I haven't analyzed all the numbers, and there are a lot of 2015 recruits poised to step on campus this summer. But the 2016 recruiting cycle is in full swing. Just at a quick glance it appears WR, DE, and OT seem to be the positions of need. Who are Tech's most likely "gets" at these positions? How many of each will they bring in? Which five star guy will (or maybe won't???) break our hearts on/near signing day? There are always a lot of names and offers floating around out there but I'm curious about which of these guys will Tech actually land, and who is Tech recruiting the hardest? Any other dire need positions?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
WR for sure, we really need depth at that position and next year's class will be responsible for replacing our current starters, not just spelling them. TE will be a position of need with Malleck graduating and Bucky leaving early. Kline should be able to step up, but who will be the second TE? Getting Austin Clark really tempered the OT need, but solid depth that has time to develop is always a good thing.
I think our LB corps and DE will be needs as well, we have been thin at LB for a number of years and have hit the jackpot on some walk-ons. DE depth doesn't seem so barren after the spring game, but one injury will have all of us thinking of what sweet relief Josh Sweat would have been.
You know who I'm excited about at WR? He hasn't been mentioned here but I think he is a sleeper; Connor O'Donnell.
When you look at the 24/7 site for 2016 he is allllll the way down at the bottom. But don't sleep on this kid.
When you see his picture he reminds you of your paperboy (He looks to be about 12 years old). However, when you look at his film the kid is money. Maybe he'll be our new paperboy since Willie Byrn is gone. He is very similar since he runs a 4.6 forty, but I think he could be better than Bryn.
He runs great routes, has amazing hands, and looks like a natural. This kid is legit.
His other best offers include Miss. St. and UCLA. He will have a ton of offers real soon after he does some camps and stuff. I'm glad we have him.
His 2014 stats: 76 rec. 187 yards a game and ZERO drops.
O'Donnell 2014
O'Donnell 2013 Highlites
I'll be keeping my eye on this kid. I really like his game.
50/50 he makes it to VT but there is only a 10% chance of that....
Odd story but he may be a gray shirt at best - but I doubt even that happens. Telling that he does not get invited to any junior days or the Spring Game. That says it all to me.
So you are saying there is a 5% chance that he makes it to Blacksburg? :)
Math is Hard.
All I could think of here...
Naked Gun:
"Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that."
(would post a pic or something if I was smarter)
So how do you know he has no invites? Just curious.
word on the street says he has not been invited....
Do I know for sure? of course not.
But he lives close by and all of the other recruits are asked to come and visit for junior days/spring practices etc. To keep them interested in VT and to help recruit others. Seems odd that he wouldn't visit if he was really wanted....IMO
Okay, thanks.
Kid has has a 4.0 gpa with two solid offers in UCLA and Miss. St. and a bunch of other interests.
I still like the kids game though. I think he'll be solid.
(It's tough to follow this crap!)
everything I've read says he won't be a commit come NSD and that the miss st and ucla offers are not on the table.
At WR we already have 3* Sam Denmark, we're more than likely getting 4* Tino Ellis and 3/4* Eric Kumah (both have us as the leader), probably getting 3* track freak Grant Halloway (Tech also leads but track is his 1st love so things could get tricky there), and maybe another one like Divine Deablo so the coaches are obviously making this a priority in the class.
At OT we're in great position with Landon Dickerson (legacy recruit) and Pete Leota who are 4* and 3* recruits respectively. A lot of people think Leota is underrated so signing those two along with TJ Hopple would be a huge class for us at the position.
And then there's DE. We don't really have any top level DE's that we're in with, and don't really have any mediocre ones either. It's bad
Don't count out Maryland with Tino Ellis. Home state pull is pretty big there. Plus, if there's a leader between VT and UM, it's not by much
He's been saying we're his leader for a long time now. He visited WVU instead of going to Blacksburg for spring game because of the crappy weather, but reiterated several times afterword that we're his clear #1.
But I agree. If there were another school to steal him away, it would definitely be the Terps. Lots of pressure to stay in-state this year from other recruits. UM is actually going to have a very good class this year when it's all said and done, and most of the kids will be from the state of Maryland.
