Page 10 of 19

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:32 pm
by DomingoOrtiz
flakes {l Wrote}:Can we just get one goddamn guy who is a legit WR, not one of these guys who can probably play DB, TE or QB? We just don't help out our QBs at all. Imagine you're Wade and you see our wideouts bumbling around out there. David Dudeck for fuck's sake. Jeff Smith was probably our best last year and he had 1 catch vs. Clemson, Louisville and FSU total. If I hear "Glines is going to have a breakout season..." one more time. Ugh.


I am with Flakes on this one. I don't understand Dazzler's (except that he is an idiot) philosophy of filling 1/3 of the roster with WRs.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:37 pm
by flakes
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:For example, BC has a guy that caught 11,000,000,000 passes in Bergen Co., NJ and he has barely seen the field. Was he a real WR?


Borgerson had offers like Monmouth and Yale. Kobay White had solid offers but I feel like he's been the only one and we''re seemingly never involved with talented wideouts.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:14 pm
by twballgame9
flakes {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:For example, BC has a guy that caught 11,000,000,000 passes in Bergen Co., NJ and he has barely seen the field. Was he a real WR?


Borgerson had offers like Monmouth and Yale. Kobay White had solid offers but I feel like he's been the only one and we''re seemingly never involved with talented wideouts.


You wanted a true WR and not a CB or QB. What you really want is BC to land Julio Jones. Truth is, 90% of HS WR, you and I have as much of a clue whether their blocking skills will translate to catching passes at this level and the other 10% are going to Alabama, etc. Most HS WRs have shitty QBs. Hell, most college WRs have shitty QBs, which is why drafting WRs is a crap shoot too.

That's why most college coaches draft a bunch of fast tall guys and hope some can catch, and put the others on defense.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:16 pm
by BCSUPERFAN22
flakes {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:For example, BC has a guy that caught 11,000,000,000 passes in Bergen Co., NJ and he has barely seen the field. Was he a real WR?


Borgerson had offers like Monmouth and Yale. Kobay White had solid offers but I feel like he's been the only one and we''re seemingly never involved with talented wideouts.


Borgerson also had Maryland. Thad Smith had above average offers (and for some reason was nonexistent last year despite being the best WR on the roster). McClary was brought in as a WR (out of HS) and had a Carolina offer. Jeff Smith, depending on how he was recruited, at least had Indiana and Wisconsin.

No WR with a long list of offers is coming to a power, run first team who has yet to show they can throw the ball, its just not going to happen, idk what you realistically expect, but keep on beating this dead horse

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:35 am
by BCSUPERFAN22

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:22 am
by flakes

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:30 pm
by DavidGordonsFoot
Interesting late signee here. Jaleel Berry 6'3" 320 lb DT out of Nottingham Hill in Syracuse. Had SAT issues earlier this year but is a big body with power.
http://highschoolsports.syracuse.com/ne ... n-college/

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:13 pm
by HJS
Nice story. I hope things work out for him. Certainly is a position of need.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:26 am
by DomingoOrtiz
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Interesting late signee here. Jaleel Berry 6'3" 320 lb DT out of Nottingham Hill in Syracuse. Had SAT issues earlier this year but is a big body with power.
http://highschoolsports.syracuse.com/ne ... n-college/


1020 SAT? I remember when the minimum was 800, a level that Ron Stone and the Campbell brothers (the older two) could not achieve.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:45 am
by TobaccoRoadEagle
DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Interesting late signee here. Jaleel Berry 6'3" 320 lb DT out of Nottingham Hill in Syracuse. Had SAT issues earlier this year but is a big body with power.
http://highschoolsports.syracuse.com/ne ... n-college/


1020 SAT? I remember when the minimum was 800, a level that Ron Stone and the Campbell brothers (the older two) could not achieve.

because the snowflakes are so sensitive, they changed the scoring and made it easier on them.

the test also no longer punishes for guessing/wrong answers

fucking nerds...

