Search results

Agree. 100%. I just think it’s funny that my man can’t concede that the ratings sites are, at best, flipping coins with even the best can’t miss kids... let alone the type of kids that are big-bodied, 6’6” with quick feet that play basketball half the year until they are juniors, so they don’t...

Well, I said 16 - but I wasn’t entirely right (or wrong). 90% of all 5*s make nfl rosters (I think) - not 90% of 5* o linemen. Of the 9 from 14-16, only 4 are currently in the NFL. I might look further back. I’ll let you know... if it helps my argument (lol). Edit - just read your whole post...

You looking at 16 or 18? 16 was Hyatt (5), Crowder/Fruhmorgen (4) and Hearn/Guillermo/Falcinelli (3). So half the main rotation and at times 2/5 on the field - not at all an unreasonable goal for any top-tier p5 team, really. Your boys at rivals and 247, according to you, are the ones that...

I’m not entirely sure that my point - that of the first 10 linemen drafted, more are 3* than 5/4 - isn’t true over the last 5 years. It might be, but I don’t feel like looking it up... lol That’s self fulfilling. Better teams sign more blue chippers - again, no one is arguing against that. I...

So you’ll concede that the recruiting sites are appreciably worse at grading o linemen, but are willing to wholeheartedly trust their grades. To each his own. Never mind the fact that at least 8 (I only looked at the first 10 linemen drafted) 3*/un-ranked linemen were drafted before a single 4*...

Anyone who argues that —^ isn’t all that bright... on the whole. But, and again, you’ve basically admitted this without actually saying the words (35 v 90) - o line is just different. More often than any other position group, 3* o linemen routinely outperform (per nfl draft/performance) their...

Never mind that your premise totally disregards the crux of my argument - I’ve already conceded that 33 is higher than 1. If ticket a costs $10,000 and ticket c costs 3$, I’d probably buy a couple ticket c’s - not because I don’t want ticket a, but because I have no way of getting my hands on...

You’d agree that 35 is fewer than 90, correct? Using % of total drafted as some sort of arbiter of recruiting services’ “success” rate just seems a little disingenuous because, like I said, it’s a lot easier to be “right” when taking 9 guesses as opposed to 1000.

Fair enough - but, literally none of that is true with respect to o linemen. This thread is about an o lineman - you should be able to realize why you’re getting some pushback against the otherwise benign/unassailable point of “higher rated players = more winning”

Guy 1 said something about there being more 2/3* pro bowl o linemen than 4/5. Simple fact - until you said anything before 2008 doesn't count, that of those from classes after 2008 75% (a whopping 3/4) were blue chippers and that 5*s get drafted at a higher % than non-5*s (you don't say? I think...

So basically what you are saying is that we should all trust poindexter on everything he says about o linemen even though he can't even be bothered to be better than a coin flip with respect to "can't miss" talents. Funny how focusing on percentages and applying narrow parameters can help skew...

There were 2 linemen in the 2014 class that received 5* in the 247composite - 1 was drafted. 4 linemen in the 2015 class received 5* - 1 was drafted (92d overall). 2/3 of 2016's 5* were drafted - the highest rated one was picked after an unranked kid from Alabama state and a 6'6" 3* converted...