You guys have a great recruiting class coming together. I'm sure you guys are excited about all these players Fuente is bringing in.
VT Recruiting.
- Thread starter SchmidtyNole
- Start date
Yep. You guys have had a great run of committments from the state of Virginia the last two or three weeks.
Best class since Ryan Williams and David Wilson. Would love to see Tech get Becton, a big offensive lineman from Highland Springs. Our competition is the team that hasn't been to a bowl game in 5 or is it 6 years?
When VA kids stop going to FSU, Clemson, OSU and Meechigin and all choose VA Tech then we'll start winning NCs.
Hunter was a key get, but we are still nowhere near where we need to be as far as dominating the state of Va. is concerned. But, I do like our momentum the past few weeks, and hopefully, we can land a few more good ones. As of now, Rivals has us with 1 of the top 10, 3 of the top 15, and 4 of the top 20 in Va. Here are our most recent years recruiting the state of Va.:
2017: 1 of the top 10, 3 of the top 15, and 4 of the top 20.
2016: 0 of the top 10, 0 of the top 15, and 4 of the top 20.
2015: 2 of the top 10, 5 of the top 15, and 6 of the top 20.
2014: 2 of the top 10, 4 of the top 15, and 8 of the top 20.
2013: 3 of the top 10, 4 of the top 15, and 7 of the top 20.
2012: 5 of the top 10, 9 of the top 15, and 11 of the top 20.
2017: 1 of the top 10, 3 of the top 15, and 4 of the top 20.
2016: 0 of the top 10, 0 of the top 15, and 4 of the top 20.
2015: 2 of the top 10, 5 of the top 15, and 6 of the top 20.
2014: 2 of the top 10, 4 of the top 15, and 8 of the top 20.
2013: 3 of the top 10, 4 of the top 15, and 7 of the top 20.
2012: 5 of the top 10, 9 of the top 15, and 11 of the top 20.
Any Virginia kid that goes to Michigan or Ohio State is a ____________ . If I were a high school coach I would not allow those 2 scumbags near my program, and would not communicate with their coaches.
Agree, the best classes we've had in the "modern" era have been 2008 Williams, and 2009 Wilson. In addition to the headliners, there was a good depth of talent in those classes. We're a year or two away from that, but on a good path.
08 and 09 were good classes, but we still had some god ones after that. The 2013 class gave us a high draft pick in Fuller, a soon to be high one in Hodges, and McLaughlin, Teller, Facyson, Motuapuaka, and Clark, just to name a few. Hard to argue with that class.
If you go back and look at all of our classes over the years, they are pretty similar. We might have had one or two that were real good and one or two that were below our norm, but usually we end up with a typical VT class, with mostly 3 stars and a few 4/5 stars, and a final ranking somewhere in the 20s. The key is getting the difference makers. The 08 and 09 classes look a lot better because of Williams and Wilson, the 13 class looks a lot better with Fuller and Hodges, and the 14 class is looking better than most thought thanks to Edmunds, Ford, Phillips, McMillian, and Mihota.
If you go back and look at all of our classes over the years, they are pretty similar. We might have had one or two that were real good and one or two that were below our norm, but usually we end up with a typical VT class, with mostly 3 stars and a few 4/5 stars, and a final ranking somewhere in the 20s. The key is getting the difference makers. The 08 and 09 classes look a lot better because of Williams and Wilson, the 13 class looks a lot better with Fuller and Hodges, and the 14 class is looking better than most thought thanks to Edmunds, Ford, Phillips, McMillian, and Mihota.
Michigan is our biggest threat for Becton right now. I think we get him though.
You're so right about keeping in-state kids from falling prey to overtures from coaches like Saban and Meyer and going 600 miles away to spend most of their time on the bench when they could be starting and making a name for themselves with the Hokies. And Michigan?? In the wintertime it makes Blacksburg seem tropical. Sheesh.
A big part of it is developing relationships with the the h.s school coaches who have so much influence on these young guys. With a wide open offense and a Bud Foster defense winning 10 games, there's no reason why we can't keep these 4 star kids in-state close to their families and not have to rely on juco transfers to have good recruiting classes. I think its going to happen..
