National Signing Day 2014 -- February 5, 2014

[palinurus]

I've had a chance to mull the list, watch a little more clips and listen to interviews with some of this class, and there are two things, sort of out of the obvious, that I'm struck by:

1. This class seems to have an extraordinary number of guys of whom it can be legitimately said --"They have a LOT of upside." I know that is a cliche for anyone someone likes who isn't yet rated extremely highly, but (a) I don't remember it being said as much in the last few classes and (b) it seems like there is more of a basis to saying it here, with a lot of kids who have room to grow/get big and whose games are still developing (because they lack polish, either from late size, less competition, or late interest in the game); and

2. This class seems to have a lot of "leader" types -- Martini, Hayes, Brent, Morgan, Kizer, Tranquill, just to mention ones that popped into my head, all seem to have that personality characteristic. I mention this because, in our in-game and postgame "commiserations" this past year, the issue of leadership was often given as what was missing in '13 vs '12.

I am the first to admit that I am at the bottom of the list as far as knowledge or insights on these guys and rating players' skills/talents, so I'm wondering if you all have any reaction? Am I just being an optimist (not really my long suit)?

 

[gkIrish]

I've had a chance to mull the list, watch a little more clips and listen to interviews with some of this class, and there are two things, sort of out of the obvious, that I'm struck by:

1. This class seems to have an extraordinary number of guys of whom it can be legitimately said --"They have a LOT of upside." I know that is a cliche for anyone someone likes who isn't yet rated extremely highly, but (a) I don't remember it being said as much in the last few classes and (b) it seems like there is more of a basis to saying it here, with a lot of kids who have room to grow/get big and whose games are still developing (because they lack polish, either from late size, less competition, or late interest in the game); and

2. This class seems to have a lot of "leader" types -- Martini, Hayes, Brent, Morgan, Kizer, Tranquill, just to mention ones that popped into my head, all seem to have that personality characteristic. I mention this because, in our in-game and postgame "commiserations" this past year, the issue of leadership was often given as what was missing in '13 vs '12.

I am the first to admit that I am at the bottom of the list as far as knowledge or insights on these guys and rating players's skills/talents, so I'm wondering if you all have any reaction? Am I just being an optimist (not really my long suit)?

I agree. The problem is that if their potential isn't reached, we will have problems. But with our history of player development I don't think it will turn out that way.

 

[yankeeND]

I agree. The problem is that if their potential isn't reached, we will have problems. But with our history of player development I don't think it will turn out that way.

Agreed, and actually, I have been kind of hoping for a class like this for awhile now. It covered all areas of need along both lines and we will be able to compare it to other high ranked classes under Kelly and even Weiss and see which one outperformed whom. I think we are going to be pleasantly surprised and I also believe these kids will get us out of the NC drought. It's always the ones you least expect.

 

[palinurus]

Ive said a number of times in these pages that the reason I have faith in Kelly, generally, is because he competed with 80th ranked classes at Cincy, so he'd compete even better with #5-10 class at ND, even allowing for the increase in pressure and competition. But the next three years will tell us if Kelly is that level of coach, or just a good college coach in the Bill Snyder or Frank Beamer category (I don't rate either of these guys as top top coaches because I don't see either of them every really seriously getting close to winning it all, even though they are consistent winners and developers of talent and very good coaches).

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Ive said a number of times in these pages that the reason I have faith in Kelly, generally, is because he competed with 80th ranked classes at Cincy, so he'd compete even better with #5-10 class at ND, even allowing for the increase in pressure and competition. But the next three years will tell us if Kelly is that level of coach, or just a good college coach in the Bill Snyder or Frank Beamer category (I don't rate either of these guys as top top coaches because I don't see either of them every really seriously getting close to winning it all, even though they are consistent winners and developers of talent and very good coaches).

About your earlier point : rating these guys.

1) It appears several players especially the defensive end run 4.5, 4.6, into 4.7 forties. It seems that some of the linebackers are fast also. This is key. The speed in and explosiveness of the defensive recruits. That is key for BVG, and his schemes.