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:33 am
by dtwalrus
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Interesting late signee here. Jaleel Berry 6'3" 320 lb DT out of Nottingham Hill in Syracuse. Had SAT issues earlier this year but is a big body with power.
http://highschoolsports.syracuse.com/ne ... n-college/


1020 SAT? I remember when the minimum was 800, a level that Ron Stone and the Campbell brothers (the older two) could not achieve.

because the snowflakes are so sensitive, they changed the scoring and made it easier on them.

the test also no longer punishes for guessing/wrong answers

fucking nerds...


Or is this issue that the SAT's are now out of 2400pts instead of 1600. They added another 800pt section like 10 years ago. A 1020 when you were in school isn't the same as a 1020 today. How old are you guys?

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:01 am
by hansen
Owning the NJ recruiting area is the key to getting back to respectability. With New England relatively weak, NJ has to be our foundation from which we build upon with national recruiting from the Catholic schools and other areas of historical success.

I am in the minority here but I think Daz is really building the program back to respectability. He's not the best in-game coach (he's not the worst either) but hopefully talent and the coaches around him can get us back to 10-2!

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:16 am
by claver2010
hansen {l Wrote}: He's not the best in-game coach (he's not the worst either)


he's close

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:23 am
by HJS
dtwalrus {l Wrote}:Or is this issue that the SAT's are now out of 2400pts instead of 1600. They added another 800pt section like 10 years ago. A 1020 when you were in school isn't the same as a 1020 today. How old are you guys?

How old are you? The 800-point writing section is optional.

From IBpedia:
By the early 1990s, average total SAT scores were around 900 (typically, 425 on the verbal and 475 on the math). The average scores on the 1994 modification of the SAT I were similar: 428 on the verbal and 482 on the math.[56] SAT scores for admitted applicants to highly selective colleges in the United States were typically much higher. For example, the score ranges of the middle 50% of admitted applicants to Princeton University in 1985 were 600 to 720 (verbal) and 660 to 750 (math).[57] Similarly, median scores on the modified 1994 SAT for freshmen entering Yale University in the fall of 1995 were 670 (verbal) and 720 (math).[58] For the majority of SAT test takers, however, verbal and math scores were below 500: In 1992, half of the college-bound seniors taking the SAT were scoring between 340 and 500 on the verbal section and between 380 and 560 on the math section, with corresponding median scores of 420 and 470, respectively.[59]

The drop in SAT verbal scores, in particular, meant that the usefulness of the SAT score scale (200 to 800) had become degraded. At the top end of the verbal scale, significant gaps were occurring between raw scores and uncorrected scaled scores: a perfect raw score no longer corresponded to an 800, and a single omission out of 85 questions could lead to a drop of 30 or 40 points in the scaled score. Corrections to scores above 700 had been necessary to reduce the size of the gaps and to make a perfect raw score result in an 800. At the other end of the scale, about 1.5 percent of test takers would have scored below 200 on the verbal section if that had not been the reported minimum score. Although the math score averages were closer to the center of the scale (500) than the verbal scores, the distribution of math scores was no longer well approximated by a normal distribution. These problems, among others, suggested that the original score scale and its reference group of about 10,000 students taking the SAT in 1941 needed to be replaced.[50]

Beginning with the test administered in April 1995, the SAT score scale was recentered to return the average math and verbal scores close to 500. Although only 25 students had received perfect scores of 1600 in all of 1994, 137 students taking the April test scored a 1600.[60] The new scale used a reference group of about one million seniors in the class of 1990: the scale was designed so that the SAT scores of this cohort would have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 110. Because the new scale would not be directly comparable to the old scale, scores awarded on April 1995 and later were officially reported with an "R" (for example, "560R") to reflect the change in scale, a practice that was continued until 2001.[50] Scores awarded before April 1995 may be compared to those on the recentered scale by using official College Board tables. For example, verbal and math scores of 500 received before 1995 correspond to scores of 580 and 520, respectively, on the 1995 scale.[61]

Certain educational organizations viewed the SAT re-centering initiative as an attempt to stave off international embarrassment in regards to continuously declining test scores, even among top students. As evidence, it was presented that the number of pupils who scored above 600 on the verbal portion of the test had fallen from a peak of 112,530 in 1972 to 73,080 in 1993, a 36% backslide, despite the fact that the total number of test-takers had risen over 500,000.[62]


The changes effective 2016...

