- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: who will be the next recruit?will we get a 5 star?
Posted on 7/11/12 at 8:19 am to Milesthebest
Posted on 7/11/12 at 8:19 am to Milesthebest
quote:
It doesn't look too good for LSU to finish with a 5* this year on Rivals.
LSU STAAAACKKKEDDD
FIVE STARS FUUUUUCKKEEDDD
1
Posted on 7/11/12 at 8:52 am to LSU=Champions
we dont need no 5 stars
yours truly, reid,montgomery,mathieu,simon,logan,mingo,hilliard,mettzenzuckers,ford,beckham,longergan,faulk
yours truly, reid,montgomery,mathieu,simon,logan,mingo,hilliard,mettzenzuckers,ford,beckham,longergan,faulk
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:01 am to sunnydaze
quote:
quote: Boutte ends up a 5* The #1 OG in the country on rivals is not even a 5*
They will evaluate again. With lineman you typically want to see how they preform in camps and what not. It's still early.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:02 am to sunnydaze
quote:
The #1 OG in the country on rivals is not even a 5*
And that is an obvious flaw for star gazers. The #1 o.g. is more valuable than the #1 rb. Without the og opening the hole, the rb doesn't get to show his skill. w/o the og giving the qb time, he doesn't get to show his skill.
this is the fundamental issue i have with recruiting rankings. They under value linemen. (Offensive and defensive).
I've always said, i don't understand how you have 15 to 20 wr's in the top 100 and 1/2 the # of offensive linemen. Is the 20th best wr better than the 5th best o.l.? doesn't make sense to me.
You have 22 positions on the field (save special teams). no more than 4 or 5 players at any one position should be in the top 100.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:08 am to dos crystal
quote:
this is the fundamental issue i have with recruiting rankings. They under value linemen. (Offensive and defensive).
With out really looking at it does seem like 5* are for the more glamour/skill positions with only LT and pass rushers from the line getting consideration.
It sounds like some of the guys we have (White, Boutte, Pocic, Rettig, Brazil) could move up even if they don't get a 5th *, this class should still be top 5.
This post was edited on 7/11/12 at 9:09 am
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:10 am to dos crystal
Exactly what I have been saying. Each position needs to be evaluated on its own. Best OL should get a 5 star. Maybe do it like the best X number of guys in each position get 5 stars.
If this screws with your team rankings then adjust the team ranking according to position. ex 5 star kicker position would carry less weight than a QB for team scoring purposes.
It is stupid for the best kicker or the best punter or the best DE etc. to not be a 5 star no matter how important overall that position is compared to another position.
If this screws with your team rankings then adjust the team ranking according to position. ex 5 star kicker position would carry less weight than a QB for team scoring purposes.
It is stupid for the best kicker or the best punter or the best DE etc. to not be a 5 star no matter how important overall that position is compared to another position.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:15 am to dos crystal
The recruiting sites miss so often on the OL, that I honestly think they are scared to rank them due to their incompetence in evaluating them. Go look at the past NFL drafts, OL is by far the biggest miss by recruiting sites. I pay almost no attention when it comes to OL rankings. OTs get quite a bit more love than OGs, but as the NFL has shifted to see the importance of guards(salaries are growing exponentially it seems) that will slowly make its way down to recruiting sites. The same happened with smaller WRs a few years back getting more love due to NFL trends. Takes a while but recruiting sites do seem to eventually catch up
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:17 am to joechristoppher77
The Blind Gap, just doesn't sell, like the Blind side.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:19 am to dos crystal
quote:
You have 22 positions on the field (save special teams). no more than 4 or 5 players at any one position should be in the top 100.
That's all good in theory but I think it should be a little more balanced between the services and your idea. It isn't rating just the class. It's a rating for the players. 5* shoul be for elite players and some years the talents are better than others. Say one year the LB class is great and the RBs might be average across the board. You don't want an average RB getting in over a great LB that happened to have more competition than the RBs.
It's a flawed system and they do a well enough job, but I feel like they could do better evaluations. It's a long offseason and they should be about to get more film and field time for evaluations. The players who aren't from major cities that don't get as many looks.
Don't be too stingy or too lenient with the stars. If there are 20 ray Lewis's and Tim tebows in a class then give them their due. If there are a bunch of 4*s and like 5 actual 5* players, don't give everyone 5*'s just because you have them to give out.
This post was edited on 7/11/12 at 9:26 am
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:25 am to joechristoppher77
quote:
The recruiting sites miss so often on the OL, that I honestly think they are scared to rank them due to their incompetence in evaluating them. Go look at the past NFL drafts, OL is by far the biggest miss by recruiting sites.
I love how people say the recruiting sites are "incompetent" if their rankings don't turn out 100% accurate as if the top programs and coaches are not recruiting and evaluating the "5* guys pretty much the same way.
