DoctahLexus
Renowned lacrosse analyst
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,809
- Like
- 10,405
Last week he was a high 4 star. This week he is just an average 4 star and 83rd is just a bit off...got it.
2024-25 Recruiting
- Thread starter OrangeXtreme
- Start date
The difference between #35 and #83 is much smaller in reality than it seems on paper. Once you get past those top 20-30 guys, there's a big band of players who all have similar shots at panning out depending on circumstances. It's a much smaller gap than the gap from top 10 to #35 IMO.
I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that would take some of the guys ranked in the 70s and 80s over other players in the 30s and 40s. There's probably not many, if any, that are taking players in the 30s and 40s over a guy in the top 10.
Zack80
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 2,147
- Like
- 1,191
It is true that the recruiting curve tends to flatten out as you go out past 40. Still, I think there is a significant difference between #35 and #83, particularly for attackmen.
DoctahLexus
Renowned lacrosse analyst
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,809
- Like
- 10,405
I agree with you overall on reclassing, but you are being a little unfair with Peck here. This is not a case of him only being 5th or 6th best on a quality team and only getting serious attention after a reclass like apparently it was with Wyatt Bowman. He came into one of if not the best high school lacrosse teams that is loaded with D1 recruits and immediately produced at a rate that is noteworthy whether you are a sophomore or a junior. This was a team that blew out a totally stacked Brunswick squad in their final game and he was clearly one of their best players. If you put up 80 points at the highest level of high school lacrosse at 15 it is impressive. If you do that at 16 it is impressive. If you do that at 17 it is still pretty much just as impressive. Recruit rating people were not only giving him props because he was classed as a sophomore at the time.
I am confident based on everything I have seen that he will have an impact for us from the jump that far exceeds where IL put him. Also confident that if it was not for the weird timing of his move back to 2025 that IL would have him much higher. Would struggle to find another example of them rating a guy who produced like he did on a top prep school team in the 80s, even if they were held back in 3rd grade three times and went to three different prep schools.
I was just using Bowman as the most prominent example. I'm a big fan of Peck, and have been for a while -- since his Schuylerville days before he transferred to Lawrenceville.
I think #83 is a bit low, I just think it's closer to the truth than being a top 10 player, especially after a season when he stagnated a bit. The fact that he went from 80 points as a true junior to 60 as a true senior suggests to me that he's better suited as a cog in an elite offense rather than the fulcrum.
For comparisons sake, #65 recruit Adam Udell is a player from my neck of the woods that I've gotten eyes on a few times over the years -- he's gotten better and more productive over time, and exploded when given the keys to the Staples offense. Will he be a better college player than Peck? Maybe not, but I think he's demonstrated a very high ceiling and is worthy of being ranked higher.
Speaking of re-classing inflating reputations, I have my eye on Michael Ortlieb. I noticed a couple years back that he's actually older than Kyle Colsey (a top 10 recruit in the 2024 class), which had me on the look out for regression. And sure enough, his production has stagnated as younger players in the class developed. He's dropped from top 5 to top 20 in these rankings, and frankly I think he probably belongs to be more towards where Peck is in the rankings.