'15 CT TE Chris Clark

#151
#151
mreynoldsdvm said:
Never mind. You are missing my point that I was trying to make with the original post about every recruit that is number one at their position should be a five star. If a prospect is ranked number one at their position, then the services are saying they can most likely contribute early at a program. That is the definition of a five star.
Click to expand...

Yup. Where the kid projects in the NFL 5-6 years away means little to nothing to me. It's a HS kid headed to college. What NFL kids make money wise playing the same position is just not relevant at all.
 
#152
#152
LebanonVolunteer said:
Yup. Where the kid projects in the NFL 5-6 years away means little to nothing to me. It's a HS kid headed to college. What NFL kids make money wise playing the same position is just not relevant at all.
Click to expand...

And we agree once again. :hi:
 
#153
#153
mreynoldsdvm said:
Never mind. You are missing my point that I was trying to make with the original post about every recruit that is number one at their position should be a five star. If a prospect is ranked number one at their position, then the services are saying they can most likely contribute early at a program. That is the definition of a five star.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say, but it's a dumb point. If you look at who 5-star prospects actually are, the definition of a 5-star is - and should remain - "one of the very best overall football prospects in the nation." A 5-star prospect should be better (i.e., more talented and valuable) than any other 4-star prospect at any other position. And there should only be a handful of 5-star players in any given recruiting class (between 15 to 30) to keep that rating meaningful. For context, ESPN rarely gives more than 15 5-star ratings in any class; Rivals starts conservatively and gradually increases to about 30 5-star players by National Signing Day; while Scout is the most generous with between 40-50 5-star players each class.

If you think the top player at every position should automatically get a 5-star rating, then you're saying that a kicker, punter, and longsnapper should automatically rank among the top 15-30 overall prospects in the country. This is idiotic.

I looked back over the past 5 years, and no kicker or punter has ever ranked among the top 100 overall prospects on ESPN, Rivals or Scout. This might be a little harsh, considering that some kickers and punters do get picked in the middle rounds of the NFL draft (somewhere between the 64th and 150th overall picks), so perhaps a few outstanding kickers and punters should be considered among the top 100 overall high school prospects.

However, your myopic approach would automatically crown the top kickers, punters, interior offensive lineman and maybe even longsnappers as among the top 15-30 overall prospects in the nation, even if it's a particularly weak year at those positions. That's why your idea doesn't make any sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
LebanonVolunteer said:
Yup. Where the kid projects in the NFL 5-6 years away means little to nothing to me. It's a HS kid headed to college. What NFL kids make money wise playing the same position is just not relevant at all.
Click to expand...

D-1 college football players all get the same full-ride scholarship, so I was introducing NFL draft history and salary information to back up my point that kickers are the least valuable position in football. If college football ever reforms the recruiting process to something akin to NFL free agency (where different players get offered different amounts of money), we could use that free market evidence to gauge exactly how much college coaches value kickers, punters and longsnappers (hint: not much). Absent that kind of evidence, I say the NFL info is highly relevant.

Answer the points I made to Reynolds, LV. Do you think kickers, punters and longsnappers belong among the top 15-30 overall prospects in the nation, or do you disagree with my definition of a five-star recruit?
 
#155
#155
AboveAllNations said:
If kickers are so important, why are they consistenly picked after every other position in each year's NFL draft? Why are kickers and punters by far the lowest-paid positions in the NFL, with the ten highest-paid kickers and punters making roughly half of the ten highest-paid centers and guards?

Kickers may seem important in the sense that their mistakes are highly visible, but there isn't really a significant difference between the very best and worst kickers in the NFL. The talent discrepancy among kickers is a little larger in Division 1 football, but D-1 teams can still find servicable walk on kickers or punters on any intramural soccer field. Accurate placekickers are the opposite of franchise QBs, bookend LTs, or shutdown corners in the sense that they come a dime a dozen.

So, I repeat my question. If you had to choose between giving a scholarship to the top kicking prospect in the nation or getting a walk-on kicker to go with a top-100 4-star player like Josh Malone, Jalen Hurd or Todd Kelly Jr., what would you choose? If you accept the premise that 5-star ratings should only be reserved for the top 15-30 overall prospects for that rating to have any meaning, then no kicker should ever be a 5-star prospect - especially not just because he happens to be the best at his position.
Click to expand...

I fail to see what their ranking has to do with taking them over another position? Just because a kicker may be ranked a 5* that doesn't mean that every team is going to be after them and therefore sacrifice a position of need for a position they may not need just because they're a 5*. Your premise implies that every 5* receives a 124 D-1 offers simply cause they're a 5*.
 
