'24 MS RB Daniel Hill

#51
#51
allvolrecruiting said:
In all honesty tho, 40 times are overrated for RBs. Sure they should be within a certain range, but how often are you actually in the open field. You need to have that next gear but initial burst, vision, start/stop and cutting ability are super important too
Click to expand...

They’re overrated for all positions, honestly. AJ Brown was knocked down to 2nd round because of his 40 time. It doesn’t occur to NFL personnel that the weight of pads/gear slows players down some and big guys like Brown are slowed less by weight than smaller guys. Maybe they should watch how well they play football instead.
 
#52
#52
bigl3327 said:
1) I wasn't the one that said that they based ratings on offers.
2) If you have some basic football knowledge, it's not hard to identify who the best football players are if you dedicate your time and efforts to doing just that.
My issue is validating their opinions over that of those in the coaching profession.
Click to expand...

By the process of scouting for a living, they gain basic football knowledge even if they didn’t have it day one.

Who is claiming their opinions are greater than those of coaches? They’re both just opinions. Some opinions will be wrong and some right, but still opinions. And even 4 years later who is better in many cases is still an opinion.

But the fact remains that recruiting success and winning is highly correlated. So clearly the sites work, right?
 
#53
#53
bigl3327 said:
1) I wasn't the one that said that they based ratings on offers.
2) If you have some basic football knowledge, it's not hard to identify who the best football players are if you dedicate your time and efforts to doing just that.
My issue is validating their opinions over that of those in the coaching profession.
Click to expand...

Yep. And there’s a reason the hey aren’t in the coaching profession. It’s not because they prefer 5 figure salaries to coaching salaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigl3327
#54
#54
GregAmsler said:
Yep. And there’s a reason the hey aren’t in the coaching profession. It’s not because they prefer 5 figure salaries to coaching salaries.
Click to expand...

You realize our coaching staff has a scouting department right? That Heupel isn’t personally watching ever guy in juco, high school, prep schools, D1, D2, and D3, right?

The idea that these guys aren’t coaches so their opinion means less is ignorant. Guys who aren’t coaches do our scouting for our coaches.
 
#55
#55
Vol8188 said:
By the process of scouting for a living, they gain basic football knowledge even if they didn’t have it day one.

Who is claiming their opinions are greater than those of coaches? They’re both just opinions. Some opinions will be wrong and some right, but still opinions. And even 4 years later who is better in many cases is still an opinion.

But the fact remains that recruiting success and winning is highly correlated. So clearly the sites work, right?
Click to expand...
The sites are primarily for fans, so yes they work in that regard. But to say that it boils down to coaches have an opinion vs. the sites having an opinion being basically the same is kind of crazy. What goes into formulating that opinion is vastly much more detailed and in depth for most coaches. What I will say is that if a site was started where all the evaluations were done by a staff of former college and NFL coaches, it would be much more trustworthy. If you do rankings that fans primarily pay attention to your best 250 players, it's not hard to make that work. Like I said before, spotting the best in the sport is not hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange., KptVFL, INDEFENSE and 2 others
#56
#56
Vol8188 said:
You realize our coaching staff has a scouting department right? That Heupel isn’t personally watching ever guy in juco, high school, prep schools, D1, D2, and D3, right?

The idea that these guys aren’t coaches so their opinion means less is ignorant. Guys who aren’t coaches do our scouting for our coaches.
Click to expand...

Yes. I do. And they’re considered part of the staff. You said it yourself…”our coaching staff has a scouting department.” You’re making my point for me.

You’re arguing semantics to avoid the point that’s right in front of you. But fine. Don’t call them “coaches.” Call them “staff.” How does that change my argument? Are website evaluators being hired in large quantities to work on college scouting staffs?

THEY STILL AREN’T BEING HIRED TO BE ON COLLEGE STAFFS AS SCOUTS, EVALUATORS, OR ANY OTHER POSITION THAT VALUES THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS.

The point remains, regardless of what you call the position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#57
#57
GregAmsler said:
Yes. I do. And they’re considered part of the staff. You said it yourself…”our coaching staff has a scouting department.” You’re making my point for me.

