Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- LB1
- QB1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Utah State (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 Utah State saw a mix of outcomes, reflecting a blend of development and unmet expectations. With a total of 25 recruits, the class was ranked 95th initially and received a slight bump to 96th upon re-evaluation. This indicates that while some players showed promise, overall performance did not significantly elevate the class rank.
Several players achieved notable successes, particularly in the case of unranked recruits like Demytrick Aliifua and Justus Te'i, who both made impactful contributions on the field. Their outcomes as an All Conference player and a College Starter, respectively, highlight the program's ability to develop talent beyond what was expected at the time of signing. However, the class also featured higher-ranked recruits like Patrick Miranda and Ron'quavion Tarver, who did not fully translate their recruiting hype into production, resulting in a mix of contributors rather than standout performers.
This class reflects a trend seen in recruiting where lower-ranked players can sometimes outperform their higher-ranked counterparts. While Utah State had no blue-chip recruits, the development of certain players demonstrates that the program is capable of identifying and nurturing talent effectively.
Overall, the 2016 recruiting class for Utah State met expectations in certain areas, particularly with a few players exceeding their original recruiting profiles. The S2S re-rank remained relatively stable, indicating that while there were some success stories, there were also significant underperformers within the class. The takeaway from this class is that while Utah State managed to develop some talent effectively, the lack of higher-ranked players transitioning to standout performers reflects a need for improvement in consistently meeting recruiting expectations.