re: Miles' general thoughts on the season...

quote:

---

Different years different problems.

---

But always big problems.

quote:

---

In any case I am confident that Les Miles and his staff know way more than the average rantard.

---

We should certainly hope so.

But, the fact that we have major problems, and have had major problems for four years now, leads inevitably to one of the following three possibilities:

1) he doesn't think there are major problems,

2) he knows there are major problems, but he can't fix them or

3) he knows there are major problems and he knows how to fix them, but for four years he just decided not to.

Which one of those is good?

Before you try to argue, learn to read. The article said that 1.3% of college players were 5* recruits (208/15,877) and that 17.0% of 1st Rd. NFL draftees were 5* recruits (27/159).

If you can't understand that 1.3% of the college population representing 17.0% of the NFL population is a hugely skewed stat, then go back to high school.

ETA:

quote:

---

I'm saying the majority of the NFL is made up of 2 & 3 star players. What is not to understand about that?

---

According to your article, 17 percent of 1st round picks were 5* and 43 percent were 4*. Last I checked, 60% is a majority.

quote:

---

Before you try to argue, learn to read. The article said that 1.3% of college players were 5* recruits (208/15,877) and that 17.0% of 1st Rd. NFL draftees were 5* recruits (27/159). If you can't understand that 1.3% of the college population representing 17.0% of the NFL population is a hugely skewed stat, then go back to high school.

---

You're a special kind of dumb

quote:

---

My point of this whole argument that started earlier in this thread is that just because a team has a lot of 5 stars doesn't mean they are more talented then everyone else

---

A better way to put it to get idiots like chilge and rickdaddy off your back would be to say that "just because a team has more 5 stars doesn't mean that they have better players in college". The retards that you're arguing with are using percentage of 5*'s drafted as evidence that 5*'s are better in college while they're completely ignoring the way the NFL draft and high school scouting combines work and what they look for.

High school scouting combines rank players based almost solely on what their measurables are. They line a bunch of kids up, take their height/weight/hand size/etc., make them run the 40/shuttle/vertical/etc. and get their numbers, then run them through drills to see who's the most explosive and athletic, and the players who are the biggest physical freaks end up being the 5 stars. It has NOTHING to do with how good they are in-game. Everyone who has ever played a sport knew "that guy" who killed it in the bullpen or had an awesome 40 time or had a prototype body but sucked in games because he didn't have the "it" factor. The NFL will almost always take a chance on a wideout who's 6'5" 220 pounds and runs a 4.4 in the hopes that they'll be able to develop the next Calvin Johnson even if the player wasn't very productive in college for whatever reason. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't, but NFL GM's and owners will always drop a relatively small amount of cash on a guy who has the body and measurables to turn into a star even if they sucked in college, and almost all 5*'s fit that description. Hence why so many of them get drafted.

Combines rank players based on how physically freaky they are and ignore things like instincts and how much of a baller they are (for lack of a better term) and the NFL will draft guys or, at the least, sign them as an undrafted free agent if they're a physical freak and ignore the fact that they weren't a baller in college. This is why so many 5 stars make it to the NFL and it has nothing to do with how good of a player they were in college, so you're right. You're just phrasing it in a way that lets the morons on the board with no critical thinking skills call you out and twist your words. I'd probably just hang it up and stop trying to argue with them because you're probably talking to the 2 or 3 dumbest people on the rant

ETA and Summary: Players are ranked 5*'s solely on their projectability. The NFL drafts and signs UFA's mainly on their projectability. DT's who are 6'3, 330 pounds and run a 4.6 in high school usually can still do the same their senior year in college. Just because a player is 6'3" 330 and runs a 4.6 doesn't mean that they'll be productive in college. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together in this situation and understand why more 5*'s get drafted but LSU can still lose to Arkansas 3 years in a row and get physically dominated

quote:

---

southeasttiger113

---

You are absolutely, 100% correct.

And yet, if you discredit the raw evaluation data of high school prospects and NFL draft position, you're left with no readily available metric for quantifying "talent." I don't even know what this argument is about as I didn't get involved until page 10 when the NFL draft had already been established as the accepted medium. My apologies to you if you actually read this entire thread.

Either way, the percentage of "talented" college football players who both were graded highly coming out of high school AND will get drafted and/or signed to an UDFA contract by an NFL team is much greater than where only one of these events might happen to any particular player. Tyrann Mathieu was a 2* player that was a Heisman contender and a 3rd round pick, and Chris Davenport was a 5* player that never sniffed the NFL.

ETA and Summary: A team with 85 scholarships given to 4/5* recruits is more talented than a team with 85 scholarships given to 2/3* recruits, regardless of whether a select few of those 5* recruits were overvalued or whether a select few of those 2/3* recruits were undervalued.

quote:

---

This has nothing to do with game planning

---

An offense that is consistently predictable, unimaginative and inept against teams that are able to stop the run, and which is stridently resistant to change, has nothing to do game planning? Really?

quote:

---

That's not remotely close to what I said... Losing games because you're less talented and experienced than the teams you're facing has nothing to do with game-planning.

---

It's the same bs. LSU loses, bad game plan, LSU wins, only talent. It's because they hate the coach for wearing a funny head set in September of 2005.

quote:

---

So, 23 is "approximately 13"?

---

But Ricky ONLY deals with FACTS.........................

quote:

---

quote: He can no longer win in this conference consistently with the way he game plans. This has nothing to do with game planning. We lost damn near half of our scholarship players on defense to the NFL after the 2012 season and half of our scholarship players on offense after the 2013 season.

---

It's what you said. Understand that you're citing personnel issues as a problem, but respectfully disagree that our losses have nothing to do with game planning. Obviously, personnel changes from year to year, our insipid approach to offense... not so much.