Home› Chuck's Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

SEC WDWHA

whatshouldicareaboutwhatshouldicareabout Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,728 Swaye's Wigwam
in Chuck's Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)
https://www.on3.com/teams/kentucky-wildcats/news/4-star-kentucky-dl-target-dominic-kirks-commits-washington/

"Maybe he just wanted to live in the woke $h#t hole that Washington State has become."

"Really didn't need him as we are a program that develops 3 stars into NFL 1 st round picks. 4 stars are really not worth it. And besides we have a 5 star waiting to take his slot."

"I guess when he sees it's a loser conf then we will get a 2 nd shot"

Is Kentucky the cuog of the SEC?
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • LawDawg1LawDawg1 Member Posts: 3,842
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    https://www.on3.com/teams/kentucky-wildcats/news/4-star-kentucky-dl-target-dominic-kirks-commits-washington/


    "Really didn't need him as we are a program that develops 3 stars into NFL 1 st round picks. 4 stars are really not worth it. And besides we have a 5 star waiting to take his slot."

    This one makes a lot of sense.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dirtysouwfdawgdirtysouwfdawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,968 Swaye's Wigwam
    Star whore weighing in.

    I hate to say it but this same shit has been uttered here minus the 5-star part. Posters here typically don’t sound like backwoods rednecks when they type (except @SECDAWG) but same sentiment…
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,197 Founders Club
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    I live here in Lexington and didn’t realize #myWildcats had any actual football fans.

    Russian bots?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,246 Founders Club
    theknowledge said:

    "Really didn't need him as we are a program that develops 3 stars into NFL 1 st round picks. 4 stars are really not worth it. And besides we have a 5 star waiting to take his slot."

    So 3* is good, 4* aren't worth it but 5* is awesome! Okay, Sounds great!

    Welcome to Kentucky!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,246 Founders Club
    RoadDawg55 said:

    The #388 player on 24/7 is a four star. These rankings are ridiculous. There could be another 4 or 5 rounds added to the NFL draft and he wouldn’t be drafted if he played to his ranking. There are 433 four star players. These rankings jumped the shark awhile ago.

    It’s basically five stars and everyone else. It’s been that way for a few years now.

    The recruit rankings system is completely dumb. Guys like Huard and Smalls (#myLancers) get rated as 5 stars as freshman while a guy like Simon gets a 4 star rating but the analysts don’t drop them as they get passed up as they get older.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chuckchuck Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,999 Swaye's Wigwam
    RoadDawg55 said:

    The #388 player on 24/7 is a four star. These rankings are ridiculous. There could be another 4 or 5 rounds added to the NFL draft and he wouldn’t be drafted if he played to his ranking. There are 433 four star players. These rankings jumped the shark awhile ago.

    It’s basically five stars and everyone else. It’s been that way for a few years now.

    I'm too lazy to look but the ratings seem very different from a few years back. Too many 4* and way too many 3*. What happened to the Sarkisian filler special 2* guys? Do they even exist?

    Their numerical rank is a little more meaningful than the now meaningless stars. Only a little though.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whatshouldicareaboutwhatshouldicareabout Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,728 Swaye's Wigwam
    chuck said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    The #388 player on 24/7 is a four star. These rankings are ridiculous. There could be another 4 or 5 rounds added to the NFL draft and he wouldn’t be drafted if he played to his ranking. There are 433 four star players. These rankings jumped the shark awhile ago.

    It’s basically five stars and everyone else. It’s been that way for a few years now.

    I'm too lazy to look but the ratings seem very different from a few years back. Too many 4* and way too many 3*. What happened to the Sarkisian filler special 2* guys? Do they even exist?

    Their numerical rank is a little more meaningful than the now meaningless stars. Only a little though.
    Different criteria between old and new

    Scout used to have the top 300 always be 4* and the top 1000 always be 3*. 247 is trying to do NFL draft projection, so their criteria for stars is different and the amount of stars is different (much more inflated)

    Stars have always been an inexact science since you have different raters watching different tapes and evaluating at different times
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NEsnake12NEsnake12 Member Posts: 3,792
    Look at committable offers not at stars hth
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dirtysouwfdawgdirtysouwfdawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,968 Swaye's Wigwam
    NEsnake12 said:

    Look at committable offers not at stars hth

    I like and agree BUT the services haven’t evolved to reporting “commitable offers.” That’d be cool though.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,246 Founders Club
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    chuck said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    The #388 player on 24/7 is a four star. These rankings are ridiculous. There could be another 4 or 5 rounds added to the NFL draft and he wouldn’t be drafted if he played to his ranking. There are 433 four star players. These rankings jumped the shark awhile ago.

    It’s basically five stars and everyone else. It’s been that way for a few years now.

    I'm too lazy to look but the ratings seem very different from a few years back. Too many 4* and way too many 3*. What happened to the Sarkisian filler special 2* guys? Do they even exist?

    Their numerical rank is a little more meaningful than the now meaningless stars. Only a little though.
    Different criteria between old and new

    Scout used to have the top 300 always be 4* and the top 1000 always be 3*. 247 is trying to do NFL draft projection, so their criteria for stars is different and the amount of stars is different (much more inflated)

    Stars have always been an inexact science since you have different raters watching different tapes and evaluating at different times
    I get what you’re saying but the ratings don’t come close to draft projection unless the NFL goes back to 12 rounds.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chuckchuck Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,999 Swaye's Wigwam
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    whatshouldicareabout said:

    chuck said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    The #388 player on 24/7 is a four star. These rankings are ridiculous. There could be another 4 or 5 rounds added to the NFL draft and he wouldn’t be drafted if he played to his ranking. There are 433 four star players. These rankings jumped the shark awhile ago.

    It’s basically five stars and everyone else. It’s been that way for a few years now.

    I'm too lazy to look but the ratings seem very different from a few years back. Too many 4* and way too many 3*. What happened to the Sarkisian filler special 2* guys? Do they even exist?

    Their numerical rank is a little more meaningful than the now meaningless stars. Only a little though.
    Different criteria between old and new

    Scout used to have the top 300 always be 4* and the top 1000 always be 3*. 247 is trying to do NFL draft projection, so their criteria for stars is different and the amount of stars is different (much more inflated)

    Stars have always been an inexact science since you have different raters watching different tapes and evaluating at different times
    I get what you’re saying but the ratings don’t come close to draft projection unless the NFL goes back to 12 rounds.
    It's a fucking retarded system IMO. It only matters how they perform in college and it should be easier to project that. I think they came up with the NFL thing to muddy the waters. They want to gift the guys going to blue blood programs, playing 7on 7, and participating in underwear Olympics and training academies with higher ratings. When guys don't pan out all they have to do is say "well we were projecting NFL potential not NCAA success. It's not our fault he didn't develop."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.