Scout upgrades Carvin Johnson, Saftey

Submitted by spam and beans on December 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 PM

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.

Comments

DesHow21

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?

spam and beans

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.

Blue Bunny Friday

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…

Hoken's Heroes

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).

StephenRKass

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.

Magnus

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.

wolverine1987

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.

spacemanspiff231

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.

Tim Waymen

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.

DesHow21

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.

caup

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.

wolverine1987

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.

Magnus

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?)