06-24-2011, 03:26 PM
and another one is in
06-24-2011, 03:45 PM
Groan. Maybe he's better than his star rating, but a month ago, we had a 4-5 star DE, and since then, not only did he decommit, but we've brought in an NR, a 2 star, and a bunch of 3 stars. Color me worried.
06-24-2011, 04:00 PM
i only partially agree; a lot of the higher rated guys might not get admitted, like Shittu, Cochran, and Odenigbo. It is also early enough where some of these guys will end up rated higher than their current rating. And if we can get some higher rated recruits down the road then some guys will end up having their offers pulled. Every school does it. But I do agree that we need to get some more verbals from the 4 and 5 star guys that are high on Stanford.
i only partially agree; a lot of the higher rated guys might not get admitted, like Shittu, Cochran, and Odenigbo. It is also early enough where some of these guys will end up rated higher than their current rating. And if we can get some higher rated recruits down the road then some guys will end up having their offers pulled. Every school does it. But I do agree that we need to get some more verbals from the 4 and 5 star guys that are high on Stanford.
06-24-2011, 11:49 PM
(06-24-2011, 06:08 PM)stanfan link Wrote:Owen Marecic was a two star. He seemed to work out pretty well.
So are an absurd number of other prospects each and every year. Can't take an exception and say it's the norm.
(06-24-2011, 06:08 PM)stanfan link Wrote:Owen Marecic was a two star. He seemed to work out pretty well.
So are an absurd number of other prospects each and every year. Can't take an exception and say it's the norm.
06-25-2011, 08:39 AM
(06-24-2011, 11:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stanfan link=topic=4133.msg29661#msg29661 date=1308964083]
Owen Marecic was a two star. He seemed to work out pretty well.
So are an absurd number of other prospects each and every year. Can't take an exception and say it's the norm.
[/quote]
He didn't say it was the norm. He implied it was possible for a 2*-rated player to be an actual player and an example of the ability of the staff (or a previous staff) to see beyond the stars.
(06-24-2011, 11:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stanfan link=topic=4133.msg29661#msg29661 date=1308964083]
Owen Marecic was a two star. He seemed to work out pretty well.
So are an absurd number of other prospects each and every year. Can't take an exception and say it's the norm.
[/quote]
He didn't say it was the norm. He implied it was possible for a 2*-rated player to be an actual player and an example of the ability of the staff (or a previous staff) to see beyond the stars.
06-25-2011, 09:49 AM
Washingtonismoney....You did miss my point....our coaches are much better at evaluating players who will fit into the Stanford system than are Scouting Services. A poster was bemoaning that we are signing 2 stars and 3 stars. Some recent 2 stars, besides Marecic are Debniak (he will be a force this year) and Ryan Whalen. Three stars include such low talent, low production guys as Jonathan Martin, Toby Gerhart and Michael Thomas, Doug Baldwin, Chase Thomas and Coby Fleenor and Chris Owusu. Everybody should relax and let our coaches do their thing. We're going to have a great class.
Washingtonismoney....You did miss my point....our coaches are much better at evaluating players who will fit into the Stanford system than are Scouting Services. A poster was bemoaning that we are signing 2 stars and 3 stars. Some recent 2 stars, besides Marecic are Debniak (he will be a force this year) and Ryan Whalen. Three stars include such low talent, low production guys as Jonathan Martin, Toby Gerhart and Michael Thomas, Doug Baldwin, Chase Thomas and Coby Fleenor and Chris Owusu. Everybody should relax and let our coaches do their thing. We're going to have a great class.
06-25-2011, 10:45 AM
Well, look. All I know is, year after year, the teams that consistently feature highly on the scouting services evaluations of classes consistently also win. Year after year, the high-rated kids are more likely to feature on All-America teams, get drafted highly and the like. So I doubt it's an accident.
