• Attention: Register today to view CanesInSight Ad-Free for 7 days.

Miami's NFL talent and getting to the next level

bshaw28

Junior
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,689
Simmons is a LB. Those rest of those guys have just been average so far.

Again, they've been better than us. But they haven't produced the same caliber of DBs as the top programs.

Simmons is a LB/DB hybrid. Predominantly a LB - but still took 20% of his snaps at DB last year. Lined up as DB a majority of the time at Clemson.

I agree to after the top 5 - Alabama, LSU, GA, UF, OSU - there's a gap to get to Clemson. But would you say anyone outside of the Top 5 is better than Clemson?

And if their 6th best DB (Sensabaugh) literally took our 2nd Best DB's job (Artie Burns) from him - doesn't that indicate a pretty big gap in talent?
 
Last edited:

Gooner#44

Recruit
Banned
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
4,007
Simmons is a LB/DB hybrid. Predominantly a LB - but still took 20% of his snaps at DB last year. Lined up as DB a majority of the time at Clemson.

I agree to after the top 5 - Alabama, LSU, GA, UF, OSU - there's a gap to get to Clemson. But would you say anyone outside of the Top 5 is better than Clemson?

But if their 6th best DB (Sensabaugh) literally took our 2nd Best DB's job (Artie Burns) from him - doesn't that indicate a pretty big gap in talent?
Simmons was a DB at Clemson for sure.
 

caneaddict

Senior
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
5,251
As coincidence would have it, here’s a list of the most draft picks by position from every ACC school in the last 20 years that Packer and Durham compiled this morning:

(disclaimer: I was writing this down as quickly as possible but believe I got it pretty close)

QB: Louisville. 5
RB: Miami. 10
WR: Clemson. 15
TE: Miami. 11
OL: Miami. 13 (we were tied with another team but I missed it.
DL: Semenholes. 23.
LB: Miami. 10.

DB: Miami/VT. 23
P/K. GT. 3
The 2 I highlighted were a couple of note.

As some have argued, seems we’ve had plenty of talent but the results on the field haven’t lived up to it.
those numbers are carried by a ridiculous run from 2001- 2005, those types of stats move the needle nowhere today
 

Number1CanesFan

Sophomore
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
6,109
Yes. We constantly say “win the coastal” “beat teams we’re supposed to”
But sometimes (not all) we’ve lost to teams who have 4th and 5th year players in the trenches. Defenses that have played together for a while. Offenses running the same scheme for years with no coaching turnover.
Yes there have been head scratching loses that have nothing to do with that and that’s on the coaching 100.

But look at the Wisconsin teams we lost to. They were stacked upper class men and didn’t have any roster problems or multiple dudes leaving too early or massive coaching turnovers.
They execute a consistent scheme on both sides of the ball with veteran players that have been in their system. They recruit to their system. Now their succes has improved their recruiting for the past 4 years consecutively after beating us in the Orange Bowl 2017-2018.

Wisconsin Recruiting Rankings 247Sports
2018 - #46
2019 - #29
2020 - #26
2021 - #16
 

ageezy

Cane til I Die
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
1,013
we're getting there, phillips may turn out to be huge for us ... bubba may be next ... it'll show that top talent can come and get developed
 

OriginalCanesCanesCanes

All-ACC (#1 most reproted porster on CIS)
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
25,037
They execute a consistent scheme on both sides of the ball with veteran players that have been in their system. They recruit to their system. Now their succes has improved their recruiting for the past 4 years consecutively after beating us in the Orange Bowl 2017-2018.

Wisconsin Recruiting Rankings 247Sports
2018 - #46
2019 - #29
2020 - #26
2021 - #16

Good description of what UW does. Really works for them.
 

JD08

Mauderating remotely
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
17,963
We were the DOMINANT team in that time frame, Clemson clearly is not, Me personally the fact that Bama has been do dominant in the same sport I can't call them a Dynasty, but that's me, it's all how you see it.
I see your point. Things are different in the BCS/CFP era also, but there is a top tier, even if they aren't dynasties.
 

AllAboutTheU

Junior
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
5,716
Yeah - I can see the scheme fit. But until recently they didn't produce any NFL OL at all. Only 3 OL drafted 2010 - 2019.

I will say - it's A LOT easier for an OL to look good when it's blocking for a 1st Rd QB, throwing to a 1st Rd WR & handing off to a 1st Rd RB.

When Trevor Lawrence replaced Kelly Bryant - watched how the OL magically got better. When DeShaun Watson replaced Cole Stoudt - watch how the OL magically got better.
Yea, but look at their OL recruited between that time. Rankings wise we may have done better and clearly we’ve done better NFL production wise. Lot of low .90 prospects with some .94ish guys sprinkled in a FEW high 4-5 guys like Carman and Mitch Hyatt and maybe one other guy. They just clearly have their evals down there and it’s less about high upside NFL types and more about fit.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
22,505
No. The top programs get the best NFL results by design. They purposefully recruit players who have the physical tools to make the NFL. That's what Butch did when he was here. There's a reason every recruiting service ranks players based on NFL criteria.

