Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:17 pm to emanresu
Auburn too high
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:35 pm to emanresu
As usual ND far to high.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:42 pm to emanresu
Texas at 8? Seriously? 
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:47 pm to emanresu
quote:
1. Alabama
2. USC
This is why I am concerned we may be overlooking USC in the opener. This might not be Pete Carroll's USC but they are still really really talented. And they will be much more hungry to prove something than Bama. With a new QB, new HB, and 4 new starters on the OL, anything could happen.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:47 pm to emanresu
quote:
1. Alabama
2. USC
3. Ohio State
4. Notre Dame
5. Michigan
6. LSU
7. Florida State
8. Texas
9. Auburn
10. Clemson
Avg composite ranking 13, 14, 15, and 16 classes
Alabama------1
USC------------9
Ohio State----4
Notre Dame--11.25
Michigan------16.5
LSU------------4.25
FSU------------5
Texas----------12.5
Auburn---------8.25
Clemson-------13
^ is this the article where they just prop up blue bloods with large fanbases/subscriptions even though they actually haven't recruited that well?
If you want to teir the recruiting success of their top 10 it would look like this:
Teir 1:
Alabama (1)
Teir 2:
Ohio State (4)
LSU (4.25)
FSU (5)
Teir 3:
Auburn (8.25)
USC (9)
Teir 4:
Notre Dame (11.25)
Texas (12.5)
Clemson (13)
Michigan (16.5)
^ I think the NFL scouts would agree with this.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 8:31 am
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:50 pm to Lsuchs
(This is not aimed at you, LSUCHS)
Guys, these are not rankings for the coming season. This is talent level each team has based upon recruiting classes.
Guys, these are not rankings for the coming season. This is talent level each team has based upon recruiting classes.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:59 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Guys, these are not rankings for the coming season. This is talent level each team has based upon recruiting classes.
I understand that, and that's why it's BS. I posted the avg 247 composite team recruiting ranking for their top 10. Seems a little off and like they just wanted to throw Notre Dame/Michigan/Texas some BS hype because of the size of their national following/subscription base.
In what world is a 16.5 average (Michigan) more talented "recruiting wise" than Auburn at 8.25 much less LSU at 4.25?
Because Jim Harbaugh is your head coach doesn't retroactively make your last 4 classes more highly recruited
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 8:29 am
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:01 pm to emanresu
Auburn at 9 is retarded! Sorry AU fans no offense cause I also don't believe Gump is #1 this year.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:53 pm to emanresu
I thought all polls had LSU with the most talent.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:19 pm to RichardCranium
You need to read the link and see what it is based on. It is quite accurate.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:22 pm to emanresu
Bama with 15 5 star players.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:52 pm to remaster916
It's based on current players with their recruiting rankings. I don't know where y'all are getting 2000 from. But I'm sure Bama being number one in recruiting rankings is a shock to the rant, since we all know Alabama fans are very humble.
I don't know if the classes are weighted towards seniority, or if freshmen are included. This is just a compilation that 247 put up.
I don't know if the classes are weighted towards seniority, or if freshmen are included. This is just a compilation that 247 put up.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:54 pm to RichardCranium
They're basing it off their recruiting rankings, are they not? Auburn's offense under Malzahn is heavily reliant on the QB, and depending on how good he is, can result in boom or bust seasons. This can distort perceptions of the team's overall talent level, but the rest of the roster has been pretty good for the most part.
It is true that the defense has struggled in the Malzahn era. However, I think this has less to do with the popular talking point of offensive pace and quick 3-and-outs leaving them on the field too much where they're gassed late in games (mostly middling in national TOP), and more to do with bad defensive habits learned in practice. Our simple passing scheme doesn't adequately prepare the defense with the variety of looks they will see over the course of the season with contrasting styles from week to week.
Our run defense hasn't been top 10-level like under Tubs either, but still generally performs better than against the pass. Similarly to UGA and LSU, Tubs actually did run a more traditional, less QB-centric ball-control offense that took pressure off the defense. Because of the difficulty in finding a good QB in the college game, this style of play resulted in more consistency and predictablilty, but often led to a certain plateau of success.
