Scout has just upgraded Carvin Johnson. He was previously almost non-existent in their rankings. Now they have him as a three star. Did he really improve that much? Or did the "gurus" just mess up on this one in the first place? Could it be that they didn't rank him higher now is that it would be too embarrassing to admit not noticing a four star recruit? Maybe. Time will tell.
Scout upgrades Carvin Johnson, Saftey
Doesn't a 2* mean that he just wasn't ranked at all yet? Maybe I'm misinformed.
Always good to see kids move on up though.
Guy they haven't done any homework on actually commits to one of the big schools. 3* is the default ranking for this situation. It doesn't mean they actually evaluated anything. That's just waaaay too much work and stuff man....who has time for that?
Rummel just played hahnville this past weekend in state playoff game. Most people had hahnville winning the game. Not so. It wasn't even close. A lot of that had to do with Carvin Johnson. Hahnville's QB is a junior getting some looks from lower Div 1 colleges. Johnson and his fellow D men made a good QB look below average. I have lived in the New Orleans, Baton Rouge corridor for five years and this place might be the best high school football in the country.
WHO DAT NATION
Found another poster that was pretty impressed by the Rummel D.
"Rummel flat out dominated giving Hanhville their only 7 points on a fumble. 9 QB sacks, 2 INTs and a blcked FG that was returned deep into H-ville territory. If you like defense, this Rummel teams is very impressive to watch. I would be willing to bet Hanhville had negative total yards at the half. As it was most of their 163 yards came on 2 drives, going in reverse in most cases... I was amazed at how fast the defense played."
Not much else there, but it came from here: http://www.yogwf.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=329928&sid=d3fa31d109c1bc10248a...
I have no idea where you could be getting this from. Edit: Seriously what's your source?
The problem with this statement is - why do you say he is wrong? What is your source?
Rivals/Scout says they don't take offers into account when ranking them. In addition it's not uncommon for a big name school to have a commitment from a two star every once in a while.
And if they say anything other than that their credibility is shot. They bump unevaluated kids up and do the same with blue chippers who drag out their recruitment. They just do.
You have zero actual evidence of this. Just because random people on message boards say so doesn't make it true.
Also say they take into account a prospect's potential to reach and/or succeed in the NFL. A relatively unevaluated recruit signing with a big name school certainly increases his chances of entering the NFL draft. Perhaps that should affect the rankings.
source? common knowledge
Do they do footnotes in Kinesiology? I don't know where that qualifies as a source.
change your name? I could have sworn you were "Big Pussy" just yesterday.
It has to be a glitch or something. Email Brian and ask him whats up.
There is no chance that was a coincidence. Although personally, I think it's funnier this way.
I emailed him to change it but he never got back to me, so I changed it myself.
Who is this "Brian" and how did he get so many points. Conspiracy? I think so
I would ask him about it, but he doesn't list any contact information...
I think we should have this Brian guys name arbitrarily changed to something else too. Like maybe "The Other Brian" or something like that...
I remember how Hart wasn't ranked that high coming out of HS. I think that Carvin was just not seen or rated, more than being underrated.
Yes, in general, getting four and five star guys is a great way to go for a team. But the more a staff can uncover guys who were "missed" by the recruiting services, the better off we are. Everyone and their brother wants Seantel. But what if guys like Carvin and Conelius, who were "meh" and under the radar, pan out? Finding guys like that is part of what will push us over the top.
This reminds me that there is only so much correlation between what the recruiting services say and see and what the coaches are actually looking for. I really think that sometimes, the coaches "know" stuff about a so called three star, or even two star, such that an offer is given. Likewise, coaches also are aware when some of the 4 & 5 stars are over-rated.
The Run put Hart on the map and in our Hearts.
A 2-star rating means he's just not very good, and is probably a MAC-level talent.
A 1-star rating on Scout means that he hasn't been evaluated.
A 0-star rating on Rivals means that he hasn't been evaluated.
was a 2* for Oregon and went like 33rd overall to the Pats
You asked for it. I can just see Magnus's vein popping. He is going to go ape shit on you for this. I am refreshing this thread for the rest of the afternoon.