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia and LSU aren't recruiting "program guys" in any meaningful quantity. They target players who can play on Sundays and sell that vision. Clemson was an exception, and they got away with it because they recruited elite QBs, WRs and DLs. And now they've started to recruit all premium guys.
This answer is some mix of wrong and misleading and uninformed. None of us know what each of these programs is recruiting for. You're just speculating and projecting. You already note Clemson hasn't recruited entirely for NFL traits, and they've been a top 2 program the past 5 years. You claim they don't do this any longer, which I don't know how you know that, but it's neither here nor there because you acknowledge they did it while they were winning 2 titles recently.

Additionally, you're avoiding the entire point of this exchange. Is our problem just NFL kids? Or is there a different issue that your NFL focus doesn't illuminate? I say 'there is.'

Additionally, we're not yet in a position to compete with Alabama or Ohio State for all top kids. We need to evaluate and find kids that can help us get there. Clemson got to where they are by astutely evaluating kids who weren't NFL prototypes. You already admit this. Our goal is to get there, not debate what we might do once we're there. You've conceded a path to getting there is the Clemson path.

Yes, and it's obvious. We've had schemes that did not fit our personnel. Last year, our offense went from horrible to good in one season. The same thing happened with our defense in 2016. The players didn't really change. The other issue has been at QB.

It's no coincidence every move Manny has made is directed at these three problems. He attacked the QB room. He changed our schemes. And he restructured the staff/recruiting department to avoid another American Heritage '18 debacle. Identifying problems and solving them are two different things, but he's spotted them pretty clearly.
We've already been through schemes and it's a distraction here. I am not defending our past shitty schemes.

We've had a lot of debates on the topic of roster talent. I've consistently pointed out that lack of depth, experience and position group capabilities has been a big issue separate from overall talent. You've consistently posted lists of 'nfl kids' as if those kids were all ready to go when we had them on the field. Go back and look at our exchanges - I specifically pointed out during Zion Nelson's frosh year that he may well end up a 'nfl kid', but saying so in retrospect won't make him any more capable as a true frosh.

You're talking about Manny and making this about more than we're discussing here. It's really indisputable that depth, experience and position group capabilities (no gaping holes) is important to being competitive and a part of the reason we haven't been good enough despite your 'nfl kids' lists. Not sure why you can't just agree with me on that.

When you sign talent for the top level, everyone moves down a notch. This naturally improves the middle class. We're already producing Day 3 picks at the highest rate in the country. The best programs in football are right behind us. The difference is for the top teams, those are the common clay supporting the Day 1-2 picks. That's the missing link, not getting more "program guys."
This thinking is pure speculation and not at all necessarily true. It's easy enough to sign a class full of kids with high ceilings and low floors. Heck, you yourself used that evaluation framework in a recruiting summary thread, IIRC. (Not saying you advocated for that, just used those metrics to score kids we signed.) Imagine two teams, once leans in on 'nfl types' -- kids with high ceilings but who knows on floor. The other team puts more priority on finding kids with high floors and is less worried about 'nfl ceilings.' It's easily possible, and perhaps likely, that the second team will have a better overall roster than the first team, despite having fewer future pros on it. They'll certainly have fewer busts/wasted roster spots, all else being equal. This is even moreso the case when you're not picking cream of the crop entirely like Alabama or Ohio State.

You seem to think that optimizing the probability of a NFL future is somehow the best way to rank recruits. I completely disagree with this. Evaluations require much more in the way of inputs than that. Our staff's job is to make the best team at Miami, not optimize the number of marginal pros we produce.