You’re arguing semantics to avoid the point that’s right in front of you. But fine. Don’t call them “coaches.” Call them “staff.” How does that change my argument? Are website evaluators being hired in large quantities to work on college scouting staffs?

THEY STILL AREN’T BEING HIRED TO BE ON COLLEGE STAFFS AS SCOUTS, EVALUATORS, OR ANY OTHER POSITION THAT VALUES THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS.

The point remains, regardless of what you call the position.
Click to expand...

You don’t actually know that. Neither you nor I can actually name all of these people. So even if you write in all caps, it doesn’t change the fact that your statement is 100% ignorant.
 
#58
#58
bigl3327 said:
The sites are primarily for fans, so yes they work in that regard. But to say that it boils down to coaches have an opinion vs. the sites having an opinion being basically the same is kind of crazy. What goes into formulating that opinion is vastly much more detailed and in depth for most coaches. What I will say is that if a site was started where all the evaluations were done by a staff of former college and NFL coaches, it would be much more trustworthy. If you do rankings that fans primarily pay attention to your best 250 players, it's not hard to make that work. Like I said before, spotting the best in the sport is not hard.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, I know three former recruiting site employees and one current one. Two of those had/have had input into the rankings. The current one is a name you all know and weigh his opinion heavily (at least in terms of his opinion of where a recruit will sign).

They have admitted to me what you and I are saying (which is partly why I’m saying it). So it’s funny to see all these people arguing that website evaluators are dead on accurate when a few of these guys themselves have told me the opposite. Now granted, each thinks he’s the exception. 😉

Where these guys ARE good is in the “crystal ball” aspect. The fact that they aren’t reporters means that they often get more trust and info from families, meaning they can more accurately predict (or flat-out report) the kid’s destination.

Two of these guys have told me stories of programs cheating, with specifics. I was told about Laramy Tunsill and Ole Miss’ transgressions with him years before any of that came out. How did these guys know? The families told them. In Tunsill’s case, his mama told this analyst and laughed about it. Reason: they trust these guys. They’re not reporters who will break the story. Their job is to develop trust in order to predict school destination and if they report this stuff, their career as a recruiting analyst is over, so they have no incentive to break their trust.

Anyway, that’s their true value…telling us where recruits are headed (or at least who has the best shot). Evaluating talent just isn’t it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange., 19_GBO_19, KptVFL and 2 others
#59
#59
Vol8188 said:
You don’t actually know that. Neither you nor I can actually name all of these people. So even if you write in all caps, it doesn’t change the fact that your statement is 100% ignorant.
Click to expand...

Actually I do know that and your argument is desperate. But at this point, every college coach in America could sign a declaration saying that they have no faith in the evaluations of website analysts and would never hire them in any capacity and you wouldn’t concede. It’s just that you don’t have to concede to be wrong.
 
#60
#60
GregAmsler said:
Actually I do know that and your argument is desperate. But at this point, every college coach in America could sign a declaration saying that they have no faith in the evaluations of website analysts and would never hire them in any capacity and you wouldn’t concede. It’s just that you don’t have to concede to be wrong.
Click to expand...

So you know every scout working for our program and every other program and you can claim 100% none of them have worked for a recruiting site?

You’re just openly lying at this point. You seem to think not being coaches or not working for a university devalues their opinions, which is ridiculous. Especially given Chad Simmons who created most of the recruiting sites we know was a coach.

You’re just grasping for straws as to why you disagree with recruiting services. Yet over and over they’re proven right on the field.

Edit: Simmons works for terry. Terry created the sites and was a former high level athlete. Simmons works for him and was a former coach. I’m sure plenty more of their staff have similar backgrounds (not that it matters)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#61
#61
Vol8188 said:
So you know every scout working for our program and every other program and you can claim 100% none of them have worked for a recruiting site?

You’re just openly lying at this point. You seem to think not being coaches or not working for a university devalues their opinions, which is ridiculous. Especially given Chad Simmons who created most of the recruiting sites we know was a coach.

You’re just grasping for straws as to why you disagree with recruiting services. Yet over and over they’re proven right on the field.

