why scouts has gardner as a commit and rivals doesn't.
w00t wide receiver monopoly
at least according to scout. there's still another one out there.
At the very least, he is a commit. Although, I am not impressed with his film. Probably a 3-star.
Yeah lower star guys never amount to anything *Cough Aaron Curry, Jake Long, Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Todd Reesing, Chase Daniel, etc* I could go on for a day or so.
Every single one of us knows that lower-rated guys can be successful.
However, they are rated lower for a reason.
Yeesh.
Why does this same conversation need to happen every time someone mentions that they're not impressed with a guy or that he won't be very highly rated?
We get it.
there were reports he was top 10 in ohio which would almost always garner a 4th star. the only problem i have with your argument is that it seems like you have already drawn a conclusion about this kid. What if in the next 11 months through all the re-evaulations, he becomes a solid 4 star or wow, even a 5 star. Then we can be happy that we have him?
Please go back and read what I said.
Yeah, I read it. You said "Every single one of us knows that lower-rated guys can be successful. However, they are rated lower for a reason." and the title was "ugh".
Some fans are excited that we got this guy and that he can be a great player for us but you immediately referred to his ranking as if there shouldn't be that excitement. So, if in the next rankings he's a 4 star, then what? Then it's OK to be happy that we have him?
Yes, and it was in reponse to the guy above who felt the need to bring up the fact that blah blah blah lower-rated guys aren't failures blah blah blah blah don't talk bad about lower-rated guys because they could be stars blah blah blah, a conversation that takes place pretty much once every other day on here.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^
three stars. That does not mean that it cannot become more heated and earn a fourth or even a fifth star.
He doesn't have any other offers, so I'm not sure if he is a top 10 guy in Ohio.
well, that was going off of what brian said. he has shown to be a reliable source of recruiting info in the past. anyways, should we only offer 5 and 4 star players? Perhaps we shouldn't let any 3 star guys to junior day. god forbid we give them scholarhips.
Ideally, yes, I would only like us to land the best and heavily recruited players in the country. Obviously, that is not realistic, so we will have to take some lower-rated guys. But, I would prefer to take a lower rated guy at another position than WR. With 3 commits already, I think we should be a little more selective about the WR's we are taking now.
with your argument is that it really lacks any sort of validity. You (a) aren't impressed with his highlight tape and (b) don't see any big time offers. So what? Questions relating to your extant ability to evaluate talent aside, how do you know the tape is totally representative of his skill set? Do you have any background information relating to the context of the actual tape? No. Often, kids have multiple tapes from multiple years. Do you know the source of the tape and the quality of the opposition? And, maybe he doesn't have any big time" offers, but we have almost a year until signing day. Things change.
The issue that I have isn't whether or not Williamson will be good or not, but rather the attempt to offer opinion under the guise of any sort of "analysis." Many of these kids aren't done growing and none of them are even high school seniors yet. Furthering that point, the evaluation services don't even have coherent ratings for players in place yet.
I'm not trying to be a dick or to pile on.
The dude is allowed to voice his opinion about whether he likes a guy or not.
He doesn't need to have "validity" for his argument because it's based on a prediction of the future, which - unless you have a Delorian - is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.
B Ready isn't impressed with the kid's video. He'd rather have someone else.
Who the fuck cares? He's either right or he's wrong and nobody will know for probably four or five years. Yeesh...agree or disagree with him, whatever. But he's allowed to think what he wants.
He's claiming that the kid isn't highly ranked and using that supposed "fact" as a basis for his claims - without also recognizing that the kid, like most other high school juniors, hasn't been properly evaluated by really anyone.
He's allowed to think/say whatever he wants, and I'm allowed to point out that what he's stating doesn't have a logically intuitive base.
You're over-reacting, it's not like I called B Ready names or anything.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
I never said you called him names.
His argument involved:
a) He doesn't have many offers.
b) I'm not impressed with his film.
c) He might not be a top 10 guy in Ohio, so he's probably a three-star.
You said that his argument for not being too excited had no "validity." What more do you want from him? The guy gave you three reasons. How many do you require before saying his argument has any validity?
BGH responded very cordially to B Ready and, to dispel any doubt, included not to be dickish.
Isn't BGH also entitled to his opinion? And if anyone doesn't go any deeper than "voicing their opinion" then this isn't much of a blog.
The 100% certainly arguement is a strawman, and BGH never even referred to such. Everything is based on probabilities, and good analysis will better assess the future probabilities.
And who the fuck cares? Well, BGH, and you for responding, and me for responding to you.
Also, I happen to know that BGH owns a Delorean.
exaggeration) AND owns a Delorean.
I now hate him.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
I never said anything about the cordiality of BGH's response.
I questioned the motivation and reasoning behind it.
BGH is entitled to his opinion. Absolutely. But saying that B Ready's argument had no "validity" has nothing to do with opinion; the "validity" of something is based in fact, not in opinion.
Magnus, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a pink slip for these posts.
Good comeback.
but then I realize that if a player is good for RichRod, he should be good for me. We all have seen West Virginia and Utah win big games without all 4 and 5 star players. Coaches know what they're doing or else they won't be shy to refuse a player's commitment.
Five paragraphs for five sentences? Really?
for every one of them, there are 100 hundred guys who end up playing like a 3*
Jake Long was a 4-star and I believe an Army AA.
I know that. But, there are also lots of 3-stars who do absolutely nothing on the field. Those guys you mentioned are the exception.
Lets be happy with the WR monopoly.
Keep in mind that we will probably see more 3-star recruits getting a lot of playing time because Rich-Rod likes to use a lot of smaller, shifty, and undersized kids in this scheme.
The small undersized kids are not usually rated as high as the bigger kids.
Yep. That is true. But, he is not that type of player. He is 6-2, and more of a straight-line speed guy.
Nevermind.
maybe we saw different film. but as a sophomore playing at the top divisin in OH i thought that he looked good.
His junior year film was posted. That's what I was looking at. He seems pretty quick, but he didn't really have any moves or anything. He just ran by people in the clip I saw. Nothing too great, especially considering the fact that we have 3 other receivers already in this class, and he is probably not a slot guy.
Some kid named Mike Hart a few years back was a 3-star recruit.
Fuck.
"Recruiting rankings are important, and though there are good reasons why they are not all-important, going blah blah blah about how it doesn't matter because of ANECDOTE 1 and ANECDOTE 2 is demonstrably incorrect."
Also for Bluesince89.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:00 AM ^
who smoked every day from the time he was 18. He's now 95. There is no way you can tell me smoking is harmful.
6th commit, so who knows who it could be.
Apparently, Williamson is NOT the mystery commit talked about this morning. Of course, I don't know who that is because I don't have a subscription.
http://michigan.scout.com/2/847275.html
I thought it was widely known Williamson would commit. At any rate, good pick up.
Scout says Williamson isn't the mystery commit.
My fault, I didn't see that when I posted. Let the rumors begin again.
Anybody hearing anything about Jewone Snow, the LB from Ohio? His dad is Garland Rivers, an All-American for us back in the mid-80's. There have been rumblings that it may be him.
I welcome the kid.
Yeah, same here. Potential PR and KR guy. 10.8 - 100 meter. His sophomore film looks pretty good.
this puts the nail in Jerald Robinson playing safety i guess
nail in the coffin on**
And using the "mystery commit" thing to try and sell subscriptions. You get your seven days free, and they bill you on the eighth when you forget to cancel.
It's too bad they have to resort to that kind of "marketing."