Don't forget about Jalen Elliot at WR, who's a VT legacy as well.
I think we get Ellis and miss on Leota, but we'll see.
There doesn't seem to be the same urgency from the coaches regarding DE like there was last year. I still think we take one- maybe Nick Coe.
At linebacker we already have Victor Greene in the fold and we look to be in good position for Emmaneul Belmar.
Overall, the class is probably gonna be underwhelming on paper (ranked in the high 20's to low 30's if I had to guess) and there'll be a lot of complaining, so gird yourself. We weren't well positioned for top guys at all this year.
We're not getting Nick Coe. Not too interested in Tech and the coaches aren't really all that high on him for our system anyways. Good player but would would be a tweener
Yep, it's going to be an underwhelming year. The two prospects that I'm watching the most closely are are Wayne Davis and Tino Ellis. Other than that, a lot of the guys we are looking good with are interchangeable.
We need two or three more OL. Maybe Josh Ball could be a guy we push hard for down the stretch. he's been lukewarm on us so far, but we could maybe make some headway this summer.
How can our DE line depth be so bad!?
Is it because we keep moving them to other positions or we miss on the prospects?
combination. But 2010 and 2011 were absolutely awful recruiting years, and so we have been lacking the redshirt juniors and seniors who hypothetically would be starting to step up
Missing prospects but also we've only gotten about one solid end per class for the past few years. We need more Tyrel Wilsons who are better than a No. 3 end and provide excellent depth.
yes... to both
I think between Hill, Gaines, Fullwood and Edmunds, we will end up with two sold DE's from last years group. We need two or three more this year.
keep missing on top talent in state at the position. Then the ones we do bring in get a shot there and most don't have the ability to stay there, and guys like keihn who can hopefully develop in year 3 or so don't redshirt and by the time they can contribute they are running out of eligibility.
Well if there is a guy named Divine Deablo then we simply have to get him. I didn't know Jacquiski Tartt existed but dammit, how could we not go after a guy like that?
I say linebacker is also a position of need for the future
Too early to say.
I need to see how this current roster comes together, and especially the freshmen and sophomores, before I can judge on what are our biggest areas of need.
For linebackers, apparently we just offered Tavante Beckett out of Indian River (transferred from Oscar Smith). He was a longtime VT lean and probably still is. As I've said before, he's a guy who really shows up on tape. I personally thought he was a half-step slow for his size to play in the ACC, but I'm glad he got the offer all the same, especially if he's improved this spring. Anyone who really wants to be at VT is more than welcome!
I didn't know where else to put this, but apparently a former 5* guard at Texas is transferring. I wonder if Searles goes after him, he recruited him at Texas.
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Texas-sophomore-OL-Darius-James-to-transfer-ou...
I'm hearing that it's more of an academic issue than anything else, which Tech usually won't go after. But who knows? We've definitely seen much more of a penchant for taking these types of recruits (transfers, JUCOs, etc.) recently than we have in years past.
I think his academics are fine. Both sides are fine to part ways. He has had multiple injuries....both feet and an ACL - so health is a concern.
Recruited by previous regime so seems to be one of those things. Texas has lost 6 OL in last year or so since Strong came in. New coach wants his guys....apparently...
#alltheOL
He is going to Auburn.
I know we have some young guys but why not QB
Andy Bitter says "That's a position with what looks like a comfortable future."
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/05/hokies-offseason-position-glimpse-receivers-and-tight-ends
Agree, we are putting a lot of eggs in the Lawson basket (I would really like to see it confirmed that he is qualified).
I'm not sure Ford is a starter. He might be, but it might take until late in his career.
I'm not sure Durkin is a QB past fall camp this year. He's too good of an athlete and there has been very little talk about him (as a QB), even when he was healthy. He threw so little in HS that he was really a project. Again, if he's a QB, he's a long ways away. He might be a fullback, HBack, TE or DE much, much sooner.
Motley is too old to be considered in this discussion about recruits who are current HS juniors.
So, I propose a QB to push Lawson, who in my mind, is the de facto heir apparent (although I could see Motley starting for a year).
Realistically, QB is going to be a continuing search. I fully expect either Ford or Durkin to be in a different position or transferring by the end of the year.
