Lamar Peters

[messageboardsuperhero]

Peters, a Mississippi State commit was also in Vegas this weekend with New Orleans Elite and put on a show against the Atlanta Celtics on Friday afternoon. Despite losing to a more talented team, Peters pumped in 27 points and seven assists, and was the best player on the court.

https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1786850

Just thought y'all might like that comment from a Rivals national recruiting analyst. Being called the best player on the court against Josh Langford, Braxton Blackwell, Kobi Simmons, James Banks, etc. is some pretty high praise. Time to get excited about this guy.

[TaleofTwoDogs]

Somebody help me out here....exactly what separates a 4 star from a 5 star? Seems we can recruit an all-world type athlete and he is only a 3 or maybe a 4 star but other schools will catch 5 stars. I hate to think that the number of stars is dictated by where a kid goes to school. Is the system that bias?

[MSUDawg4Life]

You're late. Been excited about him for a while now.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Somebody help me out here....exactly what separates a 4 star from a 5 star? Seems we can recruit an all-world type athlete and he is only a 3 or maybe a 4 star but other schools will catch 5 stars. I hate to think that the number of stars is dictated by where a kid goes to school. Is the system that bias?

IMO a 5* is a ready made, packaged wrapped, immediate impact player as soon as he steps on campus. A guy that is physically & mentally ready to be the man from day 1. A 3yr player no doubt in football or 1 & done or max 2yrs in basketball.

[ScottH]

Somebody help me out here....exactly what separates a 4 star from a 5 star?

1 star

[ShotgunDawg]

IMO a 5* is a ready made, packaged wrapped, immediate impact player as soon as he steps on campus. A guy that is physically & mentally ready to be the man from day 1. A 3yr player no doubt in football or 1 & done or max 2yrs in basketball.

Agree, I don't usually have an issue with recruiting sites on who is a 5 star.

My biggest frustration with recruiting sites is the difference between the 88 rated 3 star & the 91 rated 4 star. There is virtually no difference between these two players, yet one player is considered a difference maker (4 Star, national recruit) & the other is seen as left over, chopped liver.

This is where I think recruiting websites are ridiculous.

For example: Yesterday Ole Miss got a commitment from an Allen HS (TX) DB that is 5'11 180 & listed as a 3 star on 247 & 4 star composite. Yet MSU has a 6'2" 170 DB from Louisiana committed name Cam Dantzler, who is from St Thomas Aquinas, is rated an 88 on 247, & some people are comparing him to Richard Sherman.

Something doesn't add up here. Ole Miss gets a similar to less player & gets praised from winning a "national recruit", yet MSU gets a guy that some are comparing to Richard Sherman yet gets no credit.

[thunderclap]

1 star

+1

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Agree, I don't usually have an issue with recruiting sites on who is a 5 star.

My biggest frustration with recruiting sites is the difference between the 88 rated 3 star & the 91 rated 4 star. There is virtually no difference between these two players, yet one player is considered a difference maker (4 Star, national recruit) & the other is seen as left over, chopped liver.

This is where I think recruiting websites are ridiculous.

For example: Yesterday Ole Miss got a commitment from an Allen HS (TX) DB that is 5'11 180 & listed as a 3 star on 247 & 4 star composite. Yet MSU has a 6'2" 170 DB from Louisiana committed name Cam Dantzler, who is from St Thomas Aquinas, is rated an 88 on 247, & some people are comparing him to Richard Sherman.

Something doesn't add up here. Ole Miss gets a similar to less player & gets praised from winning a "national recruit", yet MSU gets a guy that some are comparing to Richard Sherman yet gets no credit.

The problem isn't the recruiting services who distinguish the difference between a guy rated 88 vs 91 or better yet a guy that's an 89 3* vs 90 4*. It's the fans who for some reason treat the guy rated 90 as a difference maker vs the guy who's 89 as just another player. I'm not sure if the recruiting sites can do anything to change fans mindsets or perceptions over that 1 point.

