No doubt. And DR is highly rated. In a few months, he will get his first opportunity to show what he can do as a QB in a D1 B1G program when he takes the field for the spring game. What he looks like in April and then next fall is far more important (in my view) than someone lowering his ranking in retaliation for his switching from his Georgia commitment.I'm saying kids follow other highly rated kids.
The guys reasoning, and he spelled it out on on3's website, was basically that Dylan didn't run enough to show his mobility and the guy believes you have to be mobile to get drafted. When shown QB after QB that he rated high that wasn't mobile and/or that went high in the draft and wasn't mobile, he deflected to other nonsense. He really came out looking much worse after trying to explain it.Wasn't the Dylan rating done before he ever committed to Georgia? They could hardly use the argument that they move recruits upwards because they signed with a major program. Is it possible that some other quarterbacks had better stats and moved up?
Potentially at qb it is the one position where there's no ideal size, no ideal skills, or combination of them.The explanation I hear has to do with how well he is predicted to perform in the NFL. I personally feel that is irrevelant to rankings for college. Nebraska has had many good college quarterbacks that have done little to nothing in the NFL. In my opinion the rankings of high school players are only relative to how they will perform in college.
If the high school rankings are driven by how the player will perform in the NFL, then they have little relevance to me as I am interested in how they will perform in college.
I disagree with your take … you’re trying to suggest that the rankings still aren’t reliable enough.Thanks this tells me guys get better and they don't get every guy and they're wrong on some guys.
Everybody misses, TO wished he'd chosen different on a certain rb from Kansas.
What I like are educated guesses, like TO, like MR. They usually know what to look for, it may not be there yet, but they know/knew they could get that kid there.
Same thing with the sites, just less education
It's more comparing them to coaches than whether they're accurate.I disagree with your take … you’re trying to suggest that the rankings still aren’t reliable enough.
Nearly 9 out of 10 players drafted were 3* or better. To me that is pretty good reliability. Recruiting will always have some art but the “science” of player evaluations is becoming better. if I were to go back to 1983 I suspect there would be a lot less than 90% rating.
The services are more reliable, there are more eyes doing evaluations and opinions are backed up and cross checked.
It will never ever be perfect, hard to measure someone who has “heart” but now-a-days it is easier and more accurate than it was 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
Understood, I like that Rhule looks for speed, he’s got a general profile that he wants and that probably trumps a recruiting sites rankings … good for him. Something that is necessary to survive in this business.It's more comparing them to coaches than whether they're accurate.
Traits don't always align here, and a good coach looks for things the sites don't.
I'm not arguing whether the sites are good or not, other than the huge miss on DR on one particular site, but that coaches are just better at it.
There's several on here making a joke out of the sites overall, don't conflate that with the things I'm saying here. You're right, never argued different, however they do oddly change for no added input proofs, which leads to some sort of favoritism in many a mind with no or poor explanations.
And often, if you coach up a trait good enough imo, you're playing on Sundays.Understood, I like that Rhule looks for speed, he’s got a general profile that he wants and that probably trumps a recruiting sites rankings … good for him. Something that is necessary to survive in this business.
Im sure Rhule doesn’t care whatsoever that DRs ON3 ranking went down. I love that too.
its sad cause I can name a dozen qb's that played at top flight colleges and did little to nothing in the nfl... lienart, dorsey, vince young, colt mccoy, landry jones, sam bradford, jamarcus russell... etc..The explanation I hear has to do with how well he is predicted to perform in the NFL. I personally feel that is irrevelant to rankings for college. Nebraska has had many good college quarterbacks that have done little to nothing in the NFL. In my opinion the rankings of high school players are only relative to how they will perform in college.
If the high school rankings are driven by how the player will perform in the NFL, then they have little relevance to me as I am interested in how they will perform in college.