FSU football: Grading 2016 recruiting class in retrospect

DURHAM, NC - OCTOBER 14: A detailed view of a helmet worn by the Florida State Seminoles during their game against the Duke Blue Devils at Wallace Wade Stadium on October 14, 2017 in Durham, North Carolina. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
DURHAM, NC - OCTOBER 14: A detailed view of a helmet worn by the Florida State Seminoles during their game against the Duke Blue Devils at Wallace Wade Stadium on October 14, 2017 in Durham, North Carolina. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
1 of 6
Next
fsu football
(Photo by Butch Dill/Getty Images) /

FSU football has had some highly regarded recruiting classes in the past five years, but the 2016 class could be one of the worst in recent memory.

Recruiting stars matter with FSU football or any other college football program. Don’t get it twisted and think you can win or compete for national championships with a team full of three star recruits.

Yes, it’s possible to win a lot of games with well coached three-star players, but you absolutely must have those difference makers to compete at the highest level.

The FSU football 2016 recruiting class was supposed to be one of the recruiting classes that would help the Noles compete for championships.

It consisted of 16 blue chip players in a class of 23 players which equates to a 70 percent blue chip ratio.

Related Story. Mike Norvell Talks First Month In Tallahassee. light

The only problem is the vast majority of this recruiting class didn’t contribute much at all. In fact, the lack of development in this recruiting class is part of the reason the program is where it is right now.

It’s not all on the players, in fact I place most of the blame on the coaches who brought this class into existence. It’s absolutely a great class on paper, but that’s why one can’t get all caught up into the hype of class rankings if they aren’t being developed and held accountable to become contributors to the success of the program.

This class had it all. It featured 12 players ranked in the top 200 players in the nation and seven of the top 100. There were 11 players ranked in the top 10 at their respective positions nationally.

A myriad of problems derailed this class from injuries, off-field problems and sheer lack of development. Let’s take a look at this class by categories.