RR vs The Scouts

Submitted by Ziff72 on January 18th, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I think this recruiting class will be very important in the ongoing internt saga of "Mike Hart was a 3 star vs OMG Florida has all 5 stars Rivals is right." With the majority of our commits being "under the radar" or "underevaluated" for years to come this class will be the Rosetta Stone for all future arguments. A huge class filled with seemingly overlooked all-state performers this is the battle ground people. Choose your weapon.

Vinopal, Carvin, Ryan, Talbott, Williamson etc...you'll either prove RR a genius in 4 years and render Scout and Rivals irrelevant on this site or you'll be the curse around the new coaches neck after RR is hanged.

"Yeah but Vinopal was a 2 star that worked out ok, Bellichick thought enough of him to start him in his secondary, Scout sucks.

"Go ahead pick out 1 person just look at it in whole Alabama, USC, Florida all get the highest rated classes."

"Then explain Utah and Boise St"

Comments

Irish

January 18th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^

"Then explain Utah and Boise St"

Weak schedules.

Had they played an SEC, ACC, or a Big Ten team in their bowl game they would have looked just as poor as Cincy did against UF. High rated recruiting classes are not the end all be all indicator of a good football team but there still very revealing in regards to a teams potential.

willywill9

January 18th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^

Exactly. I don't think those comments above are fair. Most people would have said the same about the Boise team that beat Oklahoma, had they never had the opportunity to play.

You can't write off teams just because they don't match on paper. There's more to sports than individual players.

I think a better argument is to determine how the boise's and utah's would fare in better conferences. Obviously, they wouldn't go undefeated, but I think they'd be able to compete.

colin

January 18th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^

I think most coaches would probably agree that sports results are largely determined by collective talent. Coaching and scheme are less variable in quality as you go up in level. This is part of Utah and Boise's success formula, actually. The benefit to being the big fish in a small pond is that these teams do have an actual (as opposed to Weisian) coaching/schematic advantage during in-conference play. I imagine it's also easier to preserve the talent needed to keep up with the best for a bowl game if you're in a lesser conference and regularly out-matching competition. So if there's anything that Boise and Utah confirm, it's that they have the talent to play with those programs. But it's still important to their success that they only have to do it for a few games a season.

Irish

January 18th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

Again recruiting classes (or SoS) are not an end all be all indicator of which team is going to win on a given Saturday.

But TCU and Boise both had easier paths to BCS games than most of their counter parts. And when you compare Boise 2009 (ranked 96th) to Utah 2008 (ranked 56th) you're making the point for me.

Irish

January 18th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

Nobody? The then 21st ranked S. Florida, 25th ranked WV and 15th ranked pitt. All games which were not 1st week upsets, it wasn't a top 10 schedule strength wise but it wasn't 12 nobodies?

Of the final AP top 10 Cincy finished 6th in SOS ahead of OSU, PSU, Boise and TCU. I am not sure how you calculated your lines but they're pretty far off.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm

ShockFX

January 18th, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^

I pulled the numbers out of my ass actually.

Look, ND and UM couldn't stop anyone, and shot themselves in the foot on offense a ton.

USF finished 7-5? WVU beat nobody. Pitt's best win was ND. Hmmm, yeah.

Boise and TCU would jailsex UM and ND this year. Let's just accept it.

Irish

January 18th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^

Why?
Team A
2 stars: 64
3 stars: 19
4 stars: 2
5 stars: 0

Team B
2 stars: 3
3 stars: 17
4 stars: 50
5 stars: 15

One of the teams is Florida and the other team is Cincinnati, which do you think is which? At a certain point in time, a team made of entirely 2 and 3 star players will have a very low probability to win against the best teams in the country.

AKWolverine

January 18th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^

...to *NOT* look at this as RR vs. the scouts. Both RR and "the scouts" make a living (at least in part) evaluating high school talent. There are reasons to prefer Rodriguez's "evaluations": he is probably better at evaluating talent (all things being equal), especially talent that fits within his own system than most "scouts" (he's paid a hell of a lot more to do so). There are reasons to prefer the scouts' evaluations: we get more information (like actual evaluations); we get strengths weaknesses and comparisons to other recruits around the country, they might be more objective.

The more underrated recruits Rodriguez can find the better--he seems pretty good at it. But nothing a few 2 or 3 star recruits do here or there should render the evaluations of either "irrelevant." A sensible analysis of a recruiting class should take both RR's and the scouts' evaluations into account. As dumb as "Rivals is right" is (has anyone ever suggested Rivals/Scout is always right, or even close?), so is "star/recruiting ratings don't matter at all." Why the two extremes?

Brick

January 18th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^

My money is on the coaches. I get a feeling that sometimes measurables are overweighted in comparison to actually playing the game of football.

