No offer for AJ Carter? - Possible steal at RB
Hey everyone, I just came across a three-star running back from Louisiana named AJ Carter. He's currently only one spot ahead of Christian Turner and 27 spots ahead of Hassan Haskins on 247's rankings. Carter was incredibly productive in his last two seasons, in which he averaged 9.4 yards per carry and 0.15 touchdowns per touch. He's also a well-built running back, standing at 6' 0" and weighing around 220 pounds and runs a 4.5.
For the sake of comparison, Haskins, during his final two seasons, averaged 7.5 yards per carry and 0.10 touchdowns per touch. Carter's production seems to closely resemble that of a high four-star RB. I'm just wondering, since we're offering scholarships to lower rated players, why not at least go for the ones who were super productive in high school. This is not to say Turner and Haskins are bad players, but I think there are other players with the same rating who could be potential steals for Michigan. It's surprising to me that we haven't at least offered him a scholarship. I have more statistics and analytical data to back up that this kid is legit. What do you guys think? Here's are his highlights from 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVYqssdfrUg
Before negging away, we are in a slow period right now and this is a forum. I think this is a valid discussion point. Share your opinions, that's what it's all about.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:24 PM ^
I have a lot more profiles in a database, but I'll give you just a basic example of a few guys and you let me know if it still seems like stats have no significance on potentially predicting underrated players. I'm gonna give you two groups. One group is full of underrecruited players like Baker Mayfield, Marcus Mariota, Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott, McKenzie Milton and Johnny Manziel (all three-stars or lower). The group full of overrated players includes Shane Morris, Christian Hackenberg and Blake Barnett (all four and five-stars). The underrated group averaged: 62.7% (completion percentage), 9.6 (yards per attempt), 5.1 (TD/INT ratio) and 120.3 (QB rating). Some of these players went on to win the Heisman Trophy and some are currently starting NFL QBs. On the other hand, the higher rated, yet underwhelming, group averaged: 53.6% (completion percentage), 7.2 (yards per attempt), 1.8 (TD/INT ratio) and 84.0 (QB rating). Now, looking at these stats and how these players turned out, are you seriously going to say that comparing statistics between players wouldn't help out at all?
December 18th, 2017 at 7:05 PM ^
You ddint' even provide stats in that rant? At best you are providing under rated and over rated players. No one is arguing that they exist. I want to see your list of high efficiency stats and how they correlate better than stars to college success. I don't believe for a second that you crunched some numbers 5 years ago and determined that Baker Mayfield would be one of the best QBs in college. If that is remotely true, you should sell your services for millions of dollars and join a college staff. Seriously, let's see your lists and ranks of stats. You're basically claiming your the next moneyball but for high school sports and I call bullshit.
December 18th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
I use 30+ statistics for quarterbacks in my database and it does goes back to 2007. Unfortunately, I didn't get interested in statistics until 2015, so it would've been hard for me to predict Baker since he was already playing college football. Had I created this database back in 2013, I certainly could've, at the very least, told you that Baker would be a better QB than Shane Morris and Christian Hackenberg. I'm definitely not going to just give you my database and all of the stats in it just to please you. And is my method perfect? No. However, I do believe there is a lot to be gained by using numbers. If you don't, that's fine. Keep buying in to whatever the football program thinks is best. I'm sure that will make us win more games.
December 18th, 2017 at 10:57 PM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 12:20 AM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 1:12 AM ^
Two years compiling formulas that you've had to work hard to reverse engineer into a huge database, you'd just give that info out for free so others can recreate it. That's pretty unfair to ask him to do that.
December 19th, 2017 at 3:06 AM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 9:25 AM ^
There are many people on the blog. If it peaks someone's interest and they want to get into analytics, who's to say they wouldn't spend time trying to copy the information?
December 19th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
"no one is going to reverse engineer your database."
You're probably right about that, but with all the time and effort I've put into developing it over the past two years, I'd just rather not take a chance with it.
"This sort of analysis just doesn't work and simple proof is Shane Morris. he's a success at CMU but couldn't get on the field at Michigan. system, scheme and competition matter a lot at both levels."
I really hope it's not the general consensus that Shane Morris is a success at Central. He's a 23-year-old RS senior who (again, using pretty common stats) had a 55.5% completion percentage, 7.1 yards per attempt, 2.0 TD/INT ratio and a QB rating of 86.1. Now those kind of numbers, without even delving into more advanced metrics, could be impressive for an 18-year-old freshman QB. However, we're talking about a former four-star who is now in his fifth and final year of college football. Logan Woodside is a player who performed better in high school than Shane did, is slightly younger than Shane, and, for the past two seasons, has dominated his competition in the MAC (something Shane couldn't even do at 23 years old). Heck, Charlie Brewer dominated at Lake Travis High School (same high school that Baker went to) and, as an 18-year-old true freshman, put up: 68.1% completion percentage, 7.7 yards per attempt, 2.8 TD/INT ratio and 100.6 QB rating. If you're thinking of Shane's many failures at Michigan, then of course any type of production seems like a success. However, when you begin comparing him to other QBs in the nation (especially younger QBs), you'll notice that his season at Central was nothing special.
December 18th, 2017 at 7:07 PM ^
I don't have any problem with you offering an opinion on a guy you think merits consideration, and I haven't negged you for doing so, even though I suspect there are logical reasons he hasn't been offered by Michigan.
That said, the quickest way to engender further negging is to whine and complain about being negged. Certainly it can't be a surprise to you in the current psychological environment that a post that seems to suggest Harbaugh and his staff aren't doing their homework is met with some degree of hostile skepticism. Just post your opinion, take your lumps if there are any, and don't get worked up about the negs—they're irrelevant, and points aren't real anyhow.
