The "Sleepers"
Since the 3 “sleepers” committed, I have been reflecting on the potential reasons that such under-the-radar players were given committable offers this early in the year. I won’t hide the fact that I was initially disappointed with the commits because I am eager for a class that scores higher from a metrics perspective. However, after thinking about it further I feel differently. Here are some possible explanations for these commitments that I considered:
#1: Could the staff simply be panicking?
This was my first guess, but after considering it further I really don’t think this is likely. First, the staff has unprecedented support from alumni and donors. Second, it was only June when the offers were extended. How/why would the staff be panicking more than 7 months from signing day? These must be players that have been evaluated and ranked ahead of more known, established prospects.
#2: Could the staff be showing a preference for guys that attend the Clawson camp over more established guys that don’t attend?
I have no idea to what extent this factored into the recent commits. I will say that it used to drive me nuts that so many Grobe commits came from the summer camps. My impression was that choosing recruits from only the pool of summer camp participants means limiting yourself to a very small pool of potential recruits. However, there is no denying that coaches can more accurately assess a recruit when they see him in person and work them out side-by-side with other prospects that they might be considering.
There are also some things that we don’t have visibility into, like how good was the overall quality of the players drawn to the camps this year versus what Grobe was able to draw? Also, to attract quality recruits to your future camps do you need to be able to demonstrate that you gave a certain number of offers to camp participants in previous years? These are questions that I can’t answer from where I sit.
#3: What other reasons could there be?
To answer this I would look at what the 3 sleeper recruits have in common: they are solid to spectacular combine performers (by this I mean off-field measurables such height, weight, speed, shuttle drills, vertical jumps etc – sometimes referred to as “workout warriors” or “underwear Olympians”). So the staff might simply LOVE the combine guys. There are reasons to be skeptical. First, selling a lesser-known football recruit to a fan base based on combine numbers feels somewhat like selling basketball recruits as “gym rats”. We know how those end up. Second, I think that a lot of us that pay close attention to the NFL Draft are cautious of these type of players. For example, how many times have we seen the Raiders chase these type of players only to end up with spectacular, costly busts? The first rule of the NFL Draft has become “don’t fall in love with the combine guys” (which is closely followed by the 2nd rule, which is also “don’t fall in love with the combine guys”). However, this situation is different from selecting a first round pick in the NFL draft because you are only spending one of 85 scholarships. A team can withstand a few busts. Which brings me to the most likely reason for the 3 sleepers:
I think the staff might be making a concerted effort to get this team bigger, faster and more athletic starting immediately. There have been some quotes to that effect from Clawson, not necessarily related to recruiting. If that means that some gambles need to be taken on high-upside, but under-the-radar guys than perhaps the staff’s perspective is “so be it”. Recruiting rankings be damned. Maybe the staff has a certain number of scholarships allocated to take a few home-run swings at high-upside, risk/reward prospects.
Either way, I don’t think there is any denying that many of us are tired of the Deacs looking like the JV team lining up against the varsity team when we play certain ACC opponents. It is tough to play teams that are 20 pounds heavier, 2 inches taller, and three steps faster at every position. So perhaps this is an effort to end that.
Like some others posters have indicated, I want Phil Haynes in this class. Maybe I have been persuaded by the reviews that he has received from basketball writers, especially those that have suggested that we might have a hard time keeping him committed to football versus basketball. But the upside seems very high given his height, weight and athleticism, and downside limited to one scholarship.
Personally, I also like the Christian Matthew commit a lot. Maybe I have put the rose-colored glasses on. You can make up your own minds. He was named to a combine all-star team at a Miami Nike Camp (4.67 40, 4.50 Shuttle and 38-inch vertical). He also brings an attribute that is in HIGH demand right now across the recruiting landscape – height in the defensive secondary. The staff will simply not get those combine numbers, and that height from a more-established recruit. They are not available. But if they can develop Matthew, especially by adding weight, the upside is a 6’2.5 safety with long arms, good hands, man coverage skills and a 38-inch vertical. He also seems pretty physical. If you haven’t watched his Hudl highlights, I would really encourage you to do so and post your input. I would really like to hear it. His highlights are here:
highlights. I think he is a gamble worth taking.
Ultimately, it will be a few years (at best) to tell if these gambles pay off. I do think that it is getting harder and harder to find true sleepers in the recruiting world. There is too much data and visibility. From Hudl to structured combines with widely-available results, increasingly everyone has the same information. So for example, every other program knows exactly what Christian Matthew scored at the Nike combine. And I am still leery of coaches that claim “oh, [insert impressive sounding top 15 program that showed no visible sign of offering] was really talking to this guy” - how many times have we heard that at recruiting luncheons for the past 5 years? What I can tell you is that I am not that discouraged by these commits.