Chung is a STUD though. He is going to be a great one for us.
There is enough actual fact and solid information to say that anyone that uses a name, or three names, to try to debunk recruiting rankings has either not read the facts as they have been presented and linked to numerous times on this site, or is ignorant. I hope he simply hasn't read them.
Sample size fail.
Patrick Chung was a good safety, but you do realize the thirty third overall pick is the first pick of the second round right? A safety was taken there, but it was Louis Delmas.... The Lions locked down that first spot. Unless I missed it, I don't think the Pats were the worst team in the league last year. Louis Delmas was the better safety anyway.
went 34th overall. The Pats traded up behind the Lions to get him. The rumor is the Pats wanted Delmas but we'll never know since it's just a rumor.
I'm just happy we landed him. Sounds like a good player, and I think our recruiting class is shaping up pretty nicely, all things considered.
They list him as the #76 player at his position (safety), so they might have scouted him.
That's cause he's so much worse than the #70 guy, and light years better than the #86 guy. Duh.
Magnus has been chopping people down to size since Haloscan and Dex's Hannah Montana obsession. No thread is compete with out it.
Everyone uses the same Mike Hart and Pat White examples to show how underrated some prospects can be. But what about us people? For instance, in my native dystopian future, I was rated as a low-3* embryo by a few people-breeding scouting services. When all was said and done, I ended up a 5* person and a time-traveler to boot, not to mention father of the leader of the rebellion. Suck on that, Rivals.
Scout still has you as a 3* human. Sorry.
Sam Bradford, 3 star recruit:
Colt McCoy, 3 star recruit:
His parents virtually signed his LOI for him when he was imaged in Ultrasound.
There is no benefit to rivals to rate him highly when the entire world know where he is going.
This is not a good example of rating fail.
toby gerhart, 3 star recruit:
Saying a kid like Colt-frickin'-McCoy gets a bad rating because he's a shoe-in for a certain school would be a terrible indictment of Rivals. I would suggest that either you are wrong or you are inadvertently supporting ghost's argument.
and due to who is posting, I would say it is inadvertently supportive.
And there isn't really an argument to be had. The work has already been done and recruiting rankings are indicative--not predictive--of future team success. All the three star examples mean absolutely nothing. the facts are in. It's like saying a top ten NFL pick doesn't mean anything because Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington and Alex Smith suck. The exceptions are irrelevant.
The only thing that I am arguing here is that there are plenty of 3-star recruits that pan out better than a lot of 5-star kids. Each example I listed I picked only because they had either won or received plenty of heisman "buzz."
Exceptions do not prove the rule.
OH MY GOD JUST BECAUSE PATRICK CHUNG WAS A 2-STAR DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY 2-STAR IS GOING TO BE A 2ND ROUND PICK IN THE NFL. YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS A 2-STAR?
THAT'S RIGHT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE WAS A 2-STAR BECAUSE NOT MANY OF THEM ARE FAMOUS FOR BEING GOOD FOOTBALL PLAYERS.
(Was that good enough, guys?)
Sharpen your axe damnit!
Good, not great.
I don't know...it felt a little halfhearted. I'd say that's somewhere between a mid 3* and a very low 4* post.
But I've seen 3* posts win Newbery Medals. Therefore...
I expected to see blood and gore everywhere.
Meh. Could have used some ! at the end with a few 1's tossed in to really drive the point home but it will do.
That was excellent. Thank you.
This list is longer, but I only added those making huge impacts. Not saying that he will progress to the levels that these guys have achieved, but the list is large for those who have been solid ball players.
Could have been better.
Poor pad level.
I thought in earlier threads it was stated that part of the reason Carvin wasn't previously ranked was because he didn't put himselt out there at camps and just wanted his play to do the talking? From everything we've heard, it sounds like the kid can play. Personally, I dont care if he was a 2*, 3*, or 500* I am just gonna take the kids that come to M as is, trust the coaches, hope they develop into studs, and root on the Wolverines every saturday they play for as long as I live.
This is the older, more mature Magnus. I've turned over a new leaf and done away with axes. They're so barbaric.
Machetes are much more fun.
