Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 3509190, member: 40"] It's not "pointless," but it is only ONE DATA POINT that needs to be evaluated / considered. ESPECIALLY for a program at our level, where our bread-and-butter level is around that 3-star tier that the recruiting services typically do a poor job rating. Looking at offer lists is another good evaluative criteria. So are measureables [height / weight / speed for position]. We also need to factor in things like whether the kids were offered during a camp, where our coaches are working directly with them first hand. Competition level is also informative, but doesn't tell the full story. That's the common theme -- NONE of these data points in and of themselves tell the full story. But by looking at them collectively, you can start to paint a more complete picture of the recruit and what their upside might be. And admittedly, some of it is subjective -- not all recruits pan out. The main issue I see with some posters is that they only focus on one of those elements, and that's how they formulate their entire opinion on the player, class, and the state of recruiting. Looking ONLY at star ratings or offer lists might work for teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, or LSU -- because they are comparing one five-star vs. another, or a five-star vs. a four-star with good measureables. Conversely, we're looking at a DL who is 6-5 but "only" weighs 250, and projecting that in our system our coaches are trying to get guys with big frames and can move their feet, and that they will "grow" into their frames without losing the athleticism. I'm not wringing my hand because our prospect is lacking in one or more of the evaluative criteria [weight, offers], because I recognize that the staff is trying to do with our DL, also recognize that it might take those guys 2-3 years in our program to optimize the size quotient, and have also seen this strategy be effective with the likes of Slayton, Coleman, Black, and McKinley. I don't look at a camp offer like Bergeron and bemoan the lack of offers -- I look at the unbelievable physical tools he had and the fact that our OL coach remarked that he was a future NFL OL. I don't worry that Benson didn't have a quality set of P5 offers -- I focused on the blazing track speed that was rare for a TE his size. I didn't worry that Cantin-Aku didn't have great offers, because his physical measureables were off the charts. Look at some of the OL we're bringing in -- Cruz has four star athleticism, offers, and height -- but is light. He needs time to grow into the position, and if he doesn't lose the athleticism, then we're cooking with gas. Ditto Kuhai, Hoeh, and Magnuson. Would I rather that each of those guys come in at 290 as the starting point? Sure. But I'd rather have OL prospects who in 2-3 years are the same size and caliber of athletes as top 25 programs even if it takes them a couple of years to actualize that potential, than a "big" OL who is a stiff and can't move their feet. Would I rather have those guys also have strong P5 offers? Sure -- but we're getting there. And at the end of the day, you can't measure some things in advance -- a player's work ethic, how dedicated they are to their craft, their level of football IQ, their feel for the game, etc. That's why some -- not all -- highly rated prospects don't pan out, while some lower rated prospects greatly outshoot their ranking. High level examples, but hopefully they express the point I'm trying to make. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?