- 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
re: Scout LSU rankings
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:49 pm to geauxtigers69
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:49 pm to geauxtigers69
Alright, I only spent 10 minutes or so looking over Scout.com's new release of 2011 prospect rankings, but I'm going to go right ahead and disagree with their general perspective on high school football talent.
Scout is easily the least-competent of the three main football recruiting websites.
Scout is easily the least-competent of the three main football recruiting websites.
1
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:49 pm to AtlantaLSUfan
As we have run in circles already, Landry will be screwed by "measurables." I still don't undertand how he can outshine all WRs (including Ambles from this year and other '10 receivers) at camps and not be considered top 5-10 at the position.
That's ridiculous. At some point you just have to rank him higher becaue he's better.
Also, I guess Hilliard takes a knock because of his speed but it sounds like he's been working like a bastard to get down below 4.6-4.5.
Point is, they should be higher and Scout scouts are shite. Look what they did to Ware. I even told some of the Scout guys in the board one day...........Rivals is much better in terms of ratings and I look forward to the Rivals rankings.
That's ridiculous. At some point you just have to rank him higher becaue he's better.
Also, I guess Hilliard takes a knock because of his speed but it sounds like he's been working like a bastard to get down below 4.6-4.5.
Point is, they should be higher and Scout scouts are shite. Look what they did to Ware. I even told some of the Scout guys in the board one day...........Rivals is much better in terms of ratings and I look forward to the Rivals rankings.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:50 pm to Books
quote:
Scott Kennedy (Scout's lead recruiting guy) is one of the worst analysts I've seen on any of the sites.
I agree...Kennedy is a Kennedy and Kennedy's are obviously stupid and corrupt.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:51 pm to OldIowaTiger
yeah said this awhile ago but Landry and Hilliard will be the 2 of the big 5 left out of 5*'s because of measurables. there way of not having to put 5 5*'s in 1 state, but they are probably the 2 best football players in the state.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 3:58 pm to G4LSU
6 RB's from Texas rated above Hilliard. i know they have 2-3 really good ones, but come on...
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:03 pm to geauxtigers69
Scout is joke in their ratings, seriously. I'm not going to begin to touch on why they fail so much compared to Rivals system.
They really need to devote more resources into their ranking system and scouting.
They really need to devote more resources into their ranking system and scouting.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:08 pm to DaveDoggy
Kennedy has been saying for the last year on the Joke of a National Board Scout has that Landry would not be a 5 star because he is short.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:09 pm to deuce985
Scout What do they provide?
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:09 pm to DaveDoggy
what are the rivals rankings? 2011
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:09 pm to Books
quote:
they don't, they have Landry the 13th best WR and Hilliard the 22nd best RB, both are laughable. Scott Kennedy (Scout's lead recruiting guy) is one of the worst analysts I've seen on any of the sites.
Agreed. There are Not 21 better HS running backs in the country than Hilliard. Doubt Landry should be ranked that low either. Not a shock really after, after they committed so early to LSU. Kennedy isn't capable of a truly objective analysis IMO.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:10 pm to tehmidget
But they had Reed as a 5 star because he was tall...right...wait Reed isn't tall? 
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:12 pm to deuce985
Well I had heard that, more than being shorter, the knock on Landry was high-end speed.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:14 pm to ApexTiger
I hate how Scout/Rivals analyst will tell you one thing about a recruit and a similar one with the same problems, gets docked even more points. They don't stay consistent with what they say. If Landry's height is a problem...then why aren't docking points from players like Reed with his measurables? Anyone with eyes can see on film Landry is a bigger prospect, yet hes ranked behind all those other WRs? Must be a hell of a deep class already.
I wouldn't freak out about these rankings right now because its so early. At least they're giving these guys recognition. But I'd take Scout's ranking system with a grain of salt, I rarely look at them myself.
I wouldn't freak out about these rankings right now because its so early. At least they're giving these guys recognition. But I'd take Scout's ranking system with a grain of salt, I rarely look at them myself.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:16 pm to OldIowaTiger
Yea, he was reportedly running a 4.8 at the AA combine or something.
Reed didn't run great at his combine either...so I don't see the point. I think most people would agree Landry is a bigger prospect than Reed...I'm just making a general comparison, not trying to knock Reed. They're not consistent on how they rank their prospects.
Reed didn't run great at his combine either...so I don't see the point. I think most people would agree Landry is a bigger prospect than Reed...I'm just making a general comparison, not trying to knock Reed. They're not consistent on how they rank their prospects.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:18 pm to OldIowaTiger
quote:
Well I had heard that, more than being shorter, the knock on Landry was high-end speed.
Yea, short and slow. Other schools need to know this.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:19 pm to geauxtigers69
All in all a very shitty first batch of rankings for Scout. In this case, speed doesn't mean a damn thing.
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:24 pm to OBUDan
They have Rasco ranked ahead of Collins too.
I'm not sure I can ever agree with that. Rasco is a great prospect but Collins should be unanimous #1 prospect in LA...
I'm not sure I can ever agree with that. Rasco is a great prospect but Collins should be unanimous #1 prospect in LA...
This post was edited on 2/8/10 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:30 pm to deuce985
Pretty shitty 
Looking forward to the Rivals rankings.
Didn't Scout have a few WRs ranked above Randle too?
Looking forward to the Rivals rankings. Didn't Scout have a few WRs ranked above Randle too?
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:33 pm to bmy
I think we are going to have to help Scout out a little! LOL!
i haven't seen all the recruits they ranked higher than our guys...but based on everything I have heard...Our top 6 in state this year should be top 100 players...based on the hype of
LA greatest pool of talent ever....so the Rivals and ESPN rankings should be interesting....I knew this was going to happen
i haven't seen all the recruits they ranked higher than our guys...but based on everything I have heard...Our top 6 in state this year should be top 100 players...based on the hype of
LA greatest pool of talent ever....so the Rivals and ESPN rankings should be interesting....I knew this was going to happen
Posted on 2/8/10 at 4:37 pm to ApexTiger
I could see Sylve being outside the top 150 because of his injury. He'll rise in rankings, IMO.
But in that case, again, they're not consistent with their rankings. If they rank off potential and measurables, then he should be a top 150 from his measurables alone. Hes one of the fastest players in the country, he has a Football frame for WR too...
Their is plenty of prospects who are raw as hell but got rated high because of measurables alone. Should Sylve be any different?
Scout's problem is it boils down to them lacking resources in Louisiana, just like Rivals. Their scouting is also second rate.
But in that case, again, they're not consistent with their rankings. If they rank off potential and measurables, then he should be a top 150 from his measurables alone. Hes one of the fastest players in the country, he has a Football frame for WR too...
Their is plenty of prospects who are raw as hell but got rated high because of measurables alone. Should Sylve be any different?
Scout's problem is it boils down to them lacking resources in Louisiana, just like Rivals. Their scouting is also second rate.
This post was edited on 2/8/10 at 4:38 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News