- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Talent of recruits is NOT based on stars
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:59 pm
So many people freaking out about recruits losing stars and whatever else.
Coaches evaluate players based on individual abilities. They dont just say "that kid has 5 stars lets go after him."
No, its about what kids fit YOUR system.
Rant over.
Coaches evaluate players based on individual abilities. They dont just say "that kid has 5 stars lets go after him."
No, its about what kids fit YOUR system.
Rant over.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 12:00 am
9
Posted on 12/7/17 at 12:22 am to GeauxTigerNation
So there are numerous examples of 5 stars being squat and 2-3 stars being all pro. The sheer number of preps makes it impossible to get every grade correct.
I understand what you are trying to say but it’s only for the rare one off.
In general, recruiting success in terms of rankings does generally equal on field success
I understand what you are trying to say but it’s only for the rare one off.
In general, recruiting success in terms of rankings does generally equal on field success
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:50 am to GeauxTigerNation
I'm pretty sure everyone already knows this.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 7:06 am to GeauxTigerNation
quote:
Talent of recruits is NOT based on stars
No shite! But the stars ARE based on the talent of the recruits.
Many examples can be found of a low rated player turning out great. But few examples can be found of a low rated class turning out great.
Usually, if you see a school with not-top-ten talent have a great season it's because they either played an easy schedule or had a superstar QB.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 7:17 am to Penrod
If you were an NFL GM, would you trade your first round draft picks for a couple of fourth round picks? It is not an exact science. Look at the playoff, these teams have perennial top 10 recruiting classes.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 7:35 am to lsurapper
quote:
If you were an NFL GM, would you trade your first round draft picks for a couple of fourth round picks?
You can't compare the NFL draft with recruiting highschool players.
quote:
Look at the playoff, these teams have perennial top 10 recruiting classes.
100% correct it's takes talent in this day and age to win. There are very few schemes that are going to win over talent.
I'm not sure why these threads keep popping up though. There is nothing wrong with this class. There is plenty of talent here to win a national championship. La is in a down year talent wise but there are some underrated players in this class. Just look at the highschool play-offs, a lot of the traditional powerhouse schools are at home watching.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 7:55 am to GeauxTigerNation
Oh, this thread again. Stars don't matter etc...
It's ok to admit this isn't our strongest ever class, quit bullshittin yourself.
It's ok to admit this isn't our strongest ever class, quit bullshittin yourself.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 8:15 am to The Mick
What is Orgeron's "system"? It's wholly dependent on who he retains as coordinators since he has no personal system. So Ed needs the absolute best players possible and his primary attribute is recruiting those players. If he cannot do that he has very little chance of succeeding at LSU.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 8:32 am to lsurapper
quote:
Look at the playoff, these teams have perennial top 10 recruiting classes.
Oklahoma's average class ranking this decade is 13. Clemson's is 15. Ohio State's average is around 6. LSU's average class rank is under 7.
Maybe more goes into team success than a few spots in the rankings here and there? And maybe there isn't that much difference between the 7th ranked class and the 13th? Just a hypothesis, but the numbers seem to support it.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 9:08 am to GeauxTigerNation
quote:Show me a five star with no offers from all the major players.
oaches evaluate players based on individual abilities. They dont just say "that kid has 5 stars lets go after him."
Posted on 12/7/17 at 9:45 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
In general, recruiting success in terms of rankings does generally equal on field success
If this was not true, you wouldn't see Alabama, Clemson having so much success. While many want to down play the importance of these rankings they do mean something. Especially as a team has injuries and attrition.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 10:12 am to whitefoot
This decade????? Tell me about their last 4 classes!
Posted on 12/7/17 at 10:38 am to lsurapper
quote:
This decade????? Tell me about their last 4 classes!
It's about the same.
2014-2017 Recruiting class averages:
Oklahoma average is 14 (14, 15, 19, 8)
Clemson average is 13 (16, 9, 11, 16)
Ohio State average is 4 (3, 7, 4, 2)
LSU average is 4 (2, 5, 2, 7)
Florida State average is 4 (4, 3, 3, 6)
Aabama average is 1 (obviously)
USC average is 6.5
Auburn average is 8
Georgia average is 5.75
Posted on 12/7/17 at 10:48 am to ATLTiger24
quote:It's his very first year as coach, need to give it some time if you want to actually be objective. I wish we had more 5s and 4s rather than 3s this year but I'm not going to judge O by this one class. Regarding his coordinators and his system, LSU fans have been begging Les for years to let the coordinators do their jobs. O is doing just that and he's getting bashed for not being more involved.
What is Orgeron's "system"? It's wholly dependent on who he retains as coordinators since he has no personal system. So Ed needs the absolute best players possible and his primary attribute is recruiting those players. If he cannot do that he has very little chance of succeeding at LSU.
I'm not a pro-O or anti-O guy but regardless if you like the hire, he needs time to either pass or fail.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 10:50 am
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:16 am to The Mick
What if the big programs send money to the recruiting services for higher ranks?
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:58 am to lsurapper
quote:
What if the big programs send money to the recruiting services for higher ranks?
They don't have to, big schools are what the subscription services cater to for obvious reasons so the more they pump those schools the more money they make.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 12:07 pm to Jimmiemac
quote:
They don't have to, big schools are what the subscription services cater to for obvious reasons so the more they pump those schools the more money they make.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 12:08 pm to GeauxTigerNation
Star ratings generally correlate well with player talent.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 12:41 pm to The Mick
Preach Mick
Posted on 12/7/17 at 12:44 pm to SlowurRole
"Talent of recruits is NOT based on star"
- that is something a loser would say who couldnt get the recruits they needed to win.
- that is something a loser would say who couldnt get the recruits they needed to win.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News