AJC: Brent Key has the players to win in ACC

ibeeballin said:
Not really. He’s using the exception to the rules. Based on size and production vs. Gwinnett HS competition you can see why he was a 4*. Should the services accounted for his limited football playing experience & knowledge? Maybe.
Click to expand...

 
OmnipoTech said:
This is the definition of speculation.

Let me ask a question. Who would you say was a more talented football player, @ibeeballin or Francis Kallon?
Click to expand...
That's cherry picking at it's finest. For starters, like ibee said, recruiting services are much better now than back then. Secondly, sure they still miss some and get a few evaluations wrong, but they are right a lot more than they are wrong, and the fact still remains that our ratings have increased.
 
GoGATech said:
That's cherry picking at it's finest. For starters, like ibee said, recruiting services are much better now than back then. Secondly, sure they still miss some and get a few evaluations wrong, but they are right a lot more than they are wrong, and the fact still remains that our ratings have increased.
Click to expand...
I already gave a more current example, and there are thousands more out there of lower rated players outperforming higher rated players. The rating systems are flawed, which is my whole point, so the fact they increased some minute amount does not guarantee that the team is actually more talented now than in 2016.
ibeeballin said:
Probably 5.6-5.7
Click to expand...
5.5 seems more likely. In the 2022 and 2023 classes, combined there are a total of 3 guys listed at 5.6 or 5.7 who are under 6' tall.
 
GoGATech said:
That's cherry picking at it's finest. For starters, like ibee said, recruiting services are much better now than back then. Secondly, sure they still miss some and get a few evaluations wrong, but they are right a lot more than they are wrong, and the fact still remains that our ratings have increased.
Click to expand...
But that’s the thing: everyone’s ratings have increased. When ibeeballin came along, it was very common for solid P5 programs to have multiple 2-star recruits as signees. Now, virtually no P5 signee is a 2-star recruit. There is an assumption that if you sign with a P5 school, you’re a 3-star at minimum. That’s why the “better talent” argument doesn’t make sense
 
OmnipoTech said:
I already gave a more current example, and there are thousands more out there of lower rated players outperforming higher rated players. The rating systems are flawed, which is my whole point, so the fact they increased some minute amount does not guarantee that the team is actually more talented now than in 2016.

5.5 seems more likely. In the 2022 and 2023 classes, combined there are a total of 3 guys listed at 5.6 or 5.7 who are under 6' tall.
Click to expand...
Thousands? Exaggerate much? Like I said, yes they still miss some but they are right more than they are wrong, and the increase was more than a minute amount. From 2013-2018 our average rating was only higher than 3 other teams in the conference - BC, Syracuse, and Wake. 2019-2022 our average rating was higher than everybody except Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC. That's a considerable shift, even if only half of the evaluations are right.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
But that’s the thing: everyone’s ratings have increased. When ibeeballin came along, it was very common for solid P5 programs to have multiple 2-star recruits as signees. Now, virtually no P5 signee is a 2-star recruit. There is an assumption that if you sign with a P5 school, you’re a 3-star at minimum. That’s why the “better talent” argument doesn’t make sense
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about that long ago... I'm talking about within the last 10 years. See my post above, it's not just an increase across the board for every team, we have increased relative to other teams.
 
GoGATech said:
That's cherry picking at it's finest. For starters, like ibee said, recruiting services are much better now than back then. Secondly, sure they still miss some and get a few evaluations wrong, but they are right a lot more than they are wrong, and the fact still remains that our ratings have increased.
Click to expand...
Two things: Are they right because they have some secret sauce, or because most anyone can see who is a difference-maker on a high school football field? Can they truly differentiate between all those players from across the country - with the precision of 4 decimal points?

I have no issue with recruiting services spotting talent, most of which I cannot go see myself, and arranging them on a sheet of paper in general groups. None at all.

