‘23 JUCO OT Larry Johnson III ( Tennessee commit)

#251
#251
T2P_Priceless said:
It obviously comes down to a combination of talent and coaching and development. You give Kirby a roster of 3 stars and no way is he competing for a title. We see that evidence in the relation to him building his roster then ascending to the top

Again:

Why Football Recruiting Rankings Matter



The Effectiveness of College Football Recruiting Ratings in Predicting Team Success: A Longitudinal Study by Jeffrey A. Mankin, Julio Rivas, Jeffrey Jay Jewell :: SSRN
Click to expand...
Somebody wrote an article. 😴
 
#255
#255
GUNTERSVOL said:
Pretty easy. The best teams are not blindly reaching into the 4 star pool, they are evaluating guys and taking a lot of the better 4 star guys and avoiding the overranked misses that get passed by lower star guys in college and get drafted while the majority of the 4 stars do not. Hate to wear out a fact, but more 2-3 stars got drafted last year than 4 stars. Percentage of 4 stars is higher, actual quantity it is lower.

Evaluating players from thousands of HS with a wider variance in competition level is just tougher than hundreds of primarily FBS and FCS colleges. 3-4 years of on field production after the age of 18 clarifies the pool quite a bit. With 200 to 270 4 stars available from basically two different classes that is 400-500 4 stars to draft from, and last year about a hundred were. That is a bunch of misses. Even more opportunities to mine talent from the under evaluated. Add well from the 3 star pool and you can gain ground on the BEST teams even while they corner the 4 star market. Colleges are not using a dart board in low star pool either. Sign the wrong 4 stars

Celebrating or bridge hunting on signing day based on STARS is a fool's errand. It is a pretty long study to see how each team's evaluation processes year to year stack up against the services projections 3-4 years earlier.
Click to expand...
And now you have to take into account how many go into the portal. Hard to just count stars anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GUNTERSVOL
#256
#256
Orange_Crush said:
Again, and I'm actually trying to find common ground here... But your point seems to be very similar to the points others of us are making. None of us are saying that recruiting rankings are just flat out wrong and useless. We are however questioning the extreme opposite of that claim--that they are the holy grail that everyone (including our coaches) need to be striving for and judged against. And that they are the predictor of our future success.

They just aren't. Period.

You seem to agree that they are a general rule of thumb, and a decent indicator. @sjt18 makes a pretty decent argument that the predictive value falls off when you start getting away from the established, successful programs.

My main point, within your specific agreements above, is that (I'd call us overall ignorant, but we'll settle on...) unskilled fans try to cover their ingo... lack of ability in rating talent by trying to enforce a reliance on a flawed and imperfect system. They don't have the data, nor the abilities, to properly rate talent, so they choose an authority, prop it up as the gold standard of success and prediction, and then judge our staff and program against that.

They compound the error by trying to implement correlation at scale to predictions of individual players. We land a 3* and out comes the ignorance: "Boo. Hiss. This guy isn't as good as the 4* UGA got, so we'll never catch them."

Whether by hook or by crook, they went from arguing a correlation at scale to causation in the specific.
Click to expand...
Totally, I think I'm with you for the most part, so just to add...

You're right, as fans, we don't have the experience/skillset Josh Heupel has to evaluate football talent, so we take whatever skillsets we do have (in my case analytics) to do the best job we can to have the most informed opinion about who the best players are, despite not having CJH's ability.

The issue is, there are two things happening here: coaches are evaluating talent and they're also competing with one another to get that talent. So when we see higher ranked players going to Team A over Team B, it can mean one of two things: either Team A is doing a better job stockpiling talent, or Team B has under the radar guys that the rating services have missed.

Both can happen, but generally speaking given our lack of expertise/information, until a given coach has a long-tenured established track record of being the under-the-radar talent stockpiler, the best guess we can make is to rely on the recruiting rankings as they're the best info available on that front (or the least bad anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2P_Priceless
#257
#257
Did any of the coaching staff boom this commitment? I looked at Elarbee twitter and he didn't.
 
#258
#258
Orange_Crush said:
Again, and I'm actually trying to find common ground here... But your point seems to be very similar to the points others of us are making. None of us are saying that recruiting rankings are just flat out wrong and useless. We are however questioning the extreme opposite of that claim--that they are the holy grail that everyone (including our coaches) need to be striving for and judged against. And that they are the predictor of our future success.

They just aren't. Period.

You seem to agree that they are a general rule of thumb, and a decent indicator. @sjt18 makes a pretty decent argument that the predictive value falls off when you start getting away from the established, successful programs.

My main point, within your specific agreements above, is that (I'd call us overall ignorant, but we'll settle on...) unskilled fans try to cover their ingo... lack of ability in rating talent by trying to enforce a reliance on a flawed and imperfect system. They don't have the data, nor the abilities, to properly rate talent, so they choose an authority, prop it up as the gold standard of success and prediction, and then judge our staff and program against that.

They compound the error by trying to implement correlation at scale to predictions of individual players. We land a 3* and out comes the ignorance: "Boo. Hiss. This guy isn't as good as the 4* UGA got, so we'll never catch them."

Whether by hook or by crook, they went from arguing a correlation at scale to causation in the specific.
Click to expand...
Excellent
 
#259
#259
Vols410 said:
Totally, I think I'm with you for the most part, so just to add...

You're right, as fans, we don't have the experience/skillset Josh Heupel has to evaluate football talent, so we take whatever skillsets we do have (in my case analytics) to do the best job we can to have the most informed opinion about who the best players are, despite not having CJH's ability.

