TX QB Kaidon Salter (Liberty signee)

247 made a comment that Salter is chomping at the heels of Brock Vandagriff. He’s ranked 30th Nationally by 247. Salter at 90. So I’m guessing Salter gets another big bump in the 40-50 range. That’s borderline 5* status.

Rivals on the other hand... 3 star.
I think Rivals finally got the memo and he’ll get bumped to a 4 star in their next update.
 
Finally getting the bump to a 4star (5.8) on Rivals....still think it should be at least a 5.9 or a 6.0 even.

MF said:
The decision: This is a tough one because there are so many different views of Salter. He has a strong arm and he can run and he did a good job stepping up last season for his team. But Cedar Hill doesn’t run a very sophisticated offense and a lot of what he does is throw the ball downfield and let his receivers run under it.
But when you break him down even more his throwing mechanics are very solid, he’s great at extending the play and moving around the pocket with his eyes downfield and he has nice touch on some balls.
His intermediate passing game needs work as does his mid-field accuracy but his ceiling is high. I’m bumping him to a 5.8 four-star and like the rest he will be considered for the Rivals250 the next time we rank as a group.
 
I don't know that I've ever seen them bump a player in between an official update...they typically only do 5-6 updates in a recruiting cycle and their approach has always been a mass update of their entire rankings when it happens
Correct. I think Rivals is adopting some things from 247. 247’s crystal balls were popular so now Rivals does “Future Cast”. 247 does random updates and now Rivals appears to be doing that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*
Correct. I think Rivals is adopting some things from 247. 247’s crystal balls were popular so now Rivals does “Future Cast”. 247 does random updates and now Rivals appears to be doing that as well.

I definitely like that better... of course either one is better than ESPN's approach...rank them initially, update the 300 a couple of times and pretend that anyone outside of it doesn't exist
 
I definitely like that better... of course either one is better than ESPN's approach...rank them initially, update the 300 a couple of times and pretend that anyone outside of it doesn't exist

It's always confused me why ESPN half-asses recruiting with how big college football is to them. They should either go all-in or all out. They could just bow out and have something like "Rankings powered by Rivals" and just team up.

Alternatively, they could go all-in, hire some analysts (which really isn't all that expensive), host some camps, do even more features on the high school games they cover, have a 30 minute recurring recruiting show on ESPNU, etc. Instead, they just dip a toe in a few different things and do none of it well.
 
It's always confused me why ESPN half-asses recruiting with how big college football is to them. They should either go all-in or all out. They could just bow out and have something like "Rankings powered by Rivals" and just team up.

Alternatively, they could go all-in, hire some analysts (which really isn't all that expensive), host some camps, do even more features on the high school games they cover, have a 30 minute recurring recruiting show on ESPNU, etc. Instead, they just dip a toe in a few different things and do none of it well.

I couldn't agree more...there's clearly a market for that kind of coverage...and I can't help but think they could cover it better than anyone involved if they would commit to it
 

VN Store



Back
Top