As I've said ad infinitum put the players in 4 large buckets and let it go at that. Call them a can't miss player, a very good player, an above average player, a below average player). Call those 3-star. 2-star, 1-star, and 0-star. That's about as detailed as you one can get with a HS player, since performance relies so strongly on so many factors: heart, health, home, early/late bloomer, HS coaching, HS competition, position fit, system fit, S&C, etc.

So then, just who are the recruiting "services" serving? I doubt many college coaches use them much other than maybe to spot an occasional player who is out of sight to them - at least I hope not. Who then are they "serving?" It's the fans, and I will guarantee that they are all about selling subscriptions first and foremost. That introduces a *huge* bias motive in their rankings.

This is my thinking, FWIW. You guys can think about it however you want.
 
GoGATech said:
Thousands? Exaggerate much? Like I said, yes they still miss some but they are right more than they are wrong, and the increase was more than a minute amount. From 2013-2018 our average rating was only higher than 3 other teams in the conference - BC, Syracuse, and Wake. 2019-2022 our average rating was higher than everybody except Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC. That's a considerable shift, even if only half of the evaluations are right.
Click to expand...
Every team in the country has players who were rated lower playing over guys who were rated higher, thousands is not an exaggeration at all.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
But that’s the thing: everyone’s ratings have increased. When ibeeballin came along, it was very common for solid P5 programs to have multiple 2-star recruits as signees. Now, virtually no P5 signee is a 2-star recruit. There is an assumption that if you sign with a P5 school, you’re a 3-star at minimum. That’s why the “better talent” argument doesn’t make sense
Click to expand...
theathletic.com

A scouting oddity: Why the disparity in recruiting stars for NFL offensive, defensive studs?

On this year’s NFLPA All-Pro Team, the average CFB recruiting ranking of offensive players was 2.0. For defense, 4.5. Why?
theathletic.com theathletic.com

ItS SciEnCe

On this year’s NFLPA All-Pro Team, none of the 11 offensive players selected had been a five-star recruit; only one of them, guard Zack Martin, was even ranked as a four-star prospect. The average star ranking of the 11 players was 2.0. It’s on the opposite side of the ball where stars apparently really matter. Of the 11 defensive players on the All-Pro team, seven had been five-star recruits and two more were four-stars prospects. The other two were three-star players, making the average 4.5.
Click to expand...
 
I'd love to see a Tableau presentation of each team's starting lineup and their average rating. I'm willing to bet that it's lower than what people think.
 
EagleSting said:
I'd love to see a Tableau presentation of each team's starting lineup and their average rating. I'm willing to bet that it's lower than what people think.
Click to expand...
I guarantee it is. So many of the guys who dominate in HS ball are athletic guys who matured early - the so-called early bloomer. Put them in college with other guys as big and talented as they are and watch them struggle. It happens all the time. Coach Dodd talked about missing on their evaluation of multiple players yet keeping them on until they graduated. Do we know that this is why we left the SEC? Dodd wanted unlimited scholies to be able to keep these guys in the program, but the SEC said "no."

Take me for example: I was just under 6'2" and 210 lbs. as a 9th grader. My coaches were all over me. "College prospect" one of them said. I burned out on football and fell in love with ice hockey. Football coaches were not happy. However, I didn't grow a full inch (in height) after that year. Coaches posted a state top 10 finish w/o me. I graduated HS at 6'2" 205. The coaches never really missed me after all. I was an early bloomer. Had I continued to grow, like my counterpart on the other end of the DL did, to 6'3" 225 lbs. then I could have maybe played college ball like he did. I didn't want it, but he did. I didn't have the support system that he did. Mostly, I just didn't have the genes that he did. Happens all the time.
 
stinger78 said:
I guarantee it is. So many of the guys who dominate in HS ball are athletic guys who matured early - the so-called early bloomer. Put them in college with other guys as big and talented as they are and watch them struggle. It happens all the time. Coach Dodd talked about missing on their evaluation of multiple players yet keeping them on until they graduated. Do we know that this is why we left the SEC? Dodd wanted unlimited scholies to be able to keep these guys in the program, but the SEC said "no."