False!. The other classes in the past were not similar. Why? Defensive Recruiting and Offensive Recruiting. By in large, when we landed the occasional top 20 class (I think it's happened 3 times, maybe 4) the class was dominated with defensive studs and only the occasional offensive stud thrown in. The difference this year is........BALANCE. We can now get offensive lineman. We can now get WR's. These two were the huge problem with Beamer and Stiney's offense the last 7 years in their run. The offense was so bad, so outdated, and so pathetic that High School Coaches in Virginia would not send their OL, QB's, and WR's to Blacksburg. Again, always the exception and I know, Tyrod came to us, but that was directly related to Curt Newsome and Mike Smith being his best friend. By in large, we struggled in the three areas above. That is the HUGE difference in this first class (first true class) for Coach Fu.
You are correct on mostly 3 stars and a few 4/5 stars, but a 20th ranked recruiting class with 5 four star players that are defensive players and one 4 star offensive player is not the same as a 20th ranked class with 3 four star defensive players and 3 four star offensive players. <------That is just an example. I have given the difference in offensive and defensive recruiting rankings for each of our classes on this board many times over the years. It is possible to calculate from the total class ranking. I did exactly that and showed how I did it many times on this board up until about 2014. I can tell you this without pulling up the numbers again, many, many times when our class would rank around 23rd overall, when you calculated the offensive ranking for that class and the defensive ranking, it would look something like this.........an Offensive ranking of 35th and a defensive ranking of 11th, giving us a 23rd ranked class.
Excellent data above, but I again disagree with you. Lets keep something in perspective and look at it this way. Does Florida State truly have to dominate the state of Florida to have top 10 classes? Does Alabama have to truly dominate the state of Bama to get top 10 classes. How about Michigan? They love to come to Virginia over the years.
It's absolutely great to dominate your state and it helps, but if you recruit well enough nationally, or at least regionally, you actually DO NOT have to dominate your state to have a top 10-15 class. Again, it helps, but winning on the field matters most and your offensive and defensive systems on the field matter most. If the two above are in check, you will likely dominate your state, but again, you may be able to get a 4 star Mike Backer or a 4 star WR from Charlotte instead of settling on the 3 star Mike Backer from Fairfax, or the 3 star WR from Norfolk.
My overall point is this.....you gave the numbers for in-state recruiting, but do you know what this year's recruiting class tells me? It tells me that Coach Fu and his staff can recruit out of state or regionally FAR BETTER than what Beamer and his staff could. I WILL TAKE THAT right now anyday because.......if we can recruit out of state and have top 15 classes with many out of state recruits, then the in-state domination will shortly follow. Coach Beamer's problem over the years.....over the long haul or at least during his last 7-8 years was.........his INABILITY to recruit out of state, and a decreased ability to dominated in state. That's far more of a problem than what we have now.
Last edited:
1. Implement a system
2. Recruit players that fit said system no matter their star or residency
When Bud landed a 2star Dadi Nicolas I never questioned it because I knew he must have had a quality that Bud wanted for his defense.
When we landed a 4star JC Coleman and tried to run him up the middle every down....Well, Im just glad Fuente is at VT. Im confident he knows what hes doing on offense.
2. Recruit players that fit said system no matter their star or residency
When Bud landed a 2star Dadi Nicolas I never questioned it because I knew he must have had a quality that Bud wanted for his defense.
When we landed a 4star JC Coleman and tried to run him up the middle every down....Well, Im just glad Fuente is at VT. Im confident he knows what hes doing on offense.
I mostly agree with this, but I think cases like Dadi Nicolas, Kam Chancellor or Darryl Tapp are more the exception than the rule. That's not to say our defensive coaches don't have exceptional development and evaluation skills, because they do; but evaluation is still based on potential and often these 2* recruits who end up playing significant time at VT are plan b players (especially if we're talking about inside LBs, DEs and DBs). Take Mutouapuaka, for instance.