As for missing on the OL, I know Kalil was a 5*, not sure how many 2-3* OL wind up in the first round but I'd guess its no more or less than other positions. And developement in college also plays a role.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:30 am to joechristoppher77
quote:
The recruiting sites miss so often on the OL, that I honestly think they are scared to rank them due to their incompetence in evaluating them. Go look at the past NFL drafts, OL is by far the biggest miss by recruiting sites. I pay almost no attention when it comes to OL rankings. OTs get quite a bit more love than OGs, but as the NFL has shifted to see the importance of guards(salaries are growing exponentially it seems) that will slowly make its way down to recruiting sites. The same happened with smaller WRs a few years back getting more love due to NFL trends. Takes a while but recruiting sites do seem to eventually catch up
I don't think that it's because they are scared of evaluating OL. OL is just a hard position to predict. That's a position where players can peak in high school and never get any bigger/better. They can have a huge frame and put on a ton of weight in college. Some simply can get bigger. Some guys look great in HS then go to camp and get dominate by everyone. It's just a harder position to evaluate in general.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:50 am to RBWilliams8
This is very valid. If you take a look at the top NFL lineman, half are from schools like Eastern Wash, Boise, Utah, Fresno, etc, and then half the guys that went to biiger school were some of the lesser recruited guys in their classes. So, yeah, it seems OL has the most misses on all levels when it comes to evaluations. Scared would be a the wrong term. Apprehensive 
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:54 am to RBWilliams8
In the NFL, the first rounders are the guys that you expect to be your pro bowlers. Yet probably less than 50% of the first 5 picks play in the pro bowl in their entire career and the percentage goes down as you go thru the rest of the first round.
The rating services do a decent job under much more difficult conditions with fewer resources. There are more players to evaluate; physical maturity has to be projected; competition is very uneven; coaching is highly variable; etc.
The fact that the percentage of 5 stars that perform at a high level is greater than the percentage of 4 stars and that is greater than the percentage of 3 stars means that intelligence is adding value.
Could they do better? Of course they could. But given the complexity of the problem, they do a decent job.
The rating services do a decent job under much more difficult conditions with fewer resources. There are more players to evaluate; physical maturity has to be projected; competition is very uneven; coaching is highly variable; etc.
The fact that the percentage of 5 stars that perform at a high level is greater than the percentage of 4 stars and that is greater than the percentage of 3 stars means that intelligence is adding value.
Could they do better? Of course they could. But given the complexity of the problem, they do a decent job.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 9:57 am to H-Town Tiger
yeah, incompetent is a bit strong... I'm a little cranky in the morn and got a little carried away, at the lack of love for those beautiful big uglies up front. Im gonna blame dos
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:12 am to BASED
quote:
Tim Williams (Rivals)
If he's going to be a 5 Star he better start camping. As of now I don't see him rising above a high 4 Star.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:14 am to joechristoppher77
quote:
Im gonna blame dos
i'll take the blame. I stand by my belief and comments. 
i used to be into the recruiting rankings/stars when i was younger. then, over the years, i notice how a lot of these three star guys turn out to be studs and the five star guys turn out to be just ok. I've seen lsu have the #1 class and get a handful of starters then have a 9th ranked class and get an professional secondary.
you have teams like texas ranked top 3 every year and play 500 ball, then you have teams like boise, t.c.u., v tech, nebraska, oregon, rarely in the top 10 and play top 10 ball.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:15 am to dos crystal
quote:In large part, star rating is a projection of future draftability, not value in college. OG rarely get drafted in the top 25-30 picks, therefore they are rarely 5*.
And that is an obvious flaw for star gazers. The #1 o.g. is more valuable than the #1 rb. Without the og opening the hole, the rb doesn't get to show his skill. w/o the og giving the qb time, he doesn't get to show his skill.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:39 am to joechristoppher77
quote:
If you take a look at the top NFL lineman, half are from schools like Eastern Wash, Boise, Utah, Fresno, etc, and then half the guys that went to biiger school were some of the lesser recruited guys in their classes. So, yeah, it seems OL has the most misses on all levels when it comes to evaluations
Define top NFL linemen? Pro bowls? All pro or just starters? There are 5 starters per team so that's 160 guys. Especially the interior guys you can find. You can draft a G or C from Coloado State in the 5th round and the diffence between him and 1st-2nd round guy is not that great, but the salaries are.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:42 am to dos crystal
quote:
you have teams like texas ranked top 3 every year and play 500 ball
They played .500 for the last 2 seasons, the year before that they were in the BCS CG and had a run of 9 or so straight 10 wins seasons, lets not let hatred of UT blind us to the fact they have won a lot of games. and BTW they had a class ranked in the teens a few years ago that's you upper class the last couple of years. Their biggest problem has been whiffing on QB's, rest of the roster is pretty stacked. D this year should be stout.
Posted on 7/11/12 at 11:50 am to NEKCIHCUSL
Can someone tell me why we are so high on robinson? Besides the fact that he is high on LSU bc PP went to the same school
He's ok..nothing great IMO
He's ok..nothing great IMO
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News