On March 5, 2014, the College Board announced its plan to redesign the SAT in order to link the exam more closely to the work high school students encounter in the classroom.[6] The new exam was administered for the first time in spring 2016. Some of the major changes are: an emphasis on the use of evidence to support answers, a shift away from obscure vocabulary to words that students are more likely to encounter in college and career, a math section that is focused on fewer areas, a return to the 1600-point score scale, an optional essay, and the removal of penalty for wrong answers (rights-only scoring).[76] To combat the perceived advantage of costly test preparation courses, the College Board announced a new partnership with Khan Academy to offer free online practice problems and instructional videos.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:07 am
by QuailMan
Just to be clear before the millennial nonsense starts, the kids in high school now are not millennials.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:11 am
by dtwalrus
HJS {l Wrote}:
dtwalrus {l Wrote}:Or is this issue that the SAT's are now out of 2400pts instead of 1600. They added another 800pt section like 10 years ago. A 1020 when you were in school isn't the same as a 1020 today. How old are you guys?

How old are you? The 800-point writing section is optional.

From IBpedia:
By the early 1990s, average total SAT scores were around 900 (typically, 425 on the verbal and 475 on the math). The average scores on the 1994 modification of the SAT I were similar: 428 on the verbal and 482 on the math.[56] SAT scores for admitted applicants to highly selective colleges in the United States were typically much higher. For example, the score ranges of the middle 50% of admitted applicants to Princeton University in 1985 were 600 to 720 (verbal) and 660 to 750 (math).[57] Similarly, median scores on the modified 1994 SAT for freshmen entering Yale University in the fall of 1995 were 670 (verbal) and 720 (math).[58] For the majority of SAT test takers, however, verbal and math scores were below 500: In 1992, half of the college-bound seniors taking the SAT were scoring between 340 and 500 on the verbal section and between 380 and 560 on the math section, with corresponding median scores of 420 and 470, respectively.[59]

The drop in SAT verbal scores, in particular, meant that the usefulness of the SAT score scale (200 to 800) had become degraded. At the top end of the verbal scale, significant gaps were occurring between raw scores and uncorrected scaled scores: a perfect raw score no longer corresponded to an 800, and a single omission out of 85 questions could lead to a drop of 30 or 40 points in the scaled score. Corrections to scores above 700 had been necessary to reduce the size of the gaps and to make a perfect raw score result in an 800. At the other end of the scale, about 1.5 percent of test takers would have scored below 200 on the verbal section if that had not been the reported minimum score. Although the math score averages were closer to the center of the scale (500) than the verbal scores, the distribution of math scores was no longer well approximated by a normal distribution. These problems, among others, suggested that the original score scale and its reference group of about 10,000 students taking the SAT in 1941 needed to be replaced.[50]

Beginning with the test administered in April 1995, the SAT score scale was recentered to return the average math and verbal scores close to 500. Although only 25 students had received perfect scores of 1600 in all of 1994, 137 students taking the April test scored a 1600.[60] The new scale used a reference group of about one million seniors in the class of 1990: the scale was designed so that the SAT scores of this cohort would have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 110. Because the new scale would not be directly comparable to the old scale, scores awarded on April 1995 and later were officially reported with an "R" (for example, "560R") to reflect the change in scale, a practice that was continued until 2001.[50] Scores awarded before April 1995 may be compared to those on the recentered scale by using official College Board tables. For example, verbal and math scores of 500 received before 1995 correspond to scores of 580 and 520, respectively, on the 1995 scale.[61]

Certain educational organizations viewed the SAT re-centering initiative as an attempt to stave off international embarrassment in regards to continuously declining test scores, even among top students. As evidence, it was presented that the number of pupils who scored above 600 on the verbal portion of the test had fallen from a peak of 112,530 in 1972 to 73,080 in 1993, a 36% backslide, despite the fact that the total number of test-takers had risen over 500,000.[62]


The changes effective 2016...

On March 5, 2014, the College Board announced its plan to redesign the SAT in order to link the exam more closely to the work high school students encounter in the classroom.[6] The new exam was administered for the first time in spring 2016. Some of the major changes are: an emphasis on the use of evidence to support answers, a shift away from obscure vocabulary to words that students are more likely to encounter in college and career, a math section that is focused on fewer areas, a return to the 1600-point score scale, an optional essay, and the removal of penalty for wrong answers (rights-only scoring).[76] To combat the perceived advantage of costly test preparation courses, the College Board announced a new partnership with Khan Academy to offer free online practice problems and instructional videos.