Blue Palasky_68

January 18th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

I totally agree. I have to words for mesurables... Dion Lewis! They said that kid was to small and his offer list was Miami( noit that one) and Tulane. I say he worked out fairly well. The haters on this page need to trust the coaches who have watched a lot more film then most on here. If these 2 and 3*s don't cut it, then fire up the torches and grab the pitchforks. While your at, if a 5* doesn't cut it, you better have the same response!

BiSB

January 18th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

First, the nice thing about sleepers is that the program isn't depending on them to succeed; RichRod has a lot more riding on DG's success than on Ray Vinopal. They don't need ALL of their stretches to pay off.

Second, a lot of these guys are rated lower because they (a) need time in the weight room (paging Dr. Barwis, Dr. Barwis to the weight room please...) or (b) are tweeners. Davion Rogers might not fit as a traditional OLB or as a DE, but he's ideal as a Deathbacker. I know it's cliche, but some guys fit certain systems.

MMarchingband243

January 18th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

Boise st. and Utah play in mediocre to horrible conferences, although i would love to eat my words if one of them wins a title soon. Rich Rod just seams to have a knack for developing players, which i have nothing wrong with but the (uninformed) fan base doesn't have the time for. Rival's has that thing where it tells you what a 5 star means and it says that they have peaked at their potential and can make an early impact and have the biggest chance at the NFL. The 3 stars on the other hand have more untapped/raw potiental/talent for coaches like Rich Rod.

Huss

January 18th, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^

is very often a 4-star without NFL-level sex-appeal. These recruiting rankings are good for the most part - but they shouldn't deter you from thinking a guy like Vinopal or, psst, Vincent Smith can be successful at the college level.

There's no question about it, we have a lot of committed recruits without a whole lot of guru bite. If Michigan football were back in its winning ways, a 20th ranked class is a little disappointing. However, we are a team that's won just 8 games and has been mocked mercilessly since Rich took over. But we're still making our recruiting mark. A lot of the kids Rich has brought in have already made a name for themselves. Here's to hoping that about half this class comes out the same way. Hey, it wouldn't be any worse a success rate than Carr's last few classes.

Magnus

January 18th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but Vincent Smith hasn't proven anything yet. Outside of DSU, his numbers were very pedestrian. Touting him as a success story is jumping the gun a bit.

jg2112

January 18th, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^

One interesting quirk of statistics:

Vincent Smith is already as prolific as Brandon Minor when it comes to scoring TDs in The Game, and, even if he never plays another down for Michigan, will have produced more against Ohio State than Carlos Brown.

mjv

January 18th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^

Let's not assume that this is the ideal class that RR would pull together. He is still dealing with the albatross that is 3-9 (as well as 5-7), and add in that it is a huge class in terms of numbers and he is trying to address some glaring needs, and the class is skewed.

The telling class will be after RR has a few years of 9+ wins. And when he has the ability to be more selective because there aren't the glaring needs and only 18-22 kids in the class. If he is still targeting guys more on fit than on Rivals/Scout stars, then it will be telling. At this point, there is a lot of noise in the system.

wolverine1987

January 18th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

This is a good class given the circumstances, which are 3-9, 5-7 and bad press. I commend the coaching staff, and if we are rated mid-teens by Rivals and Scout after all of this, that is a really solid recruiting job IMO. But it is not the ideal class or the class the coaches wanted--that's why we offered Seastrunk, Prather, Baxter, Henderson and other 5 starts but didn't (likely) get them. Once we win, we'll get a couple of those type of guys. And we'll be ranked higher.

The Original Seth

January 18th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

Yeah, I too have been worrying that the numbers our recruits have made up about themselves aren't as impressive as the numbers other schools' recruits have made up about themselves.

If I were going to pick and choose, I would try and talk a couple of those guys from the Florida locker room's 40-yard-dash wall of fame into coming to Michigan, and bringing their irrelevant, unreliable statistics with them.

wolverine1

January 18th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^

I like this class as well. Also it seems that a large amount of 5 star talent ends up being 3 star talent in the end, and a good amount of three stars end up at four or five stars in the end.

dahblue

January 18th, 2010 at 5:18 PM ^

Can folks stop using Mike Hart as the posterchild for under-the-radar recruits? He was ranked the #2 player in the state of NY. He was offered by Miami (FL), UVA, WVU, Syracuse, and MSU.

That is not remotely comparable to some of our current recruits who were not offered by a single BCS program. Maybe our unsung kids turn into gold, but don't compare them to Mike Hart - it's a false analogy.

ken725

January 18th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^

One reason that we might have lower rated recruits is that we also might utilize tweener recruits more than other teams. I think the deathbacker position in GERG's defense is best suited for a tweener type like Roh, or now Rogers.

ken725

January 18th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

The point I was trying to make is that tweeners can be productive deathbaker or quick position in GERG's defense. It seems that GERG wants certain type of players for at those positions. Like Brian said about Rogers, he might be rated lower because he is a tweener. If the coaches want him, that is fine by me.

I agree that we need the typical ILB that can stop the run. I have trust in GERG's system and his system. The two positions that he coached played well relative to the other LB positions.