2021 recruiting and commitments
- Thread starter WoadBlue
- Start date
I hadn’t been really keeping up with recruiting in the past six months like I used to but from what I had been hearing I expected us to be ranked higher. Hard to pass the big names ahead of us but I like what I am seeing. Keep up the good work coaches.
We were hanging around at #2 until all the big 5 star guys starting committing to the blue bloods. Also, Tony Grimes reclassifying is probably costing us at least 3-4 spots since that would be another five star recruit.
Haven’t had time to look at all the pages on recruiting but I will try to just had a question on I believe it was Evan Pryor who committed to OSU any hope of a flip on this one?
Welcome to all the young men who have chosen the greatest place on earth to attend and play football.
I just realized that all the talk previously about Henderson and Pryor both or at least one of them landing here and neither did. Both at OSU ouch that hurts. Maybe one will flip. I apologize now about old news too. Just playing a little catchup that’s all.
Don't get too caught up with the rankings, go by the average rating of each recruit. Rankings get skewed in regards to the amount of recruits each school has. For instance --Tenn is ranked 6th (26 commits) with an average of 89 whereas UNC is sitting at 12th (16 commits) with an average of 91 per recruit. That 91 average is higher than Tenn, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Texas, Florida, Miami and Auburn. And this is not counting Grimes who was the top CB in 2021 class. In other words, quality over quantity. Entire O-line, D-line, Howell, Williams, Brown, secondary minus Rene and Wolfolk are all underclassmen -- we're in good shape.
I hope with so many early commitments they stick. Clarifying I hope these guys don’t take visits and flip.
Would probably have a heart attack if we could flip both Wilson and page. Heck I would settle for one. Knew it would be hard to get page from clemsuck anyway.
I think most of them being local guys helps a lot. One of the benefits of recruiting in state.
So I read a lot of talk about Steele or Wilson committing but I don’t see either one on board. Did we take Stevenson instead?
They cooled off on Steele and took Stevenson whose stock has skyrocketed as of late. Wilson committed and then decommited.
Saw a lot of chatter about Williams and Patterson but didn’t get either one. Lost one to OSU and clemsuck. Hate to lose in state guys to clemsuck.
He committed to Missouri of all places. Makes me think there could be issues with grades? That’s just speculation though.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of versatility with this class. Many guys can play more than one position
It would certainly help if Ty Murray(one of our most promising young players), could get healthy. And it’s time for guys like William Barnes to start living up to their potential. That would give us the “eight” that Longo and Mack are looking for.
Understood. I think we can get to 8 quality OL pretty easily barring any more significant injuries.
I think eight is just the generic number you typically hear from offensive coaches. That gives you five starters, and one backup at center, guard, and tackle.
'Can' and 'will' are often very far apart. Before coming to UNC, Searles had 5 years as OL coach in the ACC Coastal, at VT and then at Miami. He never developed a deep OL, and he never developed a truly top group of OL starters living up to full potential. Fans of both schools who paid attention to the OL were nearly unanimous in seeing Searles as anywhere from a total failure to a mediocre OL coach whose decisions on which players to recruit, which players to start, which players to rank among the top 2 or 3 off bench, and which players to relegate to permanent 3rd team status were all questioned and denounced repeatedly, year after year.
The Searles history is not one to give hope that he will produce a truly top level OL that has depth and that reloads year after year.
And just as with D Front 7, if you do not develop a deep OL that is truly good and that reloads rather than rebuilds, then you cannot win consistently and be a top program.
The Searles history says two things: 1) it is not wise to assume that if you give him just one more year, he will start to produce great OLs; 2) it is not wise to pass on heavily recruited OL talent that will sign with you because Searles does not see the need or the fit with what he does and wants.
I think Searles was best at his 1st Major Conference OL coach job: LSU. I think he was 2nd best at his 2nd Major Conference OL coach job: UGA. Some coaches are hot out of the box, and never again hit the heights, perhaps because they can master only 1 thing and cannot re-learn well enough once their foes figure out how to stop the one thing they did very well.
Relax Woad, the future is bright. I think Longo and Mack will see that Searles builds line depth.
Did we ever really pursue jack Hollifield or just pretty much assume he would follow his brother? Or better yet have other prospects higher on the want list.
And I would agree we probably should add at least one more quality OL; but if not we should have enough guys on the current roster that can contribute meaningful minutes and be productive. If not could very well be a coaching issue.
And I would agree we probably should add at least one more quality OL; but if not we should have enough guys on the current roster that can contribute meaningful minutes and be productive. If not could very well be a coaching issue.
Already have West, Echols, Asante and Jackson. Previous staff recruited Jack but he wasn't much of a need after Echols committed.
That would be a huge pickup for us.
The Turkeys recruited J. Hollifield as a TE/HB according to their insiders, UNC staff felt J. Hollifield would grow out of LB and didn't like him as a DE or so I was told on TOS.
Pounds has committed, which makes 2 on the OL for the class. Of course, since last season, 2 of the potentially Top 10 young guys we had on the OL have left - so today we are not nearly as deep on the OL with potential as we were this time last year.
That and the facts that the OL is nearly 50% of the Offense; it takes OL players longer to develop on average than WRs or RBs or TEs and, today, even QBs; and the OL sees a good deal of injury by the nature of the position, add up to say rather loudly that it is wrong to risk OL depth and/or development issues by signing yet another top perimeter player when you could have signed a 3rd top OL for the class.
Any class that is short on OL talent, by number or potential, can mean at least 1 season of a need to rebuild the OL rather than reload it. Teams rebuilding the lines of scrimmage are not in the hunt for championships and often find it tough to have better than a .500 regular season.
You’re a very hard man to please Woad.
Lines of scrimmage. Both of them. The top programs never have a shortage of talented backups, not just 2nd teamers, but 3rd teamers.
Right now, we have no more than 7 guys the staff sees as ready to play significant minutes on the OL. That dearth of quality-readied players coupled with 3 OL injuries (not uncommon in today's game) could derail the offense. Two things in combination make certain you have an OL that is ready to reload year after year: sign enough talent and then develop it. If you fail in either, you can wake up to a disaster on the OL.
What we seem to to have operating on the staff and among fans is a determining optimism that by this time next year, there will have been a whole lot of development on the OL so we see not merely depth but young depth: therefore no need to sign more than 2 guys on the OL.
Does Searels' history indicate that he can develop talent that efficiently and quickly?
While you mull that, also consider this: did the Miami OL under Searels look better than the Miami OL now under Garin Justice?
Mull this, did Miami have a quarterback as good as King under Searels?
I was trying to cut him a little slack. LOL
