‘23 GA S Jack Luttrell (Tennessee transfer)

[sjt18]

Jones was great at recruiting and evaluating. That’s why so many of his guys are in the nfl now. He didn’t fail because of recruiting or evaluating. He failed because of transfers, injuries, and poor coaching.

I just gave you a long list of FLOPS. He was "unique" in that he DID pay a lot of attention to "stars".

Limiting the number of 4/5 *s doesn’t “hedge their bets”. They still have not predict the top 250 or more players in the nation.

Using the NFL draft as a measure which is one of the few objective means... and granting that just as many 3* or under players with NFL talent will wash out due to injury, grades, attitude, etc... They're under 50% predicting the best 400 players or so. Even their 70% rate among 5* yields 18 players that go in the draft.

If you think that “hedges their bets” you just really think teams get to hedge theirs by only taking roughly 25 players.

You need to think that "logic" through again. The recruiting sites ARBITRARILY limit the number of 4/5* grades they hand out which makes them look more accurate. Teams are limited to 25 players... and cannot hide their inaccuracy.

Yes, the process is not perfect. There will always be misses and busts. Heupel has them. Saban has them. And yes, recruiting services have them. That’s why your attempts at cherry picking are pathetic. If you look at the overall numbers 5*s perform better than 4*s, who on average perform better than 3*s. That indicates the process works.

You can keep repeating this same failed logic... and you will still be 100% WRONG.

If you had a million dollars and were considering a stock broker... would you hand your money over to someone who was wrong over 75% of the time? Would that be "accurate" enough for you?

I haven't "cherry picked" anything. That would be you... and with GREAT INACCURACY... the recruiting sites. Each year they will "cherry pick" around 430 players to receive 4/5* ratings. About 30 or so will be given 5*. On average, less than 100 of those players will be drafted into the NFL. Large numbers will be like so many of Jones' recruits and simply not be as talented as the recruiting sites' evaluators thought.

Preston Williams, Phillips, and Richmond. You attempted to pretend they were busts. That’s a joke

Again. You need to stop reading through the lens of your own bias. I said "overrated" or outright busts. Williams after ONE good season for Colorado State had an opportunity to play in the NFL. We likely will never know how good he might have been. Are you really saying that Phillips or Richmond played like "blue chip" players?

 

[butchna]

Lol no. I’m not claiming they scout based on any service but rather than both arrived at the same point independently.

So it seems the services know what they’re doing

I think they mostly followed the coaches. Smart scam they have going.

 

[sjt18]

He can’t accept the fact that the teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the teams that win at the highest level year in and year out. Sjt’s ignorance on this issue is profound.

Keep showing you facts and logic and reasons that you are wrong. You keep pointing to things that do not prove your point AT ALL when applied consistently... and then engage in ad hominem as if that makes you "superior".

Your own post showed how wrong you are. Two of the top 5 do not even have winning records. Being Saban, Smart, Swinney, or Day... is a pretty good and consistent indicator of success. The recruiting rankings aren't except to the extent that they plagiarize those guys' work.

 

[Vol8188]

I just gave you a long list of FLOPS. He was "unique" in that he DID pay a lot of attention to "stars".

Using the NFL draft as a measure which is one of the few objective means... and granting that just as many 3* or under players with NFL talent will wash out due to injury, grades, attitude, etc... They're under 50% predicting the best 400 players or so. Even their 70% rate among 5* yields 18 players that go in the draft.

You need to think that "logic" through again. The recruiting sites ARBITRARILY limit the number of 4/5* grades they hand out which makes them look more accurate. Teams are limited to 25 players... and cannot hide their inaccuracy.

You can keep repeating this same failed logic... and you will still be 100% WRONG.

If you had a million dollars and were considering a stock broker... would you hand your money over to someone who was wrong over 75% of the time? Would that be "accurate" enough for you?

I haven't "cherry picked" anything. That would be you... and with GREAT INACCURACY... the recruiting sites. Each year they will "cherry pick" around 430 players to receive 4/5* ratings. About 30 or so will be given 5*. On average, less than 100 of those players will be drafted into the NFL. Large numbers will be like so many of Jones' recruits and simply not be as talented as the recruiting sites' evaluators thought.


