QB recruiting discussion

[ghost2]

Not sure if this belongs here or the Recruiting forum, but a general debate topic I've been mulling over:

In this day and age it seems to be assumed that an 18 year old freshman QB who is recruited out of HS to a school will most likely not finish their career at that school (if they're talented enough to play of course.) As such, do you feel like coaching staffs are now essentially recruiting backup QBs/transfer candidates from HS and starters from the Portal?

 

[Felonious Monk]

It takes money. You don't see Arch Manning going anywhere. Likewise, assuming Luke Nickel is the player he looks to be, I can see us paying him to redshirt this year and develop, then come on strong in 2026. Then we'll have to pay to keep him.

 

[DMoney]

The Portal is the way at QB. Five of the Top 10 Heisman candidates were Portal QBs, and the only other QB went to Army. Of the six first round QBs last year, four were from the Portal.

That doesn't mean ignoring high school, but it means relying on evaluation over investment in high school. There is too much volatility at the position to invest big money.

There are many different ways to recruit QB in the Portal. You can spend big and take home run swings for proven stars, like we did last year. You can grab a game manager to raise your floor while young guys develop. Or you can take a high upside player with multiple years of eligibility who didn't work out at his first stop. That's the Jayden Daniels/Bo Nix model.

In all of those scenarios, you are evaluating the QB based on college film. That's going to give you a much more accurate picture of what you're paying for.

 

[TwentySix]

The Portal is the way at QB. Five of the Top 10 Heisman candidates were Portal QBs, and the only other QB went to Army. Of the six first round QBs last year, four were from the Portal.

That doesn't mean ignoring high school, but it means relying on evaluation over investment in high school. There is too much volatility at the position to invest big money.

There are many different ways to recruit QB in the Portal. You can spend big and take home run swings for proven stars, like we did last year. You can grab a game manager to raise your floor while young guys develop. Or you can take a high upside player with multiple years of eligibility who didn't work out at his first stop. That's the Jayden Daniels/Bo Nix model.

In all of those scenarios, you are evaluating the QB based on college film. That's going to give you a much more accurate picture of what you're paying for.

I tend to agree with this stance. The question for me is and has always been how much does it impact recruiting skill players. If Florida were to have a good year in 25 with a big part being Lagway’s impact on guys going there to play with him, and let’s say Underwood looks great at Michigan and receivers and backs flock there to play with him, at what point does the pendulum swing back a bit.

 

[cway313]

I like the portal idea. I would like it more if Miami were in a better conference.

 

[Citizen Cane]

Not sure if this belongs here or the Recruiting forum, but a general debate topic I've been mulling over:

In this day and age it seems to be assumed that an 18 year old freshman QB who is recruited out of HS to a school will most likely not finish their career at that school (if they're talented enough to play of course.) As such, do you feel like coaching staffs are now essentially recruiting backup QBs/transfer candidates from HS and starters from the Portal?

That makes sense, at least that's what we seem to be doing. Recruit high-3 star kids who don't mind being backups for a few years and hopefully develop them into a starting caliber guy, while paying minimal price. Allocate resources elsewhere and to proven QB's from other schools through portal

 

[DC3]

Personally, Miami's really only recruited one guy out of HS who has a chance to be an above average starter in Nickel in his 4 years as HC. The other ones have legit flaws that you hope can be coached up to be solid backups if the starter goes down.


I'd love to grab a multi year starter in the Portal this year or next. Not really a fan of trying to go for a senior QB every year on the chance it would fail like with what just happened with DJU.

 

[Elmer Leghorn]

You have to recruit HS QB and hope they stay. Portal shopping EVERY year isn't the answer. More likely to get burned in the portal than find a Cam. Pay the HS kid to stick around if he's a baller. Shop in the portal too, but it shouldn't be your model for success. The foundation is HS

 

[flips]

We should either be taking a HS QB each cycle who we think could play as a starter in his second year, or we should be taking former 4/5-star QBs in the portal who aren't starting after their second year or a sub-P4 underclassman who's shown promise as a starter.

We haven't done either - until this year in HS with Nickel (and I assume the '26 HS QB whom I know nothing about except he's well-regarded). That's why we're in the situation we're in right now.

