Scout upgrades Carvin Johnson, Saftey
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
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?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
WHO DAT NATION
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
DREW BREEEEEEEEESSS
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
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=d3fa31d109c1bc10248…
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
I have no idea where you could be getting this from. Edit: Seriously what's your source?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
The problem with this statement is - why do you say he is wrong? What is your source?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
You have zero actual evidence of this. Just because random people on message boards say so doesn't make it true.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
source? common knowledge
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
Do they do footnotes in Kinesiology? I don't know where that qualifies as a source.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 PM ^
Water's chemical formula is H2O. Do I need to source that? no, common knowledge
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
I guess they don't teach analogies either.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
...that wasn't ranked usually gets that 3 star ranking. A kid like Carvin will hopefully get coached up and become a solid player at Michigan (as we hope all players become at Michigan).
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
change your name? I could have sworn you were "Big Pussy" just yesterday.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
Looks like someone did. I guess not a fan of the Sopranos or someone complained. Damn Circle jerkers!
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
It has to be a glitch or something. Email Brian and ask him whats up.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
There is no chance that was a coincidence. Although personally, I think it's funnier this way.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I emailed him to change it but he never got back to me, so I changed it myself.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
Who is this "Brian" and how did he get so many points. Conspiracy? I think so
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
I would ask him about it, but he doesn't list any contact information...
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 PM ^
I think we should have this Brian guys name arbitrarily changed to something else too. Like maybe "The Other Brian" or something like that...
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
"Big Pussy" was offensive to some? That's pretty fucking lame.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
The Run put Hart on the map and in our Hearts.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^
was a 2* for Oregon and went like 33rd overall to the Pats
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
Sample size fail.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
They list him as the #76 player at his position (safety), so they might have scouted him.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
That's cause he's so much worse than the #70 guy, and light years better than the #86 guy. Duh.
/sarcasm
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
Magnus has been chopping people down to size since Haloscan and Dex's Hannah Montana obsession. No thread is compete with out it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
Scout still has you as a 3* human. Sorry.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
Sam Bradford, 3 star recruit:
http://www.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?Player=64251
Colt McCoy, 3 star recruit:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/texas/football/recruiting/player-Colt-McCoy-228…
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
Texas.
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
toby gerhart, 3 star recruit:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Toby-Gerhart-24…
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^
and due to who is posting, I would say it is inadvertently supportive.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
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."
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
Exceptions do not prove the rule.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
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?)