2015 - barring any significant injuries
1. Brewer is the starter
2. Motley backups
3. Ford and Durkin fight for minutes.
4. Lawson redshirts.
2016
Based on the years in the system versus hype I expect the following.
1/2. Motley or Lawson, the other is the backup.
3. Ford transfers. Durkin is playing either TE or HB.
Taking another development QB.
This sounds right to me, but I question whether Ford will be behind Motley or not. Motley has the size to be a tight end
That was my WAG. Motley I think is happy to be the backup and getting an education at Tech. He would love to be THE GUY but can handle it either way.
Ford could also surprise everybody and step up to take the reins next year.
The Curse of the Clipboard says that Ford will stay at VT and be the sideline qb his entire time.
seriously though i don't see him transferring. I can see Durkin transferring, but not Ford.
I could see Ford transferring if Lawson takes over in 2016, but I feel like Durkin will see the field, maybe transitioning to a new position. Everything I've heard about Durkin is that he has the athleticism to do something other than QB.
Well you kinda called it.
Offensive Lineman: always is, always should be.
3-4 each year, ideally.
Both lines and QB. You can never have too many at these positions.
TE to fill out our Oline, Dline and QB positions? *ducks*
yes, we should definitely recruit ducks
Offensive Line, wide receiver, line backer and defensive end
Landon Dickerson and Tino Ellis are 1A and 1B for me. Ellis looks like he could follow the Ford and Cam path and get great playing time as a talented freshman.
Dickerson is a MEAN OT. Just watch the guys highlight tapes and hes looking to put someone on their ass every play. Combined with the fact that hes been performing great at the regional camps and already has the build of a college lineman, he could very well end up with 5 stars and compete as a freshman
In terms of recruit, by far Landon Dickerson. He WILL be a 5 star by at least one service by NSD and with all his family ties to VT and his family pushing him to VT hard there is no excuse for the staff not to be able to sway him to be a Hokie.
Sounds like he's in our Hand but for some reason it still makes me Sweat. I have this uneasy feeling but can't really figure out why...
Settle down, everything will be OK.
The good news is that he's a legacy and I haven't heard a ton of confidence from Tennessee fans about him.
What are the family ties to VT?
His grandfather played for us.
Thanks
Since Dickerson is a legacy I was curious and did a search and came to his 247 page where lo and behold there's a familiar face somewhat, albeit listed as cool, in the picture in his recruitment. He's being recruited by Grimes at Auburn. We might be knocking up against him more often over these coming years. From my limited viewpoint, Dickerson is well made for Searel's system.
Go Hokies!
different Grimes. Jeff Grimes went to LSU.
I must be senile. Wrong Grimes indeed as to whom was on my mind. Didn't J.B. Grimes also coach at Tech?
Indeed he did. 92 or 93 - 97. So technically right I guess.
He did and he uttered one of the all-time great quotes while at VT. He said Druckenmiller was "stronger than train smoke"
Dickerson will go to Tennessee. Unfortunately we just can't compete head to head for these big recruits anymore when SEC and FSU or Clemson are involved. We have always had difficulty out of state but used to own the commonwealth (especially Richmond and the 757) but we are an afterthought there now as well.
Austin Clark Mook Reynolds, Settle etc etc would all disagree.
Now don't go spoiling his narrative with those pesky facts...
I'm working on a complete list from last four years of signed players who had offers from one of those schools VT, "just can't compete with".
I posted this on another thread earlier today but it fits here as well:
You're really going to say FSU Clemson and Tennessee aren't out recruiting us?
Well, as the ginormous string of back and forth below this proves, there's a whole lot of speculation involved in what "out recruiting" means. I see that at one point you started throwing out number of 4 and 5 star recruits landed by various programs, which is what these discussions always devolve into. To that I will say, unfair comparison. Historically, VT has not used recruiting service ratings, at least not as the primary determining factor, in targeting recruits. Under Beamer, the focus has been our own internal evaluation of talent. This leads to 2 star Kam Chancellor becoming one of the dominant safeties in the NFL. It's a proven system, as our poll rankings routinely outperformed our recruiting rankings by a stretch of about 15-20 years.
