Printable View
Just proves how silly players rankings can be and we shouldn't worry about * to an extent.
The kid from North Carolina that just committed maybe 4 hours ago to the OM was rated a low 2* somewhere around 72 I think on 24/7 I didn't check on scout or rivals..
Well this kid blew up.. In just a few hours he leaps all the way up to a high 3* like an 88 I think..
So basically be committed to UNC gets u a 2* but if u just commit to OM you automatically get a star.
These kids are sort of like any product made from the finest of accessories.
Alligator skin shoes that don't fit are VERY nice. But pointless.
Recruiting is about how well you utilize the talent. Not how potentially talented the kid is.
What would be really useful is to give our coaching staff a grade, after the fact, to see how well they used a kid. Take Ladarius Perkins for example. We used that kid nearly perfectly early on. Then, when he had to be the featured back, we shot ourselves in the foot.
It wasn't his talent or potential that went south. It was our use of it.
The same happened for us with Bryant. He was a 2 star for USM. Commits to us and becomes a high 3 star. Nothing can be proven in recruiting (until you see the wins and losses on the field) so you can say anything and there's little evidence to support or deny your opinion. Site managers like Yancy and Steve can shape the image of your class. Freeze works with those guys beautifully to give off the perception that Ole Miss is killing it in recruiting.
The way I judge commitments first and foremost is by offers, then I watch video, and listen to the people who have seen them play or coached against them. Stars are just a piece of the puzzle. I wish I could ignore the whole process all together, but then I wouldn't have a reason for the interwebs. And recruiting truly is the lifeblood of your program.
I understand what your saying. But usually when a kid gets a bump in the ranks its when there is an evaluation done by the "experts" of that site 24/7 scout ,rivals ect of multiple players. Some players go up some drop a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
My thing was this . Maybe this kid was being evaluated and the bump was happening today. But its just real funny when a kid with one BCS and is committed to them (usually they aren't under the radar players with BCS offers) decommits and commits to another BCS school (OM) he gets a very generous upgrade within a few hour time frame.. I would be willing to bet that if this KID could have gotten EE to UNC I bet he would have stayed a 2*
Im with Hack I bet CHF has a clause in his contract that gives him a bonus if he signs a certain ranking class.. thus some of OM players have some elevated * power. JMO
Of course he would have stayed a 2 star. As would have Bryant.Quote:
Originally Posted by mic
I think you make a good point. Look at what big time programs are offering a player and it gives a good indication of how he's thought of.
I grew up watching a lot more NFL football than NCAA football (only one of my parents went to college and they couldn't give a shit about college sports... probably had a lot to do with the college not having football), so I still watch and follow a shit ton of NFL football... and I get a kick out of it every week how the best DL, OL, LB, RB, QB, WR, or whatever went to a school no one gives a shit about. Sure there are a lot of good players who went to SEC schools, and I'm certainly not saying being good and playing in the SEC shouldn't matter... but the very best at every position in the NFL didn't play at an SEC school (off the top of my head I can't think of 1)... and the Ole Miss players in the NFL weren't highly ranked (Oher was, but he might be the worst of the current OMU crew).
I had a conversation with a coach up here (LI, NY) recently. There are thousands of guys in high school each year who have the ability to pull a Pierre Paul, but a significant majority of those guys don't care as much as Pierre Paul... and a significant amount of those who care don't have the ultimate potential Pierre Paul has... The problem is there are a ton of guys in Mississippi who show out for scouts and think just because they sign with Chris Kiffin and his 3 Pro Bowl DL* they'll get a free pass to the NFL. Now, I'm sure Quay saw the success we were having at putting DL in the league and thought the same shit... but we benched his ass and told him to kick rocks. Meanwhile their Quays are being promised that coaches will recruit better so they can play in the national championship.
Going from the 2012 All-Pro teamQuote:
Originally Posted by esplanade91
Peyton Manning- Tennessee
AJ Green- Georgia
Jason Witten- Tenn
Geno Atkins- Georgia (DT)
Patrick Willis- Ole miss
Tim Jennings- Georgia
Champ Bailey- Georgia
QB - Disputed, but Manning isn't better than Brady, Rodgers, or Brees... at least in 2012.