What you call 'program guys' sure helped Clemson win big. I really don't get why you're diminishing the importance of the middle of the roster kids or the evaluations that go into them.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
22,505
Don’t think it’s a blind spot. They just recruit to scheme and fit by and large over potential and athleticism. Their OL’s don’t struggle against other elite teams. They just don’t produce high upside NFL linemen.
Bingo. And our OLs have been a mess, even with a few more NFL guys than Clemson. Because OL is a unit, and you need at least 8 good ones to get through a season. We probably average less than one marginal nfl kid a year on OL, and many of the good kids we have had have been forced to play before they were ready. Meanwhile, our depth and experience has been atrocious.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
22,505
The day 3 picks do matter though — just not in isolation. Having Day 1-2 guys as your main guys with Day 3 guys sprinkled across the roster is what elite teams do. If you had only a few Day 1-2 guys without those Day 3 guys as well then you don’t have the same roster. All of those guys are important. If we add some of the Day 1-2 local whiffs then we have markedly different success with the type of Day 3 talent we currently have.
Our issue has been different. Sure, more day 1 guys will help us be better. But with all those day 3 kids, why have we lost to FIU, La Tech, gotten gang raped by UNC, etc.? The answer to why we lose to crappy teams or get humiliated by okay teams isn't the lack of day 1 kids. It's scheme and coaching, surely. It's also big holes in our units, lack of depth and experience ... i.e., roster issues other than just top level kids.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
22,505
Yea, but look at their OL recruited between that time. Rankings wise we may have done better and clearly we’ve done better NFL production wise. Lot of low .90 prospects with some .94ish guys sprinkled in a FEW high 4-5 guys like Carman and Mitch Hyatt and maybe one other guy. They just clearly have their evals down there and it’s less about high upside NFL types and more about fit.
100% agreed.
 

TimeBum

"What is this? A center for ants?"
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
9,537
Can you be a "dynasty" if you are clearly second fiddle to another team at the same time? Bama is a dynasty, Clemson is a really good program, but not a dynasty as long as Bama rules CFB

Clemson won two championships in the 2010s on 1/4 the budget of Bama and they were in the playoff picture every year for most of the decade. Whether you want to call Clemson a dynasty or not is up to you, but I don't think anyone will disagree that Clemson has been one of the 3 dominant teams in CFB. Of the big three- Bama, Clemson, OSU- Miami is a lot more similar to Clemson than it is to the others. If the program is going to follow a model for success in the current era of CFB, then Clemson's model makes a lot more sense (and is more realistic) than Bama's or OSU's. That being said, I'm curious to see if Clemson is slipping down a notch to be on the level of Oklahoma (playoff caliber, but no real chance of beating Bama or OSU) because they showed more weakness than I expected last season.
 

Boarcane

🙌
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,880
we're getting there, phillips may turn out to be huge for us ... bubba may be next ... it'll show that top talent can come and get developed
Tyrique will go before Bubba. 💯
I do think DJ getting coached will be huge. (Cough Cough… a lot of us will be eating our words I hope) Don’t forget Horn, the first CB drafted, was coached by T-Rob. Fwiw
 

AllAboutTheU

Junior
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
5,716
Our issue has been different. Sure, more day 1 guys will help us be better. But with all those day 3 kids, why have we lost to FIU, La Tech, gotten gang raped by UNC, etc.? The answer to why we lose to crappy teams or get humiliated by okay teams isn't the lack of day 1 kids. It's scheme and coaching, surely. It's also big holes in our units, lack of depth and experience ... i.e., roster issues other than just top level kids.
Losing to crappy teams is definitely owed to scheme and coaching, certainly agree. Preparation, having guys focused and motivated as well though. But simply having better talented guys in those spots and relying on our Day 3 kids creates a much wider margin for slippage, letdowns, etc.

At the end of the day these are college kids and they’re going to have these games where they don’t show up. Clemson losing to Pitt, OSU losing to Purdue, Georgia losing to South Carolina, etc. When our talent is at a much lower level then we’re going to have our same version of those struggles. I agree that we have more roster issues than Top level kids — OL evals and fit have been awful, LB has been laughable, we’ve let more good college corners and WRs who could’ve been escape this area than makes comprehensible sense, but having a Elijah Moore instead of Dee Wiggins and a PS2 instead of a DJ Ivey significantly impacts game IMO. But we agree that if you hit on more Rachael Wildgoose’s, Asante Samuel, James Wiggins, etc., then that builds a stronger roster as well.
 

423Hurricane

High Profile Wannabe
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Messages
6,854
I’ll eat my shorts if he doesn’t go in the first round. I can’t see Bubba going in the first. He doesn’t have the coverage skills necessary to be taken that early.
Next years draft should be very interesting not only for our Canes but in general due to how many players returned for an extra year.
 

Gooner#44

Recruit
Banned
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
4,007
Sri
Clemson won two championships in the 2010s on 1/4 the budget of Bama and they were in the playoff picture every year for most of the decade. Whether you want to call Clemson a dynasty or not is up to you, but I don't think anyone will disagree that Clemson has been one of the 3 dominant teams in CFB. Of the big three- Bama, Clemson, OSU- Miami is a lot more similar to Clemson than it is to the others. If the program is going to follow a model for success in the current era of CFB, then Clemson's model makes a lot more sense (and is more realistic) than Bama's or OSU's. That being said, I'm curious to see if Clemson is slipping down a notch to be on the level of Oklahoma (playoff caliber, but no real chance of beating Bama or OSU) because they showed more weakness than I expected last season.
Not a dynasty when you are second fiddle in your best years IMO. But thats my take...
 
Top