Take me for example: I was just under 6'2" and 210 lbs. as a 9th grader. My coaches were all over me. "College prospect" one of them said. I burned out on football and fell in love with ice hockey. Football coaches were not happy. However, I didn't grow a full inch (in height) after that year. Coaches posted a state top 10 finish w/o me. I graduated HS at 6'2" 205. The coaches never really missed me after all. I was an early bloomer. Had I continued to grow, like my counterpart on the other end of the DL did, to 6'3" 225 lbs. then I could have maybe played college ball like he did. I didn't want it, but he did. I didn't have the support system that he did. Mostly, I just didn't have the genes that he did. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

I had the opposite problem, but even then I didn't have football genetics so I never played. In HS I was like 5'8 and 130 lbs, so the idea of playing football is akin to suicide. I didn't reach full height and weight until near the end of college..

I am not surprised at all that the recruiting rankings that everyone fawns over are not actually functional, and the true metrics of those in the trenches are actually quite difficult to project with accuracy. I started noticing during player introductions in NFL games, those massive sequioa trees that function as human beings tend to graduate from a college I'm not familiar with, and often times weren't 5 stars.
 
OmnipoTech said:
That's entirely speculation. Would the 2022 roster, if coached to run the option by CPJ like the 2016 team was, outperform them? It's possible, but not necessarily likely. The only basis for that is 247 talent composite, but those numbers are highly flawed in and of themselves. Tons of highly rated "talent" ends up being a total bust in college. If a 4 star gets beat out for the starting spot by a 3 star or 2 star, was the 4 star really more talented, or just overrated? Was the 3 star underrated?

Would the current receivers be able to block better than the receivers then? We have no idea. Maybe Paul recruited receivers specifically for their blocking ability and not as much for pass catching because it wasn't as big in his offense.

Would the current OL be able to move as quickly and cut block as effectively as the 2016 line? Probably not, they seem to be a little bigger and slower.

Would the current RB group be able to out run and outblock the 2016 RB group?

Y'all want to treat talent like it's just a line and everybody falls somewhere on the line, but it's not. Everyone has different skillsets, different strengths and weaknesses, and depending on what the team needs, one guy may be better than another. Some guys have really soft hands, some guys are really fast, some have good awareness or a really high understanding of the game. Some guys have a high motor and go 110% every play. Almost nobody does everything well.
Click to expand...
More like "not at all likely" vs not necessarily likely....imo. I can't imagine the 2022 team even with CPJ coaching them, boat racing Dak and company. QB, RB, OL, and PK were much better.
 
GoldZ said:
More like "not at all likely" vs not necessarily likely....imo. I can't imagine the 2022 team even with CPJ coaching them, boat racing Dak and company. QB, RB, OL, and PK were much better.
Click to expand...

Would 2022 lose to a lesser talented version of UNC or Duke?
 
GoldZ said:
More like "not at all likely" vs not necessarily likely....imo. I can't imagine the 2022 team even with CPJ coaching them, boat racing Dak and company. QB, RB, OL, and PK were much better.
Click to expand...
The 2016 team did not boat race Dak and MSU, that was 2014.
 
GoGATech said:
I'm not talking about that long ago... I'm talking about within the last 10 years. See my post above, it's not just an increase across the board for every team, we have increased relative to other teams.
Click to expand...
Is that because we’re recruiting better players now or is it because we’re just recruiting more conventional players?
 
Ed Sawyer said:
Is that because we’re recruiting better players now or is it because we’re just recruiting more conventional players?
Click to expand...
We're recruiting better players. The belief that CPJ's recruits were lower rated because he was recruiting "system" guys is a farce. He may have recruited more athletic OL than just enormous tree stumps, but I can promise you he would have taken higher rated guys at any position he could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top