The issue is, there are two things happening here: coaches are evaluating talent and they're also competing with one another to get that talent. So when we see higher ranked players going to Team A over Team B, it can mean one of two things: either Team A is doing a better job stockpiling talent, or Team B has under the radar guys that the rating services have missed.

Both can happen, but generally speaking given our lack of expertise/information, until a given coach has a long-tenured established track record of being the under-the-radar talent stockpiler, the best guess we can make is to rely on the recruiting rankings as they're the best info available on that front (or the least bad anyway).
Click to expand...

Or folks could just admit the limits of their abilities and just take some Xanax until they see the results that actually matter--on the field.

It is so tiring for the rest of us to hear how we will never beat Bama until we first beat them in subjective opinion collecting--until we did.

We'll never compete for championships until we beat other teams in subjective opinion collecting for several years in a row.

Until we did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
#261
#261
Orange_Crush said:
Or folks could just admit the limits of their abilities and just take some Xanax until they see the results that actually matter--on the field.

It is so tiring for the rest of us to hear how we will never beat Bama until we first beat them in subjective opinion collecting--until we did.

We'll never compete for championships until we beat other teams in subjective opinion collecting for several years in a row.

Until we did.
Click to expand...
This.
We can look at the rankings. But we don’t have to freak out about every 3* we get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrylee and T2P_Priceless
#263
#263
Orange_Crush said:
Or folks could just admit the limits of their abilities and just take some Xanax until they see the results that actually matter--on the field.

It is so tiring for the rest of us to hear how we will never beat Bama until we first beat them in subjective opinion collecting--until we did.

We'll never compete for championships until we beat other teams in subjective opinion collecting for several years in a row.

Until we did.
Click to expand...
Why can’t we do both? It’s a great measuring stick (in addition to developing and scouting) between previous and current staffs. There are always outliers as pointed out by the research paper and in any science.

And I for one am not stressed. I see upward trajectory. I also will continue to be more excited the more talent we have. All I hear is our defense sucks because of lack of talent. Let’s see how much better we get with more talent…exciting!
 
#265
#265
T2P_Priceless said:
Why can’t we do both? It’s a great measuring stick (in addition to developing and scouting) between previous and current staffs. There are always outliers as pointed out by the research paper and in any science.

And I for one am not stressed. I see upward trajectory. I also will continue to be more excited the more talent we have. All I hear is our defense sucks because of lack of talent. Let’s see how much better we get with more talent…exciting!
Click to expand...
You're making the same mistake over and over. You using "rank" and "talent" as synonyms.

You are free to do so. To answer your question, "you can".

Others are just also free to call out the proclamations as irrational and flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and LittleVol
#266
#266
butchna said:
I don’t see either as a RT mauler type like Wright delivered…they’re more finesse. Neither were physically fit first day at UT, but Schmidt/Ellarbee had them game ready before the season. Now Crawford played little his first year, but it wasn’t because he needed to catch his breath. As we’ve seen with Simmons, no two conditioning situations are equal but I could definitely see LJ3 as the starter and expect it sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I think Crawford is a more natural RT than LT. And a better run blocker than pass blocker. He’ll be good at RT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigl3327
#268
#268
T2P_Priceless said:
Ignore the empirical evidence if you wish. People here have argued your art for the last 15 years of our sucky drought. Meanwhile Bama and GA continue to win Championships. Yes I know coaching matters too
Click to expand...

Tell you what. Let me replace star for star by position their classes with players of my choosing by using the offer lists and I bet we can close ground. It is NOT how many 4 stars they sign but which 4 stars they evaluate and then sign.

How many 4 stars ending their careers and not getting drafted or FA contracts is empirical evidence.

How many low star guys DO get drafted or get FA contracts is empirical evidence.

You PAY and play signees, not odds. That is a fact too.

Therefore you have to wait and see how each and every signee from each and every school performs and then grade those classes.

It is LOGICAL to expect 5 stars to pan out more than 4 stars and more 4 stars than 3 stars etc. but on signing day that means nothing.
 
#269
#269
Orange_Crush said:
You're making the same mistake over and over. You using "rank" and "talent" as synonyms.

You are free to do so. To answer your question, "you can".

Others are just also free to call out the proclamations as irrational and flawed.
Click to expand...

Rankings (as a whole) are good at predicting talent. Nothing is perfect
 
#270
#270
GUNTERSVOL said:
Tell you what. Let me replace star for star by position their classes with players of my choosing by using the offer lists and I bet we can close ground. It is NOT how many 4 stars they sign but which 4 stars they evaluate and then sign.

How many 4 stars ending their careers and not getting drafted or FA contracts is empirical evidence.

How many low star guys DO get drafted or get FA contracts is empirical evidence.

You PAY and play signees, not odds. That is a fact too.

Therefore you have to wait and see how each and every signee from each and every school performs and then grade those classes.

It is LOGICAL to expect 5 stars to pan out more than 4 stars and more 4 stars than 3 stars etc. but on signing day that means nothing.
Click to expand...
You’re using anecdotal evidence by doing that. This data is based on aggregate data. Nothing is full proof. Science shows that if you flip a quarter enough times you will get a 50/50 split. However with a small sample size it’s possible to hit heads 5 times in a row
 
#274
#274
swchandler1988 said:
The whole confusion over whether staff accepted his commitment started Thursday when Price said he was unsure how staff felt about him. That was recorded Wednesday before Johnson committed. Everyone calm down
Click to expand...
And the commitment is acknowledged in the latest VQ update. Follows the same script as Mincey last year. The coaches won’t acknowledge a portal transfer until after their enrollment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volpac Sackyou, HeadVol77, OptimusPrimerib and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top