#156
#156
bowlinggreenvol said:
I fail to see what their ranking has to do with taking them over another position? Just because a kicker may be ranked a 5* that doesn't mean that every team is going to be after them and therefore sacrifice a position of need for a position they may not need just because they're a 5*. Your premise implies that every 5* receives a 124 D-1 offers simply cause they're a 5*.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about the top rated quarterback/running back/wide receiver/etc. being more valuable/important than the top rated kicker/punter. Or at least that's what it seems like that's what you're asking to me. If not then I'm not sure what you're asking, your post was kind of confusing to me.
 
#157
#157
AboveAllNations said:
D-1 college football players all get the same full-ride scholarship, so I was introducing NFL draft history and salary information to back up my point that kickers are the least valuable position in football. If college football ever reforms the recruiting process to something akin to NFL free agency (where different players get offered different amounts of money), we could use that free market evidence to gauge exactly how much college coaches value kickers, punters and longsnappers (hint: not much). Absent that kind of evidence, I say the NFL info is highly relevant.

Answer the points I made to Reynolds, LV. Do you think kickers, punters and longsnappers belong among the top 15-30 overall prospects in the nation, or do you disagree with my definition of a five-star recruit?
Click to expand...

Our buddy Butch gave a LS a scholly over a bunch of four star position players. Stoops gave Horky a scholly.
 
#159
#159
Burger said:
Our buddy Butch gave a LS a scholly over a bunch of four star position players. Stoops gave Horky a scholly.
Click to expand...

He gave one to a kicker named Medley as well. Happens all the time.

Anyone who uses the term "unimportant or expendable" when describing special teams players, well yeah.
 
#160
#160
Burger said:
Our buddy Butch gave a LS a scholly over a bunch of four star position players. Stoops gave Horky a scholly.
Click to expand...

And I believe that was a huge mistake for a young team with as many needs as ours. By about October, when we've already got 22 commitments and we're still in it for elite prospects like Gibson and all of those DTs (Thompson, Settle, Tuttle, Johnson) we'll regret wasting a scholarship on a long snapper. If anybody would appreciate that, you'd think it would be number-crunching LebanonVolunteer...

LebanonVolunteer said:
He gave one to a kicker named Medley as well. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that kickers don't deserves a scholarships; I'm saying the best kicker doesn't automatically deserve a 5-star ranking just because he's the best at his position. That's what we're debating, aren't we?

LebanonVolunteer said:
Anyone who uses the term "unimportant or expendable" when describing special teams players, well yeah.
Click to expand...

You're completely dodging the issue to play semantic games. Focus on arguing why the best kicker, punter and long snapper should automatically receive a 5-star rating, even if it's a weak class at those positions.

But okay, maybe I misspoke when I described special team specialists as "unimportant." How about "far less important or valuable than any other position in football." I stand by the word "expendable" in the sense that, unlike other starting positions, scholarship kickers are basically interchangeable with walk-on talent. Since you're discounting NFL evidence, here are some college numbers to back up my point:

  • In 2010, "fourteen of the top-25 teams trot out kickers that walked on, and in the past five years, starting kickers who walked on to ranked teams have outperformed those who earned scholarships out of high school. This year, starting walk-ons for top-25 teams have made 93% of their field goals."
  • In 2012, "at least 16 of the 121 FBS non-academies don't have a kicker who was offered a scholarship directly out of high school or junior college. That list includes such heavyweight programs as Oklahoma and Wisconsin."
  • Several recent Lou Groza award-winners began their careers as college walk-ons: Texas A&M's Randy Bullock (2011), Oklahoma State's Dan Bailey (2010), Louisville's Art Carmody (2006) and Oregon State's Alexis Serna (2005).
  • Many schools - including Gary Pinkel's Missouri team - have stopped offering kickers scholarships out of high school because too many of their scholarship recruits were getting beaten out by walk-ons.
  • In 2012 only 25 of the 121 non-academies in the FBS ranks had long snappers who were awarded scholarships directly out of high school or junior college.
  • This past year, only 35 kickers and 17 punters were committed to sign a letter of intent at a FCS or FBS school. "Jamie Kohl, co-founder of Kohl’s Professional Camps in Wisconsin, says each year, about 50 kickers and punters combined, give or take 10, will sign with an FCS school."

When was the last time a former walk-on won a national award at a non-special teams position? Are there any other positions where walk-ons routinely beat out scholarship players for starting positions? Have you ever seen multiple top-25 programs starting walk-ons at any other position?

