carney2
March 27th, 2008, 09:20 AM
HOLY CROSS TOTAL = 66
QUALITY = 26: Overall, 10 (43%) were rated by Rivals and/or Scout. No recruits received any stars from Rivals, while 6 received 1 star from Scout and 2 received 2 stars. Last year, 2 (7%) of the recruits were rated. The key here is not the number of rated recruits – although it is impressive when compared to last year – but rather the distribution. Both QB recruits are rated with one receiving 2 stars from Scout, and two wideouts and one TE are also rated. On the other hand, the lunch pail guys are a little under-represented in the “rated recruits” category.
CLASS SIZE = 4: 23 recruits.
DISTRIBUTION = 9: At least one recruit in each of the 9 positions considered in this system.
SPEED = 12: Five recruits earned speed points based on the limited information available.
TRIGGER = 3: Two QB recruits; each was rated by both recruiting services, with one receiving 2 stars from Scout.
JUMBO = 3: 2 of the 3 OL recruits were 275 or greater, and 1 of the 3 DL recruits was 250 or greater.
NEEDS = 9:
Defensive Line = 2 (of 5): Only 3 recruits, with only one tipping the scales at 250+. Two of the recruits are rated, but neither comes close to 250 pounds. One of these rated recruits earned 2 stars from Scout, but as a TE. At 210, you have to question whether this guy will play in the DL in the Patriot League. That brings the viable DL candidates down to 2.
Quarterback = 4 (of 4): 2 recruits; both rated (by both services); one a 2-star recruit. The ‘saders will never replace Randolph, but they certainly recognized the need and did something about it.
Rated Prospects at Any Position (at least 5 or 6) = 3 (of 3): 10 prospects were rated. The distribution is both good and bad (see “Quality” comments above), but this is a big – and necessary – step up from last year.
Results to Date:
1. Lehigh 74
2. Fordham 71
3. Holy Cross 66
4. Colgate 64
5. Lafayette 58
6. Bucknell 53
QUALITY = 26: Overall, 10 (43%) were rated by Rivals and/or Scout. No recruits received any stars from Rivals, while 6 received 1 star from Scout and 2 received 2 stars. Last year, 2 (7%) of the recruits were rated. The key here is not the number of rated recruits – although it is impressive when compared to last year – but rather the distribution. Both QB recruits are rated with one receiving 2 stars from Scout, and two wideouts and one TE are also rated. On the other hand, the lunch pail guys are a little under-represented in the “rated recruits” category.
CLASS SIZE = 4: 23 recruits.
DISTRIBUTION = 9: At least one recruit in each of the 9 positions considered in this system.
SPEED = 12: Five recruits earned speed points based on the limited information available.
TRIGGER = 3: Two QB recruits; each was rated by both recruiting services, with one receiving 2 stars from Scout.
JUMBO = 3: 2 of the 3 OL recruits were 275 or greater, and 1 of the 3 DL recruits was 250 or greater.
NEEDS = 9:
Defensive Line = 2 (of 5): Only 3 recruits, with only one tipping the scales at 250+. Two of the recruits are rated, but neither comes close to 250 pounds. One of these rated recruits earned 2 stars from Scout, but as a TE. At 210, you have to question whether this guy will play in the DL in the Patriot League. That brings the viable DL candidates down to 2.
Quarterback = 4 (of 4): 2 recruits; both rated (by both services); one a 2-star recruit. The ‘saders will never replace Randolph, but they certainly recognized the need and did something about it.
Rated Prospects at Any Position (at least 5 or 6) = 3 (of 3): 10 prospects were rated. The distribution is both good and bad (see “Quality” comments above), but this is a big – and necessary – step up from last year.
Results to Date:
1. Lehigh 74
2. Fordham 71
3. Holy Cross 66
4. Colgate 64
5. Lafayette 58
6. Bucknell 53