The Athletic: How Minnesota’s 2016 class helped turn the program around

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,035
Reaction score
16,616
Points
113
per Matt:

When ink met paper, Minnesota’s 2016 recruiting class ranked No. 8 in the Big Ten. When the final returns came in four years later, that same class ranked seventh … nationally.

The Athletic’s Max Olson came to that conclusion in his re-ranking of the 2016 class this week, placing the Golden Gophers squarely between No. 6 Michigan and No. 8 Ohio State.

Imagine that.

Of all the surprises that National Signing Day brings each year, few could match the sheer absurdity of the 2016 Gophers’ class so drastically outplaying its initial ranking, which was No. 46 nationally in the 247Sports Composite at the time. Add the fact that this class was recruited by an entirely different coaching staff — and that it ended up being the first and last class recruited by the Tracy Claeys regime — and the progress made by this group of long shots is even more astounding.

The preceding campaign, meanwhile, was marked by off-the-field turmoil. First, athletic director Norwood Teague resigned in August 2015 amid sexual harassment allegations from multiple university employees. Then, head coach Jerry Kill resigned in late October due to health concerns. The Gophers were 4-3 at the time that Claeys took over as interim head coach. After competitive losses to Michigan and Ohio State to open his tenure, Claeys was promoted to full-time head coach and given a three-year contract, a move that was overseen by AD Beth Goetz, who was also in an interim position after taking over for Teague ahead of the football season.

Minnesota had a 5-7 record but made the Quick Lane Bowl anyway, beating Central Michigan for Claeys to finish 2-4.

Got all that?

OK, good. Because it was all a precursor to Feb. 4, 2016, the landing of the class that changed Gophers football.


Go Gophers!!
 


See. Ignore the stars.

Don't ignore them, just don't obsess over them.

Actually looking at their rankings we might even have finished a little higher.
Kieft, Green, Devers, and Thomas all earned 2 stars as career backups when they probably should all be 3 stars (one year starter or key reserve).

Of course they do have Mark Williams listed as a 2 star and he should probably be a 0 since he didn't spend much time here.
 

Don't ignore them, just don't obsess over them.

Actually looking at their rankings we might even have finished a little higher.
Kieft, Green, Devers, and Thomas all earned 2 stars as career backups when they probably should all be 3 stars (one year starter or key reserve).

Of course they do have Mark Williams listed as a 2 star and he should probably be a 0 since he didn't spend much time here.
You are obsessing over the stars.
 

You are obsessing over the stars.

What are you doing commenting in a thread that isn't about your beloved Badgers?

Didn't realize making an observation about where they ranked guys rose to the level of obsession. Good to know though.
 


I think if Claeys had never been fired, the 2019 Gophers would have been BIG West champs and either a playoff team or a Rose Bowl participant.

And go........
 

I think if Claeys had never been fired, the 2019 Gophers would have been BIG West champs and either a playoff team or a Rose Bowl participant.

And go........
LZ4VBFw.jpg
 


Obviously - there track record elsewhere demonstrates what we lost out on. Oh my what could have been.
 




Whatever one's opinion of Coach Claeys this little nugget about the 2016 class is his.

In a year we'll see where the 2017 recruiting class ranks at the end...and so on...

In the meantime these guys get to own a historic season for the program.

Progress.
 









Yep, this makes that class bad. Whatever you can do to continue your forever narrative that Kill/Claeys did nothing for the program.

I never once said that. But they struggled recruiting and developing every position on offense, except at RB. That's a fact.
 




Tracy Claeys... the best recruiter in program history?
Maybe if you looked at results one would think that - but ratings are what matter, especially a month before signing day. Attendance too.
 

How many OL did they put in the NFL again?
1 as a FA/Practice Squad guy, I believe and that is it.
Again I will say, it is amazing they could move the football on offense...ever.
They couldn't recruit talent, nor could they develop it, yet somehow they were able score 29 points per game, finish the BIG season with a winning record and overall were 9 - 4
Granted they weren't a high powered offense, yet you make it seem like they were the worst offense ever. This year our offense averaged 178 yards per game on the ground, with an exceptional passing attack. In 2016, the offense averaged 183 yards per game on the ground, with a one receiver passing game. How do you think that happened? The OL had to be pretty damn good in order for them to gain yards running the football against stacked boxes. Thus the OL was pretty good back then. How can you not understand that.
 

1 as a FA/Practice Squad guy, I believe and that is it.
Again I will say, it is amazing they could move the football on offense...ever.
They couldn't recruit talent, nor could they develop it, yet somehow they were able score 29 points per game, finish the BIG season with a winning record and overall were 9 - 4
Granted they weren't a high powered offense, yet you make it seem like they were the worst offense ever. This year our offense averaged 178 yards per game on the ground, with an exceptional passing attack. In 2016, the offense averaged 183 yards per game on the ground, with a one receiver passing game. How do you think that happened? The OL had to be pretty damn good in order for them to gain yards running the football against stacked boxes. Thus the OL was pretty good back then. How can you not understand that.
Just having the current offense be great isn't enough - the previous offense has to have been near the worst in CFB history to make the current offense even better in comparison. This applies to more than just the offense or even on-the-field items as well.
 

