'24 MS RB Daniel Hill

[Vol8188]

That's not proof because I could selectively pick 10 of us posters on VN and basically get equal results to the services given the time and the resources. It doesn't make our evaluations equal to that of our current staff. If I give the best 32 players that I see every year a 5* rating, then my percentage of those guys be drafted will also be high. Teams that consistently sign the most players that I deem to be the best will also likely be the most successful teams.

Now you’ve lost me. It seems you’re agreeing recruiting rankings work. What’re you even arguing?

 

[butchna]

You used a lot of words without making a point. What’s your point? You feel they are somehow less qualified despite likely watching more film or an equal amount to the people you’re calling “scouts”?

Do we have documented evidence of exactly how much FILM they watch? We know the “scouts” that are on staff have football backgrounds and are accountable to the HC. When a nerd messes up does Mr. Terry come down from the tower and fire him on the spot? 😏

 

[Vol8188]

Do we have documented evidence of exactly how much FILM they watch? We know the “scouts” that are on staff have football backgrounds and are accountable to the HC. When a nerd messes up does Mr. Terry come down from the tower and fire him on the spot? 😏

I’m not sure why documented evidence is needed. You don’t know how much film our scouts watch either and they’re (our scouts) not fired on the spot for their evaluations of any one player either.

You can call them nerds and pretend their lack of coaching experience (assuming they lack coaching experience, you nor I know the resumes of the team involved in scouting for these cites well enough), that doesn’t change their results. The results clearly show the process works.

5*s are more likely to be drafted, 4*s are next, and then 3*s. Teams with high recruiting classes are most likely to make the playoffs.

So why don’t you respect the opinions of these “nerds” despite years of results? Mike Leach was a nerd (attorney turned coach), with years of positive results. You’d think over time the success would lead you to accept the facts

 

[bigl3327]

Now you’ve lost me. It seems you’re agreeing recruiting rankings work. What’re you even arguing?

The experts are the ones that can consistently evaluate those players outside the top 250 or so ranked by the services that produce like the top 50 should. That's my argument. That's the hard part. If the services say a kid is the 467th best player, and I say he's a top 75 player(and they perform that way), and I can identify 5 of those kids every year, then that's an expert. That's the real specialist.

 

[Vol8188]

The experts are the ones that can consistently evaluate those players outside the top 250 or so ranked by the services that produce like the top 50 should. That's my argument. That's the hard part. If the services say a kid is the 467th best player, and I say he's a top 75 player(and they perform that way), and I can identify 5 of those kids every year, then that's an expert. That's the real specialist.

That doesn’t exist. No one does that consistently

 

[bigl3327]

That doesn’t exist. No one does that consistently

Meet me in another thread that doesn't pollute some kids individual thread. You pick.

 

[butchna]

I’m not sure why documented evidence is needed. You don’t know how much film our scouts watch either and they’re (our scouts) not fired on the spot for their evaluations of any one player either.

You can call them nerds and pretend their lack of coaching experience (assuming they lack coaching experience, you nor I know the resumes of the team involved in scouting for these cites well enough), that doesn’t change their results. The results clearly show the process works.

5*s are more likely to be drafted, 4*s are next, and then 3*s. Teams with high recruiting classes are most likely to make the playoffs.

So why don’t you respect the opinions of these “nerds” despite years of results? Mike Leach was a nerd (attorney turned coach), with years of positive results. You’d think over time the success would lead you to accept the facts

They SAY they watch lots of grainy footage on old school projectors and we take their word for it…got it. Analysts and directors are accountable for their success or lack therof. Their W-2’s serve as their RANKING. I quibble with your “years of success” as applied to nerds perusing high school all-star lists and designating which ones get the predetermined number of stars allowed. Football’s been around a long time and sorry…RECRUITING was a vital part of it. Long before this “specialty” carved out it’s role. Leach didn’t instantly jump from his law degree to Air Raid guru. He was RECRUITED to play football at BYU. Injuries derailed that and he played rugby instead. IN THE MEANTIME he practically lived in Lavell Edwards film room. You know Lavell Edwards? Pretty heady football guru if there ever was one. So at least six years of that direction and then 10 seasons COACHING at smaller institutions before Kentucky. Give me something even closely approximating that with these nerds and I’ll appreciate them. Not at your devoted sycophant level, of course. I don’t discount the usefulness of services. You get names for targets…that’s valuable. But the best coaching staffs work them out on their own grounds and devise their recruiting strategy from THAT. Bama, UGA, Clemson…Ohio State all included. Services are remora eels who subsist off that work product imo.

 

[drvenner]

Why do we keep recruiting power backs in a blocking scheme that doesn’t open big holes and creates a light box for the defense? It seems like a shifty/speedy all purpose back would make more sense wanting to have 1 workhorse is understandable, but this guy is listed as an LB

I am pretty sure they do it mainly to piss you off.

 

[Vol8188]

They SAY they watch lots of grainy footage on old school projectors and we take their word for it…got it. Analysts and directors are accountable for their success or lack therof. Their W-2’s serve as their RANKING. I quibble with your “years of success” as applied to nerds perusing high school all-star lists and designating which ones get the predetermined number of stars allowed. Football’s been around a long time and sorry…RECRUITING was a vital part of it. Long before this “specialty” carved out it’s role. Leach didn’t instantly jump from his law degree to Air Raid guru. He was RECRUITED to play football at BYU. Injuries derailed that and he played rugby instead. IN THE MEANTIME he practically lived in Lavell Edwards film room. You know Lavell Edwards? Pretty heady football guru if there ever was one. So at least six years of that direction and then 10 seasons COACHING at smaller institutions before Kentucky. Give me something even closely approximating that with these nerds and I’ll appreciate them. Not at your devoted sycophant level, of course. I don’t discount the usefulness of services. You get names for targets…that’s valuable. But the best coaching staffs work them out on their own grounds and devise their recruiting strategy from THAT. Bama, UGA, Clemson…Ohio State all included. Services are remora eels who subsist off that work product imo.

I'm certain there's plenty of guys with unimpressive W-2's working for UT and other athletic departments in scouting. Probably plenty of guys making 40k a year who work under our recruiting director. But that's not really the heart of the matter.

Yes, recruiting existed before any online service started ranking players. Not sure what you think that proves, but yes. I agree.

Yes, Leach (like all coaches for the most part) came up slow and likely improved over the years (the recruiting services have improved too). I know Edwards well. The West Coast and Air Raid were two of the first things I studied when I went into coaching over a decade ago.

Those nerds have been doing this for over 10 years and have been successful at it. You can't claim to not discount the usefulness of their services while openly mocking the services as nerds who don't know what they're doing.

Literally no one is saying that our staff or any other staff just follows 247.

You seem to be all over the place (W2s, staffs doing their own scoutings, etc) without ever getting to the heart of the argument. No one is arguing any of that. I don't care who makes more (I don't actually know either). I don't claim UT or anyone else just follows 247.

So now that we've wasted time on that nonsense, this is the heart of the debate. You believe in a conspiracy. The conspiracy is that the services just follow who Bama/Georgia (or input anyone else into your theory you prefer) offers and then gives guys higher ratings based on that. If that were true, why can I name numerous 3* players who have signed with those programs?

 

[butchna]

I'm certain there's plenty of guys with unimpressive W-2's working for UT and other athletic departments in scouting. Probably plenty of guys making 40k a year who work under our recruiting director. But that's not really the heart of the matter.

Yes, recruiting existed before any online service started ranking players. Not sure what you think that proves, but yes. I agree.

Yes, Leach (like all coaches for the most part) came up slow and likely improved over the years (the recruiting services have improved too). I know Edwards well. The West Coast and Air Raid were two of the first things I studied when I went into coaching over a decade ago.

Those nerds have been doing this for over 10 years and have been successful at it. You can't claim to not discount the usefulness of their services while openly mocking the services as nerds who don't know what they're doing.

Literally no one is saying that our staff or any other staff just follows 247.

You seem to be all over the place (W2s, staffs doing their own scoutings, etc) without ever getting to the heart of the argument. No one is arguing any of that. I don't care who makes more (I don't actually know either). I don't claim UT or anyone else just follows 247.

So now that we've wasted time on that nonsense, this is the heart of the debate. You believe in a conspiracy. The conspiracy is that the services just follow who Bama/Georgia (or input anyone else into your theory you prefer) offers and then gives guys higher ratings based on that. If that were true, why can I name numerous 3* players who have signed with those programs?

You have no idea what I said. Preaching to a cult member is “wasted time” indeed. 😴

 

[Vol8188]

You have no idea what I said. Preaching to a cult member is “wasted time” indeed. 😴

Then how about you try being precise instead of talking about who makes more more or that recruiting is older than recruiting services. Make your argument concisely and then perhaps, others will be able to follow it. Not that much to ask.

 

[KptVFL]

Cool. Seriously what does that matter? It’s like saying Mike Leach couldn’t coach because he didn’t play college ball. These are two different skill sets (coaching and scouting). You can be an elite coach and a terrible scout or a great scout and yet have no idea how to adjust to boundary motion

You literally brought it up as a reason to trust Simmons and now the goal posts are being moved.

 

[Vol8188]

You literally brought it up as a reason to trust Simmons and now the goal posts are being moved.

Lol not even slightly what happened. The other posters accused the services of being ran by nerds and tried to devalue their opinion for not being coaches. I stated Simmons has been a coach, but that doesn't matter. I've been insanely consistent in those claims if you actually read back through.

 

[justwatch123]

Recruiting sites follow on field success for the most part. When Saban offers “recruiting sites” take notice. Simple formula is follow the teams recruits that are winning championships. There is a “reason” Carter went from a Memphis commit to playing in an All-Star game in 3months. Ever heard of the “Bama bump” because I’m sure these “experts” should have seen it sooner.

 

[Vol8188]

Recruiting sites follow on field success for the most part. When Saban offers “recruiting sites” take notice. Simple formula is follow the teams recruits that are winning championships. There is a “reason” Carter went from a Memphis commit to playing in an All-Star game in 3months. Ever heard of the “Bama bump” because I’m sure these “experts” should have seen it sooner.

Then why do the best teams still sign 3* players? Shouldn't the recruiting sites just name all of Bama's players 5*? Carter's bump was because of a position change.

 

[justwatch123]

Then why do the best teams still sign 3* players? Shouldn't the recruiting sites just name all of Bama's players 5*? Carter's bump was because of a position change.

There is only 32 5stars right? The rule was you can only sign 25. Maybe that’s part of it.. And Carters bump was because Ohio St and Bama started to HEAVILY recruit him. Not a position change. Had he stayed at RB with the same teams recruiting him HEAVILY he would have rose in the ranking.

 

[LittleVol]

Here's my biggest issue with the recruiting services. What qualifies any of these guys as industry experts? Do you remember any of these guys being a top rated recruit? How about having a decent college career? Ever a successful coach at any level? Even a S&C coach? If someone knows something that I don't, then please fill me in. If a few of us in here got together and set up a website, and were able to earn a living wage doing nothing but evaluating high school football... how long before we're regarded as industry experts? I just think these are fair questions to ask yourself.

That is a perfectly sensible question(s).

However, i will say that lack of playing football experience (playing, coaching) doesn't mean they can't see what's in front of them.

Mike Leach was a lawyer haha...
Never played ball college football.

They use the prestige of the big programs to give their ratings legitimacy.

I've covered this at length before.
Basically- their methods make good business sense, but are HIGHLY unreliable in actual results.

 

[LittleVol]

There is only 32 5stars right? The rule was you can only sign 25. Maybe that’s part of it.. And Carters bump was because Ohio St and Bama started to HEAVILY recruit him. Not a position change. Had he stayed at RB with the same teams recruiting him HEAVILY he would have rose in the ranking.

32 5 stars because of # of slots in the 1st round NFL draft..

 

[bigl3327]

That is a perfectly sensible question(s).

However, i will say that lack of playing football experience (playing, coaching) doesn't mean they can't see what's in front of them.

Mike Leach was a lawyer haha...
Never played ball college football.

They use the prestige of the big programs to give their ratings legitimacy.

I've covered this at length before.
Basically- their methods make good business sense, but are HIGHLY unreliable in actual results.

Guys like Leach and Charlie Weiss would be considered outliers. Exceptions in the profession. My issue is that with the recruiting sites, someone with a strong football background would be considered an outlier.

 

[KptVFL]

Lol not even slightly what happened. The other posters accused the services of being ran by nerds and tried to devalue their opinion for not being coaches. I stated Simmons has been a coach, but that doesn't matter. I've been insanely consistent in those claims if you actually read back through.

The biggest red flag to me in their rankings is the fairly set #, 30ish, of 5 stars per year. The only reason to do that is to look more reliable as it's asinine to think that's how many there are every year. There will always be some years that are stacked more than others and the fact that they keep it as a fairly standard # each year, instead of trusting what they really think, is enough to make me not trust them entirely. I'm not claiming them to be morons but I do think that they have found a formula that works and are sticking to it.

As for the 3 stars at Bama, I believe they only bump the higher rated guys because, just like the situation above, they are more likely to be correct.

If a stock broker gives you a list of his 30 top stock picks then he knows he has a better chance of being right than if he were to give you a list of 60.

 

[Vol8188]

Guys like Leach and Charlie Weiss would be considered outliers. Exceptions in the profession. My issue is that with the recruiting sites, someone with a strong football background would be considered an outlier.

Yet they do a great job every year

 

[Clevegasvol]

I have made a lasting impact on your life.

I was just stating your opinion, not coming at you.

 

[swampfoxfan]

I was just stating your opinion, not coming at you.

Lol, it was intended as an insult. Also neither of us know who will prove to be greater asset to their future teams. If they don't play on the same team then it's impossible to compare.
I'm not at all regretful that I support local athletes.

 

[bigl3327]

Yet they do a great job every year

I was talking to @Little Vol. I've already addressed with you that what they do isn't difficult. It's not rocket science. You don't have to keep trying to justify paying for a subscription. 😔

 

[Clevegasvol]

Lol, it was intended as an insult. Also neither of us know who will prove to be greater asset to their future teams. If they don't play on the same team then it's impossible to compare.
I'm not at all regretful that I support local athletes.

Did you not see the post I replied too? Making assumptions based off of highlight film being silly, while you’re take on Redmond is based on seeing him in the stands. Only problem with that is you haven’t seen Leacock in person. Compare film side by side Leacock is better, to go along with all the measurables.

Obviously I don’t know the future, but my opinion is more than substantiated based off what I’ve seen. Leacock is now almost top 100 across the board.