And sorry about the formatting, I'm on my phone.
spoiler alert: i linked this
And sorry about the formatting, I'm on my phone.
I will never understand ESPN's rationale.... The lack of Pipkins in deplorable.
Magnuson is not a shoo-in for the top 150 players in the country.
Yeah right I bet you said the same thing about Dann O'Neil.
What is the knock on Magnuson?
I thought it was his size/strength, but I noticed that he is the same size as DJ Humphries who is five star according to ESPN, and ESPN has strength listed as one of Magnuson's strengths.
He just has some technical things to work on - stance, footwork, etc. I don't think strength/size are a real concern, since he's 6'6", 280 lbs. as a high school senior.
I'm not saying he deserves to be outside the top 150, but we should at least consider the idea that he's not one of the top 150 players in the nation. The other sites have him around #80, so it's not like he's 5-star material to anyone. To make an analogy to the NFL draft, even if he's the 200th best player in the nation, he's still worthy of an NFL draft pick.
What about Pipkins and Kalis?
ESPN is a complete joke.
I don't know. I'm not defending them. I'm just defending rationality.
It's basically having a monkey throwing darts at a board.
That thing the monkey is flinging? Definitely not a dart.
Monkeys are actually fairly accurate when throwing darts. Trust me on that...
Isn't the under armor AA game their baby? DId they not watch Bolden in that one? Dude was even voted the top D performar on the East team...
And yes, no Pip makes 0 sense.
Yes it is, and for that reason, Army game participants are always underrated, whether on purpose or not.
yeah espn has the worst rankings around, they had junior ranked at the #18 recruit in the country in 2007, while the rest had him maybe as a top 250 kid. They go way to far to be different
Well did they have him ranked as a WR or as an armpunt returner? It makes a difference. If the latter, one could argue that they underrated him.
They also gave William Campbell a grade of 79 and ranked him at #22 at his position when everybody else had him as a 5-star.
Surprise, surprise...people who try to predict the future are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Picking out one example of failure (Junior Hemingway) or success (William Campbell) at accurately predicting the future isn't conclusive either way.
You are right on BWC. I wish people would use him less for how great ESPN rankings are. I took a look at the 08 class, they had in their 150, they had many Michigan players in their 150 which didnt pan out. Espn gets some things right and some things wrong. It would be interesting to see how their ratings compared with the other services really pan out.
He might have been:
He was recruited by Carr for a pro-style offense. His first year under Rodriguez he got hurt and redshirted.
His 2009 and 2010 seasons were played with what were essentially freshmen/1st year quarterbacks.
His 2011 season saw a new coach, OC and system that he had to adapt too.
All the while he was making spectactular catches that constantly saved our QBs from looking woeful.
Espn for some reason doesn't have the big bust at the top like most services do, but anything after 15 just seems like they pick out of a hat.
From what I've seen and heard of the sports coverage on the worldwide leader, I'm surprised he isn't #1.
When they release the class rankings ahead of the updated player rankings. didn't expect much change
Atleast they gave him a 4th *..
Other then the fumble on kick off he didn't play terrible in coverage. The td pass was a perfectly placed ball and he had good coverage. Can't stop everything. He had a really good week though and had a lot of practice hype. Just suprised bolden wasnt higher.
Richardson was generally terrible on special teams.
But I agree about defense - he had good coverage on that TD pass and he was just a split second late to break it up. He looks fine for defense, but maybe he's not our punt/kick returner of the future.
OL and DL. Kids coming out of HS usually have either been physically dominate with questionable technique or undersized for college with excellent technique. You have no way of knowing how the smaller kid will handle the increased weight or if the physically dominant will ever develop technique.
I actually think cornerbacks have a fairly high rate of success with respect to recruiting rankings. The skill positions are generally the easiest to project, from what I've gathered. Offensive line is the most questionable position group. There are high school tight ends and 2-star/3-star kids who get picked in the first round of the NFL Draft.
I would agree about Richardson not being in the top 3, but I don't think he is particularly overrated or likely to turn out to be a bust.
The only complaint I hear about Richardson is his size, scouts are pretty universal in saying that he has the speed, swivel, skills and mental make up already to be a very good natural corner. He just has a slightly lower ceiling than a lot of corners because of the matchup problems his size will always leave him liable to.
He's basically the opposite of Yuri Wright.
This is without excuse! As others have said -- Richards has a long way to go . . .
Pretty ridiculous it was on their network and the game had no affect on their standings. Pipkins deserves much better, personally don't think T-rich is playing top 150 at the moment, but Ross and Bolden should prolly be in there
are you sure these rankings are new? i don't see any articles publicizing that they changed their rankings.
TomVH mentioned that the ESPN 150 would be updated today.
Yup they are updated! Tom lunginbill is the biggest joke in the world. Asked y Shutt is higher rank than pipkins said have u seen film? That's just y every other service has pipkins ranked higher than Shutt!
Scout has Schutt as a 5-star while Pipkins is only a 4-star.
the updated numbers
i never pay attention to the ESPN rankings, they are so off base from every other recruiting site..
between scout, rivals, and 247 it is completely flip flopped.
I know ESPN is new to the recruiting service game, but the sooner they pull their heads from their asses and watch talent north of Tennessee the better.
Historically ESPN has always jumped kids up in the ranking who perform in the UA game because it's on their airwaves.
yeah, but bolden's jump is a joke after all the praise they showered him with.
And the dartboard is made up of all SEC recruits and UA game participants.
Everytime I see ESPN rank Pipkins lower than the other services the BWC situation creeps in to my mind. Prove 'em wrong big fella, prove 'em wrong...
ESPN still had him ranked as an Offensive lineman everytime
Fair point. I had forgotten about that.
It would be interesting to have known their justification for that. Did they think he didn't have the tools to play DT and that's the reason they rated him on offense? Or were they just toally out to lunch and it was just a case of a broken clock being right twice a day?
But really, who's more out of touch, ESPN or Randy Chambers...Shane Morris who?
This is why I ignore ESPN rankings....in football at least.
why do they hate michigan players. pipkins is #14 on rivals and isnt even in top 100 for espn. kalis is 132 but in the top 30 on all other sites. and diamond is a 5 star on scout and he isnt on here.
Clearly, ESPN just hates the University of Michigan, which is why they employ Desmond Howard and Jalen Rose and have a broadcasting contract with the Big Ten.
ESPN might be stupid about their recruiting, but claiming some kind of bias against Michigan is just kind of silly and looks like sour grapes.
By the way, Rivals has Terry Richardson at #224 overall. I'm just sayin'.
Some sites have Richardson rated as our lowest recruit in their 300-250-247-150, ESPN has him rated as our highest recruit. Thats a pretty big discrepency. Seems like we casual bloggers do a better job following recruiting than these services do for a living at times. I liked the average ranking spreadsheet across all services someone posted on here during the summer. Very informative, and plenty of lolz.
Terry Richardson was pretty high on 247's list at one point (now he's #142 overall), so it's not like he's being pooh-poohed by every recruiting site out there. He's #68 on ESPN, #142 on 247, and #224 on Rivals. Somebody's bound to be wrong, but we won't know whether it's ESPN or Rivals or whoever for another three or four years.
For ESPN to not look at the results of all-star games as being all that important? Is there a lot of history to suggest that that the stars of those games deserve an outsized bump for their performance?
The stars of those all-star games have generally turned out to be good to very good on the college level. I'm not saying we should only look at these all-star games, but they are pretty significant.