Again. You need to stop reading through the lens of your own bias. I said "overrated" or outright busts. Williams after ONE good season for Colorado State had an opportunity to play in the NFL. We likely will never know how good he might have been. Are you really saying that Phillips or Richmond played like "blue chip" players?

You listed your opinion of "flops", a lot of which are playing in the NFL today. So it seems like the problem there may be your opinion rather than the players actual talent/success.

70% is insanely impressive. Given injuries, grades, etc, 70% is great. Where do you get that they're under 50%? What're you basing that claim on. Seems 5* are more likely to get drafted, 4* are also. So where do you get this claim of the best 400? I'm not even sure what metric one would use for "who are the best 400"

If an arbitrary limit of 300 helps you, shouldn't a limit of 25 help you even more? Instead of telling me to think it through, you could simply try explaining yourself (I know that's a lot to ask).

 

[onevol74]

As usual you are wrong. I never said that and you know it. Maybe you need some reminding of the facts

View attachment 526060

Where is Michigan and TCU? 50% of the playoff teams.

 

[onevol74]

The first thing you should do is define losing. Bama was a top ten team right? Elite recruiting is part of the equation only. It’s a massive part, but only part.

Bama has been an absolute dynasty. They’re such a dynasty that they’re going to finish in the top ten and by their standards you’re defining it as “losing”. And their dynasty has been built by recruiting at a level we’ve never seen before.

If UT finishes in the top 10 then your theory is false according to this post.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Where is Michigan and TCU? 50% of the playoff teams.

Exceptions don’t prove the rule. Outliers will always exist.

 

[sjt18]

You listed your opinion of "flops", a lot of which are playing in the NFL today.

A lot?

So it seems like the problem there may be your opinion rather than the players actual talent/success.

Not at all. If you want to dispute a couple of players it won't damage the overall point. A LOT more 4/5* players have been underperformers or complete flops than should be true IF your faith in the recruiting site evaluations was justified.

70% is insanely impressive. Given injuries, grades, etc, 70% is great.

You think 18 out of 259 is "insanely impressive"? We have different standards for what impresses us. And there is no reason to assume that just as many elite talents who were rated 3* washed out because of injuries, grades, et al as those rated 4/5*. In fact, the recruiting sites factor that into their formula when they have knowledge of grade or character issues.

But more importantly, there are FAR more 3* or lower guys who have the talent to get drafted than 4/5* combined. About 35-40% of the draft is made up of former "blue chip" recruits. That's not "insanely impressive".

70% would be impressive except that in many drafts there are more players who were under 3* who get drafted than 5* players. So they miss FAR more than they find.

If you were tasked with finding 259 "things", presented 30, and only 18 of them were actually what you were supposed to find... would that be considered "accurate"?

Where do you get that they're under 50%? What're you basing that claim on. Seems 5* are more likely to get drafted, 4* are also. So where do you get this claim of the best 400? I'm not even sure what metric one would use for "who are the best 400"

Actually they're under 25% accurate using the draft as an objective measure.

247's composite has around 430 4/5* players. THEY are saying those are the best players available to be signed this year.

If an arbitrary limit of 300 helps you, shouldn't a limit of 25 help you even more? Instead of telling me to think it through, you could simply try explaining yourself (I know that's a lot to ask).

I've never been accused of not "explaining" myself enough here. Just the opposite.

Simply put, Saban does not have to identify every talented player. He has to understand what elite talent looks like. He has to target a subgroup of those players. He has to win them. He only needs to find 25 players that fit his profile... not all of them.

However to demonstrate accuracy like you claim... the recruiting sites need to find them all because they are NOT limited in the same way as a coach is.

As far as accuracy goes... Saban has had 36 NFL draftees in the last 4 drafts. In the classes more or less corresponding to those drafts... he signed 98 players. He is 70% more accurate than they are with the guys he signs... even with them having the ability to "copy his work".

 

[sjt18]

Exceptions don’t prove the rule. Outliers will always exist.