2) How can the offensive players integrate into the new offense Kelly is building, with the existing ND players. For example, Justin Brent, if he is as big (6'2" 225) and as strong as advertised, (benching over 4bills in high school, wow) then the downfield blocking as well as route running he can achieve, especially in tandem with James Onwualu, putting a burner like Torii Hunter in the slot, or CBreezy, or Will Fuller outside will be devastating!

3) This class has a lot of guys, the first two signed Martini and Brent, Williams and more that played against lower end competition. You can justify not rating them higher because you can slam their lower level of competition. But when they play against higher levels how do they do. Martini played in an all-star game yesterday and every indication is that he was a stud at a higher level.

4) How strong and durable can they get? There are some strong guys in this class. Some may be where they get. But there are some freakishly strong (already) with high upsides. Bonner, Blankenship, Williams, Mokwuah, Cage, Nelson, etc. If these kids get physically, highly developed, they will play with anyone.

I liked your points on leadership. I agree. I think Hayes has the talent of a Nix and the leadership of a Kappy. I think a sleeper in the leadership department is DeShone Kizer, he is quiet, but this is a kid that almost anyone would follow.

Which brings up a point. Everyone has marveled at how much better the quarterback position is at talent wise. Name one time ever in your lifetime there have been more quality leaders in the depth chart at quarterback at Notre Dame. Three now, and the fourth in a year have all demonstrated good character and real leadership skills.

I think you are spot on. I think this was the "right" class. I don't think we needed much bling this year.

 

[palinurus]

About your earlier point : rating these guys.

1) It appears several players especially the defensive end run 4.5, 4.6, into 4.7 forties. It seems that some of the linebackers are fast also. This is key. The speed in and explosiveness of the defensive recruits. That is key for BVG, and his schemes.

2) How can the offensive players integrate into the new offense Kelly is building, with the existing ND players. For example, Justin Brent, if he is as big (6'2" 225) and as strong as advertised, (benching over 4bills in high school, wow) then the downfield blocking as well as route running he can achieve, especially in tandem with James Onwualu, putting a burner like Torii Hunter in the slot, or CBreezy, or Will Fuller outside will be devastating!

3) This class has a lot of guys, the first two signed Martini and Brent, Williams and more that played against lower end competition. You can justify not rating them higher because you can slam their lower level of competition. But when they play against higher levels how do they do. Martini played in an all-star game yesterday and every indication is that he was a stud at a higher level.

4) How strong and durable can they get? There are some strong guys in this class. Some may be where they get. But there are some freakishly strong (already) with high upsides. Bonner, Blankenship, Williams, Mokwuah, Cage, Nelson, etc. If these kids get physically, highly developed, they will play with anyone.

I liked your points on leadership. I agree. I think Hayes has the talent of a Nix and the leadership of a Kappy. I think a sleeper in the leadership department is DeShone Kizer, he is quiet, but this is a kid that almost anyone would follow.

Which brings up a point. Everyone has marveled at how much better the quarterback position is at talent wise. Name one time ever in your lifetime there have been more quality leaders in the depth chart at quarterback at Notre Dame. Three now, and the fourth in a year have all demonstrated good character and real leadership skills.

I think you are spot on. I think this was the "right" class. I don't think we needed much bling this year.

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.

I agree. I cannot recall a time we had three QBs that I thought had such potential (except for a few months last year, when I thought Golson was going to be here in Fall '13 and Keil was the QB in waiting, and we had Zaire coming ).

What struck me on the leadership was that Kelly noted a couple of times lately -- Kizer wants the ball in his hands when the game is on the line; Brent wants to be the target when you need the big play; Tranquill is going to play somewhere, he is just that kind of player; and then Martini being chosen as team captain vs the Canadians. I'm paraphrasing, but all this indicative of leader-type kids.

We've all played sports at one level or another; even at the college intramural or beer league softball level, you know the guy or guys who are the leaders; maybe it's you. But you know how it is when you got one guy that has "it" -- Strahan had it; Moore and Teo had it for ND; Seau had it for the Chargers -- I'm just going off the top of my head. But you know it when you are a player and you see it.