Malzahn's offense may in fact posses inherent developmental deficiencies but his staff recruits very well as a whole. While it's often a roller coaster ride, when he finally does find that QB, his offenses can be devastating. It's frustrating to fans, but also a lot of fun when it works.
It is true that the defense has struggled in the Malzahn era. However, I think this has less to do with the popular talking point of offensive pace and quick 3-and-outs leaving them on the field too much where they're gassed late in games (mostly middling in national TOP), and more to do with bad defensive habits learned in practice. Our simple passing scheme doesn't adequately prepare the defense with the variety of looks they will see over the course of the season with contrasting styles from week to week.
Our run defense hasn't been top 10-level like under Tubs either, but still generally performs better than against the pass. Similarly to UGA and LSU, Tubs actually did run a more traditional, less QB-centric ball-control offense that took pressure off the defense. Because of the difficulty in finding a good QB in the college game, this style of play resulted in more consistency and predictablilty, but often led to a certain plateau of success.
Malzahn's offense may in fact posses inherent developmental deficiencies but his staff recruits very well as a whole. While it's often a roller coaster ride, when he finally does find that QB, his offenses can be devastating. It's frustrating to fans, but also a lot of fun when it works.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:12 pm to emanresu
Dafuq?
It has A&M with only 57 players. It doesn't include a single player from our 2016 class.
It has A&M with only 57 players. It doesn't include a single player from our 2016 class.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:20 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
You need to read the link and see what it is based on. It is quite accurate.
The linked roster is missing A&M's entire 2016 class.
WR #1 Quartney Davis (****)
QB #17 Nick Starkel (***)
DB #20 Ikenna Okeke (****)
TE #21 Aaron Hansford (****)
DB #21 Charles Oliver (****)
DB #22 Clifford Chattman (***)
LB #25 Tyrel Dodson (****)
DB #28 Travon Fuller (****)
DB #30 Moses Reynolds (***)
OL #51 Riley Anderson (***)
DL #52 Justin Madubuike (****)
OL #55 Austin Anderson (***)
OL #74 Kellen Dietsch (****)
OL #77 Ryan McCollum (***)
WR #80 Clyde Chriss (****)
WR #84 Kendrick Rogers (***)
It's also missing JR LB Jordan Mastrogiovanni (***), FR DL T.D. Moton (****), and JR Transfer TE Kalvin Cline (***)
Basically, it's missing 10 4-star and 8 3-star players for A&M.
It lists 6 5*, 27 4*, and 22 3* when it should actually be 6 5*, 37 4*, and 30 3*
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:21 pm to Monticello
quote:
This is why I am concerned we may be overlooking USC in the opener. This might not be Pete Carroll's USC but they are still really really talented. And they will be much more hungry to prove something than Bama. With a new QB, new HB, and 4 new starters on the OL, anything could happen.
I posted this two weeks ago.
LINK
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:37 pm to CCTider
quote:
It's based on current players with their recruiting rankings. I don't know where y'all are getting 2000 from
Unless that since 2000 just means they have rankings dating back to 2000. If they mean just classes on campus now list makes absolutely zero sense. Michigans last 4 classes finished 5th, 37th, 20th, and 4th...
In what possible way can that be spun to be better than LSUs 6th, 2nd, 6th and 3rd?
quote:
But I'm sure Bama being number one in recruiting rankings is a shock to the rant
Alabama absolutely should be #1, followed by Ohio State, LSU, FSU then Auburn/USC. Michigan and Notre Dame have not been top 5 recruiting programs the last 4-5 years, plain and simple. USC has been close. It's easy to look up
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 8:36 am
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:49 pm to Lsuchs
quote:
Unless that since 2000 just means they have rankings dating back to 2000.
"Since 2000" means that they started doing composites in 2000. It's like "established in 1856" on a bar. This year's ranking includes only players on this year's team.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 7:53 pm to emanresu
quote:
This year's ranking includes only players on this year's team
Has anyone tried to explain why Michigan is on there then?
20th and 37th ranked classes make up almost half of their roster...
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 8:54 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News