Or the baseball bat. The frying pan makes a satisfying "thunk" sound, though.
Maimi went downhill under Larry Coker because their coaches relied too much on Rivals and Scout. There was an article in the paper where their coaches admitted that they had gotten lazy and stopped personally evaluating kids.
According to the article, people would literally walk into their offices and the coaches would be looking at the Rivals and Scout websites. Miami then recruited and received most all of the Rivals/Scout 4 and 5 star talent that they targeted, would haul in top 5 classes according to Rivals/Scout, but most of those kids never panned out for them and their program suffered.
Randy Shannon came in and stopped all of that and now has his coaches going back to personally evaluating kids. And now that program is on the upswing. They are not pulling in top 5 classes anymore according to Scout and Rivals but their team has gotten better.
And this is not to say anything against Rivals/Scout. Both are great websites. It is being said merely to illustrate the point that there is nothing quite like the personal evaluation of a coach.
But then again, our collective point totals suggest that our opinions are relatively meaningless.
THAT is an argument against recruiting rankings? Come on man. That is completely irrelevant.
that's for posting that!
the story itself seems to have been deleted, here's something quoting parts:
talk about slackers
Does Rivals to a re-rating of players now that players' seasons are wrapping up?
I'm no star hawk, but it's going to be a long off season and will take any new and interesting info I can get.
Rivals usually does one postseason re-rank before National Signing Day.
Carvin got up to two stars within a week of giving his verbal. That promotion was purely related to the Michigan offer and not to any further actual review of Carvin's film or anything.
Then a couple weeks later, he got another bump to three star, probably for the same reason. He's been three now for about a month.
I've been looking for and reading any news that comes out about Archbishop Rummel, his team. I was intrigued from the moment of his commitment by the apparent sleepiness of Carvin as a prospect.
I followed Mike Hart the same way, read about how he'd score like five touchdowns every friday for Onandaga. Howeva, with Mike, I thought he would end up a DB for Michigan and would never carry the ball. Too slow, too small. How'd that work out for me? I was at the Notre Dame game in '04 when Mike came in for Underwood who'd just had a concussion. I was shocked.
Having discounted my scouting ability, I will now spew forth this: Carvin Johnson is the best player on a team ranked 7th in the state of Louisiana, 1st in Defense (Massey). None of his teammmates are on anybody's radar, so their success is off of his play as much as any on team. He's a shoe-in for all state, if not MVP in Louisiana (or whatever the award is).
Can't wait to see how he proves me wrong.
Carvin was a kid that didn't go to any camps, therefore there wasn't a lot of information out there on him.
Once the rivals guys got film on him, they said he was a high three-star, maybe even low four-star status. I'm not saying he's going to start next year or anything, but the kid definitely has very good potential. And gosh darn it, we need all the help in the secondary we can get.
His head coach was quoted as saying on rivals that as soon as Michigan offered and he committed, every school in "that area" (I assume the Louisiana schools and others) wanted to offer him. But he's a solid Michigan commit, so no worries there.
the recruiting services are geared for more of a pro-style offensive attack. (yes i know carvin is on defence) most of the 2* studs you guys use as "see the sites screwed up" are offensive players in more spread styles so will not recieve higher rankings. so i guess what i'm trying to say is evaluate each player for the role and type of offence and defence he will be fitting into. i for one will trust RR and his coaches and then laugh after we beat the buckeyes by 13 in the shoe next year.
"Defence" has nothing to do with American football, you goddam Canadian. Go back to your home on Whore Island!
sorry about my lack of ejukation and typing scills! but i draw the line at being called kanadian!
the "gurus" have no idea of what theyre talking about. 99% of them do nothing more than frantically pry prospects for information about who has offered them. then, based on those offers, they give them star ratings.
alabama, florida, texas offered...5-star.
msu, iowa, purdue...3-star.
Johnathan Hankins was offered by OSU and Florida, so I guess it makes sense that he's a 5-star recruit.
Wait a minute...
Scout really high on it, but Rivals only has it as a low 4*. ESPN doesn't even have it on their 150 watch list though, saying " shows too much inconsistency but has unbelievable upside with solid coaching." Lemming says it could be the best in state.