Dorsey's Ranking Variation
I was curious for the guys that follow Scout and Rivals what their criticism of Dorsey is?? ESPN had him has a 5 star with almost no weakness and with the buzz about him the last few weeks, I kind of assumed Rivals and Scout had him in a similar spot, but when I looked last night they have him quite a few spots down and it looked like more of a low 4 star prospect. Thanks.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
Normally the sites all agree pretty closely but this year there is a big disparity for some reason. Seems like Rivals is being more cautious with their stars.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
Possibly UF bias on ESPN's part -- DD was a solid commit for them for a year. So that may have influenced ESPN. Indeed, it certainly influences my own view of him -- that Meyer and staff liked him enough to offer him early means more to me than whatever the gurus think.
But someone else (currently offline) made a very good point, to wit:
ESPN tends to rate Under Armor All Americans higher, as this is ESPN's all-star game. I assume this is why DG is also rated higher on ESPN.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
but what I am saying is that he is one of the fastest recruits in the country, was being recruited hard from USC, FSU, Florida and Tenn. down the stretch, and ESPN made him sound like he had no weakness. I was curious what the negative on him was...technique, stiff hips, ball skills, hands, route recognition, back pedal etc....ESPN was overflowing with their praise so much so I think his write up was better than their #1 recruit Powell.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
Pad level.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
It may be that ESPN values potential more than a player's current skill set whereas the other sites are the reverse. It seems, for example, that Sean Parker is a more polished player right now than Dorsey but that Dorsey is a better raw athlete.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
From what I have seen on video, Dorsey used his extreme athleticism to make plays in high school. Because he is so physically gifted, he has managed to become a HS star without having to learn many CB/S skills. Because rankings are based mainly on NFL potential, and because it takes more than just athleticism to become a quality CB in the NFL, I imagine the sites were hesitant to make him a five-star. Also, from a physical standpoint, he is not a finished product. He definitely needs to add 10-15 pounds of muscle and work on flexibility and agility.
The fact that he was originally an early commit and didn't play in the Army All-American game probably also play a substantial role.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
Jesus Christ, we just signed a kid whom we beat out USC, Florida, Florida State, and Miami for, and people are complaining about his ranking? Who cares; he's signed with us and he was highly coveted by the big boys. Be content with it.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
I was curious what the scouting report was. I don't pay for either site and was curious what his evaluation was, because his ranking didn't quite match his offer list, speed and ESPN.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
I don't think anyone is complaining about his rankings. Some people are just curious about the differences in ranking criteria between sites.
A valid post, IMO.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
we're not a big boy?
February 4th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
West Texas I was not reading any whining or complaint in there... Bottom line is that this kid can come in right away and contribute. Whatever flaws this kid might have will be negligible on our roster. I imagine RR might have some ideas for him and Denard on the field at the same time.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
Does anyone know if it's a fact that UF pulled his offer? I'm getting conflicting information on the intertubes.