While offering guys like Dadi or Maddy show our coaches have confidence in their abilities, it's often out of necessity more than it is design because we consistently strike out on top-shelf DL and LB talent. And that's not just an issue of needing all-conference talent across the board, but an issue of depth. Generally speaking, the higher the level of talent (on paper), the higher their success rate in college and beyond. That's why star rating is almost always important. In terms of evaluation and projections, the odds favor you better and better the more star power you have.
lucustookis,
I think some of your points seem a little off.
You said the difference in this year's class is offensive/defensive balance, but rivals has us with 5 four star guys, and 3 are on defense and 2 are listed as athletes, and the defensive guys are our highest rated recruits. Even if the athletes become WR for us, this seems like a stretch to look at one class with these numbers and say "FALSE", it is better than past classes because of balance.
You said we can now get OL, but rivals has us with 2 two star OL, and 1 three star OL.
You said this year's class means that Coach Fu and his staff can recruit out of state or regionally far better than what Beamer and his staff could. Yet, rivals has us with 5 four star guys and 4 of them are from Va.
I am excited as anyone about where Fuente might take us, and I feel pretty good about this class of recruits, but it seems a little overboard to look at one recruiting class and act like it is so much better than what we used to recruit. You can have your opinion, but I will stand by mine and say this year's class mirrors a whole lot of our past classes, which is not a bad thing if we can get difference makers. Difference making recruits will always be the key.
I think some of your points seem a little off.
You said the difference in this year's class is offensive/defensive balance, but rivals has us with 5 four star guys, and 3 are on defense and 2 are listed as athletes, and the defensive guys are our highest rated recruits. Even if the athletes become WR for us, this seems like a stretch to look at one class with these numbers and say "FALSE", it is better than past classes because of balance.
You said we can now get OL, but rivals has us with 2 two star OL, and 1 three star OL.
You said this year's class means that Coach Fu and his staff can recruit out of state or regionally far better than what Beamer and his staff could. Yet, rivals has us with 5 four star guys and 4 of them are from Va.
I am excited as anyone about where Fuente might take us, and I feel pretty good about this class of recruits, but it seems a little overboard to look at one recruiting class and act like it is so much better than what we used to recruit. You can have your opinion, but I will stand by mine and say this year's class mirrors a whole lot of our past classes, which is not a bad thing if we can get difference makers. Difference making recruits will always be the key.
HeaksManley explained it well in his post. The more 4 and 5 stars the better, which factors into my difference makers comment. Sure, there will be always be difference making 3 star and lower guys, but more often than not, it is the highly ranked guys who are difference makers. Here are our number of 4/5 stars for offense and defense over the years:
2017: 3 D, 2 athletes.
2016: 1 D, 1 O.
2015: 5 D, 3 O.
2014: 4 D, 3 O, 1 Ath.
2013: 3 D, 1 O.
2012: 4 D, 2 O, 1 Ath.
2011: 4 D, 0 O.
2010; 3 D, 2 O.
2009: 3 O, 2 D.
2008: 2 O, 2 D, 1 Ath.
2007: 2 O, 1 D.
Sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing lucustookis' point. What am I missing? I do not see how this year's class shows us with more balance than other classes. Seems a lot like our previous classes from an offensive/defensive standpoint and from a 4/5 star standpoint. Looks like 2011 is the exception and we only finished 33rd with rivals that year.
These numbers are about where they should be when you factor how most of our recruits came from Va., and over the years, the rivals top 25 in Va. has had many more defensive guys than offensive guys. This year, 15 of rivals top 20 in Va. are defensive guys.
2017: 3 D, 2 athletes.
2016: 1 D, 1 O.
2015: 5 D, 3 O.
2014: 4 D, 3 O, 1 Ath.
2013: 3 D, 1 O.
2012: 4 D, 2 O, 1 Ath.
2011: 4 D, 0 O.
2010; 3 D, 2 O.
2009: 3 O, 2 D.
2008: 2 O, 2 D, 1 Ath.
2007: 2 O, 1 D.