Our budget and recruiting staff infrastructure was also insufficient to compete using the same model as the elite programs. That is changing, and Whit has done about five years of work in fourteen months in terms of getting our program in line to compete nationally for elite recruits.
So to answer your question, have FSU, Clemson and Tennessee been out recruiting us? In my estimation, no. We have been finding 3 star hidden gems who turn out equal or better results to those programs' 4 and 5 star recruits through our own different system of recruiting. But I also think our recent inability to seal the deal with some very desirable recruits in our own backyard demonstrates that our window to recruit the way we traditionally have is closing. We have become somewhat of a marker program for recruiting services, in that if we offer a kid, that usually puts them on the national radar, and programs with more cachet swoop in and snatch them up.
Do we need to change the way we recruit? Yes. And we are. Not because we are being outrecruited but because our recruiting model has become untenable. Whit Babcock understands that, and were in good hands.
those schools have absolutely been out recruiting us. Aren't you one of the people who constantly brings up how little talent we had on the offensive side of the ball as a reason why loeffler really can't be held accountable yet for the results? You also can't really point out kam chancellor and then not talk about the countless other lower rated guys we get that never contribute. Every school has kids that fall through the cracks and Kam is a great hokie and even better pro, but he's the exception not the rule.
FSU has obviously done very well with their recruiting and on-field play since jimbo took over. Clemson has done the same under dabo the last 4 years and they beat 3 power teams in the last 3 bowl years (LSU, OSU, OU) and UTjr has struggled with coaching changes but butch seems to have them playing competitively in the best conference in CFB.
Actually, as memory serves, my mantra on Loeffler has been he gets three years to install his system. That means this upcoming season will be the one where I cast my ballot on whether or not Loeffler should be retained. And should his offense stink on ice, I'll have no qualms calling for his termination. But the same would be true if we had won ten games the last two seasons. Judging by Bryan Stinespring's first two season as OC, he was going to be really good in the position. It takes time to evaluate what a coaching hire brings to a program.
Now you may be confusing the fact that I will frequently bring up the absolute mess Curt Newsome left our OL in, but that goes beyond just recruiting and has more to do with the fact that he was just a genuinely shitty choice to be our OL coach. As far as overall talent goes, I don't think I've ever used that particular topic as a Loeffler apologist.
Also, are we seriously just supposed to accept that the SEC is the best conference in college football? There's increasingly little evidence to support that claim.
What was their bowl record last year? How did they do against the ACC at the end of the season?
I hate the SEC
The SEC was a respectable 7-5 in their bowl games. Their three highest ranked teams all lost.
In 2014 the SEC went 3-5 against the ACC.
7-5?
hmm..for some reason I thought it was much worse than that. I guess because all of their "dominant" teams lost (haha)...How did the ACC fare in the bowl games? about the same?
Not so great this past year,
Conf. USA 4- 1
Pacific-12 6- 2
Independents 2- 1
SEC 7- 5
Big Ten 5- 5
Sun Belt 1- 1
Mountain West 3- 4
American 2- 3
ACC 4- 7
Big 12 2 - 5
Mid-American 1- 3
over the last 5-10 years the SEC is unquestionably the best conference in college football. There isn't an argument to be made otherwise.
Unquestionably? That's clearly not the case. A system, the BCS, that had a rematch in a one and done NC, is not the best way to judge the success of a conference.
players drafted, national championships, bowl success during that stretch. It's unquestioned which conference was best. There is not a single team in the SEC I like, but I can respect what they established during that time. If you feel they were not the best conference over that time period go ahead and make your case...
Exactly, unquestioned. Anybody that wants to argue that either has no clue or is so biased in their hate for the SEC they ignore the facts. It's not even close
Well, okay.
Let's look at the SEC in its current form, since the 2011 expansion to 14 teams.
Players drafted. SEC has had an impressive 166 players taken in the draft. 63 in the 2013 draft, 49 in 2014 and 54 in 2015. Compared to the PAC-12 at 101 players drafted over the same period, the SEC seems to be winning in a walk. However, the SEC has 14 programs compared to the PAC-12's 12. In this most recent draft, the SEC averaged 3.86 players drafted per member program, compared to the PAC-12'S 3.25.