Wow. Just wow.

You ONLY point to the exceptions and COMPLETELY ignore the "rule".

You point to a handful of successful programs whose success is NOT a product of the number of stars recruiting sites give them. It is a product of the ability of the coach to find, sign, and develop talent without one shred of assistance from the recruiting sites.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

It seems he’s developed a conspiracy theory (Bama wins in recruiting because the sites just give their guys all the 5* rankings) as a way of avoiding the simple fact that we currently have an inferior roster. Our coaches have done a great job with that roster, but it has to vastly improve if we won’t to keep winning at a high level.

He seems to think our coach can someone be the one guy to find all these players who’ve slipped through the cracks and win consistently with some rag tag group of Little Giants

I agree with you guys and have argued the same, that overall higher rated classes win more.

But you’re wrong about the bumps. The recruiting sites absolutely depend on the recruiting offices at schools, especially ones proven to evaluate. Swain has said as much. There’s no way they can evaluate all the talent. So that’s why the most relevant rankings are the final rankings (not counting after they actually perform in college of course).

 

[Dooby15]

 

[Vol8188]

I agree with you guys and have argued the same, that overall higher rated classes win more.

But you’re wrong about the bumps. The recruiting sites absolutely depend on the recruiting offices at schools, especially ones proven to evaluate. Swain has said as much. There’s no way they can evaluate all the talent. So that’s why the most relevant rankings are the final rankings (not counting after they actually perform in college of course).

Swain isn't exactly an authority on such. His show is annoying. Do they sometimes not evaluate a guy until he gets big offers? Sure. But that's true across the board. Coaches, scouting departments, scouting services, etc will all take a look at a guy if he starts blowing up. If Oh St offered a Powell player tomorrow and our staff didn't take a second look at the guy, they would be guilty of negligence.

So no, guys aren't getting bumped based on offers. If they were, those teams would never sign a 3*. Players are being reevaluated though based on such, as they should.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Swain isn't exactly an authority on such. His show is annoying. Do they sometimes not evaluate a guy until he gets big offers? Sure. But that's true across the board. Coaches, scouting departments, scouting services, etc will all take a look at a guy if he starts blowing up. If Oh St offered a Powell player tomorrow and our staff didn't take a second look at the guy, they would be guilty of negligence.

So no, guys aren't getting bumped based on offers. If they were, those teams would never sign a 3*. Players are being reevaluated though based on such, as they should.

I wouldn’t be so hardline on your stance. There is truth on both sides. Look at Arion Carter for example. All the big schools jumped on him late as a 3 star. Then suddenly he was reevaluated to a high 4 star.

I agree with the point on teams which have had multiple years of compiling more blue chips do better. But those rankings are final rankings.

I’m not sure why you want to give the scouts of the recruiting services so much credit. Who cares who does the scouting. Your point of talent still remains

 

[Vol8188]

I wouldn’t be so hardline on your stance. There is truth on both sides. Look at Arion Carter for example. All the big schools jumped on him late as a 3 star. Then suddenly he was reevaluated to a high 4 star.

I agree with the point on teams which have had multiple years of compiling more blue chips do better. But those rankings are final rankings.

I’m not sure why you want to give the scouts of the recruiting services so much credit. Who cares who does the scouting. Your point of talent still remains

Sounds like both the "big schools" and recruiting services re-evaluated him. Why do you only believe one of those parties re-evaluated him based on improved SR performance and not all of those parties?

I don't think I'm giving them more credit than they deserve. They have a good process that is right a lot, but like all evaluations is also wrong a decent amount.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Anyone who’s followed this long enough knows the game…Recruiting services change their rankings many times before their final ranking. And it typically coincides with offer lists. Bama doesn’t sign a top 3 class every year because recruiting services got it right when the kids were sophomores or even juniors.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Sounds like both the "big schools" and recruiting services re-evaluated him. Why do you only believe one of those parties re-evaluated him based on improved SR performance and not all of those parties?

I don't think I'm giving them more credit than they deserve. They have a good process that is right a lot, but like all evaluations is also wrong a decent amount.

