Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- DE1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Toledo (2016).
2016 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 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The 2016 recruiting class for Toledo presents a mixed picture of player development and performance. The class originally ranked 64th but saw a significant drop in the S2S rerank to 120. This indicates a decline in perceived talent as players progressed through their college careers. However, despite this downward trend, Toledo did manage to produce several players who exceeded expectations, particularly among those who were either unranked or lower-ranked.
In terms of overall outcomes, Toledo had a noteworthy number of contributors, with three players achieving the status of College Starter or better. This reflects positively on the program's ability to develop talent, even from less heralded recruits. The performance of players like Luke Doerger and Zach Ford illustrates that Toledo's coaching staff effectively maximized the potential of those within their system, even if initial rankings did not suggest high-impact outcomes.
Overall, the Toledo 2016 recruiting class slightly underperformed relative to initial expectations based on the original ranking. The S2S rerank moving down from 64 to 120 suggests that the anticipated contributions from the class did not materialize as hoped, particularly for some of the higher-ranked players. The presence of several "Bust" outcomes, including a notable miss in D'vario Montgomery, further underscores this trend. However, the emergence of players like Doerger and Seymour highlights that Toledo was able to cultivate talent effectively, leading to positive outcomes from several recruits.
In summary, while the overall performance of the class did not meet the original expectations, Toledo's ability to develop lower-ranked players into significant contributors is a key takeaway.