Recruit Rating - Perspective

[FirstDownB]

The recent developments in the 2018 class are a perfect of example of why we should take recruit ratings with a huge grain of salt. Ratings are a good general guideline and help separate the studs from the rest of the pack, but once you get into the pack it often comes down to how well their skills translate to a specific role in a specific scheme at the next level. There is also some error based on when each player was evaluated and the extent at which they were evaluated.

Look at what has happened recently. Brohm has accepted offers from Anderson, Marks, and Durham, three unheralded players, in addition to Taylor, after initiating decommits from Coats, Parks, Harris, and McCoy, and possibly Craft to follow suit. It is understood that each of these guys was given the blessing to explore other options, unlike in recent years where players committed then left as soon as they got another P5 offer.

To paraphrase Tommy Boy, Brohm and his staff got a really good look at a T-bone steak with these guys. They had them all on campus, visited them, and of course have seen all the film and measurables. Their evaluations of these recruits far exceed those of the pundits.

To look blindly at recruiting rankings; however, one might come to the conclusion that our class has been heading in the wrong direction, or at best one step back one step forward. But in order to believe this, one would have to assert that the staff is trying to make the class worse, which makes absolutely no sense.

Average 247 rating of 4 decommits plus Craft = 0.8343
Average 247 rating of last 4 commits = 0.8295

There has been some speculation about where this class ranking ends up, but whether it is top 30, 40, or 50, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference, given the inherent errors in the ranking system as demonstrated above. I would rather have a #45 class that I know the staff has taken a close look at, has been making updates to, and is confident in every single player, than a #40 class filled with players that have not been closely evaluated since prior to their senior year.

 

[Tommaker]

The recent developments in the 2018 class are a perfect of example of why we should take recruit ratings with a huge grain of salt. Ratings are a good general guideline and help separate the studs from the rest of the pack, but once you get into the pack it often comes down to how well their skills translate to a specific role in a specific scheme at the next level. There is also some error based on when each player was evaluated and the extent at which they were evaluated.

Look at what has happened recently. Brohm has accepted offers from Anderson, Marks, and Durham, three unheralded players, in addition to Taylor, after initiating decommits from Coats, Parks, Harris, and McCoy, and possibly Craft to follow suit. It is understood that each of these guys was given the blessing to explore other options, unlike in recent years where players committed then left as soon as they got another P5 offer.

To paraphrase Tommy Boy, Brohm and his staff got a really good look at a T-bone steak with these guys. They had them all on campus, visited them, and of course have seen all the film and measurables. Their evaluations of these recruits far exceed those of the pundits.

To look blindly at recruiting rankings; however, one might come to the conclusion that our class has been heading in the wrong direction, or at best one step back one step forward. But in order to believe this, one would have to assert that the staff is trying to make the class worse, which makes absolutely no sense.

Average 247 rating of 4 decommits plus Craft = 0.8343
Average 247 rating of last 4 commits = 0.8295

There has been some speculation about where this class ranking ends up, but whether it is top 30, 40, or 50, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference, given the inherent errors in the ranking system as demonstrated above. I would rather have a #45 class that I know the staff has taken a close look at, has been making updates to, and is confident in every single player, than a #40 class filled with players that have not been closely evaluated since prior to their senior year.

I think as a coach goes along and his teams get better, that will also "push" up the numbers of the kids they are recruiting/signing. Right now the pundits only have the players Brohm had success with at WK. Provided he consistently brings Purdue up in the BT rankings, that will weigh into how the kids he's going after are perceived. And of course the down side to that is "poaching" by other programs who let the Purdue staff do all the leg work.

 

[FirstDownB]

I think as a coach goes along and his teams get better, that will also "push" up the numbers of the kids they are recruiting/signing. Right now the pundits only have the players Brohm had success with at WK. Provided he consistently brings Purdue up in the BT rankings, that will weigh into how the kids he's going after are perceived. And of course the down side to that is "poaching" by other programs who let the Purdue staff do all the leg work.

There will always be an element of poaching. Right now, we're actually in a pretty good place as far as securing and maintaining verbals because the recruits Brohm went after in the 2018 class are mostly the "realistic" ones that aren't ever going to get an offer from Alabama or Ohio State, no matter how much of the leg work our staff does. They are getting offers from Louisville or Illinois, but because we have the Brohms and Holt and not Hazell and (insert OC and DC names here) we are not losing these mid-level developmental guys to other middling P5 schools.