But their process includes looking at who the big schools are after

 

[Vol8188]

But their process includes looking at who the big schools are after

Sure. So does the process of the big schools. But they're still doing their own evaluations of those guys as are the big schools.

 

[T2P_Priceless]

Sure. So does the process of the big schools. But they're still doing their own evaluations of those guys as are the big schools.

Agreed. No one argues that they don’t do their own evaluations

 

[B81]

Where is Michigan and TCU? 50% of the playoff teams.

Michigan is on the list.

 

[Franklin_Vol09]

I’m a firm believer there’s tons of talented football players out there that get overlooked due to playing at small schools and not going to camps.

It’s true that 4 & 5 stars have a “better chance” of contributing at the next level but to say the recruiting experts get it right most of the time is completely false.

We went 10-2 this year with maybe the 6th talented roster in the SEC behind Bama, Georgia, LSU, A&M, and Florida.

Heupel has earned our trust in his evaluations as a HC.

Not only that, but players develop physically and mentally at different rates as well.

 

[norrislakevol]

Not only that, but players develop physically and mentally at different rates as well.

This is correct. One of the reasons for higher or lower rating of a player is how fast he can contribute. If they need a year or two of development then they will be lower rated. If they can contribute early then they will be rated higher. If you have to wait and develop guys like your low 3 star guys and 2 star guys (and you have a lot of them) then you have less quality depth that can contribute at a high level early in their careers...and you generally fade in the second half and get boat raced by the better teams.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Wow. Just wow.

You ONLY point to the exceptions and COMPLETELY ignore the "rule".

You point to a handful of successful programs whose success is NOT a product of the number of stars recruiting sites give them. It is a product of the ability of the coach to find, sign, and develop talent without one shred of assistance from the recruiting sites.

Yeah I forgot Bama, UGA, Clemson and OSU well they win with a team full of 3* players. . Dude you are beyond comical with your absolute ignorance orange when it comes to blue chip ratios and success. I guess that product of the coach beijf able to find and develop just so happens to include tons of 4 and 5* players huh? Guess that’s just a coincidence. Good grief dude give it up already. You are just flat out wrong.

I will repeat the rule one more time since you cannot grasp it. The teams with the most 4 and 5* players have the most success in college football. THATS THE RULE.

 

[sjt18]

Yeah I forgot Bama, UGA, Clemson and OSU well they win with a team full of 3* players. .

You LITERALLY just proved my point for me. I mean I couldn't have signed into your profile and done it better.

Dude you are beyond comical with your absolute ignorance orange when it comes to blue chip ratios and success.

Except that I've proven you wrong with factual, rational arguments that are consistently applied... over and over. You point to the "exceptions" and claim they make the rule.

I guess that product of the coach beijf able to find and develop just so happens to include tons of 4 and 5* players huh?

Yes. Those two things are co-incidental or else the ratings are a PRODUCT of the coach's success. The recruiting rankings do not CAUSE the success.

Guess that’s just a coincidence. Good grief dude give it up already. You are just flat out wrong.

Nope. Your declarations just don't prove what you for whatever reason want to believe. You very literally focus on "exceptions" as if they create the rule. The recruiting rankings as your own graph demonstrate... do not predict winners. The proof is hitting you in the face like a brick... and you still refuse to see it. Two of the top 5 teams on YOUR "proof" don't have winning records this year. If the recruiting sites were as good at evaluating talent... that could NEVER be true.

I will repeat the rule one more time since you cannot grasp it. The teams with the most 4 and 5* players have the most success in college football. THATS THE RULE.

You can keep repeating that "rule" from now on. Your own graphic disproves it.

 

[MADISONGAVOL]

Maybe Bama and UGA knew they had no chance and decided to go elsewhere.

Off topic. I was in vonore last weekend....couldn't believe how much it and Madisonville has changed past 2 years since I been there. Went up visit my grandmother for Christmas....stayed at cabins on Tellico lake rt off 411... it's changed since the early 80s.....everything around there has

 

[AustinVol]

️️️️
️️️️
️️️️
️️️️