[gtowndawg]

Agree, I don't usually have an issue with recruiting sites on who is a 5 star.

My biggest frustration with recruiting sites is the difference between the 88 rated 3 star & the 91 rated 4 star. There is virtually no difference between these two players, yet one player is considered a difference maker (4 Star, national recruit) & the other is seen as left over, chopped liver.

This is where I think recruiting websites are ridiculous.

For example: Yesterday Ole Miss got a commitment from an Allen HS (TX) DB that is 5'11 180 & listed as a 3 star on 247 & 4 star composite. Yet MSU has a 6'2" 170 DB from Louisiana committed name Cam Dantzler, who is from St Thomas Aquinas, is rated an 88 on 247, & some people are comparing him to Richard Sherman.

Something doesn't add up here. Ole Miss gets a similar to less player & gets praised from winning a "national recruit", yet MSU gets a guy that some are comparing to Richard Sherman yet gets no credit.

It would be better to have a 10 star system (I'm serious). That way to the casual recruiting fan like me, it's more obvious there's really no difference between an 8 and 9 (both studs compared to a 5 or 6 for instance) when then difference between 3 (just "another" recruit) and 4 (wow!) can seem huge to me at first glance.

[maroonmania]

Agree, I don't usually have an issue with recruiting sites on who is a 5 star.

My biggest frustration with recruiting sites is the difference between the 88 rated 3 star & the 91 rated 4 star. There is virtually no difference between these two players, yet one player is considered a difference maker (4 Star, national recruit) & the other is seen as left over, chopped liver.

This is where I think recruiting websites are ridiculous.

For example: Yesterday Ole Miss got a commitment from an Allen HS (TX) DB that is 5'11 180 & listed as a 3 star on 247 & 4 star composite. Yet MSU has a 6'2" 170 DB from Louisiana committed name Cam Dantzler, who is from St Thomas Aquinas, is rated an 88 on 247, & some people are comparing him to Richard Sherman.

Something doesn't add up here. Ole Miss gets a similar to less player & gets praised from winning a "national recruit", yet MSU gets a guy that some are comparing to Richard Sherman yet gets no credit.

Dantzler must be rated pretty low on the non-247 sites because on the composite he's like the 3rd lowest rated commit we have. Allen, another LA DB, is the lowest composite rated commit we have.

[PSYCHO(thesis)DEFENSE]

Can't wait to see this class fill out, & excited a/b what we already have in L Peters. Glad IJ will be here to welcome Lamar & show him the collegiate ropes, much like he's done w/ Malik. I think his presence will be invaluable on what will be a very young team, and I expect his focus and attitude to be the tone-setter for that incoming class.

Is Peters a 4 year guy or is there potential to leave early?

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Can't wait to see this class fill out, & excited a/b what we already have in L Peters. Glad IJ will be here to welcome Lamar & show him the collegiate ropes, much like he's done w/ Malik. I think his presence will be invaluable on what will be a very young team, and I expect his focus and attitude to be the tone-setter for that incoming class.

Is Peters a 4 year guy or is there potential to leave early?

I think Peters is a 2yr guy.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

Can Howland hold on to him because I would expect his stock to continue to rise and him start getting more offers. Maybe this is just my old mindset coming to the surface again..Damn you Ray.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Can Howland hold on to him because I would expect his stock to continue to rise and him start getting more offers. Maybe this is just my old mindset coming to the surface again..Damn you Ray.

Bball rarely have flips like football. It's pretty much an unwritten rule once a kid commit other coaches back off.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Can Howland hold on to him because I would expect his stock to continue to rise and him start getting more offers. Maybe this is just my old mindset coming to the surface again..Damn you Ray.

He's about as solid as they come. No worries about his commitment.

[BeardoMSU]

Bball rarely have flips like football. It's pretty much an unwritten rule once a kid commit other coaches back off.

Unless your name is Scotty Hopson, lol.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Unless your name is Scotty Hopson, lol.