Sorry, but I am having a hard time seeing lucustookis' point. What am I missing? I do not see how this year's class shows us with more balance than other classes. Seems a lot like our previous classes from an offensive/defensive standpoint and from a 4/5 star standpoint. Looks like 2011 is the exception and we only finished 33rd with rivals that year.
These numbers are about where they should be when you factor how most of our recruits came from Va., and over the years, the rivals top 25 in Va. has had many more defensive guys than offensive guys. This year, 15 of rivals top 20 in Va. are defensive guys.
You're looking at 4/5 star guys by their recruiting cred. In even our high water mark classes, most of those guys never worked out. Out of seven in 2012, four were busts. Out of eight in 2014 six were busts (at least in terms of their star potential) and one, Marshawn, is an incomplete.
I hate the damn stars. They do not predict the success of the class. I do not accept that Luther Maddy was the result of "settling" for a two star, because we whiffed on higher rated athletes. We saw something there that every else missed, and the guy was a stud from the first time he saw the field.
If you went purely by stars, we should have lost to Clemson in the ACC CG by 70 points. The fact that we played toe to toe with them shows that our real expertise is recognizing underrated talent that comes with desire and a commitment to the team, that our staff then takes and develops better than anyone.
End of rant.....
Sure, not all 4 stars will pan out, but all 3 stars do not pan out as well. This will happen everywhere. No one sees all of their top recruits pan out, but the top schools just get more of them, meaning they can better afford to miss on some. But, usually the 4 stars that do pan out are really, really good, and the more you get the better. You are kidding yourself if you think we do not want the majority of 4 stars that we do not get.
As for your Clemson example, you could easily turn that the other way and ask why teams like GT and Syracuse with lesser recruits beat us so badly last year.
As for your Clemson example, you could easily turn that the other way and ask why teams like GT and Syracuse with lesser recruits beat us so badly last year.
I will never forget the wide receiver signed around the year 2000. This guy was labeled the best WR ever to come to VT, if my memory is correct. When he left VT, he had the same number of receptions/TDs as I did.
Star power is important but I still hold that having the system in place that puts the players strengths on display is the most critical. For that to happen, the real evaluation has to be done by the coaches and not a recruiting service (as long as the coach knows what hes doing).
I think what is lost in the discussion is the job VT is doing despite the current state of rival recruiting programs around us.
OSU...always been a big boy but Urban has more interest in the 757 than Tressel seemed to
Michigan...upswing more than 5-6 years ago
PSU...upswing and Franklin is a hell of a recruiter
Maryland...upswing and Beatty recruiting there
UVA...still a instate rival
UNC...upswing from 5-6 yrs ago and Fedora a good recruiter
Duke...slight upswing under new coaches
UT...upswing from 5-6 years ago
Clemson....huge upswing from 5-6 yrs ago
FSU...huge upswing from 5-6 yrs ago
Bama...Saban used to never recruit Va, now he camps out here
Recruiting to VT has probably never been tougher yet Fuente has managed a top 25 class.
I think what is lost in the discussion is the job VT is doing despite the current state of rival recruiting programs around us.
OSU...always been a big boy but Urban has more interest in the 757 than Tressel seemed to
Michigan...upswing more than 5-6 years ago
PSU...upswing and Franklin is a hell of a recruiter
Maryland...upswing and Beatty recruiting there
UVA...still a instate rival
UNC...upswing from 5-6 yrs ago and Fedora a good recruiter
Duke...slight upswing under new coaches
UT...upswing from 5-6 years ago
Clemson....huge upswing from 5-6 yrs ago
FSU...huge upswing from 5-6 yrs ago
Bama...Saban used to never recruit Va, now he camps out here
Recruiting to VT has probably never been tougher yet Fuente has managed a top 25 class.
I certainly pray no one replies to this with "false" because I'd hate to be so wrong in believing this is a good post. I'm tired of watching the "elite" teams on TV while pointing out "he's from Va, he's from Va", "missed on him, missed on him". That's getting old. It really bothers me regarding FSU and their offensive backfield over the next few years. Three five star RB's, one from VA.
