Depends which service you look at. Rivals had Bell rated higher, then had Marvin Grant just one spot behind Karlaftis. Considering Karlaftis an outlier would be wrong no matter which service you look at though, Purdue had a few guys rated right up there with him.
Didn’t do what Purdue did....
- Thread starter Raynman92
- Start date
Looking at the 247 composite national rankings. Comparing the rankings as well as the offers the players had, there is not a marginal difference.
Purdue ------ IU
202 ------ 347
265 ------ 634
277 ------ 682
373 ------ 917 - no power 5 offers
461 ------ 937
476 ------ 970
Juco #26 ------ 983
524 ------ 989 - only other offer was Jackson St.
625
647
851
945
966
Why do rankings matter so much? Haven't there been enough instances where guys played well above their rankings or never lived up to their rankings? On IU Whop and Hendershot were both 2 star rankings on rivals. I think most people would agree they are playing much better than that. Also, wasn't Rondale severely under ranked for how he good he actually is? I mean you could go on and on with these things. It doesn't make sense to me people argue so much over what some adults sitting in a room watching tape rate a player.
Recruiting ratings matter when looking at an entire class. There is a reason only teams with at least half of their team being 4 and 5 star recruits have won a NC since the modern rankings era, about 20 years.
Agree to a point but at places like IU and Purdue the chances of these programs competing for National Championships probably aren't great. So at schools like these you better be strong in developing your players and putting them in the correct systems to succeed. So that is why the rankings can get so skewed. For example, they miss on Philyor and Hendershot in the 2017 class. If they get ranked as 3 star or even a low 4 star then what does it do to IU's overall ranking for that year. Same can be said for Purdue and Rondale Moore and I am sure others. Missing on a player here or there effects the overall team rankings which is why in my opinion arguing about them is meaningless.
Anyone can point to one off situations where guys over perform their ranking, and of course the inverse is true there as well. By and large, teams that recruit well are going to see their guys perform better than teams that are hoping for diamonds in the rough.
Good point. I think Purdue has what eight 4*'s on their roster next year compared to IU's four? More than half of Purdue's 4*'s are WR's and another is a QB who will be third or fourth string. Purdue has neglected to not only shore up, but develop an offensive line. IU had OLinemen out all year including Cronk and didn't miss a beat. Purdue has some solid individual talent on their DL (Neal, Karlaftis) will be playing on Sunday's but again it's an extremely thin unit who got beat to shreds last year. Neither IU nor Purdue are ever going to be stacking their 2 deep with 4* and 5* recruits and it's all about getting guys that fit and then developing.
Purdue had a decent OL late last year,or IU had the worst defense in the league as they gave up 41 points and over 600 yards to the Purdue offense starting three walk ons and four Freshmen.
Correction. The two previous Purdue coaches neglected the offensive line. Jeff Brohm has brought in at least 4 OL recruits in each class. And those recruits are similar in rating (if not better) that what IU is bringing in. You crow now because the window of opportunity is closing quickly.
How many screen names are you going to post under?
I have rarely seen anyone seeking validation quite like this.
Compare the guys Allen inherited on the o-line versus what Brohm inherited. Talk about night and day differences. Purdue had what, 2 upperclassmen OL in the two deeps this year? How many did IU have?
We shall see how it goes, would be tough to see him in a Boiler uni. His backup LT as true freshman was very impressive in his absence. Would have loved to seen Cronk lineup as a guard next year.