I'm just going to assume this is fake news and not read it to protect my own fragile sense of the world...

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:25 am
by TobaccoRoadEagle
QuailMan {l Wrote}:Just to be clear before the millennial nonsense starts, the kids in high school now are not millennials.

what are they being called even-worse-than-millennials?

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:36 am
by DavidGordonsFoot
claver2010 {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}: He's not the best in-game coach (he's not the worst either)


he's close

hansen must have mentally blocked that wake forest game

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:24 pm
by hansen
jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:Hansen the Daz apologist. So glad he finally came out in unequivocal support of one of the worst P5 coaches. It only took 4 seasons of catastrophic in game mismanagement and below average to average recruiting. Ignorance really is bliss I guess


Not an apologist. Just stating the obvious... the program was seriously fucked under Spaz and is recovering. Recruiting is getting there and the overall season results (granted through weakened scheduling has been ok) were ok all but one year. Are there things about him that I do not like? Of course.

Bottom line is that this is the year where we judge whether the program can take it to the next level with him at the helm. At minimum, He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:35 pm
by MattTheEagle
hansen {l Wrote}:
jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:Hansen the Daz apologist. So glad he finally came out in unequivocal support of one of the worst P5 coaches. It only took 4 seasons of catastrophic in game mismanagement and below average to average recruiting. Ignorance really is bliss I guess


Not an apologist. Just stating the obvious... the program was seriously fucked under Spaz and is recovering. Recruiting is getting there and the overall season results (granted through weakened scheduling has been ok) were ok all but one year. Are there things about him that I do not like? Of course.

Bottom line is that this is the year where we judge whether the program can take it to the next level with him at the helm. At minimum, He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.

I agree with this.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:49 pm
by TobaccoRoadEagle
MattTheEagle {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}:... He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.

I agree with this.

can we also agree it will not happen?

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:58 pm
by TobaccoRoadEagle
he's gone to bowl games 3 of 4 years.

it felt really dirty to not only have that thought but also to commit it to the internets

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:21 pm
by twballgame9
He's been mediocre and he's a demonstrable moron on the sidelines. But the program was a complete disaster when he got here. For me he needs to win 8, and the talent is enough to get there. So anything less is a direct indictment of his coaching. Anything more would be gravy, because they don't have the talent to beat 3 of the teams on the schedule without divine intervention.

He's TOB with less talent, so his self-set bar of underachievement is 6-6/7-5 instead of 8-4/9-3

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:32 pm
by dtwalrus
hansen {l Wrote}:
jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:Hansen the Daz apologist. So glad he finally came out in unequivocal support of one of the worst P5 coaches. It only took 4 seasons of catastrophic in game mismanagement and below average to average recruiting. Ignorance really is bliss I guess


Not an apologist. Just stating the obvious... the program was seriously fucked under Spaz and is recovering. Recruiting is getting there and the overall season results (granted through weakened scheduling has been ok) were ok all but one year. Are there things about him that I do not like? Of course.

Bottom line is that this is the year where we judge whether the program can take it to the next level with him at the helm. At minimum, He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.


This WAS my thinking initially. But now I actually think 2018 is the litmus test, I'm giving Daz a pass for this year and, yes, I know how ridiculous many of you will find that.

But there is very little margin for error this year if your goal is 8-9 wins. Even if BC was coming off a great year, 8-9 wins would be optimistic considering we're going to have a rookie QB (effectively), even if he's a redshirt junior rookie. And absolutely none of Clemson, Louisville, FSU, VT and ND are gimme's with a rookie QB.

7 wins in 2017 and then we see what Daz is really made of with a fully stocked roster and an experienced QB in 2018.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:44 pm
by Eaglekeeper
As long as Daz is calling the offense this team is going to suck. If he lets his OC and DC run the game, the team has a chance to win 7 games. My guess is Daz is gone after this season.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:15 pm
by HJS
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He's been mediocre and he's a demonstrable moron on the sidelines. But the program was a complete disaster when he got here. For me he needs to win 8, and the talent is enough to get there. So anything less is a direct indictment of his coaching. Anything more would be gravy, because they don't have the talent to beat 3 of the teams on the schedule without divine intervention.