WR - Megatron, and significant amount of journalists consider him the best football player regardless of position
TE - Graham or Gronk, ACC or Pac-12
DT - Worfolk (ACC)
LB - I'll give you Willis, so there's your 1, although in 2013 he's not a top 3.
CB - Revis. I don't give a shit about 2013, he's still the best CB. If you want to argue otherwise #2 is from Stanford.
S - It's not Champ. Earl Thomas or Jairus Boyd, but I'll give you Eric Berry as a top 5.
None of those are #1 at their position except maybe P. Willi. Somehow people like to talk shit about how the SEC has the most 1st round picks every year but disregards the fact that a couple of those get cut after a couple years, namely guys from the Raiders and Texans. Do I think guys are more ready for the NFL and do I think more often than not are the 2nd-tier guys better at making a 53 man roster? Yes... but a stud from the Big East (AAC now I guess) is just as likely to be a stud in the NFL. The #1 pick from the MAC this past season is having a phenomenal year. The #2 pick was from the SEC and he's having just as good of a year. Does it really matter where he went to college? Cutler is about to sign a $100m+ contract and he won 2 games his senior year. Did it matter that he played against Georgia, Florida, LSU, and Alabama?
We need to quit being so fixated on the SEC and what they're doing and focus on ourselves. I told all of my friends I was happy we signed Calhoun when it happened because I saw him play in HS, and I read what opposing coaches had to say about him. At some point we need to put more weight on that than what Yancy or Rosebowl has to say about said recruit. 1/2 of you have more experience evaluating high school talent (i.e. high school coaching) than Rosebowl/Nafoom. Do you expect Alabama to have the #20 class ever with Saban at the helm? If ESPN keeps running the specials about Saban and the BCS/AP keeps putting them at preseason #1 and they put them at #8 or whatever people would write them off as morons.
Amen. I think a lot of fans have the wrong approach to recruiting in general. The stars means something- but they don't mean everything. If fans go out and spend 5 bucks and watch these guys play on Friday nights, most people can come up with a relatively informed opinion on a player. Even if people can't- there are HUDL videos for free for most people to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by esplanade91
Like last year for example- I was just as excited about Bear Wilson as I was about Chris Jones. But the recruiting gurus didn't pay Bear much attention at all. And sure enough- Bear came through this year and proved me right.
Exactly.
Rankings do mean something, and I'm not sitting here saying "DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO RANKINGS!"... but how many times do you have to see a kid from Middleofnowhere, MS make a 53 man roster before you stop saying "He beat the odds!" and just say "He wasn't correctly evaluated"? How many times do you have to see a guy get 1A Player of the Year as determined by opposing coaches in Mississippi who gets All-SEC before you say quit saying "he should've had an offer from more teams"?
Everyone had their eyes on Cox out of high school but somehow we all missed on the guy who ended up at Memphis who was picked before Cox. Shit happens all the time. Meanwhile Templeton Hardy happens every year for us and Ole Miss. I imagine if you asked an honest OMU fan they'd take Chris Jones' 1st year versus Kardashians'. Funny how recruiting instantly becomes irrelevant after the first game. Funny how the team with the worst rankings over the last 10 seasons played in the SECCG this year.
When the other 12 schools start recruiting primarily in states like Mississippi I'll start following recruiting versus other schools. Until then I'll look at our class and make my own assumptions on what my friends in Mississippi coaching and what some of you tell me. I don't need some national website to tell me that we suck and that Minnesota or some random ass school has a better average star rating than us.
Without looking to other schools and their recruiting, it's impossible to properly gauge our own cruitin'. Our recruits might look good until you go watch bama's recruits and see how much better they look.
