If there we no exceptions, there would be no argument. But, there are multiple exceptions in every single class. None of us know if this kid will be one or not. Also, none of us have millions of dollars at stake when making that evaluation.Love it when people bring up exceptions to try and prove the rule
I agree with you that none of us really know and thatās sort of my point. Could he be another Sauce Gardner? Yes. But I think you would even admit that the chances of that are slim. I mean if we are being honest, out of Cai Bates and this guy, who would you put money on to be the better player? The odds would heavily favor Bates. Would you not agree?
It comes down to coaching. Specifically, player evaluations. A 3-star with SEC offers is probably better than a 3-star with no SEC offers because the people doing the evaluations are better at it. Thatās why theyāre coaching in the SEC. Some people see a 3-star and they automatically think the kid is a G5 talent. Thatās over simplifying things. Better to look at who has offered and what their track record is. And donāt get hung up on the fact they UGA and Bama havenāt offered. Why would they pass on a 5-star or high 4-star to pursue a lesser known talent? Too risky.
Because it doesnāt exist. āBlack and whiteā is just an easier way to think. A lazy way to think. Nuance is hard, so itās often avoided.
While most of what you're saying is true.Because it doesnāt exist. āBlack and whiteā is just an easier way to think. A lazy way to think. Nuance is hard, so itās often avoided.
Coaches donāt evaluate a player based on where he is ranked by 247. I know, crazy notion. They also arenāt playing a game of odds, where they hope a certain % of players pan out based on how often those rated at a certain level typically pan out. Theyāre evaluating each player individually. They donāt give a damn what heās rated by website nerds who make $40,000/year to get clicks.
You, unlike these coaches, donāt have the ability to evaluate. Thatās why youāre spouting idiocy on a message board instead of getting paid millions to evaluate. So, instead of admitting that you canāt evaluate a Cornerbackās skills (which is the truth), you pretend to know more than highly paid coaches while claiming that there are ārulesā pertaining to rankings and an individual playerās abilities, in spite of the obvious fact that there arenāt, as evidenced by the myriad examples to the contrary. Just imagine how easy it would be to evaluate if your method was accurate:
āWell, Coach Heupel, who we offering?ā
āPull up those 247 rankings, start at the top and work our way down boys! This is easy! Just ask BOT!ā
Of course, it occurs to me that you may not actually know what a rule is. And that tracks.
We are looking at W/L. This has been a tough year. ... and so on, etc.Because it doesnāt exist. āBlack and whiteā is just an easier way to think. A lazy way to think. Nuance is hard, so itās often avoided.
Coaches donāt evaluate a player based on where he is ranked by 247. I know, crazy notion. They also arenāt playing a game of odds, where they hope a certain % of players pan out based on how often those rated at a certain level typically pan out. Theyāre evaluating each player individually. They donāt give a damn what heās rated by website nerds who make $40,000/year to get clicks.
You, unlike these coaches, donāt have the ability to evaluate. Thatās why youāre spouting idiocy on a message board instead of getting paid millions to evaluate. So, instead of admitting that you canāt evaluate a Cornerbackās skills (which is the truth), you pretend to know more than highly paid coaches while claiming that there are ārulesā pertaining to rankings and an individual playerās abilities, in spite of the obvious fact that there arenāt, as evidenced by the myriad examples to the contrary. Just imagine how easy it would be to evaluate if your method was accurate:
āWell, Coach Heupel, who we offering?ā
āPull up those 247 rankings, start at the top and work our way down boys! This is easy! Just ask BOT!ā
Of course, it occurs to me that you may not actually know what a rule is. And that tracks.
This is a great point. So thereās two things at play. The top teams have recruited top classes year after year. So either they get the highly ranked guys, or the services slant rankings once they commit to said schools. We know this to be somewhat true. Do the schools develop them better or just recruit at a higher level.?Because it doesnāt exist. āBlack and whiteā is just an easier way to think. A lazy way to think. Nuance is hard, so itās often avoided.
Coaches donāt evaluate a player based on where he is ranked by 247. I know, crazy notion. They also arenāt playing a game of odds, where they hope a certain % of players pan out based on how often those rated at a certain level typically pan out. Theyāre evaluating each player individually. They donāt give a damn what heās rated by website nerds who make $40,000/year to get clicks.
You, unlike these coaches, donāt have the ability to evaluate. Thatās why youāre spouting idiocy on a message board instead of getting paid millions to evaluate. So, instead of admitting that you canāt evaluate a Cornerbackās skills (which is the truth), you pretend to know more than highly paid coaches while claiming that there are ārulesā pertaining to rankings and an individual playerās abilities, in spite of the obvious fact that there arenāt, as evidenced by the myriad examples to the contrary. Just imagine how easy it would be to evaluate if your method was accurate:
āWell, Coach Heupel, who we offering?ā
āPull up those 247 rankings, start at the top and work our way down boys! This is easy! Just ask BOT!ā
Of course, it occurs to me that you may not actually know what a rule is. And that tracks.
