Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Re-rating recruits based on performance
Comments
-
Oops, that is what I meant a 0-5 so for example a Patrick Enewally/Lavon Washington is a 0. Connor Cree=1, Nate Fellner=2, Cody Bruns=3, Sean Parker=4, and Bishop Sankey=5.
Those were examples I grabbed at just a quick glance. -
Yeah MrsPetersen had me thinking about that too. I like it in that it narrows the other categories a bit improving the precision. I'm trying to decide whether it's important or not that the range is the same as the Scout system. It's probably not since one of the outcomes of the exercise is that it will show how meaningless the Scout ratings are after a player is in school (@Auburndoog).GrundleStiltzkin said:What about adjusting the scale to make 0 the flameout, never got into school grade?
-
So I was just thinking about this and I've never actually seen a 1* on Scout, has anyone else? 2* seems to be as low as they go. So if we maybe did give a 1 to non-contributors that might help even out the numbers for tracking variance in a recruiting class. Instead of a zero. IDK, but I'm a dork and this stuff is fun. I love to see a good old 2* contribute at a 5* level....
-
It's all semantics. My thought is giving the flameouts a 0 is an extra penalty for rating, evaluating and coaching failure.MrsPetersen said:So I was just thinking about this and I've never actually seen a 1* on Scout, has anyone else? 2* seems to be as low as they go. So if we maybe did give a 1 to non-contributors that might help even out the numbers for tracking variance in a recruiting class. Instead of a zero. IDK, but I'm a dork and this stuff is fun. I love to see a good old 2* contribute at a 5* level....
-
Now that you mention it I think everyone ends up at 2* or above once it's all said and done. 1* during the process just means they haven't been rated by the service yet.MrsPetersen said:So I was just thinking about this and I've never actually seen a 1* on Scout, has anyone else? 2* seems to be as low as they go. So if we maybe did give a 1 to non-contributors that might help even out the numbers for tracking variance in a recruiting class. Instead of a zero. IDK, but I'm a dork and this stuff is fun. I love to see a good old 2* contribute at a 5* level....
-
I always did it this way
5* = All-American (any level)
4* = All-Conference (first or second team, generally)
3* = Solid Starter (played pretty well, maybe HM All-Conference)
2* = Played with only marginal contribution (could've been a bad starter like Ossai or just a guy who didn't do much)
1* = Terrible, DNP, left, etc. (Pretty much guys who never saw the field; if they transferred, then I include what they did at the new school)
2010
QB: Nick Montana (1)
RB: Deontae Cooper (2/3), Jesse Callier (2), Zach Fogerson (1)
WR: Kevin Smith (3), DiAndre Campbell (2)
TE: Michael Hartvigson (2)
OL: Colin Porter (3/4), Ben Riva (3), Colin Tanigawa (3), Mike Criste (2/3), James Atoe (2), Erik Kohler (2)
DL: Sione Potoa'e (2), Lawrence Lagafuaina (1)
DE: Hau'oli Kikaha (5), Andrew Hudson (3/4), Josh Shirley (2/3)
LB: John Timu (3), Garret Gilliland (1/2), Jamaal Kearse (1/2), Cooper Pelluer (1)
DB: Sean Parker (3), Greg Ducre (3), Taz Stevenson (1/2)
2011
QB: Derrick Brown (1)
RB: Bishop Sankey (5), Dezden Petty (1)
WR: Kasen Williams (3/4), Marvin Hall (2), Jamaal Jones (1)
TE: Austin Seferian-Jenkins (4/5), Josh Perkins (2/3)
OL: Dexter Charles (3), Sifa Tufunga (2)
DL: Danny Shelton (5), Jarrett Finau (2), Taniela Tupou (2)
LB: Travis Feeney (3/4*), Thomas Tutogi (3), Scott Lawyer (2/3*), Matthew Lyons (1), Corey Waller (1), Evan Zeger (1)
DB: Marcus Peters (5), James Sample (3)
2012
QB: Cyler Miles (2/3*), Jeff Lindquist (2*)
RB: Dwayne Washington (3*), Erich Wilson (1/2)
WR: Jaydon Mickens (2/3), Kendyl Taylor (2/3)
OL: Jake Eldrenkamp (3*), Shane Brostek (2), Nathan Dean (1), Cory Fuavai (1), Tayor Hindy (1),
DL: Pio Vatuvei (3), Josh Banks (2), Damon Turpin (1)
LB: Shaq Thompson (5), Cory Littleton (3*), Psalm Wooching (2), Ryan McDaniel (1), Blake Rodgers (1)
DB: Cleveland Wallace (1/2), Darien Washington (1)
P: Travis Coons (3/4), Korey Durkee (3)
*Based on a projection through the end of their career. -
I agree with a lot of those ratings, however guys like a Pio Vatuvei or Colin Porter who basically played for 1 year and then didn't contribute again (for whatever reason) shouldn't be highly rated. There has to be a subtraction because even they were awesome players it takes away from the program because they only contributed for 1 year. So in that case they usually get a 1 from me (on a 0-5 rating scale.
But it's also why we usually don't give them a "final" rating until they exhaust eligibility. For example Andrew Hudson, he probably gets bumped up a bit for this year since contributed more. DiAndre Campbell would stay the same, because meh. -
I was just about to post something very similar to what the leader of one of America's greatest rock bands, but they got a bad wrap because the critics are cynical assholes said.
0 = Never made it into school for whatever reason
1 = Contributed to the program but never made it onto the field for anything more than garbage time snaps (regardless of whether left the program or completed eligibility)
2 = 2nd string player who never was able to crack the starting lineup - think backup or special teams player
3 = replacement level starter in the conference - a player that wasn't great but also would start for other teams in the conference and that while you'd like to upgrade from him, you also could take a step back from him
4 = All-Conference caliber player - you could plug him into most teams in the conference and he'd immediately start for them and be an upgrade
5 = All American - you could plug him into most teams in the country and he'd immediately start for them and be an upgrade
I'd also differentiate between these levels as well to account for the differences between players (think the difference between an A-, A, and A+). I'd save the highest ratings, the 5's, for guys that were finalists/winners for the Heisman or positional awards in the country. An all-conference player that is a fringe All-American I'd rank higher than All-Conference players. Go down a sliding scale like that ... 4, 4.3, 4.7, 5.0. -
Good points. If a guy is serviceable for a year or two but then gets beat out by another player, then they should be downgraded to some degree. In the hypothetical where a freshman all-american comes in and proves to be a better option at that position, then there isn't much else you can do. Sure it sucks to be the serviceable guy, but oh well.MrsPetersen said:I agree with a lot of those ratings, however guys like a Pio Vatuvei or Colin Porter who basically played for 1 year and then didn't contribute again (for whatever reason) shouldn't be highly rated. There has to be a subtraction because even they were awesome players it takes away from the program because they only contributed for 1 year. So in that case they usually get a 1 from me (on a 0-5 rating scale.
But it's also why we usually don't give them a "final" rating until they exhaust eligibility. For example Andrew Hudson, he probably gets bumped up a bit for this year since contributed more. DiAndre Campbell would stay the same, because meh.
I think Andrew Hudson is probably the rare exception to go from ass.door.out to back in the mix with the type of season he is having. -
If Andrew Hudson left last year I'd probably give him a 2 (pretty generous) after this season though I would give him a 3. Good example.
