Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2010 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- DT1
- LB1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Syracuse (2010).
2010 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Built on development, not recruiting rankings.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2010 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The 2010 recruiting class for Syracuse had a total of 29 commitments, yet the outcomes did not fully align with the original expectations set by their rankings. While Syracuse's class was initially ranked 72nd, it was re-evaluated and moved up to 60th based on performance outcomes. This upward movement suggests that the class had some potential that was realized, especially among lower-ranked players.
A total of four recruits, all of whom were originally ranked, did not meet expectations, resulting in a classification of "Bust." These players highlighted a trend where higher expectations based on their rankings did not translate into on-field success. In contrast, the class also featured some players who exceeded expectations, such as Adrian Flemming, who contributed positively to the team.
Overall, the majority of recruits from this class were either contributors or college starters, indicating that while there were some significant misses, several players were able to carve out productive roles within the program. The outcomes reflect an overall moderate success in player development, particularly for recruits outside the top tier of rankings.
The Syracuse 2010 recruiting class largely underperformed relative to its original expectations, as evidenced by the number of recruits classified as "Bust." The S2S rerank moving up to 60 suggests some improvement in player performance, particularly among lower-ranked recruits. However, the significant number of players who did not meet their projected outcomes indicates challenges in maximizing the potential of higher-ranked recruits.
Overall, the class demonstrates a mixed outcome, with some contributors but also notable misses, illustrating the unpredictability of recruiting success.