1 as a FA/Practice Squad guy, I believe and that is it.
Again I will say, it is amazing they could move the football on offense...ever.
They couldn't recruit talent, nor could they develop it, yet somehow they were able score 29 points per game, finish the BIG season with a winning record and overall were 9 - 4
Granted they weren't a high powered offense, yet you make it seem like they were the worst offense ever. This year our offense averaged 178 yards per game on the ground, with an exceptional passing attack. In 2016, the offense averaged 183 yards per game on the ground, with a one receiver passing game. How do you think that happened? The OL had to be pretty damn good in order for them to gain yards running the football against stacked boxes. Thus the OL was pretty good back then. How can you not understand that.

The RBs were good at making something out of nothing. With the exception of Penn St, the Gophers moved the ball against similar or bad teams, and struggled against the good teams. They could not run against Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. This was the story for the majority of the Kill/Claeys era. S&P had our offense ranked 84th in 2016.

One of the most refreshing things about the Fleck era so far is that we're finally putting together OL's that resemble Iowa and Wisconsin. 4 of this year's starting OL are likely draft picks, if not all 5. Pretty much everyone sees this, how come you can't?
 

The RBs were good at making something out of nothing. With the exception of Penn St, the Gophers moved the ball against similar or bad teams, and struggled against the good teams. They could not run against Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. This was the story for the majority of the Kill/Claeys era. S&P had our offense ranked 84th in 2016.

One of the most refreshing things about the Fleck era so far is that we're finally putting together OL's that resemble Iowa and Wisconsin. 4 of this year's starting OL are likely draft picks, if not all 5. Pretty much everyone sees this, how come you can't?
PJ has improved the OL. I don't think anyone would debate it.
However, using "they made something out of nothing" as an explanation to the data you were presented seems rather weak. I mean, we can then just pick and choose what OLs are good and which aren't regardless of output. LSU - the OL isn't very good... those RBs just made something out of nothing and the QB made them look good on passes. So overrated.
 

The RBs were good at making something out of nothing. With the exception of Penn St, the Gophers moved the ball against similar or bad teams, and struggled against the good teams. They could not run against Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. This was the story for the majority of the Kill/Claeys era. S&P had our offense ranked 84th in 2016.

One of the most refreshing things about the Fleck era so far is that we're finally putting together OL's that resemble Iowa and Wisconsin. 4 of this year's starting OL are likely draft picks, if not all 5. Pretty much everyone sees this, how come you can't?
Nowhere in any of my posts did I say anything about the 2019 team, other than to say their ave rush yards this year were similar to what they were in 2016. I wasn't bringing them into the discussion to say they are awful, in fact I think the OL this past year was pretty good and should be even better next year. I used the data because you want to still make the claim the 16 season was so awful, yet the run game then did as well as this year but they also didn't have the passing game threat like this year. The OL was a big part of the offensive success that season, even if they didn't produce any NFL players.
Not sure why you have to continually denigrate the 16 season, just to prop up what has transpired since. This past season needs no propping. It was a damn fine season. Best one I've seen since I've been following the Gophers since the 70's. The 2016 was a very nice season as well. Not as good as this one, but that team was fun to watch as well. Sometime maddening, just like this season there were times that it was maddening to watch them play.
 

PJ has improved the OL. I don't think anyone would debate it.
However, using "they made something out of nothing" as an explanation to the data you were presented seems rather weak. I mean, we can then just pick and choose what OLs are good and which aren't regardless of output. LSU - the OL isn't very good... those RBs just made something out of nothing and the QB made them look good on passes. So overrated.

That's why I threw out S&P ranking which take pretty much everything into effect. Here's Football Outsider's ranking of the OL in 2016 for you and GFB fan - https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/sp/overallol/2016

They didn't rank higher than 66 in any run blocking category. How did I know they made a lot out of nothing? I've watched every game since the end of the Mason era.
 

That's why I threw out S&P ranking which take pretty much everything into effect. Here's Football Outsider's ranking of the OL in 2016 for you and GFB fan - https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/sp/overallol/2016

They didn't rank higher than 66 in any run blocking category. How did I know they made a lot out of nothing? I've watched every game since the end of the Mason era.
The OL was terrible, the QB was terrible, the coaches were terrible. Thank goodness those RBs made something out of nothing and the Defense played well despite their coordinator and terrible recruiting.
 

The OL was terrible, the QB was terrible, the coaches were terrible. Thank goodness those RBs made something out of nothing and the Defense played well despite their coordinator and terrible recruiting.

I must have missed where I said the coaches were terrible.
 




Top Bottom