Also notable, the PAC-12's total number of players drafted has increased year over year since expansion. The SEC's dipped from 63 in 2013 to 49 in 2014, then rebounded to 54 this past season. Over the same stretch, the PAC-12 went from 28 drafted, to 34, to 39. The PAC-12'S draft stock is on the rise, while the SEC's seems to be holding steady.
National championships. Since expansion, the SEC is 1-1 in championship game appearances, with Alabama trouncing Notre Dame in the 2013 BCS Championship Game and Auburn losing to Florida State in the 2014 game. The PAC-12 is 0-1, with Oregon being roughed up by Ohio State in the inaugural College Football Playoff Championship Game.
Overall bowl record, the SEC is 19-11 since expansion, a 0.633 win percentage. The PAC-12 IS 16-9 over the same period, a 0.640 win percentage.
Head to head since expansion, the SEC enjoys a 3-1 advantage over the PAC-12. The SEC went 2-0 against the PAC-12 in 2012, 1-1 in 2013, and the two conferences never faced each other in 2014.
There was a period of time in the heart of the BCS era when the SEC was the king of college football. But since expansion to its current form, the numbers just don't support the assertion that you can't even question the conference's dominance. By most observable metrics, the ascendant conference among the P5 is the PAC-12, while the SEC seems to be standing pat to slightly regressing.
Again, we are taking abouttoday, not history. And today, there's plenty to question the SEC's dominance of the support.
head-to-head bowl records etc. are good indicators but they don't tell the whole story either. If the top sec team beats the worst pac-12 team is that really showing they are dominant? How many of the SECs 19 bowls were major BCS bowl games compared to the pac-12? How often does the SEC send two teams to the BCS versus the pac-12, etc.
Again the SEC has been the most dominant conference in college football in the last 5-10 years, without question. Going forward who knows if that will continue and there was obviously a dip in their "power" this last year so could that trend continue? Who knows, but that past time period that I referenced can't be debated.
Which is it? If I use metrics you suggest, you can't then just pull the metrics and say they're invalid. I'm working within the framework you provided.
It is easily questioned. They aren't the juggernaut they were. Other programs have closed the gap with the SEC's best programs, and other conferences have closed the gap with the conference as a whole. The SEC owned the majority of the BCS era. But that era is over. The way the numbers are trending, so too are the days of SEC dominance being a given.
even the statistics you provided (bowls/players drafted) suggest they have been the best over that period. I'm not arguing they will be the best going forward, but arguing that the SEC hasn't been the best conference over the past 5-8 years is idiotic IMO.
I never said the metrics were invalid, but if you don't agree that saying the pac 12's #1 team beating the sec's last place team is misleading then I don't know what to tell you...
6 of the top 10 in the preseason poll....3 more of the next 10. I don't think they'll have a team that wins the natty next year, but they are the top conference until proven otherwise.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102380/102380
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/college-footballs-pre-spring-to...
The way the stats have been trending lately, there just isn't much to support your argument. Preseason polls are beauty pageants, and the SEC is certainly still reaping the PR benefits of their dominant BCS run. But their top three teams all lost their bowls. If that trend continues, the media love affair with the conference will start to fade.
The SEC is a very good conference, but their days of owning the sport may have already passed.
my argument is that they have been the best conference for the past 5-8 years and that is easily supported. I'm not going to make predictions on the future and if they will maintain their dominance, but if recruiting is a major factor then it's going to be hard for them to be overthrown. you also bring up "trending" yet one of the stats you posted is players drafted and did not that increase last year from two years ago?
they had poor qb play in the conference last year and were exploited in their bowl games against top tier teams. bama lost by a td to the eventual champion who beat the runner-up by 22 after they beat the best acc team by 39 points. ole miss and miss st (both not traditional top 3 sec teams) got embarrassed no doubt there.
here is an actual trend, so having their 2nd highest amount of players drafted in the 9 year stretch (of which they were the top conference of players drafted all 9 years) is trending down? got it.
2015 -- 54
2014 -- 49
2013 -- 63
2012 -- 47
2011 -- 42
2010 -- 51
2009 -- 45
2008 -- 42
2007 -- 42
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/2517211...
