greenyellow wrote: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.
dont agree... 90% of two star recruits will never be 5 star talent and make the NFL.
and please dont throw out the exceptions over the past 5 yrs.
give me 20 4 and 5 star recruits/yr and I will beat your 20 2 and 3 star recruits/yr.
There is certainly a correlation between having a top 10 class and being a top 10 ranked team year in and out. Obviously there's teams like Miami and Tennessee who had big classes in 04, 05, but still suck. But for the most part, having classes with 4/5 star classes will help you on the field substantially.
With that being said, there is no reason you CANT win a championship with mostly 3 star recruits. It's harder, but if you have a good coach and recruit the right players, then it can be done.
Honestly, as long as we are around the top 25 every year in recruiting rankings, we'll be fine. However, a top 10 class is much more preferred. More highly touted talent with Chip coaching this team? Hell yes.
hines wrote: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.
Right.
I don't have to have followed recruiting for 10+ years to know that the scouting organizations are full of ****.
It's interesting to follow a bit, but I don't go for the gossip and rumors.
You're painting everyone with same brush because you've seen some buffoons posting things you apparently posted 10 years ago. You're being a pompous ass. And nobody likes to be around people like that. I don't care if you post or don't post, but nobody likes a jerk that thinks he's better then everyone else.
Duck07 wrote:
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.
I'm sure you know more about the process than me. All I know is, everyone got all excited about a bunch of De La Salle players making up maybe the highest ranked class in Oregon history to date (2004), and none of them came close to living up to their rep while at Oregon. That was my point. I think it's great that Bates is in the NFL now, but he laid an egg while at Oregon, and he isn't even considered an alum of the school now. T.J. Ward was in a different class. Glasper was a back-up almost his entire time at Oregon, and Colvin was serviceable, but not even close to his billing. I get that things happen and it's not always the players' fault - my point is that I prefer to wait and see how they rank in a few years before stacking up our recruiting class against the rest of the Pac, or the country. I like learning about the new players as much as the next guy, but I don't get too wrapped up in how many stars they have.
UOducksTK1 wrote:There is certainly a correlation between having a top 10 class and being a top 10 ranked team year in and out. Obviously there's teams like Miami and Tennessee who had big classes in 04, 05, but still suck. But for the most part, having classes with 4/5 star classes will help you on the field substantially.
With that being said, there is no reason you CANT win a championship with mostly 3 star recruits. It's harder, but if you have a good coach and recruit the right players, then it can be done.
Honestly, as long as we are around the top 25 every year in recruiting rankings, we'll be fine. However, a top 10 class is much more preferred. More highly touted talent with Chip coaching this team? Hell yes.
But it never has had happen.....so until it does there is no evidence that it can be.
UOducksTK1 wrote:There is certainly a correlation between having a top 10 class and being a top 10 ranked team year in and out. Obviously there's teams like Miami and Tennessee who had big classes in 04, 05, but still suck. But for the most part, having classes with 4/5 star classes will help you on the field substantially.
With that being said, there is no reason you CANT win a championship with mostly 3 star recruits. It's harder, but if you have a good coach and recruit the right players, then it can be done.
Honestly, as long as we are around the top 25 every year in recruiting rankings, we'll be fine. However, a top 10 class is much more preferred. More highly touted talent with Chip coaching this team? Hell yes.
But it never has had happen.....so until it does there is no evidence that it can be.
Let's hope that it happens on 1/10/11 with Oregon.
greenyellow wrote: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.
dont agree... 90% of two star recruits will never be 5 star talent and make the NFL.
and please dont throw out the exceptions over the past 5 yrs.
give me 20 4 and 5 star recruits/yr and I will beat your 20 2 and 3 star recruits/yr.
There are roughly 1600 nfl players, excluding practice squad players. Guess what? The overwhelming majority are 2 and 3* players. Consider that 05' recruit and transfer Levi Horn 2* is on the Bears.
as for the 2nd point, you sound like even more of an ass. rankings have been around for roughly a decade, so what else can you go by, Francis.
greenyellow wrote: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.
dont agree... 90% of two star recruits will never be 5 star talent and make the NFL.
and please dont throw out the exceptions over the past 5 yrs.
give me 20 4 and 5 star recruits/yr and I will beat your 20 2 and 3 star recruits/yr.
There are roughly 1600 nfl players, excluding practice squad players. Guess what? The overwhelming majority are 2 and 3* players. Consider that 05' recruit and transfer Levi Horn 2* is on the Bears.
as for the 2nd point, you sound like even more of an ass. rankings have been around for roughly a decade, so what else can you go by, Francis.
Yeah but the percentages are way lower for 2 and 3* star players. Rankings arent just some random list, the players that are 4 and 5*s are usually more talented than the 2 and 3*s. Give me the 4 and 5s everyday.
I don't even see how this is worth arguing over....
look, the five star kids are super talented and the type that mature early.
the three and four star kids are also super talented, and havent finished maturing. a lot of the two star kids are either a bit less talented or undersized, or they are simply overlooked!
all these guys will grow tons physically, emotionally and mentally over the next four years. you cant predict who will grow the most, but the recruiting services try. for what it's worth, the coaches obviously are in the best position to predict how these guys will grow.
so yeah, of course four and five stars, if you can get 'em, are going to be the safest bet. but they're not the only bet you can make.
Ask the beevs how only getting these "really talented & late maturing" 2 & 3* has worked out. They have 4-5 good players on their team, average everywhere else & NO depth. Get over it, having high 3's & 4 & 5* guys makes a huge difference.
dthomas=ddixon wrote:Ask the beevs how only getting these "really talented & late maturing" 2 & 3* has worked out. They have 4-5 good players on their team, average everywhere else & NO depth. Get over it, having high 3's & 4 & 5* guys makes a huge difference.
This. Look at the trends. Most teams with a high recruiting class are the best in college football.
I remember too well the 3 man offense Oregon was running in 1990... QB Bill Musgrave who had at least 1 season (1988) cut short by injury (The Ducks were 6-1 entering that game against ASU, and finished the season with 5 straight losses.), WR Tony Hargain, who literally split his kneecap with the effort of jumping high for an errant pass in a 55-7 blowout of Idaho, the second game of his senior season, and FB Brandon Jumper, who was also lost for the season in the same game as Hartley. The team finished 8-4, including a one point loss in their bowl game.
Those days, Oregon was usually one injury away from being competitive with most teams. The difference was that there was no significant depth backing up the first stringers.
Having a few extra bodies is definitely a luxury.
Autzen Stadium... Where great teams go to die...Hard!
