Replies: 13
| visibility 1
|
110%er [6153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4043
Joined: 2/15/11
|
Recruiting rankings change, but the players don’t change
Jan 29, 2020, 11:56 AM
|
|
The only thing that changes are the opinions of others.
“I thought you’d be bigger.”
“Opinions vary.” — Dalton in ROADHOUSE
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Love “Roadhouse”! Not sure exactly why, but I do.***
Jan 29, 2020, 12:03 PM
|
|
Players who are rated 3-star and later rated 5-star are the same players. Same with guys who are demoted in the ratings. Their skills and abilities didn’t change, just the opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30895]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34528
Joined: 6/22/03
|
U Love “Roadhouse” because its awesome***
Jan 29, 2020, 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11659
Joined: 9/1/01
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Recruiting rankings change, but the players don’t change
Jan 29, 2020, 1:04 PM
|
|
I have one small disagreement with this stance.
While I do agree that the guys who signed on the dotted line in December are the same players who showed up in January, the players will certainly change and improve if they are going to end up contributing at Clemson.
Recruiting rankings are largely based off of potential because there are maybe 5 high school players in the country who are ready to help a college team with no further coaching or physical development.
Sometimes recruiting services either over or underestimate the potential for growth.
I would guess it is most often a mental issue with learning and adapting to the college game.
Motivation always affects development as well.
I know a truck driver who is a great example of not always getting what you sign.
He wasn't some overrated bum. He made himself an overrated bum.
There is a WR for the Oakland/Vegas Raiders that is a much more positive example of that being true as well.
Renfrow was not some hidden 5 star that we found. He was likely underrated, but he made himself into what he has become while he was at Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
It's always "suspicious" to me when
Jan 29, 2020, 2:48 PM
|
|
a player's ranking changes AFTER he commits or signs. I think that at that point, his "ranking" should be frozen. Look at two instances with QBs. Trevor Lawrence was ranked above Justyn Fields. Then, Lawrence signed with Clemson, Fields signed with UGA, and next thing you know, Fields is ranked above Lawrence. Next, DJ is ranked above Bryce Young. DJ's team beat Young's team head-to-head for the California HS championship. DJ signs with Clemson, Young signs with Bama... Young then becomes the #1 HS QB and DJ's ranking drops. And with all this (and more) we're supposed to believe that there is no BIAS among those who rank players? Yeah, right...
But, as Dabo says, just keep on winning. The difference is that Clemson is getting the players it needs, while other schools are filling their rosters with players that the "experts" say are best. I like it Dabo's way!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5126
Joined: 4/23/19
|
Re: It's always "suspicious" to me when
Jan 29, 2020, 3:54 PM
|
|
Freezing a player's ranking when he commits makes no sense at all, especially when he commits early enough that there is more material for evaluation to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24849]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42665
Joined: 7/31/10
|
or maybe look at the DJ example above... Evaluate that!***
Jan 30, 2020, 8:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5126
Joined: 4/23/19
|
Re: or maybe look at the DJ example above... Evaluate that!***
Jan 30, 2020, 10:32 AM
|
|
Already done that.
247 has him #2 Rivals has him #3 ESPN has him at #43. He was recently elevated from #48.
It has NOTHING to do with when he signed. ESPN has been off the deep end about him from the start because they are inferior (for many reasons) to 247 and Rivals.
Very simple. Doesn't fit any conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [135393]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26455
Joined: 9/18/12
|
I agree that their rankings shouldn't "freeze", however
Feb 1, 2020, 8:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: It's always "suspicious" to me when ] |
|
why should it drop unless his play drops? It is odd that DJ literally carried his team to a win and he loses spots to the opposing QB he beat.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5126
Joined: 4/23/19
|
Re: Recruiting rankings change, but the players don’t change
Jan 29, 2020, 3:31 PM
|
|
I feel sorry for you guys that buy into conspiracy nonsense. But, to each his own.
Regarding the long post, evaluation is subjective. I'm sure some is based on current performance and some on potential.
I believe athletes are like people in general. Some folks peak in HS and it's downhill from there. Others in college; others later on. This is how a non-scholarship guy like Hunter Renfrow can turn out better in college and the NFL than 4 and 5 star players more physically gifted and productive in HS.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [772]
TigerPulse: 71%
Posts: 1759
Joined: 1/12/19
|
Re: Recruiting rankings change, but the players don’t change
Jan 30, 2020, 9:15 AM
|
|
If you peak in HS and go downhill from there then you were either not worth a crap to start with and just over rated by those who do that or you were not coached and developed at all! Clemson has consistently produced top rated pro prospects from small stars from an unknown constellation! Georgia for instance can get all the stars they want and still play like crap...Florida State under Jumbo Fishnet was the same way...he won while Bowden was hanging but when it was his own show he collapsed...I hope that Dabo and company never lose the development spice and continue to make players much better when they leave than when they came...same with the student athlete part and the young man part...Dabo did not get a standard call!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1149]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1179
Joined: 8/17/03
|
I couldn't care less if we're 1 or 3 or 5. What's important
Jan 30, 2020, 9:12 AM
|
|
is our coaches stay the same, for the most part. I'm slightly nervous about Grisham taking over for Scott and especially losing Scott's input on calling plays, but I trust Dabo to the Nth degree re: hires and promotions (and everything else, really). No staff in the country coaches kids up better than Clemson's. Nobody. It's well documented but Grady Jarrett was a 2* and Hunter Renfrow, well....And there have been plenty more.
I wouldn't take any other class in the country over what Dabo just signed in Dec, and there could be 1 or 2 more next Wednesday. These class rankings are as meaningful as titts on a boar hog.
And, yes, Patrick Swayze was awesome. Next of Kin is a great movie, too. Dude left us way too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9382
Joined: 11/1/14
|
The rankings change because
Feb 1, 2020, 8:39 AM
|
|
The initial ones are so far off on all but probably the Top 20...or perhaps 50. They're based on juniors just finishing their sophomore seasons...some have grown...others haven't. Few have camped.
Like a 'gossip fence', the Top 20 are known in many circles, but few circles are shared, so the rankings are a composite of 'hearsay'. As the camp rounds are made and coaches actually get to looking at juniors, the 'experts' pay attention...and some even check the players out themselves. Now reality is starting to form...a bit.
When the senior lists come out, the players are better known, but their rankings, up or down, come from the initial, largely sight unseen, junior rankings. So...movement begins. The lists, for me, reflect players moving up far more than players moving down. Some 'experts' like to be the first to 'notice' a player, so they rank high...and it may be deserved.
What doesn't change, at least for Clemson, is their view of a player, holistically. All that said, as far as the Natty Recruiting Championship goes, it's a vapor title fueling vapor aspirations that are largely the incense of choice for Bulldog fans! They simply love the smell everyone else cna live without!
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1
|
|
|