I've already admitted that they owned the latter half of the BCS era, and I was very clear in my post that I was looking at the SEC post-expansion. Their performance post-expansion just doesn't have them lording over all the other conferences. They remain a very good conference, one of the best, but specifically one of the best.
You're also now putting words in my mouth. I said the SEC seems to be standing pat to slightly regressing. I'm arguing more that other conferences/programs are closing the gap, not so much that the SEC is dovetailing.
Oops. Double post. Drinkies.
Yea we got a couple. But we sure have missed out
Number of Top 10 rated players from Virginia choosing VT - Overall Class ranked in Top 10
2011 - 1 - NO
2012 - 4 - NO
2013 - 2 - NO
2014 - 1 - NO
2015 - 1 - NO
In the last 2 years
Recruits who had offers from SEC teams or FSU/Clemson who chose VT since 2012 class: Joel Caleb, JC Coleman (Vandy), Trey Edmunds, Ken Ekanem (Vandy), Drew Harris (ugh), Mark Irick, Jarontay Jones, Chris Mangus, Donaldven Manning, Donovan Riley(Vandy), Davion Tookes, Devin Vandyke, Kyle Chung, Brandon Facyson, Holland Fisher, Kendall Fuller, Bucky Hodges, Carlis Parker(Vandy), Daniel Reid, Wyatt Teller, Isaiah Ford, Kendrick Holland, Shai McKenzie, Travon McMillian, Vincent Mihota, Raymon Minor, C.J. Reavis, Ricky Walker, Marshawn Williams, Jahque Alleyne, Mike Arnold, Austin Clark, Chris Cunningham, Tremaine Edmunds, Darius Fullwood, Trevon Hill, Duwayne Johnson, Dwayne Lawson, Mook Reynolds, Tim Settle, Adonis Williamson.
You going to do the list of players we didn't get? Or only use confirmation bias? And really? Using VANDY to prove your point that we can recruit against the SEC?
Every school has players they didn't get. Is Vandy not in the SEC?
Yes but when the argument is about our ability to recruit, using Vandy is very much grasping at straws. I know the user you responded to said SEC, but common sense would tell you Vandy is not a program that proves much.
All these names look nice and impressive listed like this, but any genuine analysis would show that Clemson, FSU and TENN are above us in recruiting abililty
The poster didn't say they are recruiting better he said " can not compete" that list includes players with offers from almost every SEC, BIG TEN, and ACC school with plenty of BIG 12 and PAC 12 offers thrown in. Could VT do better of course, but to say VT " can't compete" shows how little people pay attention to the wins and only look for the loses.
Except that you only showed the wins, and none of the losses..
Actually it did, schools like FSU, Bama, Clemson, MSU. MICH etc etc etc all lost out on getting those players.
You didn't show any of OUR losses. Which give our wins no context
Because no school gets every recruit they want, again could VT do better yes, but to say VT a can't compete with those schools is a joke.
Nobody gets everybody. But you seem to think we are on their level recruiting, which we are factually not. So if a recruit is split between us and FSU or Tennessee, do you really feel that its a 50/50 shot?
Depending on postion, where recruit is from and thousands of other factors outside the control of VT yea.
Considering the last 4 years we have got 16 4 stars and 1 5 star and Tennessee has got 43 4 stars and 1 5 star and FSU has got 41 4 stars and 13 5 stars, the evidence disagrees
Great what has Tenn done with those recruits in that time? Was VT head to head for all those? How many were in state recruits for them? See that's the problem there are too many variables, but the original point is YES VT CAN COMPETE IN RECRUITING WITH THOSE SCHOOLS!
When there are thousands of recruits annually and you can only sign 25, the losses outnumber the victories for every team.
The only way you can prove this point is by showing both the recruiting wins and losses and use a success rate compared to other teams. Otherwise the data doesn't show anything other than we got recruits, which every school does.
I get the point you are making but we certainly are missing on 5 stars a lot, and to be fair always have. 4 star talent is a different story but again to be fair there are a lot more 4 star players to go around.
