quote:
There's no doubt a major correlation between consistent good recruiting classes and competing at a high rate. But I've always wondered what exactly the difference is between, say an 88 rated 3*, and a 91 rated 4*. With a good coach, could you not theoretically take a team full of 88 3* (4* begins at 89 on 24/7) and compete with a team full of 92-96 4* consistently? This whole recruiting thing is really more art than science a lot of the time.

I would say players outside the obvious skill positions are also more apt to be "coached up" much higher. So high 3* OL and DL can probably get a lot more mileage with a good talent developer.

This is why I prefer to look at the ranking of player at their position. If you need an OT, and the highest rated OT is a 4*, then that doesn't make him "worse" than a 5* Safety. IN the long run, it's a balancing act - just like the draft.

You can take the best QB, but if you fail to surround him with a good OL and WRs, he's not going to be in a position to succeed.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by VagueMessage

Fayetteville, AR

Member since Jun 2013

3922 posts

Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:48 am to skrayper

That's another really good point - the rating system isn't weighed necessarily the same for each position, and a class ranking is heavily dependent on player/position distribution, which a lot of coaches don't get right. I think offer lists are also another good factor to consider.

If all of your glaring and debilitating weaknesses are on the paper thin offensive line, but you don't really address those needs and add a 5* WR, a 4* QB, and three 4* RBs, your class will probably look good on paper, but that weakness is going to grow to be something you can't overcome the next year, and the G5 teams on your schedule are going to hang around until the fourth quarter.

1 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board