What grade would you give the Gophers 2016 recruiting class?

What grade would you give the Gophers 2016 recruiting class?

  • A

    Votes: 27 18.0%
  • B

    Votes: 79 52.7%
  • C

    Votes: 36 24.0%
  • D

    Votes: 7 4.7%
  • F

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    150

What grade would you give the Gophers 2016 recruiting class?
 

I went with a B, but who knows, will see how they develop the next 2-5 years
 

I voted C, but would give a C+ if it was an option. I feel like we lost some steam the last month or two.

Filled lots of needs though. I think we got some guys with a lot of upside. The under the radar guys the coaches will be able to coach up. Definitely a few overlooked diamonds in the rough.
 

It's an A for a gopher recruiting class, B for a big ten west class, C for a power 5 class
 


I give it a C+. Across Rivals, 247 and Scout, the class ranks 46th.

In 2019, this class will be redshirt juniors or seniors. Our conference schedule includes:

at Purdue (Average 2016 class ranking across Rivals, 247 and Scout: 82)
vs Illinois (66)
vs Nebraska (26)
at Rutgers (75)
vs Maryland (45)
vs Penn State (21)
at Iowa (40)
at Northwestern (47)
vs Wisconsin (30)

If the averages were to come true - and they never, ever will, by the way, but for the sake of coming up with an arbitrary ranking before seeing any of the guys on the field at an FBS level, we'll assume they will - we're going to be at a talent advantage versus three teams on our conference schedule (Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers), at talent parity versus three teams (Maryland, Iowa, Northwestern) and at a talent disadvantage versus three teams (Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin). It puts us in position to win 4 or 5 conference games, putting us at 7 or 8 regular season wins, based on talent alone, which isn't a bad season for Minnesota, but it's not an historic one either.
 

Went with C mainly because even if it is a potential upgrade over previous classes for this staff it still ranks in the back half of the conference according to the recruiting sites. Of course with any recruiting class you really shouldn't even try to judge them for 2-3 years because sitting here today there is really no way to be positive how well the players in this class will or will not turn out.
 

I give it a C+. Across Rivals, 247 and Scout, the class ranks 46th.

In 2019, this class will be redshirt juniors or seniors. Our conference schedule includes:

at Purdue (Average 2016 class ranking across Rivals, 247 and Scout: 82)
vs Illinois (66)
vs Nebraska (26)
at Rutgers (75)
vs Maryland (45)
vs Penn State (21)
at Iowa (40)
at Northwestern (47)
vs Wisconsin (30)

If the averages were to come true - and they never, ever will, by the way, but for the sake of coming up with an arbitrary ranking before seeing any of the guys on the field at an FBS level, we'll assume they will - we're going to be at a talent advantage versus three teams on our conference schedule (Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers), at talent parity versus three teams (Maryland, Iowa, Northwestern) and at a talent disadvantage versus three teams (Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin). It puts us in position to win 4 or 5 conference games, putting us at 7 or 8 regular season wins, based on talent alone, which isn't a bad season for Minnesota, but it's not an historic one either.

Agree. I would add that It's not over yet. Schools will still add recruits in the coming days both us and others.
 

C+ (B) Considering what the program went through this year.
We will need to do better if our goal is a Big Ten Title.
 




B-/C+ The Power 5 Conference aspect weighs the grade down.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

B. Carter and Seth alone bump it from a C.
 

A Solid B. JC players fill needs and project to start. Nice balance and depth to both the offense and defensive lines. Athletes and secondary depth. And if I had told you we would land both Seth Green and Carter Coughlin last year you would have been thrilled.
 



Went with a C, I'd probably go C+ if given that option due to the in-state commits and lowering expectations a bit due to a coaching change.
 

Went with C mainly because even if it is a potential upgrade over previous classes for this staff it still ranks in the back half of the conference according to the recruiting sites. Of course with any recruiting class you really shouldn't even try to judge them for 2-3 years because sitting here today there is really no way to be positive how well the players in this class will or will not turn out.

Pretty much sums up my C.

Plus TC was not able fill all the 24 or 25 spots which I thought he wanted to do so that gives me some concern.
 

Pretty much sums up my C.

Plus TC was not able fill all the 24 or 25 spots which I thought he wanted to do so that gives me some concern.

I actually like that he didn't fill them just to fill them.
 



I actually like that he didn't fill them just to fill them.

Agreed. I might be concerned if we were short more than a handful of spots but not inconceivable he'll find a few more players and/or give out one or two scholarships to current walk ons.
 

