Started By
Message

re: gfycat mega-post: why is Lindsey Scott so underated

Posted on 2/2/16 at 1:16 pm to
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
5700 posts
Posted on 2/2/16 at 1:16 pm to
quote:

I think he's great, yet he's not even ranked in the top 1000.

this is baffling to me, and all I can come up with is the fact that, in large part, how the players are rated is based on how they perform at the camps and in the drills. and when you watch someone like Shea Patterson, the vast majority of his highlights are very quarterback-y.
The two major factors holding down Scott's rating are his measurables and his lack of major school offers.

The folks at 247, Rivals, and ESPN are not particularly skilled at evaluating talent. Rather, they focus on two things: (1) size, speed, and other objective measurements, and (2) evaluations by college coaches in the form of offers.
This post was edited on 2/2/16 at 1:30 pm
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 2/2/16 at 2:24 pm to
quote:

The two major factors holding down Scott's rating are his measurables and his lack of major school offers.
agree with the major offer part, but im not sure his size is as much of a factor as people say.

the number 1 DT QB for last year, Kyler Murray, and next year, Tate Martell, are both fives. Murray is listed at 5'10" and 180 pounds. Martell is at 5'11" and 180. Scott is usually listed as 5'11" and 205 but hudl actually has him at 6'0" (with a 520 pound squat, btw).

if they would overlook the size with them i think they would with Scott too.

or hell, maybe it is a huge factor, what do i know, im just some jackass on a message board.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram