Recruiting standing

#1

swampfoxfan

Fox trapper
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
3,231
Likes
4,331
#1
Am I wrong or is ranking the entire class really telling. Wouldn't ranking the top 10-15 be more indicative of future success? Including special teams there is only 26 starters most recruits are depth or practice players. There is no curve to value various positions. The #1 QB is more important than the #1 CB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt
#3
#3
Am I wrong or is ranking the entire class really telling. Wouldn't ranking the top 10-15 be more indicative of future success? Including special teams there is only 26 starters most recruits are depth or practice players. There is no curve to value various positions. The #1 QB is more important than the #1 CB
hwat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWardForever
#5
#5
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
 
#6
#6
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
1. That way overcomplicates an already complicated process.
2. Some teams have different needs each year which may cause them to take more of a position group than others. Would we really say their class is better/worse than others because of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLfrombama
#7
#7
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
I thought he was saying out of, say, 26 recruits, only rank the top 10-15 of them, since many are basically just there to fill out the roster. I don't know, maybe I read it wrong. Either way, the top teams will still be the top teams.
 
#8
#8
I thought he was saying out of, say, 26 recruits, only rank the top 10-15 of them, since many are basically just there to fill out the roster. I don't know, maybe I read it wrong. Either way, the top teams will still be the top teams.
For some reason, I think they already do that, but it may be top 20. They may also have stopped that. I'm really not sure.
 
#9
#9
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
Yes
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonDiego
#12
#12
I think Heupel has done better than what I expected and probably most people expected recruiting wise. If I might be critical of the man for a minute though to prove how good he is. Last year we had our board we narrowed in on a few guys at key positions and possibly overestimated our chances at landing them. This year we had a wider net and contingencies for anyone that fell through. The board on several positions were very deep and you can tell a lot of hours went into recruiting all those guys players.

Idk where we end up on paper bc you see a lot of ahem absolute BS in the rankings but I think this is a very talented class that hit all positions. And yeah to the point of the thread landing a great Oline class, QB and a few other key positions is probably a wee bit more important; there just aren’t many humans that can play LT in this conference at a high level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#13
#13
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
Although rankings have been pretty consistent in predicting success, it is not conclusive to winning a National Championship or Conference. Sure, if you get more 5* and 4* players, but if ALL of this were true, UGA would have won the NC last year. So, rankings are a good predictor, but they are not absolute. Coaching, Injuries, Player development, and some luck have a place. Let's settle it on the field.
 
#14
#14
I think what OP is saying is that recruiting rankings should also be ranked based on positions of importance. By awarding points to the rankings by ranking which positions are more important than others. AKA ranking the rankings!

Example
1. Qb - 10 points
2. LT - 9 points
3. EDGE - 8 Points

Did it get it right OP?
Could make it color coded.
Grey - common position ( k, long snapper, punter, etc)
Green - uncommon position (cb, TE, KR/PR)
Blue - rare position (olb, safety, og, etc)
Purple - epic position (RB, WR, MLB, DE)
Gold - legendary position (QB, OT, DT)

So a legendary 5* would be worth more than a common, uncommon, rare or epic 5*.

Or a legendary 4* would be as good as an epic 5*

We can level them up too. With enough skill points we can turn a common 3* into a epic 5*, maybe even legendary with the right coaching. . .

đź‘€
 
#15
#15
I thought he was saying out of, say, 26 recruits, only rank the top 10-15 of them, since many are basically just there to fill out the roster. I don't know, maybe I read it wrong. Either way, the top teams will still be the top teams.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Heupel and this staff recruit any kid who is “there just to fill out the roster.” At least I surely hope they don’t.
 
#17
#17
I think Heupel has done better than what I expected and probably most people expected recruiting wise. If I might be critical of the man for a minute though to prove how good he is. Last year we had our board we narrowed in on a few guys at key positions and possibly overestimated our chances at landing them. This year we had a wider net and contingencies for anyone that fell through. The board on several positions were very deep and you can tell a lot of hours went into recruiting all those guys players.

Idk where we end up on paper bc you see a lot of ahem absolute BS in the rankings but I think this is a very talented class that hit all positions. And yeah to the point of the thread landing a great Oline class, QB and a few other key positions is probably a wee bit more important; there just aren’t many humans that can play LT in this conference at a high level.
it makes sense that our net is getting deeper. he has been here longer. able to get more tape in to review, had more guys come visit to establish relationships, and just generally understanding the way the SEC works.
 
#18
#18
Could make it color coded.
Grey - common position ( k, long snapper, punter, etc)
Green - uncommon position (cb, TE, KR/PR)
Blue - rare position (olb, safety, og, etc)
Purple - epic position (RB, WR, MLB, DE)
Gold - legendary position (QB, OT, DT)

So a legendary 5* would be worth more than a common, uncommon, rare or epic 5*.

Or a legendary 4* would be as good as an epic 5*

We can level them up too. With enough skill points we can turn a common 3* into a epic 5*, maybe even legendary with the right coaching. . .

đź‘€
and thankfully you can already pay EA Spyre to get a better chance of getting a legendary lootbox player
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enki_Amenra

VN Store



Back
Top