Search results

I think the disconnect is that I am addressing the individual evaluation and you are addressing the process as a whole. For example, if someone was forced to pick between a 4-star DT and a 3-star DT (without knowing anything about the players), they should always pick the 4-star DT. As a group...

You and @PalyCane are skipping Step One to go to Step Two. This is not an issue of math. Obviously, you can make a good bet based on probability that gets a bad result. The issue here is the assignment of probability itself. Rivals alone decides how "probable" it is that a player succeeds...

Here is what I think @PalyCane keeps missing: the "expected rate of return" here isn't based on anything tangible. Rivals sets that expectation themselves, subjectively, by assigning a star rating. It's not objective. They control that. If Rivals decides to make me a four-star, does my...

Those are two separate points. Lane was overrated. I was guilty of it, along with those big schools. His performance confirmed that he was overrated. It was bad individual evaluation by a lot of people. But if you are looking for a blind predictive metric, offer quality is a better measure than...

Here's where you go astray. Ranking a player is an individual decision that needs to be judged individually. You can't judge that kind of individual decision based on group data. The roulette example highlights the flaw in your approach. The odds in roulette are fixed. One out of 38. A better...

That example doesn't fly. Nobody ranks lottery tickets. I haven't seen the kids. But my blind process would be pretty simple. I would look at the commitment lists for schools like Ohio State and Clemson and find three-stars with multiple big offers. The first one on my list would be Marcus...

You mean the guy who killed Notre Dame, was good enough to leave early, got sick, and still was deemed a Top 150 prospect in the country? If we sign a pair of three-stars like McIntosh every year, we will never have a problem at DT. My issue with both posts is that this approach is...

But what’s the objective measure for “probability?” We are accepting criteria at face value which make it almost impossible for Rivals or 247 to be wrong. They bet against McIntosh. He didn’t get one of 300+ spots. Clemson and others disagreed with Rivals on the “probability of his success” and...

But they rank the players for a reason. You are saying the rankings are based on "probability of success." The only way to hold them accountable for that probability is to measure the 300+ players who received 4* rankings against the players who actually turned out to be the Top 300 prospects...

My biggest problem with the narrative criteria is that it removes accountability. That’s probably why it’s so inconsistent, it’s a CYA for the recruiting services. The only accountability comes from the fact that they give out 300-400 four star rankings and no more. That’s the reason the “Top...

I will boil it down to one example. Joe Jackson was one of over 300 players given a four star ranking. He did not make an All-American team, was never first team All-Conference, and is projected as a third round pick. Under BoxingRobes’ interpretation, Rivals made a mistake in giving Joe...

With Hunte, I think they are making the same mistake as with McIntosh. Basketball converts with thick bodies and adequate physicality have a long track record of success. The top schools have picked up on that, which is why both guys had bigger offers than their rankings. DL are hard to...

It's their own criteria. It's right at the beginning: a four star should be a Top 300 player. That makes sense considering they give out 300+ four stars. Nobody disputes that McIntosh was a Top 300 player in his class because they can't. Just for perspective, Jamie Gordinier was ranked ahead...

Agree that @BoxingRobes is one of the best around. Glad to see McIntosh show flashes late in the year. Even without the sickness, he needed some physical maturity. I can see him peaking later in his career. Our defensive linemen have been outproducing their draft spots since Calais Campbell.

Do you think 300 players in this class become All-Americans? If not, take a step back and think about your position.

Let me repeat this again and make it very simple. A four star player is a Top 300 player in his class. That is how every service defines it. As we sit here today, do you think RJ McIntosh was one of the Top 300 players in the 2015 class? If the answer is yes, Rivals and 247 got it wrong. If...

This is very simple. Rivals defines a Four Star player as "generally among the nation’s top 300-325 prospects overall." The NFL determined that McIntosh was one of the Top 150 players in his draft class. Rivals underrated him. This does not make sense. There are 300 4* prospects every year on...

I'm going by their own explanation. A four-star player is defined as a Top 300 player in the country. McIntosh got picked 139th by the NFL. Thus, he was one of the Top 300 players in the country and should have been a four-star coming out of high school.

A fourth star means you're a Top 300 player. McIntosh got picked 139th despite a bad kidney condition. He was projected as a Top 75 pick before that. He pretty clearly proved to be a four-star caliber player.

This is the quote: If you were only comparing him to Blissett, I agree Blissett is more explosive. He is one of the most athletic DTs in the country. Hunte is also a stud athlete and heavier. Blissett is already a four star, Hunte should be one. Holley is properly rated but the right kind of...