• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Further proof HS rankings are crap

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?
 

I'm saying kids follow other highly rated kids.
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.

Having said that, I suppose being an old guy, maybe I’m just out of touch with how young people think.

Hopefully, the snub will fire DR up to make some folks eat crow. And hopefully, his uncle will have the o-line ready to protect him.
 
Last edited:
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?
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.
 



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.
 
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.
Potentially at qb it is the one position where there's no ideal size, no ideal skills, or combination of them.
You don't have to be so tall, see Flutie, so fast of feet, see Brady or Marino.
Its a useable combination of many things which DR has displayed, pocket presence, escapability , reading down field on the move, in the pocket, in a collapsing pocket and make all the throws.
Sayin is 6'1½" 195. Somehow I don't see him as a great running qb anymore than DR. Both can get you that first down on a scramble.

The reason of being overtaken without any games played was obvious by on3 and again, they need to fix it or they won't be taken seriously.
 
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
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.
 




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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
And often, if you coach up a trait good enough imo, you're playing on Sundays.
A good example is SF supposedly went after speed. Look who's running track for us now. All MR guys.
Another was Bob Hayes, no doubt incredibly fast but his development as a wr was crap, he dropped so many passes where he was behind the defender and that defender wasn't going to catch him.

Of course there's other aspects MR looks for to use and develop as well.
Some staffs won't take a chance, sites won't give that next star, I think MR determines whether that player is moldable or not and surpasses other assessments, and you have instead of plug n play, develop delay and play. Just more guys to choose from.
 
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.
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..

but why would you base your rankings off what they could potentially do in the NFL if they haven't even performed in college. And performing in college doesn't even always come full circle in how they will do in the NFL. Lots of QB's who you would expect to be successful in the NFL end up becoming a bust.
 




GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top