Why did Sav’ell Smalls drop in 247Sports’ final rankings?
Comments
-
College players win college games, and that’s what we! care about.Sources said:The NFL projection thing is stupid when you’re ranking classes for college teams.
-
Do any of them play for the Huskies?
NOC -
Caking our system a 2-2-2-5 was the worst football talk that ever happened on the board.2001400ex said:
That's perfect for our 2-2-2-5 system.PandaOrangeChiknDuck said:It’s because a lot of analysts think he’s a “tweener”. Too small to play on the line and too big to play linebacker. Not my opinion, but it’s theirs. There is a Rivals editorial that talks about that.
-
True, against wsu some downs are 2-2-7.RoadDawg55 said:
Caking our system a 2-2-2-5 was the worst football talk that ever happened on the board.2001400ex said:
That's perfect for our 2-2-2-5 system.PandaOrangeChiknDuck said:It’s because a lot of analysts think he’s a “tweener”. Too small to play on the line and too big to play linebacker. Not my opinion, but it’s theirs. There is a Rivals editorial that talks about that.
-
I listened to the podcast the 247 guys did explaining that they base recruiting rankings on nfl projections and immediately lost a ton care for stars. Yes good players are good but there's a ton of difference in a good college player and an nfl player
-
Its beyond stupid. Its lazy as fuck and more of a cop out than anything. They're going to rank them how they want to rank them, with personal preferences tempered by some consideration of things that can be evaluated objectively.Sources said:The NFL projection thing is stupid when you’re ranking classes for college teams.
Projecting their college impact is no harder than projecting NFL draft potential. I think it's actually quite a bit easier. It's also what their customers want...or at least one would think so. Who the fuck pays for or spends time following college recruiting to scout for NFL drafts 3-5 years down the road?
Throwing out the NFL bullshit is just their way of making it harder to argue and cal them on their biases, since nobody has any fucking idea how to rate it with a few exceptions for the most freakish prospects. -
I think there's decent rationale for them doing it the way they do. What they want is that when the NFL draft happens they can look back at their rankings and say they got it pretty close.
It sounds dumb to project for the NFL draft and not just college production, but what is actually the best way to project college production? If you just rate everyone with a high floor who's ready to play, you are going to miss on a lot of high potential guys and overlook the limitations of the high floor guys. Looking for guys with traits and upside that will improve in college is pretty important in projecting college production.
Of course its hard to say if guys with 'upside' will show that upside in college, or it will still just be upside by the draft. But thinking about each recruit in terms of their 'draft potential' is just a good way of thinking about the full picture and not just what the player is now. Its better than just looking at how dominant they were against high school kids.
The only thing I don't like about it is the valuing of 'premium positions', which is dumb as hell. Because if you were actually doing that you shouldn't put any runningbacks in the top 500, which is dumb. Its not a fucking big board. -
It’s changing. There aren’t many of those mostly run first QB’s in college football and size is not at the same premium in the NFL as it used to be with QB’s.Canadawg said:I listened to the podcast the 247 guys did explaining that they base recruiting rankings on nfl projections and immediately lost a ton care for stars. Yes good players are good but there's a ton of difference in a good college player and an nfl player