We took Jacurri/Emory/Judd in Mario's first 3 HS classes. I don't think it's controversial to claim none of those 3 were projected to be starter-ready in year 2. We've taken Cam and Reese in the portal. We weren't able to land Moore or the QB who was committed to UGA for a day then flipped to USC where he replaced Moss late in the year. If we had either one of those guys right now I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable.

 

[canes_aaron]

I like the idea of getting a portal QB who has 1-2 years of experience and at least 2 years of eligibility left.

John Mateer was a perfect example.

 

[BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati]

The Portal is the way at QB. Five of the Top 10 Heisman candidates were Portal QBs, and the only other QB went to Army. Of the six first round QBs last year, four were from the Portal.

That doesn't mean ignoring high school, but it means relying on evaluation over investment in high school. There is too much volatility at the position to invest big money.

There are many different ways to recruit QB in the Portal. You can spend big and take home run swings for proven stars, like we did last year. You can grab a game manager to raise your floor while young guys develop. Or you can take a high upside player with multiple years of eligibility who didn't work out at his first stop. That's the Jayden Daniels/Bo Nix model.

In all of those scenarios, you are evaluating the QB based on college film. That's going to give you a much more accurate picture of what you're paying for.

This is 1000% how I see it also. Paying top dollar for a QB is the way it works. Why gamble on paying a ton to a kid out of high school when you can get an experienced guy with college film? When you factor in how many 5 star QBs transfer after a year or two, then consider the financial implications (specifically the lack of ROI), the path above is the only one that makes sense. More to the point, I just read this:

"Of the 31 five-star quarterbacks in the 10 recruiting cycles from 2014 through 2023, 20 transferred at least one time and five transferred at least twice." That's almost 65%. That number is staggering. Here's a link to the story I pulled it from:

5-star QBs on the move: Charting the winding roads taken by top prospects in past decade

There were 31 five-star QBs in the 10 recruiting cycles from 2014 through 2023. Twenty transferred at least once.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bolivar]

All I know is that I want a QB from the portal this year!

 

[SCarolina Ibis]

What's being left out of the portal vs high school debate, is that it shouldn't be an extreme to one side or the other.

Going from Jacurri to Emory to Judd has left us with no choice but to find a QB the portal, AND put us in a risky spot with our backup.

Ideally, we'd sign QBs who at least have a realistic shot at starting some day.

If they want to go to the portal every year, then by all means. But that doesn't mean we should take Judds every year. Eventually all our backups would be Judds.

 

[flips]

The Portal is the way at QB. Five of the Top 10 Heisman candidates were Portal QBs, and the only other QB went to Army. Of the six first round QBs last year, four were from the Portal.

I don't think it's that clear cut. 6 out of 12 playoff teams start portal QBs. 6 out of 12 do not. I'd argue Texas and Ohio State would be better teams if they had Manning and McCord as their starting QBs. Teams can be successful with a portal QB or with a HS recruit at QB whom they've developed.

 

[Fluffhead]

The Portal is the way at QB. Five of the Top 10 Heisman candidates were Portal QBs, and the only other QB went to Army. Of the six first round QBs last year, four were from the Portal.

That doesn't mean ignoring high school, but it means relying on evaluation over investment in high school. There is too much volatility at the position to invest big money.

There are many different ways to recruit QB in the Portal. You can spend big and take home run swings for proven stars, like we did last year. You can grab a game manager to raise your floor while young guys develop. Or you can take a high upside player with multiple years of eligibility who didn't work out at his first stop. That's the Jayden Daniels/Bo Nix model.

In all of those scenarios, you are evaluating the QB based on college film. That's going to give you a much more accurate picture of what you're paying for.

I generally agree, but… you are at the mercy of who enters the portal, what other schools are looking for QBs that year, and then generally not having an injury during the season. Maybe the reality is that there are few schools with deep enough pockets to have multiple expensive QBs in their program and for years people spoke about how stupid it was for 5 star QBs to go the same programs year after year. In any case, we will see how this year goes but the risk is higher, the margin of error is thinner, and you can wind up like FSU this year as a result.