The reality is though, there is no numeric way to accurately compare who "won" or "lost" in a recruiting battle. How do you weigh odds and involvement? If someone has extended an offer, are they on par with someone who is interested with no offer? What about if they aren't in said recruit's "top X number of schools," how do you factor that in? In the end you can only definitively say school A got him and every other school didn't, thus school A won and every other school lost out. There are just far too many factors at play between academics, geographic location for both the recruit and the school, depth chart, etc.
oh I am right there with you. I'm simply pointing out that you can't just list recruits and say it means something, for either wins or losses.
Historically though, we are not very competitive for 5 star recruits. That can be said with certainty.
How do you define being competitive with 5 star recruits? Genuine shots with Hand, Sweat, and a few others recently as well as grabbing Tyrod, Macho, and Kendall, sounds pretty good. Sure, we're not a blue blood averaging a 5* each year, but certainly 1 every 4 years and actually having a shot with some each year is far better than a majority of FBS.
Being competitive is about closing, not about having a shot with. Getting 3 in 10 years is not competitive to the regional programs we want to compete with like Penn St, Tennessee and Clemson. Not just 5 stars, but also racking up 4 stars. No one expects us to recruit like FSU or Alabama
I guess that depends on where you want the program to be. I don't see why VT shouldn't be closing on Hand, Sweat and others that have slipped through our grasp, despite being VT leans at some point. I fully acknowledge that we are a blue collar team built on the back of undervalued 3 and 4 star talent, but at some point we either need to accept that is our ceiling or push for more. I'm a push for more kind of guy.
This is also why I always cringe when I see someone say VT is better when we're unranked or we are the underdog. It's a great sentiment but in reality we need to be the team that wins when it's expected of us, or when we are under the spotlight in the big bowl games.
anyway, core point, simply naming recruits is meaningless data.
I guess with me I don't see any proposals for how anyone plans to have more success other than "we need to do better" when you look at our competition. I'm all about getting better, but the general sentiment that we need to be able to compete with the big boys without a plan for how we can compete with them or even compare to them at this moment is more of a dream than a goal. You have to have a plan to get there, and it starts from building smaller. It's establishing ourselves as a program who can develop talent (done), who can then attract in state talent (in progress), who can then attract the top in-state talent and top tier neighbor state talent (in progress), who can then win on a national level CONSISTENTLY, and only then will we be able to compete with those top dogs that everyone thinks we should be at now. The wonderful history of Virginia Tech football and success really is only about 20 years long if you go back to the 95 Sugar Bowl. Before then, who is Virginia Tech? Compare that to the history of Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, and the other blue bloods who repeatedly get top talent and you'll see that we are making our way there, but we have a ways to go. It's not going to happen overnight, but you can't get to the top of the tower in one jump.
yeah, we agree here. I am by and large a huge supporter of the slow burn and not needing to see immediate on-field success when changes are made. And i fully agree with the we have to have solid plans/foundation to build upon. I don't expect us to be in NC consideration year in, year out but I do think we are a program that should be in competition for ACC championship every year and going to big bowl. That's a general statement, not a critique of last few years as I have never been a fire lefty fan. I can see, in my relative inexperience, how much damage there was and how many seasons it would take to rebuild.
but I do think there is, and has always been a plan. Beamer I am sure has had one. Foster I am sure has one. Lefty surely has one. And I think we can all see Whit is a 50 moves ahead chess player. So I expect more because I believe they have that plan. I think that's healthy. Shouldn't ever want to be static as a program. So we should be closing on these 5 stars more, even right now, especially given our reputation and history on defense. I think it would be an interesting comparison if you averaged out our defense ranking over last decade with our teams and looked at their 5 star commit numbers. are we above average or below? i would suspect below, which is a credit to Foster, Gray and Wiles but in terms of recruiting less competitive. maybe i am wrong though
this. if the original comment had said we aren't competitive with the elite recruits (top 100 or so) against schools like FSU/Clemson/etc. then it would have been much easier to defend. We will get one every now and then, but we're probably closer to landing 10% of them, if that.
Recruited during James Franklin coached Vandy... So yes it is a valid comparison
Perhaps we should go on a case-by-case basis rather than declaring all hope to be lost when going after the same recruit as other elite schools...
Kendall Fuller anyone?