Also, for those that don't thinks cruitin' rankings matter, they absolutely matter. But you can't get bogged down in individual players, you have to look at the classes as a whole. How many teams not consistently in the top 25 recruiting classes have play for the national title in the past decade? I'd say everyone except Oregon is probably recruiting in the top 10 regularly. The key is to look at tiers. The top 10 or so is usually a step above everyone else. Then the next 10-15 classes can be grouped together. Then you have 20-30 classes that are pretty similar. And then you have the rest. Within those tiers, the difference is pretty subjective and opinions one 1 player can swing a class from the top of the tier to the bottom. If you want to compete nationally (or in the SEC) you need to be regularly landing top 10 classes or have an exceptional coach and landing top 25 classes.
And you can look to a guys offer sheet to determine how he's really viewed, but that's kinda redundant. The 4*-5* guys are usually the guys with the big offer sheets, and some of the high 3* guys might rival some of those offers. But it's not a coincidence that the rankings and offer sheets tend to correspond.
Finally, the reason there's a lot of 1*-3* recruits in the nfl is due to the sheer numbers. There's literally thousands of recruits every year that are 1*-3* and only about 250 4*-5* recruits. The 4*-5* guys have a much higher success rate. There's always busts and overachievers, but if you are gambling on which recruit becomes an nfl talent in 3-5 years, you are a damn fool to back the lower rated recruit.
So sure, this guy got a bump, but I'd say it has more to do with updating his evaluation based on season performance and all-star practices than an arbitrary bump because he flipped from unc to OM (most view unc as a better football program than OM fwiw).
Here is what MSU and OM people need to get through their thick skulls:
We both are SEC teams, we both have good stadiums, we both have outstanding facilities, we both play on TV ever single game, and we both aren't recruiting 2 star players.
There are way to many high schools, way to many players, and way to many kids that want to play in the SEC for MSU and OM to actually be recruiting 2 star players.
What OM and State fans need to realize is that when one of us offers, gets a commitment, or signs a "2 star" recruit, due to what I have stated above, it is far more likely that kid is an actual solid three star than an actual 2 star.
MSU and OM don't recruit 2 star players. When MSU and OM recruit a kid that rated a 2 star, it's far more likely that it is the recruiting website's error in having him rated that low, because nowadays SEC teams have so many options of players, so many kids wanting to play in the SEC, and so many good players out there, that it would be asinine for MSU or OM to recruit a bad player.
Again, don't get caught up in the this 4 star, solid 3 star, poorly evaluated 2 star stuff. For reasons that I have explained in past posts, they are usually the same players and their college success or non-success will come down to schematic fit, university fit, and player development. This why teams that recruit in the 10-40ish range have very similar talent levels.
Unless you are recruiting at the highest or high levels, LSU BAMA, then recruiting is about getting good players, that have solid makeup, have some higher ceiling, and fill needs.
this guy gets it. MS has been and always will be under valued.Quote:
Originally Posted by esplanade91
there's no doubt about that. UNC is probably on State's level as far as programs go.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
That is why I have been banging the drum on Fitzgerald all season. When you sit an watch a whole game, and focus on what the player is doing on and off the field it really shows the type player they are and what gets missed on the highlight reel. If the coaching staff just went by stats and stars, Fitz would have never gotten a look. They would have seen a tall kid, inexperienced at his position, playing in an area of the state not known for passing or producing QB's. He would have wound up at Valdosta State or Georgia Southern (or his only other offer - MTSU). Instead, he is already getting mentored by Dak and breaking off long TD runs in bowl practice before he has ever taken a class!Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I don't think stars mean a damn thing unless the player is a 5 star or a high 4 star that is almost a 5 star. These are the only players that fit into every team regardless of schematic fit or coaching.
low 4 stars to poorly evaluated 2 stars are the same players.
scout in general is awful at evaluating talent. that's across the board IMO. I've helped college coaches find good talent in the past that other teams weren't on. I feel like I have a decent eye for it, but like eaplande said, the high school coaches are the ones that know the best. They see them constantly. they see them on the field against various levels of competition.
