Avon Barksdale

January 19th, 2016 at 12:53 PM ^

They are not kind to us. Fell to #6 in the team rankings. Peters dropped, Walker was one of the biggest droppers I think in Rivals history (for a final ranking). We still have twelve four stars. They did not bump Elliott (who has an offer from every school in the country) or Evans to four star status.

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859

San Diego Mick

January 19th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

I bet he turns out way better than most guys ahead of him, the only QB I was super impressed with after all the all star games was Shea Patterson.

Walker's career will be interesting to follow and again I think this coaching staff will bring out the best out of him.

Joined: 05/11/2011

MGoPoints: 50558

MEZman

January 19th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

I thought it was interesting that Walker ended up #45 on the final ESPN rankings. Wonder if that's them just not wanting to move down a kid who participated in the UA game (or they could just really like him that much).

Joined: 12/13/2008

MGoPoints: 15095

FauxMo

January 19th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

In a weird way, I am glad Walker dropped. It lowers expectations a bit, at least for the stargazer fans, and allows the kid some time to develop (again, in fans' minds) before we start screaming and calling him a bust if he doesn't run for 1500 yards in year one...

Joined: 06/17/2010

MGoPoints: 137521

MH20

January 19th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^

Yeah, I'm not sure how a guy who's played single-digit football games over the past three seasons could be still considered one of the best players in the country.  His measurables are fantastic but two of the past three seasons have ended early due to shoulder injuries.

Joined: 10/30/2008

MGoPoints: 40453

Blau

January 19th, 2016 at 12:59 PM ^

So basically one bad week of practice/game @ UA and he drops 10?! spots on the exact same site while being evaluated by the exact same people that had him #1 previously?

Makes sense to me.... /s

Joined: 01/23/2014

MGoPoints: 35213

BooKooBlue

January 19th, 2016 at 1:01 PM ^

Here's a breakdown on how the different recruiting sites get their ratings. Rivals mainly uses info they get from their camps. It seems like they have an agenda to get more kids to attend their camps.

 

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/02/how_are_recruiting_rankings_de.html

At Scout.com, the film is far and away the biggest priority. Huffman then uses events like The Opening and the Under Armour All-America Game as a secondary resource when considering where a player needs to be ranked. He stressed that you can't let a good or bad week at an all-star camp overshadow what a player did for two or three years in high school.

247Sports has a similar mentality. JC Shurburtt, a national recruiting analyst for the network, estimates that game film equates to 60 percent of a prospect's total grade. He uses those camps as a way to confirm what he's already seen on film and gives him a chance to see if a player's measurables actually match up to what he claims.

ESPN reviews the game film and then breaks it down to a "hit tape," which according to national recruiting director Tom Luginbill, culls from three to four games and is "comprised of really good plays, really poor plays and mediocre plays." Luginbill then use that information to put together the most comprehensive evaluation for each recruit out of the major services. 

Rivals.com puts the most emphasis on camps and combines out of the four major recruiting services. It's not hard to see why given the company has made a major investment in developing its Rivals camp series and Rivals Five-Star Challenge. Detractors of the camp and combine circuit derisively refer to them as underwear camps, but Rivals' national recruiting director Mike Farrell believes those camps, along with the all-star games, are "the best you can get" for senior evaluations.

 

Joined: 12/19/2014

MGoPoints: 6136

kevin holt

January 19th, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^

Makes a bit of sense since the best players play at camps and might not play that level of competition any other time. But to place THAT much emphasis on it is pretty astonishing. And then sometimes they don't even give a boost after a monster camp---especially if it wasn't their own camp. If you don't give a kid credit for camping well, then your logic goes out the window. In that case, RIVALS camps are the "best you can get," right?

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 17447

jackw8542

January 19th, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^

A reason the all-star game performances are nearly useless is best demonstrated by how much Jake Rudock improved during the course of the year as he got more used to the system and more used to his teammates.  Having these kids in for a week or so of practice and then sticking them on the field is almost useless.  The backs cannot generate any feel for their line, the QBs cannot generate any rhythm with their receivers, the linemen cannot gel, etc.  Nice to see, and there are occasionally outstanding performances, but it is like any other all-star game - an exhibition.

Joined: 10/30/2010

MGoPoints: 4265