have the money to pay them (sigh).
Instead of thinking of talent level as some threshold we need to pass, I'd recommend thinking of it in terms of likelihood, eg; having an average of composite rating of .8900 in the starting line up means there's a 60% we win 10 games, but having an average of composite rating of .9250 in the starting line up means there's a 85% we win 10 games.
This is categorically false; the data says otherwise:
This table uses data from collegefootballdata.com
Now, obviously, I recognize that:
But, I think the point stands - Not all 4-stars are created equal, and higher rated 4-stars have more upside. Just because guys in the .9500-.9750 haven't worked out for VT in the last 5 years does not mean we start chasing lower 4-stars instead.
I remember when Jimmy Williams was an all American and only had something like 2 INTs and like 26 tackles because teams game-planned the offense to the other side of the field. He would shut down like 30% of the field by himself and barely record stats.
So did Macho have the same effect? Not that I remember, but just because he only had one tackle in a game doesn't mean he didn't shut down 25% of the offense by himself.
So you're saying that without Jimmy Williams, the 2005 team would have been the 73rd best defense than the 2rd? A team with 4 NFL safeties on it (albeit one was a freshman). Jimmy was great, but that team was stackednwith defensive talent, taking away one player on defense isn't going change your season when you're beating everyone by 3 scores.
2rd?😉
Not necessarily 73rd, but that talent at corner let Bud be aggressive elsewhere and cover up any deficiencies by shrinking the field. We've seen what one it two busted coverages can do (GT busting 2 long TDs on 3 completed passes) and the difference between being the 2rd ranked defense and the 20th is not that many busted coverages and a win or two.
I guess raising the floor is step one. Now if he can raise the ceiling (roof?) that would be fantastic. I'm hopeful that we have a good year on the field (8+ wins) and the staff can translate those wins on the field to wins on the recruiting trail. If we can make players look good that's a selling point for future players. I think the single most impactful thing to VT recruiting, though, would be getting into the SEC. I think regardless of coach that would be a substantial boost for us. That's a pipe dream, though, I know.
Agreed. Realistically, the biggest thing we can do are:
If those 5 are good enough to get drafted, then 8 wins is super reasonable. Pay will be what it is - we won't be Oregon, but we should be paying top 4 in the ACC (for football) - that's enough to attract a lot of good players. The culture has to be healthy, and it seems like it is now. I agree that the SEC brand makes us instantly more attractive, but that's out of our control.
I don't think Jennings will get drafted unless he really shows out this year. He'll be old with an injury history, which isn't what NFL teams really want.
Agree and I am also hoping he gets drafted after really showing out this year.
One striking thing is that arguably Beamers best class was in 2013... to be juniors and senior in 2016 and 2017 (which we already know was Fuente using Beamer's players but this really hits home now)
Looking at that class... Kendall, Bucky, Teller, Facyson, Motu, McLaughlin, Chuck Clark... Dudes.
I tried explaining this to folks for years. The second Fuente ran out of stock piled Beamer talent he was finished. 2016 offense was loaded. 2017 defense was. He had some slight rebound with Hooker in 2019 before the wheels fell off
And I posted on here many times that all of these players that were bolting under Fuente were not "passed on the depth chart"... that was such fucking nonsense. We would have won 3 national titles if that was actually true.
I always agreed with that take, my surprise was that it wasn't just "beamer had some good recruits that were still around" rather it was "beamers best class ever was upper classmen"
The nonsense that the cupboard was bare for Fuente- lol Beamer left him actual NFL draft picks. Fuente left Pry- nothing. zero picks this year in the draft. That is the tell tale sign of the "cupboard"
Yep. Multiple, legitimate draft picks. 12 guys total that spent at least some time in the NFL, many who are still there (Deablo, Slye, Edmunds x2, Chuck Clark, Stroman, Facyson, Settle). That is 7 NFL starters/major contributors on one college defense.
NFL wise 2017 was an amazing defense. 4 DBs (7 total if you count underclassmen that didn't start) 1 DL and 1 first round LB. a number of others talent guys at the college level too (Vinny Mihota)
One of the best defenses we've had.
If he had a QB he would have been winning big in 2015 and 2016.
Do you mean 2014 and 2015?
In 2016 our qb was evans and he was solid
hypothetically (big if) if we had a qb returning Beamer would have stayed a season cause 2016 was loaded, Evans was not on the team when Beamer retired.
Beamer would have won at least 1 more game in 2016 if he was coach of that team, however his QB going into the offseason was Motley and Evans was a lot better than motley.
If Brewer doesn't get hurt in the second half against OSU in 2015, I think we win that game and have a much different year. Brewer was a gamer, he just took a beating and had to play through injury constantly. Great Hokie.
Looking at the data presentation, should probably do a separate heatmap for each column. Of course the max/Q3 columns would be higher than the min/Q1 columns. What's important is how the data in each column relates to itself over different years. Just a minor quibble, though. Nice work.
Another thought: Are the grades still comparable across years? Is a .8700 player from 2005 equivalent to a .8700 player from 2024? I don't know if there's any "grade inflation" like in other fields, nor would I have any idea how to quantify it if it's there. (Edit: okay, so maybe I do have an idea on how, but I don't want to put in the mental effort on fleshing that idea out)
I originally did it this way, but didn't like it lol. Was wondering if anyone would have this request... anyways, here ya go!
I think the four star rating has been inflated, but from what I understand, the number means mostly the same thing:
More details here
This is a great post, thanks for putting it together. In my opinion, pry has taken the right approach in focusing on improving our floor and average (instead of putting too many resources into a few higher end guys at the detriment of the rest of the players like Mike london). These days when players are transferring out so much, you need classes with guys who are more prepared to step in. The days where bud foster could coach up the lower rated guys for 3+ years to turn them into good contributors are a thing of the past. If you've got a top player there is a good chance he is gone soon to a P2 school, so your backup can't be an unrated guy who isn't ready to step in. The lower rated guys in a class are going to be called upon sooner and more frequently than in the past. So seems like a higher floor is a critical need.
Just my opinion, I have no data to back this up. But depth is good and higher quality depth is better