Up to #21 on scout / #12 on rivals

[UOducksTK1]

And considering Rivals usually seems to have more accurate rankings, I'd say things are looking really good right now. Most of the prospects left on our board are 4 star recruits, so I think a top 10 is basically inevitable on rivals. We should end up with a very strong class. Now we just need to win that natty.

[Phalanx]

I love following recruiting to see who the new Ducks are going to be, but seriously, these rankings don't matter to me much. I remember when Mark Asper signed with the ducks and he was totally off the radar and everyone complained that we couldn't get better recruits. He seems to have done pretty well. I would rather follow the ranking 2-3 years later when it is based on wins and losses. The one time we had a highly ranked class that I can recall was when all of the De La Salle guys came (minus Terrance Kelly, R.I.P.), and I don't think any of them really lived up to their promise. I kinda like the Ducks role - turning non-five star athletes into NFL players. Just as long as the coaches still know what they are looking for, I'm cool with it. Go Ducks!

[pdxduck]

Scout's team ranking system is a joke. They put a lot of value on the number of recruits signed rather than the quality of recruit and how they address needs for the program.

Not that these rankings really matter other than bragging rights I guess.

[Hoagduck]

I'm no star gazer, but they do matter a bit. Generally speaking, the teams with the better recruiting classes in the top 25 are the teams you see in the top 25. It is gloriously inexact science, but there is a reason everyone goes after some of these kids.

[dthomas=ddixon]

I'm no star gazer, but they do matter a bit. Generally speaking, the teams with the better recruiting classes in the top 25 are the teams you see in the top 25. It is gloriously inexact science, but there is a reason everyone goes after some of these kids.

Yeah I agree. What it pretty much means is Chip & the crew have better athletes & more physically gifted players to work with. There's obviously a ton more that factors into whether a player will be good or not but its about the best way too start things off.

[soduck]

I would love to have a top 10 class in both services to increase the odds of having many great players. But that said we have had and will continue to have many great players that are rated three stars and below. The services and the coaches can only go on potential of those they even evaluated, before the time of signing. What the player does after they get here is mostly up to the player. Certainly nearly everyone with a work ethic can stay eligible, but we have had plenty of highly rated players who could not even stay eligible to even get on the field. Ratings only mean something before the PSA, steps on campus.

[hines]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

[Hoagduck]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

There's the hines we know and love.

[vagusnerve]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

so you judge everybody on this board, and exempt yourself.

i'm sure you've made a great impression on everyone here.

i would enjoy your input and opinions if you're willing to join in the conversations... but i suggest you leave your ego and your anger to yourself.

[greenyellow]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

so you judge everybody on this board, and exempt yourself.

i'm sure you've made a great impression on everyone here.

i would enjoy your input and opinions if you're willing to join in the conversations... but i suggest you leave your ego and your anger to yourself.

If he didn't have anger and an ego, then he wouldn't be hines; he would be a normal poster like everyone else.

[hines]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

i would enjoy your input and opinions if you're willing to join in the conversations..

perhaps you missed it but i just did. and what other conversations shall i join to please you? the "scout sucks/rivals sucks/espn sucks" conversations? oh, those are awesome conversations. i remember having those back in 2003. those were stellar too. can't believe you missed those. here's a sample: hey! player x is rated at 23 on one site and 12 on another! that (fill in name here) site sucks! the end. woohoo! i learned so much! i'm now weeping openly! no really i am!

sound familiar? i'll partake in conversations that actually surprise me. very few actually do. and if i don't partake in those conversations that you have deemed "post worthy", then don't be upset when i post in ones that bore you. is that ok? message board police out.