B. This is a nice class. I'm greedy and would have liked Spielman, Hooker, and Kasl. Not having the trio probably brings the grade, and the grades, up.
 

I said B. Was able to cash in on a very strong Minnesota class. Was able to fill some immediate needs with several Juco's. Another class that is better than the last one in my opinion.
 

B+ Kept a lot of the instate kids home. Carter Coughlin. Seth Green, and a lot of solid players. Wish we could of got the transfer O lineman and another solid d lineman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Green and Coughlin make it at least a B
 

C+. After an incredibly strong start, it end up a disaster with Durr staying the only thing that broke our way. Here's how I would rate each position:

QB: A- Getting Green back was big even if some of his luster is gone after his time in Texas. Adding Williams was a bonus and will help due to the attrition we've had at QB.
RB: D When you don't land a high school recruit and you pick-up a JUCO who is expected to be 3rd string, it's hard to give anything higher.
WR: A- Johnson, Howard, and Hmielewski give us 3 really good in-state receivers. Awesome group here.
TE: C- For some reason we stopped recruiting Chase Allen, which bugs me. We didn't offer Kieft until late, which dampens my enthusiasm about him.
OL: B+ 2 potential starters for next year and 2 good in-state recruits. Would have been an A if we landed Kasl or Castillo as well.
DL: D- After only signing 2 prospects last year, this needed to be a priority. We ended with what seems like 2 big-time reaches at DE and a JUCO DT.
LB: A Coughlin, another Barber, and a promising athlete like Martin. What more could anyone want.
DB: B I like the corners, but we didn't add a safety so I can't go higher than a B.
 

B. This is a nice class. I'm greedy and would have liked Spielman, Hooker, and Kasl. Not having the trio probably brings the grade, and the grades, up.

We didn't offer Hooker even after seeing him at camp. Spielman does nothing for me since we already have 3 WRs in this class that I like better. Kasl was a miss we can thank Limey for.
 

This is a good class top to bottom, including some intriguing sleepers. So much potential in this class; now it is up to the coaches to draw it out.

B+ to A- if we are grading on a gopher curve.
 

This is a good class top to bottom, including some intrigiung sleepers. So much potential here, now it is up to the coaches to draw it out.

B+ to A- if we are grading on a gopher curve.

I'm done grading on the Gopher curve. My comparison is the B1G west.

And if you compare our d-line recruits to Wisconsin and Iowa, it's not pretty.
 

Maybe I'm burned out from all the recruiting hype, twitter frenzy, and BS, but I wouldn't have a clue what grade to give this group. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be grading them on. The way I see it, this is a group of 20 individuals - and like individuals, each will travel his own path. Someone may come in and contribute next year, and be heralded as a star. someone else may not get off the sidelines, and be labeled as a bust. BUT, two or three years from now, the "star" may not have gotten any better, while the "bust" has grown into a solid D1 player.

Again - they are individuals. Tell me who is going to work harder, study the playbook more, listen to the coaches more, and maybe I can come up with a grade.

But, as of right now, giving a recruiting class a grade is like voting in a beauty contest. It doesn't mean jack in the long run.
 

I'm done grading on the Gopher curve. My comparison is the B1G west.

And if you compare our d-line recruits to Wisconsin and Iowa, it's not pretty.

Fair enough, but you're going to burn out if you have unrealistic expectations. Both of those programs have had a lot more recent sucess. Its going to be a long, slow grind to the top. Try to enjoy the ride and the victories big and small.

This is a promising class to help us reach the next tier. Nobody knows for certain how they will transform or their ceiling but IMO plenty to be excited about here.
 

Maybe I'm burned out from all the recruiting hype, twitter frenzy, and BS, but I wouldn't have a clue what grade to give this group. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be grading them on. The way I see it, this is a group of 20 individuals - and like individuals, each will travel his own path. Someone may come in and contribute next year, and be heralded as a star. someone else may not get off the sidelines, and be labeled as a bust. BUT, two or three years from now, the "star" may not have gotten any better, while the "bust" has grown into a solid D1 player.

Again - they are individuals. Tell me who is going to work harder, study the playbook more, listen to the coaches more, and maybe I can come up with a grade.

But, as of right now, giving a recruiting class a grade is like voting in a beauty contest. It doesn't mean jack in the long run.

Don't get me wrong SON, I enjoy reading your posts. But most almost nothing written on this page means jack in the long run. Much of it is fun to read however. Go Gophers!
 




Top Bottom