No, you haven't. That's why the top kicker, punter and long-snapper prospects don't automatically deserve a 5-star rating which would signify that they're among the 15-30 best football players in the country. That's crazy. Stop nitpicking my words and engage with my argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
AboveAllNations said:
And I believe that was a huge mistake for a young team with as many needs as ours. By about October, when we've already got 22 commitments and we're still in it for elite prospects like Gibson and all of those DTs (Thompson, Settle, Tuttle, Johnson) we'll regret wasting a scholarship on a long snapper. If anybody would appreciate that, you'd think it would be number-crunching LebanonVolunteer...



I'm not saying that kickers don't deserves a scholarships; I'm saying the best kicker doesn't automatically deserve a 5-star ranking just because he's the best at his position. That's what we're debating, aren't we?



You're completely dodging the issue to play semantic games. Focus on arguing why the best kicker, punter and long snapper should automatically receive a 5-star rating, even if it's a weak class at those positions.

But okay, maybe I misspoke when I described special team specialists as "unimportant." How about "far less important or valuable than any other position in football." I stand by the word "expendable" in the sense that, unlike other starting positions, scholarship kickers are basically interchangeable with walk-on talent. Since you're discounting NFL evidence, here are some college numbers to back up my point:

  • In 2010, "fourteen of the top-25 teams trot out kickers that walked on, and in the past five years, starting kickers who walked on to ranked teams have outperformed those who earned scholarships out of high school. This year, starting walk-ons for top-25 teams have made 93% of their field goals."
  • In 2012, "at least 16 of the 121 FBS non-academies don't have a kicker who was offered a scholarship directly out of high school or junior college. That list includes such heavyweight programs as Oklahoma and Wisconsin."
  • Several recent Lou Groza award-winners began their careers as college walk-ons: Texas A&M's Randy Bullock (2011), Oklahoma State's Dan Bailey (2010), Louisville's Art Carmody (2006) and Oregon State's Alexis Serna (2005).
  • Many schools - including Gary Pinkel's Missouri team - have stopped offering kickers scholarships out of high school because too many of their scholarship recruits were getting beaten out by walk-ons.
  • In 2012 only 25 of the 121 non-academies in the FBS ranks had long snappers who were awarded scholarships directly out of high school or junior college.
  • This past year, only 35 kickers and 17 punters were committed to sign a letter of intent at a FCS or FBS school. "Jamie Kohl, co-founder of Kohl’s Professional Camps in Wisconsin, says each year, about 50 kickers and punters combined, give or take 10, will sign with an FCS school."

When was the last time a former walk-on won a national award at a non-special teams position? Are there any other positions where walk-ons routinely beat out scholarship players for starting positions? Have you ever seen multiple top-25 programs starting walk-ons at any other position?

No, you haven't. That's why the top kicker, punter and long-snapper prospects don't automatically deserve a 5-star rating which would signify that they're among the 15-30 best football players in the country. That's crazy. Stop nitpicking my words and engage with my argument.
Click to expand...

Way. Too. Much. Time. On. Your. Hands.
 
#162
#162
I came in here to get some new info on Chris Clark. My bad, wrong thread.

*exits intense special teams discussion*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#168
#168
Could not waste the time to read all that...seems LebanonVolunteer was the reasonable one (at least what I read)

:)

:popcorn:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
If youre not a fan of stargazing then put stars on ignore. If a kicker is the best at his position then he will have a #1 in the place where it says "position rank".

Move along, there is nothing else to see here.
 
#171
#171
RockVol said:
It was about the kick against Auburn where it was brought all the way back .
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. But the discussion was about the value of kickers and whether they should be five stars. I thought you were commenting on it, but the comment missed the point of the conversation. Sorry if this sounds really richardish. I'm probably just way off here.
 
#172
#172
Phat-Phil said:
I'm not sure what's hard to understand about the top rated quarterback/running back/wide receiver/etc. being more valuable/important than the top rated kicker/punter. Or at least that's what it seems like that's what you're asking to me. If not then I'm not sure what you're asking, your post was kind of confusing to me.
Click to expand...

Did you change your name? If not, I didn't ask you anything. I quoted "above all nations".
 
#174
#174
jtipto10 said:
A little sensitive, are we?
Click to expand...

Sensitive? I simply asked the guy a question. He quoted me and said he didn't understand what I was asking him. I said I didn't ask him anything unless his name has changed.

A little annoying, cluttering the thread with insinuations that don't concern us, are we?
 
Last edited:
#175
#175
bowlinggreenvol said:
Sensitive? I simply asked the guy a question. He quoted me and said he didn't understand what I was asking him. I said I didn't ask him anything unless his name has changed.

A little annoying, cluttering the thread with insinuations that don't concern us, are we?
Click to expand...

a87bde43a2db76f6dcad543725f152b78ab56d4c6e1692ba33f94d332fc1c375.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top