To the extent this team has a couple of guys step up next year -- I don't know who it will be, probably an older guy, maybe Grace, or even Eilar Hardy -- then younger guys will fill in -- Jaylon, maybe Randolph, then you get a lineman and maybe a Robinson or Hunter. Then you get this class, with the ones we've discussed -- and, frankly, I like the trait I see in the three 2015 guys. All three seem to have a "know their mind" quality and confidence. Anyway, I know this is reading tea leaves, and I am talking hunches on my end. But I like the direction we're going, in terms of depth, attitude, and leadership.

 

[TheChosen1]

BlueWhiteIllustrated.com - B1G among biggest disappointments in '14 recruiting

Free...PSU haters will like this.

 

[ulukinatme]

BlueWhiteIllustrated.com - B1G among biggest disappointments in '14 recruiting

Free...PSU haters will like this.

The SEC's recruiting success clearly illustrates why some college football analysts believe the league could routinely qualify two teams for the semifinals of the Football Bowl Subdivision playoff system that will take effect this coming season.

Ugh, I hope not. I don't believe you should be invited to the playoff if you can't win your conference. It would have to take a masterful job of two major conferences [Mark May]ing the bed before I'd allow any conference to send more than two reps. You'd have to have like...B1G and Big 12 both having no teams with less than 2 losses, which is unlikely, and then send the ACC champ, PAC 12 champ, and then maybe two SEC teams. Oh, and screw the old Big Least.

 

[connor_in]

Urbz bein' Urbz
On this recruiting scoreboard, Ohio State dominated the Big Ten, but is conference champ Michigan State playing a different game? | cleveland.com

 

[Bishop2b5]

Ugh, I hope not. I don't believe you should be invited to the playoff if you can't win your conference. It would have to take a masterful job of two major conferences [Mark May]ing the bed before I'd allow any conference to send more than two reps. You'd have to have like...B1G and Big 12 both having no teams with less than 2 losses, which is unlikely, and then send the ACC champ, PAC 12 champ, and then maybe two SEC teams. Oh, and screw the old Big Least.

I'm for putting the four best teams in, regardless of conference. If two teams from the same conference, regardless of which conference that is, are among the top four, so be it. Since the SEC usually has multiple teams in the top 10, that may happen on a regular basis. If the Big 10 or PAC 12 start having several top teams and two of them are among the top four, I'm good with that too. Just put the four best teams in without regard to which conference any of them are from.

 

[DillonHall]

I'm for putting the four best teams in, regardless of conference. If two teams from the same conference, regardless of which conference that is, are among the top four, so be it. Since the SEC usually has multiple teams in the top 10, that may happen on a regular basis. If the Big 10 or PAC 12 start having several top teams and two of them are among the top four, I'm good with that too. Just put the four best teams in without regard to which conference any of them are from.

Well duh, the best four teams should get into the playoff. The problem is how to determine which four teams are the best.

 

[connor_in]

Well duh, the best four teams should get into the playoff. The problem is how to determine which four teams are the best.

Beer Pong...DUH

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5JSCbEKsguQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bishop2b5]

Well duh, the best four teams should get into the playoff. The problem is how to determine which four teams are the best.

Geez, the answer is so obvious. You have the top 8 teams play and the winners are your 4 playoff teams. And before you ask, I'm already ahead of you. Yes, you have a 16 team playoff to determine those 8 teams. Duh!

Seriously, I don't think there's an answer to that question that will satisfy everybody every year. Just like with the BCS where the 3rd & 4th ranked teams usually thought they got screwed and left out of the NC game, the next 2 our 3 teams outside the top 4 will now probably be howling that they should be in instead of the 4th seeded team.

 

[irishog77]

I'm for putting the four best teams in, regardless of conference. If two teams from the same conference, regardless of which conference that is, are among the top four, so be it. Since the SEC usually has multiple teams in the top 10, that may happen on a regular basis. If the Big 10 or PAC 12 start having several top teams and two of them are among the top four, I'm good with that too. Just put the four best teams in without regard to which conference any of them are from.

I giggled.

 

[NDhoosier]

Geez, the answer is so obvious. You have the top 8 teams play and the winners are your 4 playoff teams. And before you ask, I'm already ahead of you. Yes, you have a 16 team playoff to determine those 8 teams. Duh!