December 18th, 2017 at 8:45 PM ^
Wait ... "points aren't real anyhow?"
Surely you can't be serious.
December 18th, 2017 at 10:59 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 4:52 PM ^
He's committed to UCLA, we obviously have no shot at landing him...
December 18th, 2017 at 4:56 PM ^
He kept committing and decommitting so there was a window where we could've made a move, but you're right there's not much we can do now. I'm just wondering, if we're already going for the lower rated players, why we don't go for the super productive ones like Carter.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:14 PM ^
For perspective, the #1 QB in the country in terms of stats (at least total yards) has exactly one offer: Arkansas State. #2 doesn't even have a 247 profile.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:29 PM ^
Believe it or not, I don't just use the most basic stats to form an opinion of a player. In terms of basic stats like total yards, Hatcher may be the best. However, if you look at stats that actually measure how efficient a player is with their opportunities, you'll see that there are others who are better than him. You gotta also consider how long they were putting up these stats. A player who has been dominating competition since they were 15 would probably be better prospects than those who finally started dominating as 17-year-old seniors.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:38 PM ^
Using your preferred stats, please compile a list of the most efficient RBs in the country. Tell me where AJ Carter ranks as well as how many ranked higher on your list have a worse recruiting rank. I'm not arguing your stats are probably better than "total yards", I'm arguing that stats don't mean much because you don't know the competition or any other mitigating factors like good RBs with terrible O Lines and vice versa or type of offense, etc
December 18th, 2017 at 5:35 PM ^
Here are the top 5 RBs in the country in terms of total yards and what the world thinks of them as a recruit:
Elijiah Davis - Old Dominion 12.5 yds/car, 59 TDs
Daniel Bangura - No offers 12.2 yds/car, 45 TDs
Kazmeir Allen - Committed to UCLA 3 star, #385 overall
Spencer Lockwood - No offers, no profile, 9.7 yds/car, 44 TDs
Don Ragsdale - a few very low level offers (and ole miss). Probably bound for ULL. #1193 overall, 12.2 yds/car, 34 TDs
I didn't go any further down the list, but I think it's clear stats don't mean shit. We could have any of these kids if we only cared about stats.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:52 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 5:01 PM ^
Since we know they look at the site...good job letting them know
December 18th, 2017 at 5:20 PM ^
Do you know what kind of competition he plays against?
December 18th, 2017 at 5:23 PM ^
Just wondering? I think LSU and UCLA recognizing his talents are pretty good indicators.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 6:05 PM ^
If it were only as simple as watching some youtube videos by fans.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:34 PM ^
Don't see how that makes a difference.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:28 PM ^
I don't know why you bring up David Johnson out of nowhere.
You gave yardage stats for Carter and wanted to get a sense of what kind of competition he was playing against.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^
was that competition really doesn't matter much of the time. If you're a baller, you'll play well anywhere.
December 18th, 2017 at 11:23 PM ^
steal. In other words, an overlooked prospect. But he has been committed to LSU and UCLA. He hasn't been overlooked at all. We would have a battle on our hands just like with a higher ranked recruit.
December 18th, 2017 at 5:27 PM ^
Ty Isaac was a 5* that should have been a 3*
It's all too confusing for me. I'll just root for the guys our coaches sign and ignore all the *'s
December 18th, 2017 at 5:52 PM ^
this is what i have been saying. STARS DO NOT MEAN SHIT. some will get better and some will not. the won's getting better no matter what star they are will play.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:05 PM ^
Stars aren't a guarantee but they certainly correlate to success. That's like saying education isn't an indicator of financial success, just look at bill gates. There are always outliers but in general there is a very strong correlation and this has been proven over and over.
December 18th, 2017 at 7:33 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 9:42 PM ^
"the won's getting better no matter what star they are will play."
Well, Golfer, the won's are better than the lost's and the hole in won's are better than the hole in too's.
December 18th, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 7:32 PM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 3:50 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 7:29 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 7:49 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 7:49 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 9:44 PM ^
True, but also, down voting should convince him to not do this often. It seems like he is someone who dives deep into the rankings on recruiting sites. I, for one, don't care to hear his takes on other recruits flying under the radar that he thinks are awesome. If his chart of statistics is predictive of talent, he should share some results that prove this. This board really apprecites volunteer analysis that is well described and supported with evidende. This board does not appreciate posts like these, which offer only conjecture and an unwarranted air of exactness.
December 18th, 2017 at 9:41 PM ^
December 18th, 2017 at 10:04 PM ^
If you also added player measurables to your stats and figured them in, figured in yards after catch and contact, looking at their decision making speed and ability, vision, and other similar shit that would take breaking down game film, not highlights, and the strengths of their relevant teammates, and strength of opponents & their relevant players (The DB's faced by WR's etc.) and came up with a formula to adjust and equalize for all of that then you'd probably have a useful thing going, but only as far as evaluating talent.
You still know nothing about what kind of students, people or teammates they are, all of which are deal breakers or choice limiters for a whole hell of a lot of talented people.
That's a hell of a lot more work than you're doing, the work of a coach, a scout, a recruiting coordinator or a scouting service.... all of which already exist, all of whom have the same access to the same stats you're looking at, but they also have at least some amount of the extra and needed kind of info you leave out.
December 18th, 2017 at 10:15 PM ^
Probably similar to the Patterson and Peters scenario a few years ago. Already have a runningback with Haskins so can't get the higher one, or offer him.
December 18th, 2017 at 11:50 PM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 12:04 AM ^
Your original post sounded batshit crazy but I did not neg you since it is the holiday season.
December 19th, 2017 at 12:25 AM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 12:31 AM ^
December 19th, 2017 at 12:41 AM ^