Class of 2015 class rankings

[ImperialOrange]

No. Mutual agreement.

Noted, and ammended

 

[PhatOrange]

It would be a lot easier to evaluate how our recruiting was going if we better understood our requirements. On defense we appear to be very solid, but offense is a guess based on bits and pieces of info we all read in the media. We don't really know what Lester is going to run and I don't see any big hints from the recruiting. Kids hear what they want to hear in recruiting sessions so I don't get too excited over the TE comments. More tight ends in the formations can simply mean more blocking and check down options. Who knows?

Seems to me what we do know is that this class appears to be very solid from top to bottom - perhaps our most solid in a very long time. I like that we are winning with some kids with good offers even after our lousy season. These guys can recruit and that is 90% of the battle.

who ever said there'd be "More tight ends in the formations" ?

 

[Crusty]

who ever said there'd be "More tight ends in the formations" ?

Lester and recruits. 1 back and 2 te.

 

[PhatOrange]

Lester and recruits. 1 back and 2 te.

I've never seen that quoted anywhere, but isn't that what we do now only we call the second TE an HBack? Seems like semantics.

 

[anomander]

As far as rankings go I think it's a crapshoot when you are trying to separate between 3 stars and below, but are pretty accurate for the most part with 4 stars and above. It's not a coincidence, that for the most part, the teams routinely rated in the top 20 are the teams that are successful year after year. It's really not that hard just look at who are 4 and 5 star. They are usually kids who play at programs who routinely pump out elite talent, and are the biggest, and fastest kids at the position. The rest just fall in place behind them.

 

[Macky44]

As far as rankings go I think it's a crapshoot when you are trying to separate between 3 stars and below, but are pretty accurate for the most part with 4 stars and above. It's not a coincidence, that for the most part, the teams routinely rated in the top 20 are the teams that are successful year after year. It's really not that hard just look at who are 4 and 5 star. They are usually kids who play at programs who routinely pump out elite talent, and are the biggest, and fastest kids at the position. The rest just fall in place behind them.

It's not that cut and dry. Keep in mind there are kids who get their values pumped just because of interest from certain programs. I suppose in the grand scheme your thought isnt inaccurate...but there is more talented kids now than there used to be across the board who are not given a just evaluation because certain programs don't notice them right away.

 

[ImperialOrange]

As far as rankings go I think it's a crapshoot when you are trying to separate between 3 stars and below, but are pretty accurate for the most part with 4 stars and above. It's not a coincidence, that for the most part, the teams routinely rated in the top 20 are the teams that are successful year after year. It's really not that hard just look at who are 4 and 5 star. They are usually kids who play at programs who routinely pump out elite talent, and are the biggest, and fastest kids at the position. The rest just fall in place behind them.

I'd imagine the recruiting sites struggle with trying to figure out level of competition, identical to us, when it comes to kids from lessor known schools/areas. Certain areas and divisions you know they are playing top level comp most weeks, others not as much. We have the #1 LB from Mass, who we all presume will be a stud player, but how could one effectively rank him nationally when he's not playing FL, TX, CA, GA, etc competition every week?

 

[anomander]

It's not that cut and dry. Keep in mind there are kids who get their values pumped just because of interest from certain programs. I suppose in the grand scheme your thought isnt inaccurate...but there is more talented kids now than there used to be across the board who are not given a just evaluation because certain programs don't notice them right away.

So who's recruiting class would you want every year Syracuse and all our underrated 3 stars, or Clemson who routinely has a good mix of 3 stars, 4 stars, and every now and again a 5 star?

Syracuse is usually ranked in the 50's, Clemson the teens. I think it is that cut and dry. Of course there are misses both ways, but the results are pretty clear.

 

[anomander]

I'd imagine the recruiting sites struggle with trying to figure out level of competition, identical to us, when it comes to kids from lessor known schools/areas. Certain areas and divisions you know they are playing top level comp most weeks, others not as much. We have the #1 LB from Mass, who we all presume will be a stud player, but how could one effectively rank him nationally when he's not playing FL, TX, CA, GA, etc competition every week?

Exactly so therefore the benefit of the doubt goes to the kid who has performed against other elite talent. It's pretty understandable imo.

 

[Trueblue25]

What's the best case scenario to close out this class?

Crawford, Hale and Stocker?

 

[Macky44]

So who's recruiting class would you want every year Syracuse and all our underrated 3 stars, or Clemson who routinely has a good mix of 3 stars, 4 stars, and every now and again a 5 star?

Syracuse is usually ranked in the 50's, Clemson the teens. I think it is that cut and dry. Of course there are misses both ways, but the results are pretty clear.

I wasn't clear with what i was trying to say apparently. Im not an idiot, and your question is stating that would be the case.

 

[Macky44]

Exactly so therefore the benefit of the doubt goes to the kid who has performed against other elite talent. It's pretty understandable imo.

Noone is debating the obvious kids. The point is there is a plethora of talent across the board that go under/not evaluated which results in 0-2 stars almost every time. The point is, its an archaic system that is hard to take seriously across the board if there isn't enough people out there to evaluate the entire country. YES..we understand that most of the kids Bama recruits are going to be 4-5 stars even without an evalutation..noone is disagreeing with that point.