WHO’S EARLY SIGNING WINNER: CU OR CSU?
Denver Post deputy sports editor Matt L. Stephens and college sports reporter Kyle Fredrickson discuss the early signing period and which in-state school performed better, CU or CSU.
Matt: The inaugural early signing period for college football is almost complete, and I think it’s safe to say, despite the craziness of this recruiting cycle on top of the bowl schedule, it was a success. Colorado State got some much-needed help on defense, and the Buffs signed some big boys up front to help “The Rise” correct its trajectory. But did one in-state school clearly fair better than its rival?
Kyle: If we base our evaluation simply on 247Sports.com’s national class rankings, the winner is Colorado in a landslide with the Buffaloes at No. 43 (19 signees) compared with Colorado State at No. 74 (17 signees). But of course, it’s apples and oranges considering the variables. What initially impressed me most among both classes was CU’s blend of dynamic high school offensive weapons and junior college defenders. Those young guys (notably receivers Dimitri Stanley, Dylan Thomas and Daniel Arias) will develop with an already impressive group of returning skill players on offense. And several transfers (notably linebacker Davion Taylor and cornerback Delrick Abrams Jr.) project to immediately fill holes to improve the Buffaloes’ physicality on defense. CU didn’t address every single need, but is off to a good start. Then again, the same could be said about the Rams’ early haul.
Matt: I think it’s hard to fully judge how CSU fared Wednesday for the sheer fact that it is a group of five school, and this early signing period has the potential to boost group of five classes by signing fringe prospects come February. The Rams did lose quarterback Matthew Baldwin to Ohio State, but got a steal in four-star defensive tackle Devin Phillip, who was previously committed to TCU and had offers from Miami and Texas Tech. Twelve defensive signings in total for CSU helps. Now the Rams just need to find five defensive coaches, as they’re replacing their entire staff on that side of the ball.
Kyle: You have to give CSU head coach Mike Bobo props for signing so many defensive players without a defensive coaching staff in place. Proves those recruits ultimately trust in the overall direction of the program. But it should be noted that CSU has yet to sign the top-rated offensive player committed to its 2018 class: receiver Jammal Houston (John Ehret HS/Marrero, La.). CU also has a commitment who hasn’t signed, defensive back Hasaan Hypolite (Hightower HS/Missouri City, Texas). Where do you think this Buffaloes signing class falls short?
Matt: It got to a point last season where CU was unwatchable on offense. Hate on quarterback Steven Montez all you want, but that offensive line was abysmal and didn’t give him a chance. Not even the return of Jeromy Irwin in Week 3 could save the Buffs — only six teams in the country allowed more sacks in 2017 than CU (39). It needed help up front, and it’s on the way in the form of Josh Jynes (6-foot-2, 310 pounds) and Frank Fillip (6-7, 275). But offensive line is the toughest position to break through as an impact freshman. It would have been nice to see CU get some help there from the juco ranks.
Kyle: For what it’s worth, CU did have a nice haul of offensive linemen last year with five signees, including Pomona’s Jake Moretti, a former four-star recruit. But you still bring up a good point, and CU’s lack of offensive line signees addresses a larger topic at both schools. These coaching staffs must be careful to not weigh their classes too heavily on either side of the ball. The Rams addressed critical needs on defense with 12 signees, but how might that impact offensive depth in coming years? And if CSU re-calibrates to bring in more offensive talent in its next class, when will the cycle end? It’s a difficult balance to maintain.