PonyFans.com

For me, it's all about defense. Could we get better on O? Of course, but need a NT and LB more than anything. A blocking TE would be ideal and I'm really shocked about Matthews. I figured he was next up. I really don't know what's going on with him. Also shocked about Adimora. Thought he'd be the best player on our D. Boy was I wrong.

Another road grader OG would be my next wish. But, first, defense.

Great analysis, very thoughtful and well informed. I particularly like how you've framed the team by their recruit ranking. As a fan base we should evolve our thinking this way. I remember a few years ago when we signed Xavier Jones(remind me of his recruiting ranking) and it was a huge deal. Now we have upgraded our team depth and strength. We all know we have a long ways to go and that recruiting rankings are one variable and don't translate to guaranteed results... I think with the talent we had we would have gone 10-2(Maybe 11-2) with A+ game management and clean execution on areas such as tackling and receiver catches(drops galore this year). With the talent we have lined up next year i see a 10+ win season ahead with opportunities against TCU and Oklahoma to make a statement.

Defense is always the hardest to fill. Most HS teams put their best athletes on offense, so the number of highly athletic defensive players available is much lower than the number of athletes on offense. The difference in talent between a highly rated WR in HS and a lower rated WR in high school is small compared to the difference between a highly rated DB and a lower rated DB.

I was surprised that Adimora couldn't find a role as well. The S position was odd all year.

And of course the rating services aren't everything. But the way I would look at it is that if you have a really highly rated player who is offered by a bunch of big schools, the chances they turn into a good player is much higher than a lower rated recruit. That said, it is important for us to keep in mind that when coaches offer a player, they have watched them at camp, gone to games, and consumed a ton more tape than a recruiting analyst would ever have the time to do. It all comes down to how well the coaches can identify talented players to fit their schemes.

SMUmba, I think two big things really hurt us on defense. One was the injuries and not being able to hit and tackle at practice. The second was the lack of a true Nose Tackle. Lots of pieces that didn't really quite fit. I think Symons knows what he has and what he doesn't now. The players we have coming in are massive upgrades at positions of need. We certainly have some additional pieces to add, but I think the defense will take a big step forward next year.

Citing the loss of guys like Wiggins, Johnson, Westfall, Lawton, etc., shines a light on the flaws in basing too much on players' rankings as recruits. Yes, the 4- and 5-star guys generally are bigger and faster than the 2-star guys, so that can indicate a chance for success, but recruit rankings can be wrong. We all have seen stories of the high-ranked recruit who flops or the no-name who becomes a stud. With any recruit, we are given indications of potential and hope for production.

BleedingRed+Blue wrote:Citing the loss of guys like Wiggins, Johnson, Westfall, Lawton, etc., shines a light on the flaws in basing too much on players' rankings as recruits. Yes, the 4- and 5-star guys generally are bigger and faster than the 2-star guys, so that can indicate a chance for success, but recruit rankings can be wrong. We all have seen stories of the high-ranked recruit who flops or the no-name who becomes a stud. With any recruit, we are given indications of potential and hope for production.

A higher rated, highly recruited recruit has a higher percentage chance of developing into something than a DITR does. It isn't a 100% chance, but if you have, for example, 6 highly rated recruits at WR, odds are pretty good that 3 or 4 will become really good players. Hit rate on DITR might be 1 in 4.

In watching the TCu Michigan game, I saw three linemen from the toads that were massive and pretty quick for their size. I don’t remember them having these type of linemen - are these HS recruits that were just well developed or transfers (or a combination)? Curious to see what our path is because the toads have had recruited better than SMU, but they’re certainly not at the level of consistent top 10 recruiting classes, not even close. What’s the roadmap for how the toads are able to compete against teams that have superior talent?

Many freshmen will get some valuable playing time due to a diluted and weaker conference. However, will they want to play in front of sparse crowds against no name opponents? This is a good jumping off point to enter the transfer portal for bigger schools in highly visible conferences.

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:In watching the TCu Michigan game, I saw three linemen from the toads that were massive and pretty quick for their size. I don’t remember them having these type of linemen - are these HS recruits that were just well developed or transfers (or a combination)? Curious to see what our path is because the toads have had recruited better than SMU, but they’re certainly not at the level of consistent top 10 recruiting classes, not even close. What’s the roadmap for how the toads are able to compete against teams that have superior talent?

When you look at the Team Talent rankings, there is a group of teams at the very top. Their entire roster is 5 and 4 stars, most of it justified, some of it inflated because they are the big name schools. There are 16 teams that are 800 or higher. Those are massive rosters.

Then you get the next group, in the 700s. 17 to 33. 15-20 4 stars, and the rest are high three star players. TCU is 32 in that group. So, no, they don't get top 25 recruiting classes. But their recruiting classes are good enough, and you combine it with transfers and they have a top 30 roster. These rosters are all good enough to compete with the big guys, just not as deep.

When you get into the 600s, 34-66, these are the next level down - around 10 4 stars (we are 55 with 9), and a good number of high 3 star players. These are teams that if they stay healthy, are good enough to play with the group above them, or if they have injuries, they fall into the next group. Maryland, Cincy, UCF, Houston are all in this group. Houston just below us (and we beat them), and then the others above us, and we held close and lost. The outliers in this group are Colorado (only 3 4 stars, which means they are in this group because the 3 stars are inflated because they are a big school), and USF (tons of injuries, and they have gotten transfers who were high 3 stars because they started at bigger schools). Our losses were @Maryland (35), TCU (32), UCF (36), Cincy (48), and Tulane is the outlier (75). The best roster wins most of the time, and that pretty much holds true over the course of the season.

TCU beat UT (6, and alwyas overrated with inflation), OU (9, lots of injuries), Michigan (13, two pick sixes and two failures from the 2 yard line). Their roster is rated higher than every other team they played.

It is interesting when you start looking at this information - Missouri, for example. 6-6 going into their bowl. You would think that is disappointing given their 31st ranked roster. But the reality is that they lost to 5 teams above them, plus kState. they made up for the K State game by beating S Carolina, who has the number 21 roster. So, they basically got the record you would expect given their schedule and roster ranking.