To judge recruiting you'd have to judge who VT really wants vs who they get. There might actually be a 3 star guy (Facyson) that VT would rather have than a 5 star guy. I haven't heard much yet from the 5 star D lineman that didn't go to Tech. Sure it sounds and looks good to land "elite" guys but was Vick a five star guy? Sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle. Sometimes you hit rough patches. Where were AL, FSU, Clemson 10 years ago?
well technically there was a Vick that was a 5*, but we don't talk about him lest a certain robot come out of hiding.....
Marcus wasn't a five star either I don't believe
Yeah, he was- 5*, #8 player in the country coming out of high school.
I read that as (negative) 5* at first...gave me a lil chuckle
Vick wasn't even the top QB in the 757 coming out of high school, I think star rankings weren't used until a few years after too (correct me If I'm wrong on that).
IIRC, Vick was the 3rd highest ranked player in VA behind Ronald Curry and David Terrell.
https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=692547
"Curry and Michael Vick played before Rivals.com began ranking players. Marcus Vick, Tyrod Taylor and E.J. Manuel are all five-star players. It's safe to say that Curry would have been a five-star as well, while Vick would have been a four-star player. Randall was ranked as a four-star."
EDIT: I remembered correctly.
http://www.hokiesports.com/vick/
"Was selected as the No. 3 prospect in Virginia by The Roanoke Times "
So yeah, he was a big deal. He'd be a bigger deal now that we've seen running QBs be more successful.
If VT offers and pursues a guy, doesn't that suggest VT wants that guy? Or are we just going to say that the guys VT gets are the guys they really wanted and the guys they didn't want are guys VT never wanted all along?
I don't know how you can tell the level at which VT actually "pursued" a given player. There are tons of offers thrown out. Behind closed doors, given the time that each coach has, the level of interest shown by the player as well, it's really hard to say. But I'm sure there are guys that the coaches circle as "must haves" and they probably communicate that to the recruits differently than to the guy that they offer but isn't a top priority. And I doubt they just pull out a rivals 5 star list and just circle the guys at the top and go down from there. Recruiting rankings are such an inexact science. For example, we currently have a commitment from Samuel Denmark at WR he is 'only' a 3 star guy. But he is also a track star. Maybe the coaches think he is a higher priority than a 5 star guy. I don't know. But to just list guys and say VT didn't get them therefore they can't recruit against the big boys, leaves out a lot of information that you don't know. And I'm sure they're wrong from time to time also.
also we only bring that up when it's VT not landing the player then list other guys we landed that had offers from schools. people probably say darrius fullwood had an offer from OSU, which he did not as it was not committable. those other schools could have filled up at positions and moved on, yet the player is still listed as having an offer from them. bottom line is if we want to be more competitive we either have to recruit better, get better coaching, or get lucky and have another dynamic QB carry us to conference titles.
seems to have had worked in "NCAA Football" pretty well for me in the past.
Apparently that's the only way fans are able to judge whether our recruiting is a success or not, by the 5 star list
or by how we perform on the field relative to our competition, nfl draft picks and attrition rates.
jonathan allen is a starter at Alabama and dashawn hand got PT as a true freshmen as did derrick nnadi at FSU and I believe he's a projected starter this year. Harder for lineman to get on the field right away especially at schools that land 4-5 star guys every year.
Looks like we are back in it with Josh Ball. If you give me these five players, I'm a happy camper for this recruiting season:
1. Josh Ball
2. Landon Dickerson
3. Tino Ellis
4. Wayne Davis
5. Any respectable DE prospect that we won't immediately move to DT because they are over 240 lbs.
I'd like to land both Ellis and Eric Kumah.
It would be nice to add some height at WR. Solid offer list with Miami, Tennessee and NCSU. Could push in to 4* territory.
Holloway is someone that is going to blow up as well. Holloway/ellis are my top 2 at WR.
I will take the athleticism that Holloway brings all day, every day! He is fast and has hops to go and get the jump balls!
Another great offer list. Hell, let's just make it all three.
Looks like Ellis is announcing on July 31 but will still take officials.....according to twitter. Was hoping we could land him this summer (firmly) and get him recruiting.
Big recruiting weekends coming up this month. I think we grab a commit or two.