Derek Edinburgh, per scout, for star-gazers

He has steadily risen across all the recruiting sites over the course of this year. His ceiling is very high.

He's already a 4 star on Rivals. Scout just catching up.

Gonna be mashing through the SEC for years to come.

Scout has better rankings. There are a couple of differences from Rivals that causes theirs to look a little strange or wrong. 1st they don't have an athlete category so they slot guys at the positions they prefer them at so some positions,particularly rb,wr,cb,qb and safety, have guys ranked at positions that skew the position rankings a bit. The 2nd and most important and misinterpreted part of Scoutt's rankings are the * ratings. They have slotted * ratings that don't necessarily reflect the difference in talent like Rivals and 247 do. The national top 50 are all 5* and that is the reason Fowler lost his 5th. He fell out of the top 50. Rivals usually has around 25 5* kids a year and those kids are considered to be the elite guys in the class. The 5th * on Rivals is based on merit not slotting. Also on Scout #s 51-300 are the 4* kids. No kid ranked below 300 is a 4*. Again pure slotting not based on merit. Rivals has somewhere close to 350 4* kids right now and they used to have many more in past years but have strictened the * ratings. The top 3 * guys on Scout are guys that would be 4* kids on Rivals. It's all on how you personally choose to view the * ratings. The only thing that matters on Scout are the positon rankings. The reason Monroe lost his 4th * is because he fell out of the top 300. He likely only fell a spot or 2 in the position rankings if any at all. His * rating is based purely on the fact that he fell out of the top 300. If Edinburgh hadn't risen into the top 300 he would still be a 3* but still would have gotten a big bump in the OT rankings. It's all perception .

quote:

---

Scout has better rankings. There are a couple of differences from Rivals that causes theirs to look a little strange or wrong. 1st they don't have an athlete category so they slot guys at the positions they prefer them at so some positions,particularly rb,wr,cb,qb and safety, have guys ranked at positions that skew the position rankings a bit. The 2nd and most important and misinterpreted part of Scoutt's rankings are the * ratings. They have slotted * ratings that don't necessarily reflect the difference in talent like Rivals and 247 do. The national top 50 are all 5* and that is the reason Fowler lost his 5th. He fell out of the top 50. Rivals usually has around 25 5* kids a year and those kids are considered to be the elite guys in the class. The 5th * on Rivals is based on merit not slotting. Also on Scout #s 51-300 are the 4* kids. No kid ranked below 300 is a 4*. Again pure slotting not based on merit. Rivals has somewhere close to 350 4* kids right now and they used to have many more in past years but have strictened the * ratings. The top 3 * guys on Scout are guys that would be 4* kids on Rivals. It's all on how you personally choose to view the * ratings. The only thing that matters on Scout are the positon rankings. The reason Monroe lost his 4th * is because he fell out of the top 300. He likely only fell a spot or 2 in the position rankings if any at all. His * rating is based purely on the fact that he fell out of the top 300. If Edinburgh hadn't risen into the top 300 he would still be a 3* but still would have gotten a big bump in the OT rankings. It's all perception .

---

Great post.

Since when do the top 50 players on rivals get a 5-star rating? In the past,they have only given the top 25-30 players a 5-star rating. Also, Rivals has proven to have the more accurate rankings over the years. If you want more accurate ratings, you use Rivals. However, if you want to find out about new developments more quickly, then you go with Scout.

quote:

---

Shows the confidence Les has in stud IMO. He knows stud can coach technique, but he can't coach 6'7" 320.

---

he has to work on his footwork

quote:

---

Scout has better rankings. There are a couple of differences from Rivals that causes theirs to look a little strange or wrong. 1st they don't have an athlete category so they slot guys at the positions they prefer them at so some positions,particularly rb,wr,cb,qb and safety, have guys ranked at positions that skew the position rankings a bit. The 2nd and most important and misinterpreted part of Scoutt's rankings are the * ratings. They have slotted * ratings that don't necessarily reflect the difference in talent like Rivals and 247 do. The national top 50 are all 5* and that is the reason Fowler lost his 5th. He fell out of the top 50. Rivals usually has around 25 5* kids a year and those kids are considered to be the elite guys in the class. The 5th * on Rivals is based on merit not slotting. Also on Scout #s 51-300 are the 4* kids. No kid ranked below 300 is a 4*. Again pure slotting not based on merit. Rivals has somewhere close to 350 4* kids right now and they used to have many more in past years but have strictened the * ratings. The top 3 * guys on Scout are guys that would be 4* kids on Rivals. It's all on how you personally choose to view the * ratings. The only thing that matters on Scout are the positon rankings. The reason Monroe lost his 4th * is because he fell out of the top 300. He likely only fell a spot or 2 in the position rankings if any at all. His * rating is based purely on the fact that he fell out of the top 300. If Edinburgh hadn't risen into the top 300 he would still be a 3* but still would have gotten a big bump in the OT rankings. It's all perception .

---

tl;dr

it moved.

quote:

---

Since when do the top 50 players on rivals get a 5-star rating?

---

I think you read that wrong. He said that Scout gives the top 50 5 stars. And that Rivals only has around 25 5 stars each year.