Right, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of supremely talented players out there who can thrive in a system offense or defense. I think Fuente will give us a serviceable to excellent offense even with mediocre talent, but if he has a DeShaun Watson at QB, and/or a David Wilson at RB we become a threat to contend for a title, IMO. Similarly, on defense we can be a serviceable, bend-don't-break defense with guys like Andrew Motoupuaka starting, but imagine replacing him with a Reggie Ragland, or having a guy like Shaq Lawson starting at DE.
Nowhere in my post did I imply that we should go "purely by stars," just that they are important. There have been analyses done on star rankings and how it translates to the NFL and, not surprisingly, the higher the star rating average, the higher likelihood a player has of going on to a successful pro career. Sure there are also plenty of 3* and 2* players who have turned into all-pro type players (Flowers and Chancellor were 3* and 2* respectively and both have made at least one Pro Bowl), but high 4 stars (5.9-6.0 on Rivals) and 5* players have a much, much higher success ratio than low 3s and 2s in the aggregate. It's not purely a numbers game, but the data do support it, generally speaking.
Derrick Green should have been a Hokie. He fit the power running scheme that Beamer seemed to prefer at the time. CJ Coleman probably should have went somewhere with a spread offense where he could have got the ball in open space. Two very good HS RBs from the state of Virginia, one would have fit the system perfect, the other didnt.
Dadi Nicolas was a 6'3 220lb DE with only a few yrs of HS experience. Rightly so, he was evaluated as a 2star talent. Had he went anywhere else he likely would have never seen the field as a DE. But, he had a 38 inch verticle, 4.6 forty, long arms and room to put on a few lbs, he was the perfect DE in a Foster defense that values pass rush slightly more than run support from the position.
A 4 or 5 star evaluation is just a projection made on potential for a recruit to physically contribute immediately. Even elite HS players need to be coached and put in the position to showcase their talent in the right system.
Dadi Nicolas was a 6'3 220lb DE with only a few yrs of HS experience. Rightly so, he was evaluated as a 2star talent. Had he went anywhere else he likely would have never seen the field as a DE. But, he had a 38 inch verticle, 4.6 forty, long arms and room to put on a few lbs, he was the perfect DE in a Foster defense that values pass rush slightly more than run support from the position.
A 4 or 5 star evaluation is just a projection made on potential for a recruit to physically contribute immediately. Even elite HS players need to be coached and put in the position to showcase their talent in the right system.
Right, and an evaluation of a player's ability based on how he would configure into a coach's particular system is also just a projection. Like I said, stars are not the end-all-be-all, but they are typically good as a predictive metric -- even within the framework of a particular offensive or defensive system. You mentioned coaching is an important aspect, and I can't disagree with that at all. However, I think coaching is as much a causal factor as far as the "right system" is concerned, more than just a matter of coach's recruiting the "right player." There's a mixture of talent and suitability, naturally, but I think the latter generally proceeds from the former.
I will end with this. After watching our offense last season, If Fuente wants a kid thats good enough for me no matter his star power or state of residency. I used to not be that confident in our recruiting purpose on offense. I think he knows what hes looking for to run his offensive system just as Coach Foster knows what he wants to run his defensive system.
I agree, just pointing out that 'good enough' and 'best available' aren't always the same. Fuente will get the best out of what he has regardless, though, whether it's our plan a guy with a limitless ceiling or our plan c guy.
Here is what I'd like to know.......how did Durkin at Maryland and having accomplished absolutely nothing so far, out-recruit JuFu?
Haha! I can't believe you had to have someone here explain to you that more stars usually coincide with more success.
Look at Duke football for reference on the importance of coaching. Cutcliffe comes in, inherits a bunch of 2-3star players and starts producing 8, 9, 10 win seasons and a Coastal division title. Duke has its best recruiting class the last two years but only win 4 games in 2016.
There is a direct correlation between "stars" and Championships, nobody is trying to dispute that. In my case Im only implying that other factors such as coaching, systems, attrition, chemistry etc weigh heavily into the success of a program. If it were ONLY about gathering talent, teams like USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Tennessee etc... would never lose a game.
I wish teams like USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Virginia, Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech would never win a game. All are ______________.
Similar threads