It's a couple reasons why everybody remembers Scotty Hopson's name.

1. He was a good player

2. He's the only kid I can recall in the last 15yrs who was flipped or we flipped in bball.

[BeardoMSU]

It's a couple reasons why everybody remembers Scotty Hopson's name.

1. He was a good player

2. He's the only kid I can recall in the last 15yrs who was flipped or we flipped in bball.

Just messin', Dan. In hindsight, Hopson really wasn't that big of a loss.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Just messin', Dan. In hindsight, Hopson really wasn't that big of a loss.

Nope but at the time people acted like we had just lost Lebron.

[thf24]

Agree, I don't usually have an issue with recruiting sites on who is a 5 star.

My biggest frustration with recruiting sites is the difference between the 88 rated 3 star & the 91 rated 4 star. There is virtually no difference between these two players, yet one player is considered a difference maker (4 Star, national recruit) & the other is seen as left over, chopped liver.

This is where I think recruiting websites are ridiculous.

For example: Yesterday Ole Miss got a commitment from an Allen HS (TX) DB that is 5'11 180 & listed as a 3 star on 247 & 4 star composite. Yet MSU has a 6'2" 170 DB from Louisiana committed name Cam Dantzler, who is from St Thomas Aquinas, is rated an 88 on 247, & some people are comparing him to Richard Sherman.

Something doesn't add up here. Ole Miss gets a similar to less player & gets praised from winning a "national recruit", yet MSU gets a guy that some are comparing to Richard Sherman yet gets no credit.

I wish they wouldn't have numerical ratings at all. Even if it's due to using some kind of formula, it's inherently going to be contrived to some degree. I remember seeing somewhere a while back that the stars actually stand for things, something like:

5 star - immediate impact
4 star - future starter, first year player
3 star - quality depth, redshirt candidate
2 star - project, questionable D1 player

So if that's generally assumed, why also throw a numerical rating into the mix in which one point can mean the difference between two very distinct designations, when that's probably not accurate in reality? I think they should just use stars, seems like that would be plenty to satisfy the fans that are so in love with recruiting rankings and evaluations.

[maroonmania]

Nope but at the time people acted like we had just lost Lebron.

He certainly wasn't Lebron but was an all-SEC type player his last couple years (1st team all-SEC in 2011), so let's not act like he wouldn't have been a significant contributor for us had we gotten him.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

He certainly wasn't Lebron but was an all-SEC type player his last couple years (1st team all-SEC in 2011), so let's not act like he wouldn't have been a significant contributor for us had we gotten him.

I didn't say he wasn't good but he wasn't what everyone thought he'd be. People expected him to dominate from day 1 & he had 2 solid years & 1 really good year.

[smootness]

I wish they wouldn't have numerical ratings at all. Even if it's due to using some kind of formula, it's inherently going to be contrived to some degree. I remember seeing somewhere a while back that the stars actually stand for things, something like:

5 star - immediate impact
4 star - future starter, first year player
3 star - quality depth, redshirt candidate
2 star - project, questionable D1 player

So if that's generally assumed, why also throw a numerical rating into the mix in which one point can mean the difference between two very distinct designations, when that's probably not accurate in reality? I think they should just use stars, seems like that would be plenty to satisfy the fans that are so in love with recruiting rankings and evaluations.

It seems like you're actually advocating for removing the star system and just using a numerical rating. If your issue is that an 89 is a 3-star and a slightly better recruit at 90 gets an entire extra star, then how would only seeing one as a 3 and the other as a 4 help? At least with the numerical ratings added, you can see that they believe the two players are very similar, where under a star-only system, you would see them as entirely different recruits.

But honestly, who cares? I will never understand why fans take the star system so seriously. It's an easy way to throw ratings on recruits/prospects, and it's supposed to be mostly fun. If a person is genuinely upset that a certain player is one rating and not another, I would suggest taking a break from any recruiting sites for a good 2 years.