Now, in the future, things will likely shift as the staff targets bigger fish. We might lose more players to the big boys, but we'll also (hopefully) be in position to poach from programs a step above WKU.

 

[Wolegib]

I like to compare a recruiting class to our opponents rather than our past. our future success should be tied to the question can we beat our opponent , rather than we beat our team of two years ago.

it appears all of the BIG 10 teams may have a recruiting class ranked above 50. That's great, and maybe the first time that's ever happened. but to be successful, we must have a recruiting class that is better than our other BIG 10 schools. as it stands now, we had the 10th best recruiting class in the BIG 10. Looking at player averages, if Illinois, NW, Iowa, and Nebraska add a couple of players, our ratings among BIG 10 teams could drop.

We had a great year, but our competition was even better. For those who believe future win/loss success is based on recruiting success, we will have to do an even better job at recruiting to keep up with the Jones.

 

[FirstDownB]

I like to compare a recruiting class to our opponents rather than our past. our future success should be tied to the question can we beat our opponent , rather than we beat our team of two years ago.

it appears all of the BIG 10 teams may have a recruiting class ranked above 50. That's great, and maybe the first time that's ever happened. but to be successful, we must have a recruiting class that is better than our other BIG 10 schools. as it stands now, we had the 10th best recruiting class in the BIG 10. Looking at player averages, if Illinois, NW, Iowa, and Nebraska add a couple of players, our ratings among BIG 10 teams could drop.

We had a great year, but our competition was even better. For those who believe future win/loss success is based on recruiting success, we will have to do an even better job at recruiting to keep up with the Jones.

So, to tie these thoughts back to the OP, do you feel we would have been better off with Coates, Parks, and Harris in place of Anderson, Marks, and Durham if it meant our ranking was a few spots higher and possibly ahead of a couple more Big Ten teams?

 

[nips18]

Brohm and staff are as good as there is with scheme and coaching Up players. They just need to get better athletes, then look out.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

So, to tie these thoughts back to the OP, do you feel we would have been better off with Coates, Parks, and Harris in place of Anderson, Marks, and Durham if it meant our ranking was a few spots higher and possibly ahead of a couple more Big Ten teams?

The coaches felt good enough about the players they brought in to replace those that left...so I say it is of no concern. Had there been doubts, the players that were released would not have been and the coaches would have brought them in OR visited them again to make sure they knew they were a priority.

The staff was either happier with the guys they brought in OR have seen some current playera step up and likely allowed guys the staff thinks are better prospects down the road to be given time to get there instead of needing guys to play now BUT may have limited development. You can clearly see this on the OL and DL, IMO.

 

[FirstDownB]

The coaches felt good enough about the players they brought in to replace those that left...so I say it is of no concern. Had there been doubts, the players that were released would not have been and the coaches would have brought them in OR visited them again to make sure they knew they were a priority.

The staff was either happier with the guys they brought in OR have seen some current playera step up and likely allowed guys the staff thinks are better prospects down the road to be given time to get there instead of needing guys to play now BUT may have limited development. You can clearly see this on the OL and DL, IMO.

That’s basically what I was getting at. They traded up, not down. Regardless of what the ratings say.

 

[Wolegib]

So, to tie these thoughts back to the OP, do you feel we would have been better off with Coates, Parks, and Harris in place of Anderson, Marks, and Durham if it meant our ranking was a few spots higher and possibly ahead of a couple more Big Ten teams?

Not exactly. I see the last moves made as very lateral moves. the rankings of the players that left basically matched the players who arrived with the exception of Taylor.

What I'm saying is we had a great year and will probably be a top 50 ranked team in march. but everybody else in the BIG 10 also had a great year, so when compared to our opponents, their talent is still better than ours and their talent improved even more than ours will improve.

let's say, we end up with a 45 ranking. but everybody else is better. And yes, that's actually realistic as several BIG 10 teams still have scholarship spaces left. if we improved our team, but all of our opponents improved their team even more, did we really improve our team? or in comparison, did we take a step backwards?