Well, look. All I know is, year after year, the teams that consistently feature highly on the scouting services evaluations of classes consistently also win. Year after year, the high-rated kids are more likely to feature on All-America teams, get drafted highly and the like. So I doubt it's an accident.
06-25-2011, 06:53 PM
Remember the self-fulfilling prophecies that some of these ratings can be. A lowly-rated player that gets recruited by u$c, oregon, auburn, etc. may find his rating elevated just for the quality of his offers.
06-26-2011, 09:51 AM
It all feels a lot like early night election returns. We've gotten some results from random precincts and it is too soon to see a big trend. Shittu opening his recruiting was a downer and put a bit of a panic into the crowd, but the night is still young and signing day is not until February. I like the results in general so far and still have a pretty good feeling about recruiting this year. We'll all know in February how they rank and we'll really know in a few years how good the rankings were.Â
As maddening as the recruiting wars can be, I still think it is cool that we are actually involved in the main battle and not just a small late skirmish over a minor supply line as we were in previous years.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
As maddening as the recruiting wars can be, I still think it is cool that we are actually involved in the main battle and not just a small late skirmish over a minor supply line as we were in previous years.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
It all feels a lot like early night election returns. We've gotten some results from random precincts and it is too soon to see a big trend. Shittu opening his recruiting was a downer and put a bit of a panic into the crowd, but the night is still young and signing day is not until February. I like the results in general so far and still have a pretty good feeling about recruiting this year. We'll all know in February how they rank and we'll really know in a few years how good the rankings were.Â
As maddening as the recruiting wars can be, I still think it is cool that we are actually involved in the main battle and not just a small late skirmish over a minor supply line as we were in previous years.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
As maddening as the recruiting wars can be, I still think it is cool that we are actually involved in the main battle and not just a small late skirmish over a minor supply line as we were in previous years.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
06-26-2011, 11:17 AM
I should note that overall I'm fine with the recruiting class and excited about some of the players we're after. Nevertheless I don't expect much out of two-stars, and I do think it's odd we were so aggressive with Madhu in particular, as the competition for him didn't seem particularly fierce (I assume we're able to beat Florida International, right?)
I should note that overall I'm fine with the recruiting class and excited about some of the players we're after. Nevertheless I don't expect much out of two-stars, and I do think it's odd we were so aggressive with Madhu in particular, as the competition for him didn't seem particularly fierce (I assume we're able to beat Florida International, right?)
jalapeno
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-26-2011, 12:15 PM
Surprised to see Stanford fans caring about star-ratings (consedring the success the program has had with "low level" recruits). The 3 major recruiting services (especially ESPN) have their own bias when it comes to their rankings, and are sometimes just plain wrong. A lot of prospects are never really properly evaluated, or evaluated at all.
With that being said, this last commit (in my eyes) seems pretty underwhelming considering that there are better players at the posistion that'd probably want to go to Stanford.Â
With that being said, this last commit (in my eyes) seems pretty underwhelming considering that there are better players at the posistion that'd probably want to go to Stanford.Â
Surprised to see Stanford fans caring about star-ratings (consedring the success the program has had with "low level" recruits). The 3 major recruiting services (especially ESPN) have their own bias when it comes to their rankings, and are sometimes just plain wrong. A lot of prospects are never really properly evaluated, or evaluated at all.
With that being said, this last commit (in my eyes) seems pretty underwhelming considering that there are better players at the posistion that'd probably want to go to Stanford.Â
With that being said, this last commit (in my eyes) seems pretty underwhelming considering that there are better players at the posistion that'd probably want to go to Stanford.Â
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-26-2011, 02:18 PM
In general, they are a way of putting some sort of consensus of a HS player's skill into shorthand (star rankings)
In general, players with higher ratings tend to play better than those with lower ratings. The differences are more reliable between 4-5 star players and 1-2 star players, with more room for error in the middle.