He's TOB with less talent, so his self-set bar of underachievement is 6-6/7-5 instead of 8-4/9-3

It's this.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:20 pm
by Iggle
dtwalrus {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}:
jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:Hansen the Daz apologist. So glad he finally came out in unequivocal support of one of the worst P5 coaches. It only took 4 seasons of catastrophic in game mismanagement and below average to average recruiting. Ignorance really is bliss I guess


Not an apologist. Just stating the obvious... the program was seriously fucked under Spaz and is recovering. Recruiting is getting there and the overall season results (granted through weakened scheduling has been ok) were ok all but one year. Are there things about him that I do not like? Of course.

Bottom line is that this is the year where we judge whether the program can take it to the next level with him at the helm. At minimum, He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.


This WAS my thinking initially. But now I actually think 2018 is the litmus test, I'm giving Daz a pass for this year and, yes, I know how ridiculous many of you will find that.

But there is very little margin for error this year if your goal is 8-9 wins. Even if BC was coming off a great year, 8-9 wins would be optimistic considering we're going to have a rookie QB (effectively), even if he's a redshirt junior rookie. And absolutely none of Clemson, Louisville, FSU, VT and ND are gimme's with a rookie QB.

7 wins in 2017 and then we see what Daz is really made of with a fully stocked roster and an experienced QB in 2018.


Why are you giving Daz a "pass" on this year and looking to 2018? The only reason I can imagine is because there is ostensibly a new full time starter at QB but the only reason we don't have an experienced QB at this point is because Daz played Towles last year. So whatever happens now is entirely on him.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:54 pm
by MattTheEagle
The ACC is significantly stronger than the Big East/ACC during the TOB years. To suggest TOB would have gotten 8-9 wins any of the last four years is crazy.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:43 pm
by hansen
Iggle {l Wrote}:
dtwalrus {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}:
jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:Hansen the Daz apologist. So glad he finally came out in unequivocal support of one of the worst P5 coaches. It only took 4 seasons of catastrophic in game mismanagement and below average to average recruiting. Ignorance really is bliss I guess


Not an apologist. Just stating the obvious... the program was seriously fucked under Spaz and is recovering. Recruiting is getting there and the overall season results (granted through weakened scheduling has been ok) were ok all but one year. Are there things about him that I do not like? Of course.

Bottom line is that this is the year where we judge whether the program can take it to the next level with him at the helm. At minimum, He needs competitive losses against Louisville, FSU, Clemson and wins against 8 of the 9 teams to keep me thinking that we we are still on track in this long program rebuild. I think 8 wins this year should be the next litmus test.


This WAS my thinking initially. But now I actually think 2018 is the litmus test, I'm giving Daz a pass for this year and, yes, I know how ridiculous many of you will find that.

But there is very little margin for error this year if your goal is 8-9 wins. Even if BC was coming off a great year, 8-9 wins would be optimistic considering we're going to have a rookie QB (effectively), even if he's a redshirt junior rookie. And absolutely none of Clemson, Louisville, FSU, VT and ND are gimme's with a rookie QB.

7 wins in 2017 and then we see what Daz is really made of with a fully stocked roster and an experienced QB in 2018.


Why are you giving Daz a "pass" on this year and looking to 2018? The only reason I can imagine is because there is ostensibly a new full time starter at QB but the only reason we don't have an experienced QB at this point is because Daz played Towles last year. So whatever happens now is entirely on him.


It's this. I almost wrote 7 wins would be acceptable this year given the old adage that an inexperienced QB will cost you a game but then I realized it's entirely his fault for that problem.

So I'm setting the bar at 8 wins but may given him a little leeway if there are significant injuries I.e. more than a team would expect on average.

Re: 2018 Recruiting Thread

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:05 pm
by twballgame9
MattTheEagle {l Wrote}:The ACC is significantly stronger than the Big East/ACC during the TOB years. To suggest TOB would have gotten 8-9 wins any of the last four years is crazy.


No. He had much better players