I usually just agree with the high school coaches on talent levels but I argued with one about Tobias Singleton and Brassell. I thought Tobias was more explosive and would be a better WR in time. He said "no way." He said you can easily scheme to take Tobias out of the game, but you can't against Brassell. He was right. These guys know their crap for the most part. The trick for our staff is finding guys who won't lie to them. That's more difficult than you would think.
Here's my thing on this... and I'm not quite positive how "I believe" at this point -- so I won't take a stance.
BUT -- either rankings don't matter and we are addressing needs(2014 class) -- or they do matter to us(probable 2015 class). We can't have our cake and eat it too -- and there is a portion of our fanbase that has been hypocritical about this. So, we need to come to a consensus and stick with it...
I've said the same thing before. Can't have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
The way I see it, rankings do matter- to what extent is debatable. Some kids are a bust, some are unheralded and blow up. Too many different variables here to bring it to an exact science. I don't know much about the way these business work, but I would guess some kids only get evaluated on film, and only some get evaluated in person by the scouts.
At the end of the day, the recruiting sites are a business. They make their money selling subscriptions so they have a customer base to keep happy. Just something to think on. But don't sit here and tell me "THEY DON'T MATTER ONE BIT!" Just know there is no guarantee a 5 Star #1 overall recruit will dominate the competition from day one and then own NFL records one day.
Website rankings don't matter but where you are as compared to your competitors does matter.
Good coaching and consistency reduces the impact of missing on the top guys in opinion. Bringing in solid 3 star guys that fit your system offensively and defensively, redshirting them, then developing them within the system is worth alot. Mullen has been here a few years now and has been able to do this and thats why we have a good depth chart and have been to 4 bowls. He does makes odd choices at times, but i think he knows how to build a program.
Obviously you want the big name guys, but if you do miss having a solid plan in place helps build good football teams.
recruiting rankings are like gambling. the odds are in favor of the house. that doesn't mean someone doesn't walk in a win a bunch of money.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...fl-draft-picks
the uninformed looks at that chart and sees 10 3* and immediately thinks about all those undervalued kids, especially when there's only 6 5* kids. but you have to remember that there's only 25 or so 5* recruits each year, while there are hundreds, maybe even more than 1000 3* recruits each year. the success RATE is so much higher with 5* recruits. when 3* guys are making up the bulk of your class, you have to have a definite schematic advantage and/or be excellent talent evaluators to nail every one of your 3* recruits. thankfully, mullen and co. seem to be pretty damn good at talent evaluation, but even still i don't think anyone would put our talent level on lsu's or bama's level.
We can have our cake and eat it too. I think Mullen has proven that he has a pretty good eye for talent and that his program will develop players. We are going to be able to put solid SEC players on the field. But he's not going to hit on enough play-makers to be competitive in the SEC with his early recruiting success. I think the 2012 class (this year's RS Freshmen and true sophomores) was the first class Mullen had with enough playmakers to be competitive against top SEC teams (assuming you get four classes like that). I think 2013 was also good enough. 2014 is what it is. It's a small class, but it has some prospects that should be playmakers (Green and Williams) and I think Dak proves a qb like Staley is particularly valuable to Mullen, so is probably worth more than his ranking would indicate. 2014 by itself would be worrisome, but 2014 following '12 and '13 and a promising start to '15, and I don't think it's anything to be concerned about.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
All that said rankings are a piece of information. It's not the be all, end all, but if you're consistently recruiting outside the top 30 and you're in the SEC, you should be a little worried unless you have reason to think your coach has a system in place that will maximize talent or is a particularly good evaluator/developer of talent. SImilarly, you shouldn't be too comforted by recruiting in the top 20 consistently if you are getting their by taking a bunch of grade and character risks. 2015 is a very good sign, because it's the first indication that Mullen might really be building on his momentum. But 2014 doesn't concern me that much b/c of what preceded it. It'd be nice to have a small class full of 4 stars or better, but I don't see any reason to think this class will hamstring us (as long as we hit on our JUCO OT, which is my biggest concern by far).