In general, schools that draw in higher ranked players tend to play better and win more than schools that get lower rated athletes.Â
Always room for error. Some kids develop late. Some kids peak in HS. Some kids played for crummy teams or crummy coaches.
Some kids would have stood out playing sandlot football. Some kids get promotional help, some kids can afford to travel to the various camps and showcase themselves. Some can't.
But most of us have fresh memories of a time not too long ago when we had a smattering of really good athletes playing with teammates who...well, had the grades to get in. So if this is an irrational fling with highly rated recruits...well, bring it on.
In general, players with higher ratings tend to play better than those with lower ratings. The differences are more reliable between 4-5 star players and 1-2 star players, with more room for error in the middle.
In general, schools that draw in higher ranked players tend to play better and win more than schools that get lower rated athletes.Â
Always room for error. Some kids develop late. Some kids peak in HS. Some kids played for crummy teams or crummy coaches.
Some kids would have stood out playing sandlot football. Some kids get promotional help, some kids can afford to travel to the various camps and showcase themselves. Some can't.
But most of us have fresh memories of a time not too long ago when we had a smattering of really good athletes playing with teammates who...well, had the grades to get in. So if this is an irrational fling with highly rated recruits...well, bring it on.
In general, they are a way of putting some sort of consensus of a HS player's skill into shorthand (star rankings)
In general, players with higher ratings tend to play better than those with lower ratings. The differences are more reliable between 4-5 star players and 1-2 star players, with more room for error in the middle.
In general, schools that draw in higher ranked players tend to play better and win more than schools that get lower rated athletes.Â
Always room for error. Some kids develop late. Some kids peak in HS. Some kids played for crummy teams or crummy coaches.
Some kids would have stood out playing sandlot football. Some kids get promotional help, some kids can afford to travel to the various camps and showcase themselves. Some can't.
But most of us have fresh memories of a time not too long ago when we had a smattering of really good athletes playing with teammates who...well, had the grades to get in. So if this is an irrational fling with highly rated recruits...well, bring it on.
In general, players with higher ratings tend to play better than those with lower ratings. The differences are more reliable between 4-5 star players and 1-2 star players, with more room for error in the middle.
In general, schools that draw in higher ranked players tend to play better and win more than schools that get lower rated athletes.Â
Always room for error. Some kids develop late. Some kids peak in HS. Some kids played for crummy teams or crummy coaches.
Some kids would have stood out playing sandlot football. Some kids get promotional help, some kids can afford to travel to the various camps and showcase themselves. Some can't.
But most of us have fresh memories of a time not too long ago when we had a smattering of really good athletes playing with teammates who...well, had the grades to get in. So if this is an irrational fling with highly rated recruits...well, bring it on.
06-26-2011, 02:21 PM
Elon, Florida, Harvard, University of Alabama at Birmingham, sounds like a guy with, um, good grades.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-26-2011, 04:21 PM
but might not be the same thing. Scary thing, I actually know a kid who is going to Elon. I'd never heard of it until he chose to go there. He's a great kid, but if he's typical of the student body..., well, let's just hope that the Elon coaches are a different breed altogether. Suffice it to say an offer from Elon doesn't ring my chimes, either.
I have a relative who used to coach at UAB, so I can't offer an opinion on what a UAB offer is worth, not while I'm being watched.
I have a relative who used to coach at UAB, so I can't offer an opinion on what a UAB offer is worth, not while I'm being watched.
but might not be the same thing. Scary thing, I actually know a kid who is going to Elon. I'd never heard of it until he chose to go there. He's a great kid, but if he's typical of the student body..., well, let's just hope that the Elon coaches are a different breed altogether. Suffice it to say an offer from Elon doesn't ring my chimes, either.
I have a relative who used to coach at UAB, so I can't offer an opinion on what a UAB offer is worth, not while I'm being watched.
I have a relative who used to coach at UAB, so I can't offer an opinion on what a UAB offer is worth, not while I'm being watched.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »