John Elway's son commits to ASU

[Gaddabout]

Plus recruiting services back then were often some 16 year old kid writing about players he'd seen locally there was very little national stuff that was reliable.

Nothing's really exchanged except exposure. I would love to poll those who run Scout or Rivals team sites with three questions:

1) Have you ever played football?

2) Have you ever been professionally employed as a football scout before taking over this site?

3) If not, have you even ever been employed as a journalist?

I'm betting the vast majority would answer, "No," to all three questions.

One question on Erickson, I read yesterday that something like 18 of the 21 players he signed for his one year at Idaho have now left the school either over grades, trouble, or just didn't want to be there when he left. Is that true? I knew his rep from Miami and Oregon State was bring in talented players with some off field questions, but if that's true that's pretty astounding that nearly 90% of the kids he brought in there have already left?

There was a story awhile back about how Idaho had remove 18 players, to which a Washington journalist with a personal beef against Erickson suggested all the players were Erickson recruits. In fact, Erickson was never there long enough to bring in a recruit with his stamp on it, so someone needs to explain to me how Erickson damaged the program.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

I realize it's a trendy thing to bash recruiting rankings, but there is a correlation between recruiting rankings and team/individual success. Like any scouting, it's not an exact science but there is something there. I personally find that most fans accept or dismiss the value of these rankings based on who their team is recruiting.

 

[Gaddabout]

I realize it's a trendy thing to bash recruiting rankings, but there is a correlation between recruiting rankings and team/individual success. Like any scouting, it's not an exact science but there is something there. I personally find that most fans accept or dismiss the value of these rankings based on who their team is recruiting.

Rankings are fool's gold for the most part. They reward teams for stocking up on skill positions primarily. It's how USC can lose to Stanford -- an injury or two on their offensive line and they didn't have the depth to compete against a bottom dweller. How many 5 star running backs does USC have? And yet they've never recruited a 5 star corner back under Pete Carroll.

These rankings don't take into account two more important elements -- class balance and how they fit into the system. Old saying: "You take the best 5 and I'll take the next 25 and I'll beat you every time." Rankings shouldn't be about landing 5 or 6 high profile athletes, but they are. Meanwhile, a team like Rutgers puts together a solid 25, do it again the next year, and they go from sad sacks to national heroes. This is football. It's better to have a legion of productive players than a handful of stars.

Another element they don't take into account -- because it's impossible -- is growth potential. If you're a man among boys in high school but you have no more room in your body to get stronger and faster, you're not as good of a prospect as you think you are. The reason so many of these 5-star athletes bomb is because they've already hit their ceiling. Or, no one told them it's more important to be quicker in a 10-yard radius with flexibility than it is to be stiff and run the fastest 40-yard dash. Why do we even bother measuring 40-yard times for linemen? If your offensive tackle needs to run a 5.0 in the 40, it's probably because he's chasing down defensive backs who keep intercepting your QB. I'd rather have a big tackle who runs a 5.5 but can keep his balance and his butt on a swivel while moving laterally with good technique. But that's just me.

It's funny to me, because Tennessee is always in the Top 10/20 in recruiting for a handful of kids -- most of which never live up to expectations. It's seems more common it's the three-star defensive tackle they stole from Mississippi or the tight end they convert to offensive guard that ends up being the high NFL pick.

Hey, keep watching the recruiting rankings if you wish. I don't blame you. If USC is going after a kid as a junior, he probably deserves to get some extra attention, if not a jump to elite status.

 

[Russ Smith]

Nothing's really exchanged except exposure. I would love to poll those who run Scout or Rivals team sites with three questions:

1) Have you ever played football?

2) Have you ever been professionally employed as a football scout before taking over this site?

3) If not, have you even ever been employed as a journalist?

I'm betting the vast majority would answer, "No," to all three questions.



There was a story awhile back about how Idaho had remove 18 players, to which a Washington journalist with a personal beef against Erickson suggested all the players were Erickson recruits. In fact, Erickson was never there long enough to bring in a recruit with his stamp on it, so someone needs to explain to me how Erickson damaged the program.

Thanks like I said 90% seemed incredibly high so I'm not surprised it wasn't true.

On the Scout stuff I think at least now it's a bit more "controlled", the whole idea is nonsense if you think it's hard for NFL teams to predict in a draft with all the time and money they spend projecting 21-22 year olds just try to project 16-18 year olds. It's just not possible to do well. But these days they get such access to films, tapes etc that they're a bit more reliable. Might be 10-12 years ago now there was a famous case of a kid who made a bunch of all america teams including some big ones, and the kid didn't even exist. A couple of guys made him up, height, weight, school, think he was a lineman. They put some releases out to the right people, and one service added his name and then they all started to add his name and one of them even insisted after the guys had admitted it was a hoax, that the kid actually did exist and he'd seen him play. He eventually admitted he was wrong. I don't think that can happen today.

I also remember that former Cardinal Dennis Johnson was considered the best DL prospect in years when he came out of HS, at least 2 schools got investigated over his recruitment, and he was a complete bust in the NFL.

Just too hard to project a player at that age.

 

[Pariah]

pops most likely got him into Cherry Creek

I think he lives in the district. He's going to Cherry Creek because it's the closest HS.

Also, I happened to catch a televised CC game this year. The young Elway looked pretty good to me. Raw, sure. But good.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Rankings are fool's gold for the most part. They reward teams for stocking up on skill positions primarily. It's how USC can lose to Stanford -- an injury or two on their offensive line and they didn't have the depth to compete against a bottom dweller. How many 5 star running backs does USC have? And yet they've never recruited a 5 star corner back under Pete Carroll.

These rankings don't take into account two more important elements -- class balance and how they fit into the system. Old saying: "You take the best 5 and I'll take the next 25 and I'll beat you every time." Rankings shouldn't be about landing 5 or 6 high profile athletes, but they are. Meanwhile, a team like Rutgers puts together a solid 25, do it again the next year, and they go from sad sacks to national heroes. This is football. It's better to have a legion of productive players than a handful of stars.

Another element they don't take into account -- because it's impossible -- is growth potential. If you're a man among boys in high school but you have no more room in your body to get stronger and faster, you're not as good of a prospect as you think you are. The reason so many of these 5-star athletes bomb is because they've already hit their ceiling. Or, no one told them it's more important to be quicker in a 10-yard radius with flexibility than it is to be stiff and run the fastest 40-yard dash. Why do we even bother measuring 40-yard times for linemen? If your offensive tackle needs to run a 5.0 in the 40, it's probably because he's chasing down defensive backs who keep intercepting your QB. I'd rather have a big tackle who runs a 5.5 but can keep his balance and his butt on a swivel while moving laterally with good technique. But that's just me.

It's funny to me, because Tennessee is always in the Top 10/20 in recruiting for a handful of kids -- most of which never live up to expectations. It's seems more common it's the three-star defensive tackle they stole from Mississippi or the tight end they convert to offensive guard that ends up being the high NFL pick.

Hey, keep watching the recruiting rankings if you wish. I don't blame you. If USC is going after a kid as a junior, he probably deserves to get some extra attention, if not a jump to elite status.

Some okay points, but it's been statistically proven that a 5-star player has a better chance of being an impact player than a four star. Same with four star players and three star players. You really think it's blind luck that the #1 HS player per Rivals in it's first three years were future Top 10 picks in Vince Young, Ernie Sims, and Adrian Peterson? Go look back at some of the old McDonald AA games on ESPN Classic and tell me how many faces you recognize.

I think of recruiting rankings much like the professional drafts. The odds are greater that a first round pick ends up being a superior player than those that follow, but that doesn't mean you can't find comparable or better talent in the third round.

 

[AzCards21]

I think he lives in the district. He's going to Cherry Creek because it's the closest HS.

Also, I happened to catch a televised CC game this year. The young Elway looked pretty good to me. Raw, sure. But good.

Exactly, of all the players on the CC team the Elways certainly can afford a home there.

I do question the WR with 4.2 times and hands of glue that was at George Washington for his Freshman year.

 

[Gaddabout]

Some okay points, but it's been statistically proven that a 5-star player has a better chance of being an impact player than a four star. Same with four star players and three star players. You really think it's blind luck that the #1 HS player per Rivals in it's first three years were future Top 10 picks in Vince Young, Ernie Sims, and Adrian Peterson? Go look back at some of the old McDonald AA games on ESPN Classic and tell me how many faces you recognize.

I think of recruiting rankings much like the professional drafts. The odds are greater that a first round pick ends up being a superior player than those that follow, but that doesn't mean you can't find comparable or better talent in the third round.

McDonald AA games? You mean basketball? That's an entirely different beast, and I would put more weight into those rankings. First, the folks that do it tend to be very plugged in. Second, one recruit can have a huge impact on a college basketball team whereas one recruit is not going to make a mediocre college football team a national championship contender.

And no doubt, a few of those 5-star recruits deserved their rankings.