Started By
Message
Composite Team Talent 2020 - SEC ONLY
Posted on 10/14/20 at 7:30 am
Posted on 10/14/20 at 7:30 am
Rank
Team
Team
Number of Commits on roster
Average player rating
number of 5 stars
number of 4 stars
number of 3 stars
Total roster points
1.
Georgia
Georgia
85 Commits
93.15
16
51
18
990.41
2
Alabama
Alabama
85 Commits
93.25
12
58
13
985.86
3
LSU
LSU
68 Commits
91.29
7
35
24
875.07
4
Florida
Florida
85 Commits
89.91
4
44
34
871.05
5
Texas A&M
Texas A&M
82 Commits
89.71
4
38
37
861.96
6
Auburn
Auburn
85 Commits
89.48
2
45
35
845.58
7
Tennessee
Tennessee
85 Commits
89.33
5
31
49
843.77
8
South Carolina
South Carolina
85 Commits
87.68
2
25
53
775.73
9
Mississippi State
Mississippi State
85 Commits
87.35
1
18
64
733.07
10
Arkansas
Arkansas
85 Commits
86.43
0
20
58
719.79
11
Kentucky
Kentucky
85 Commits
86.95
0
20
64
717.38
12
Ole Miss
Ole Miss
78 Commits
86.72
1
16
56
702.95
13
Missouri
Missouri
78 Commits
85.12
0
7
67
628.78
14
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt
79 Commits
84.41
0
4
68
602.83
Team
Team
Number of Commits on roster
Average player rating
number of 5 stars
number of 4 stars
number of 3 stars
Total roster points
1.
Georgia
Georgia
85 Commits
93.15
16
51
18
990.41
2
Alabama
Alabama
85 Commits
93.25
12
58
13
985.86
3
LSU
LSU
68 Commits
91.29
7
35
24
875.07
4
Florida
Florida
85 Commits
89.91
4
44
34
871.05
5
Texas A&M
Texas A&M
82 Commits
89.71
4
38
37
861.96
6
Auburn
Auburn
85 Commits
89.48
2
45
35
845.58
7
Tennessee
Tennessee
85 Commits
89.33
5
31
49
843.77
8
South Carolina
South Carolina
85 Commits
87.68
2
25
53
775.73
9
Mississippi State
Mississippi State
85 Commits
87.35
1
18
64
733.07
10
Arkansas
Arkansas
85 Commits
86.43
0
20
58
719.79
11
Kentucky
Kentucky
85 Commits
86.95
0
20
64
717.38
12
Ole Miss
Ole Miss
78 Commits
86.72
1
16
56
702.95
13
Missouri
Missouri
78 Commits
85.12
0
7
67
628.78
14
Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt
79 Commits
84.41
0
4
68
602.83
This post was edited on 10/14/20 at 7:42 am
1
Posted on 10/14/20 at 7:30 am to CorchJay
Auburn is also #14 Nationally
Posted on 10/14/20 at 8:13 am to CorchJay
Had we recruited more highly ranked OL, we would be a spot or two higher.
Posted on 10/14/20 at 11:11 am to AUCE05
I would like for us to be more in that 4-5 spot.
About 4-5 5* with a ranking closer to that top 5 in the SEC.
this 2020 group is closer to UT and #7.
GA is out of this world.
And I agree with AUCE05, if we have any better recruiting in the OL, we have better results with our other positions and success on the field.
About 4-5 5* with a ranking closer to that top 5 in the SEC.
this 2020 group is closer to UT and #7.
GA is out of this world.
And I agree with AUCE05, if we have any better recruiting in the OL, we have better results with our other positions and success on the field.
Posted on 10/14/20 at 11:38 am to AuSteeler
Yeah, if we more higher rated players they'd tally higher.
Posted on 10/14/20 at 12:12 pm to awestruck
Not sure your point. However, there have been years where Gus would take 1-2 OLmen and they would be 3*. We are talented at every other position.
Posted on 10/14/20 at 6:42 pm to AUCE05
You posted: Had we recruited more highly ranked OL, we would be a spot or two higher.
Which also made me think: I'm not sure of your point
without actually saying. . .
Because while not wrong, I still don't follow what you were implying? As seems to be saying the greater the numbers the higher the tally and math still works? Since it's not as if our staff hasn't tried to recruit the best in the land. And weren't limited by supply and demand. Because they definitely took plenty a swing and a miss.
As for this thread: to me it's not the numbers... it's the numbers don't add up after they're weighted. And I question: Were they wearing blinders? Is this about winning signing day? And then there's always wishful thinking and something about square pegs and round holes?
(any better ?
)
Which also made me think: I'm not sure of your point
without actually saying. . .
quote:
Not sure your point
Because while not wrong, I still don't follow what you were implying? As seems to be saying the greater the numbers the higher the tally and math still works? Since it's not as if our staff hasn't tried to recruit the best in the land. And weren't limited by supply and demand. Because they definitely took plenty a swing and a miss.
As for this thread: to me it's not the numbers... it's the numbers don't add up after they're weighted. And I question: Were they wearing blinders? Is this about winning signing day? And then there's always wishful thinking and something about square pegs and round holes?
(any better ?
)Posted on 10/14/20 at 7:16 pm to AUCE05
quote:
Had we recruited more highly ranked OL, we would be a spot or two higher
If we just receuited the normal about of OL players we would be ranked higher. Signing 9 OL in 4 years should qualify as gross incompetence and void his contract.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 6:57 am to CaptainBrannigan
Not sure how recruiting more OL would increasing our ranking. We do have 85 scholarship players. Not arguing the fact that we need more talented OL but numbers aren't the issue on OL. Talent is. And we have signed more then 9 OL in 4 years. You have to count the juco guys in that as well and we've actually had good success with most of the juco guys.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 7:16 am to CorchJay
Rankings are legit but there is more than just getting 5 star guys, see Ga last year.
You have to hit on a dynamic skill player (I always think of a Percy Harvin type) which we do have.... but no matter what what you have to have the O and D lines. That is the two positions that cannot be debatable.
You have to hit on a dynamic skill player (I always think of a Percy Harvin type) which we do have.... but no matter what what you have to have the O and D lines. That is the two positions that cannot be debatable.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 7:21 am to attalla
I totally agree with that about the OL and DL always has the biggest impact on who wins and loses outside of turnovers. But as far as talent is considered you must be talented and well coached both in the trenches.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 7:52 am to CorchJay
Did Jabari Smith not bump us up some?
Posted on 10/15/20 at 8:36 am to AUNashville
I thought Nashville was on planet Earth? 
Posted on 10/15/20 at 9:37 am to CorchJay
quote:
Not sure how recruiting more OL would increasing our ranking. We do have 85 scholarship players. Not arguing the fact that we need more talented OL but numbers aren't the issue on OL. Talent is. And we have signed more then 9 OL in 4 years. You have to count the juco guys in that as well and we've actually had good success with most of the juco guys.
Exactly.
Its great they have TRIED to recruit top level OL, but with no success most of Gus' years, but you need to find quality 4* OL too. But 3* guys or moving guys over from D is not going to give you consistency in the OL.
And on the JC guys. I had hoped that getting guys with experience instead of straight out of HS, would give us at least 1 to be a solid starter.
That hasn't happened.
I guess Zeirer was their highest ranked JC guy, but with his injury he is someone to contribute next year. Coffey, I don't know how he has played, since it has been limited.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 10:05 am to CaptainBrannigan
quote:
If we just receuited the normal about of OL players we would be ranked higher.
You obviously do not understand recruiting rankings.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News