Edit: Simmons works for terry. Terry created the sites and was a former high level athlete. Simmons works for him and was a former coach. I’m sure plenty more of their staff have similar backgrounds (not that it matters)
Click to expand...
When was Simmons a coach and where? Before getting into this recruiting thing, he worked for an asphalt company for over a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange., NighthawkVol, KptVFL and 1 other person
#64
#64
bigl3327 said:
That could have been pee-wee football. His LinkedIn mentions zero experience in a professional capacity.
Click to expand...

Cool. Seriously what does that matter? It’s like saying Mike Leach couldn’t coach because he didn’t play college ball. These are two different skill sets (coaching and scouting). You can be an elite coach and a terrible scout or a great scout and yet have no idea how to adjust to boundary motion
 
#65
#65
Vol8188 said:
Cool. Seriously what does that matter? It’s like saying Mike Leach couldn’t coach because he didn’t play college ball. These are two different skill sets (coaching and scouting). You can be an elite coach and a terrible scout or a great scout and yet have no idea how to adjust to boundary motion
Click to expand...
There is a reason they call themselves analysts and not scouts. There is usually a distinct difference between those that typically work in scouting departments for colleges and NFL teams and these recruiting service site guys. My example would be a website analyst being a weather girl vs. an actual scout being a meteorologist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL
#66
#66
bigl3327 said:
There is a reason they call themselves analysts and not scouts. There is usually a distinct difference between those that typically work in scouting departments for colleges and NFL teams and these recruiting service site guys. My example would be a website analyst being a weather girl vs. an actual scout being a meteorologist.
Click to expand...

You used a lot of words without making a point. What’s your point? You feel they are somehow less qualified despite likely watching more film or an equal amount to the people you’re calling “scouts”?
 
#67
#67
Vol8188 said:
You used a lot of words without making a point. What’s your point? You feel they are somehow less qualified despite likely watching more film or an equal amount to the people you’re calling “scouts”?
Click to expand...
OMG dude. If I picked a random person in the stands at a pee-wee football game and gave him a ton of film to watch, I'm still not going hold his evaluations equal to that of someone trusted by those that have millions of dollars on the line from potential bad evals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, Orange., StoVol and 2 others
#68
#68
bigl3327 said:
OMG dude. If I picked a random person in the stands at a pee-wee football game and gave him a ton of film to watch, I'm still not going hold his evaluations equal to that of someone trusted by those that have millions of dollars on the line from potential bad evals.
Click to expand...

You’re failing to accept these are two different skill sets. The same way being an elite player doesn’t make you an elite coach, being an elite coach doesn’t make you an elite scout.

Idk how you can even argue with that.

And these scouts watch far more film than any single coach.
 
#69
#69
Vol8188 said:
You used a lot of words without making a point. What’s your point? You feel they are somehow less qualified despite likely watching more film or an equal amount to the people you’re calling “scouts”?
Click to expand...
Also.... Do you know the difference between a weather girl and meteorologist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoVol
#72
#72
Vol8188 said:
You’re failing to accept these are two different skill sets. The same way being an elite player doesn’t make you an elite coach, being an elite coach doesn’t make you an elite scout.

Idk how you can even argue with that.

And these scouts watch far more film than any single coach.
Click to expand...
I could watch 3000 French films and still not speak fluent French. What's your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, Orange. and KptVFL
#73
#73
bigl3327 said:
I could watch 3000 French films and still not speak fluent French. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Right. We aren’t talking about random people watching French films but rather professional scouts. Guys who do this for a living. My point is simple, their process works. The proof is in the BCS (previously) and college playoffs annually. The proof is in the nfl draft annually
 
#74
#74
Vol8188 said:
Right. We aren’t talking about random people watching French films but rather professional scouts. Guys who do this for a living. My point is simple, their process works. The proof is in the BCS (previously) and college playoffs annually. The proof is in the nfl draft annually
Click to expand...
That's not proof because I could selectively pick 10 of us posters on VN and basically get equal results to the services given the time and the resources. It doesn't make our evaluations equal to that of our current staff. If I give the best 32 players that I see every year a 5* rating, then my percentage of those guys be drafted will also be high. Teams that consistently sign the most players that I deem to be the best will also likely be the most successful teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top