Seriously, I don't think there's an answer to that question that will satisfy everybody every year. Just like with the BCS where the 3rd & 4th ranked teams usually thought they got screwed and left out of the NC game, the next 2 our 3 teams outside the top 4 will now probably be howling that they should be in instead of the 4th seeded team.

I still think it should be an 8 team playoff... no more than that though. 4 team playoff is still great.

 

[stlnd01]

Ugh, I hope not. I don't believe you should be invited to the playoff if you can't win your conference.

You are aware that that same argument will be used against us relentlessly, right? "But they can't be that good. They don't play in a conference. They play Navy, man..."

And of the five major conferences, which champ do you cut out?

Take the four best teams. If there's two SEC or Pac-12 entrants, that's fine. If this is supposed to be about determining the best football team, put the best football teams in there, not some also-ran who happened to get lucky in a conference title game.

I still think determining between No. 4 and 5 will prove to be much harder than between No. 2 and 3. I struggle to think of a recent year when the BCS didn't pit the two best/most deserving teams against one another.

 

[irishog77]

I think conference championship games may change, as a result of the playoff. The sec pioneered this practice-- not out of football altruism, but out of $$. Then other conferences followed suit. And it turned into a huge money maker (particularly for the sec).

But look at '11 season as an example. lsu and alabama probably were the 2 best teams. Oklahoma St. was left out due to their loss to Iowa St. Which I can kind of see. But looking at it a bit more closely, lsu got royally screwed. They beat alabama AT alabama during the regular season. As a result, they became western division champs and had to play in the championship game against a good (good, not great) georgia team. It was a game they had to certainly show up for and win, but they were the clear favorite and clearly the better team, despite them trailing in the 1st half. In other words, it was a game they COULD HAVE lost (and depending on the year, that championship game can be brutal...or just against another top 25-ish type of team). Then, when the dust settled, alabama was selected as lsu's opponent. Alabama had an extra week off, players not getting banged up, and no threat of loss, since they were idle. Bottom line, lsu had to do MORE and sacrifice MORE, just for the privilege of playing a team they already beat in their own house. Then they lose the rematch, and alabama is national champions. But what if lsu lost the championship game against georgia? Would the sec still get 2 teams in? Perhaps, but I think the odds would be much less favorable. And who would the 1 team be? Alabama-- a team that not only didn't win their own conference championship game, but didn't even win their division and play for it?

I think (hopefully) with the 4 team playoff and a selection committee, the entire season and the repercussion of all the wins and losses will have to be taken into account. If a team like alabama can make it, like in '11, then won't it perhaps weaken the argument of a championship game, altogether? I'm not sure what the semi-final and final game payouts will be to the individual schools (and thus, their conference agreement), but is there a scenario where, overall or long term, a conference is incentivized, financially, to NOT play a conference championship game? I don't envision a scenario where that would be the case, if the goal is to get 1 team in the playoff, but perhaps so if the goal is to get TWO teams in the playoff. Can a conference make more money by getting 2 teams in the playoff, sacrificing the lucrative championship game in the process?

I already have some serious doubts about the committee. Condelezza Rice? Ty Willie? C'mon. I think there will be A LOT of politicking going on and pressure (espn, anyone?) to get certain teams in. It will be interesting how it will all play out. Not necessarily better...but interesting what the long-term ramifications will be.

 

[IrishFaninTX]

Ugh, I hope not. I don't believe you should be invited to the playoff if you can't win your conference. It would have to take a masterful job of two major conferences [Mark May]ing the bed before I'd allow any conference to send more than two reps. You'd have to have like...B1G and Big 12 both having no teams with less than 2 losses, which is unlikely, and then send the ACC champ, PAC 12 champ, and then maybe two SEC teams. Oh, and screw the old Big Least.

That kind of thinking is why so many ND haters don't think ND should get to be in the playoffs without being in a conference. I understand what you are saying but that were the criteria then we wouldn't have a chance.

 

[stlnd01]

I agree with you, OG, that the conference championship games are extremely problematic.
Whether for title shots or just BCS bids, a number of teams over the years have essentially benefited from a regular season loss that placed them second in their division. Most conferences have some imbalance among their divisions, so you wind up with lopsided games. And, of course, aside from the SEC they're often not very well attended.
Yet, the TV money. I don't see that going away. So I think we're stuck with them.