[greenyellow]

the reasons there are differences in the ratings is because rivals has some as commits while scout doesn't. not sure why that's hard to figure out.

what makes me laugh every year is people actually taking this seriously. where are the people ranting at scout having some commits ranked higher while rivals doesn't but you let espn off the hook because they have some ranked really low. why the hypocrisy? wait. don't answer. it's just dumb to argue over this stuff but it happens EVERY year and it's still meaningless.

yeah, sure...you guys read the message boards for the players ratings and yet EVERY year players flame out and suck or can't meet the grades or fail out of college. the rankings only matter when it comes to players actually ENROLLED. sheep.

i would enjoy your input and opinions if you're willing to join in the conversations..

perhaps you missed it but i just did. and what other conversations shall i join to please you? the "scout sucks/rivals sucks/espn sucks" conversations? oh, those are awesome conversations. i remember having those back in 2003. those were stellar too. can't believe you missed those. here's a sample: hey! player x is rated at 23 on one site and 12 on another! that (fill in name here) site sucks! the end. woohoo! i learned so much! i'm now weeping openly! no really i am!

sound familiar? i'll partake in conversations that actually surprise me. very few actually do. and if i don't partake in those conversations that you have deemed "post worthy", then don't be upset when i post in ones that bore you. is that ok? message board police out.

Considering that you almost never venture out from the War Room, you could always join the discussions in Kelly's Heroes to get you thoughts on the current team and news.

[Duck07]

I love following recruiting to see who the new Ducks are going to be, but seriously, these rankings don't matter to me much. I remember when Mark Asper signed with the ducks and he was totally off the radar and everyone complained that we couldn't get better recruits. He seems to have done pretty well. I would rather follow the ranking 2-3 years later when it is based on wins and losses. The one time we had a highly ranked class that I can recall was when all of the De La Salle guys came (minus Terrance Kelly, R.I.P.), and I don't think any of them really lived up to their promise. I kinda like the Ducks role - turning non-five star athletes into NFL players. Just as long as the coaches still know what they are looking for, I'm cool with it. Go Ducks!

Well, Jackie Bates (KC) and TJ Ward (Cle) are doing fine. Cam started as a FR and SO before the hamstring and ankle messed him up. Willie is playing in the ufl and was a solid contributor on D and ST. It's important to remember that these "rankings" are based in very large part about what the player is capable of doing right now. Once you consider that males mature at different rates, its easy to see that one of those undervalued guys most likely isn't fully grown at that point. When DJ lived with Cam and I the summer of his FR year (he enrolled in the spring), he (like Cam) was bigger than most of our LB's at the time and it was easy to see why he was a 4* recruit.

Consider that now with Pat Chung, who was rated a 2* when he was 15. 15! Why is James Wilder Jr considered one of the top athletes in the nation? Because he's matured faster than others (on tape he's nothing special). The last aspect is the mental make-up of a recruit, which you can't measure/rank. Jackie Bates was a very talented db, but he had a lot of growing up to do first. Jairus Byrd on the other hand didn't have the same speed, but came from a NFL family and worked his butt off.

This is why when we get kids who some of us might say, Huh?, its because the coaches know something we don't. One thing that Chip has really done to improve recruiting is how much research they do into a prospect. They'll go to his school, ask not just a teacher or coach but a lot of the people at the school about the kid. What is he like? How does he practice? Study? What do his friends think of him? etc. This allows them to get a better grasp on those other traits that are required to be successful.

In sum, the rankings are based solely off physical skill sets while in HS - not what they could become because they don't have the ability to get all that info, nor do I think they care.

[buckmarkduck]

After following recruiting for over 10 years I can say if you give our coaches kids that WANT to be great and work hard, they can turn 2-3* recruits into 4-5* recruits by the time they are SR's. It's great that we have a top 15 class, but what will really matter is if they all want to work hard and buy into the team theme, and honestly that's what our coaches do better than most is finding not just talented players, but hard working players that are "gym rats". If all that mattered was signing top 10 classes then UCLA would be winning 10 games a year.

[greenyellow]

To me, 4-5* rankings just mean a recruit is probably more physically ready to play in college before like a 2-3* player. After about a year or two in a program, the rankings don't mean a whole lot, most players will be ready and now are just separated by certain physical traits and mental acuity for system they are in.