Can someone explain how recruits drop or rise in the offseason?

[Glitch]

IMO....that's crap. I was speaking to an ex-NFL coach a while back. He told me that the combine and pro-days (kinda similar to HS camps) are only about 10% of what he looked at when evaluating a player....unless said player is from a small school, where he doesn't play against great competition. Game film is what is important. If a player doesn't jump out in person or on film, he's not worth taking....(Grimes)

I don't judge a golfer on what he does on the range, with a perfect lie on flat ground. Let's see what he does when he sticks the tee in the ground, with cash on the line and 15 mph winds.

I don't disagree, which is why I don't get bent out of shape when our coaches take a 3 star player. I know that they are looking at intangibles and their list of what they want at a particular position. They could care less about star ratings because too often a player gets a huge bump because they are working the camp circuit or playing 7v7. Camps and 7v7 are great to hone skills and learn new techniques, but they don't equal performance when the pads and helmets go on and players start hitting.

The rating services put way too much stock in their camp evals, but that is one of the main reasons why players move up and down during the off season.

 

[JettVol]

Money...…..

 

[Jackcrevol]

This has baffled me for awhile. We see recruits rankings rise or fall in the offseason when these kids aren't playing. How and why is that? I can understand during the preseason or season. If they struggle or play great then the jumps or drops are warranted. But when no football is being played? I just dont get it.

I really know what i'm talking about.

$9.95.

-Farrell, prolly.

 

[Devo182]

IMO....that's crap. I was speaking to an ex-NFL coach a while back. He told me that the combine and pro-days (kinda similar to HS camps) are only about 10% of what he looked at when evaluating a player....unless said player is from a small school, where he doesn't play against great competition. Game film is what is important. If a player doesn't jump out in person or on film, he's not worth taking....(Grimes)

I don't judge a golfer on what he does on the range, with a perfect lie on flat ground. Let's see what he does when he sticks the tee in the ground, with cash on the line and 15 mph winds.

Sounds about right. And maybe it is the same for HS evals, but consider the comparison. The NFL has access to the NCAA's 24-angle camera system to watch every single second of film, from all those angles. What is the average quality of HS film? It's pretty terrible and 1 angle.

At the end of the day, coaches like Pruitt want to see a large majority of kids in-person before offering. There is good reason for this. Not saying prospects should be droped for not camping, but there's good reason kids have the opportunity to raise their stock in a big way in person.

 

[Devo182]

I don't disagree, which is why I don't get bent out of shape when our coaches take a 3 star player. I know that they are looking at intangibles and their list of what they want at a particular position. They could care less about star ratings because too often a player gets a huge bump because they are working the camp circuit or playing 7v7. Camps and 7v7 are great to hone skills and learn new techniques, but they don't equal performance when the pads and helmets go on and players start hitting.

The rating services put way too much stock in their camp evals, but that is one of the main reasons why players move up and down during the off season.

Agreed, have to trust college staffs way over services. Especially outside the top few hundred kids. Even services understand the discrepancies between the ability for universities to evaluate kids and themselves. Barton has said as much. A school narrows down to a few hundred kids, gets them on campus multiple times, etc. A service tries to eval thousands of kids (with maybe even a smaller staff than 1 university) and hopes to see a kid in person a time or two. There's really no comparison and no one is/should be making it.

All said, they have evaluation correlations that have stood the test of time. Maybe it is nothing extraordinary, but it exists for mass consumption and general understanding. So fans can see if they have a great, good, bad class, all relative to other teams and past years. There's a reason the Blue Chip Ratio exists and is supported by championships. At the end of the day, it sure as hell beats "Tennessee Ray's Top 10 Blue Chip Football Prospects of 1988".

 

[Glitch]

Agreed, have to trust college staffs way over services. Especially outside the top few hundred kids. Even services understand the discrepancies between the ability for universities to evaluate kids and themselves. Barton has said as much. A school narrows down to a few hundred kids, gets them on campus multiple times, etc. A service tries to eval thousands of kids (with maybe eveb a smaller staff than 1 university) and hopes to see a kid in person a time or two. There's really no comparison and no one is/should be making it.

All said, they have evaluation correlations that have stood the test of time. Maybe it is nothing extraordinary, but it exists for mass consumption and general understanding. So fans can see if they have a great, good, bad class, all relative to other teams and past years. There's a reason the Blue Chip Ratio exists and is supported by championships. At the end of the day, it sure as hell beats "Tennessee Ray's Top 10 Blue Chip Football Prospects of 1988".

Agreed. Top 50 or so recuits are very interchangeable. The next couple hundred after that are probably interchangeable within that grouping. Above that you would need a staff of hundreds of people constantly watching film and interviewing kids to even have a shot at a proper eval. Rivals and 24/7 are nowhere near staffed to the level they would need. So they get the top 50 and then the next 200 or so in somewhat of a reasonable order and then they base the remaining evals on their camps and in person contacts. It is very flawed but like you said, it is mostly for the consumption of casual fans. Those that really follow recruiting closely know that many of these kids are not properly evaluated and that the schools have the staffs to go much more in depth.

 

[BaldBiker]

Look at Devo and Glitch acting all smart and all. Everyone give Devo an @. Not Glitch though...he's an @ whore.