One hypothetical example. OSU and Purdue both recruited 20 players last year and this year.. Last year, OSU's average player rating on their team was 92. and the average player rating of Purdue's players was 81. this year Purdue's player rating zoomed up to 84. Purdue made tremendous improvement over last year. however, this year OSU's rating was 96. Did Purdue gain any ground on OSU ? Purdue was a lot better than last year, but so is OSU, So despite improvement, the gap between the talent levels of the two teams has widened.

What I'm really saying is every team in the BIG 10 had a great year this year, and Purdue didn't really make up any ground to catch up to anybody in the BIG 10 talent wise. and in order to make that next leap to 8-4, and 9-3, Purdue needs to recruit even better players. if teams like NW and iowa and minn and IU and Maryland are bringing in 4 * athletes, so does Purdue. if teams like mich and OSU are bringing in 5* athletes, we need some higher level 3 * and 4 * athletes to be able to compete.

Brohm has a 4 star committed for 2019. We need more like him, and we need to go after more 4 star athletes like Moore and bring them to Purdue. We're finally getting in the door and being considered. Israel, McDuffie and Stepp all strongly considered Purdue. next year, we need those type of player signings a reality.

I don't think I'm asking for too much. We almost had four 4* athletes sign with us. Taylor and Plummer are almost 4* athletes. Moore is a 4 * athlete. We're almost there. Next year, I believe our class will be better than nw, minn, iowa, ILl, Rutgers, IU and maybe Maryland. right now, we're around that Cincy/Louisville,/ UK/Missouri level. next year, I believe we can be around that Nebraska/MSU/tenn level. .

Think about it. When brohm was at WKU, Louisville would recommend their cast-offs to WKU. And Purdue would lose out recruiting against Louisville. In one year, we caught up, and now we're at Louisville's level. and we leap frogged over Cincy. I can see the improvement. but the entire BIG 10 also leapfrogged over Cincy. the entire BIG 10 is improved.

 

[njm8845]

Not exactly. I see the last moves made as very lateral moves. the rankings of the players that left basically matched the players who arrived with the exception of Taylor.

What I'm saying is we had a great year and will probably be a top 50 ranked team in march. but everybody else in the BIG 10 also had a great year, so when compared to our opponents, their talent is still better than ours and their talent improved even more than ours will improve.

let's say, we end up with a 45 ranking. but everybody else is better. And yes, that's actually realistic as several BIG 10 teams still have scholarship spaces left. if we improved our team, but all of our opponents improved their team even more, did we really improve our team? or in comparison, did we take a step backwards?

One hypothetical example. OSU and Purdue both recruited 20 players last year and this year.. Last year, OSU's average player rating on their team was 92. and the average player rating of Purdue's players was 81. this year Purdue's player rating zoomed up to 84. Purdue made tremendous improvement over last year. however, this year OSU's rating was 96. Did Purdue gain any ground on OSU ? Purdue was a lot better than last year, but so is OSU, So despite improvement, the gap between the talent levels of the two teams has widened.

What I'm really saying is every team in the BIG 10 had a great year this year, and Purdue didn't really make up any ground to catch up to anybody in the BIG 10 talent wise. and in order to make that next leap to 8-4, and 9-3, Purdue needs to recruit even better players. if teams like NW and iowa and minn and IU and Maryland are bringing in 4 * athletes, so does Purdue. if teams like mich and OSU are bringing in 5* athletes, we need some higher level 3 * and 4 * athletes to be able to compete.

Brohm has a 4 star committed for 2019. We need more like him, and we need to go after more 4 star athletes like Moore and bring them to Purdue. We're finally getting in the door and being considered. Israel, McDuffie and Stepp all strongly considered Purdue. next year, we need those type of player signings a reality.

I don't think I'm asking for too much. We almost had four 4* athletes sign with us. Taylor and Plummer are almost 4* athletes. Moore is a 4 * athlete. We're almost there. Next year, I believe our class will be better than nw, minn, iowa, ILl, Rutgers, IU and maybe Maryland. right now, we're around that Cincy/Louisville,/ UK/Missouri level. next year, I believe we can be around that Nebraska/MSU/tenn level. .

Think about it. When brohm was at WKU, Louisville would recommend their cast-offs to WKU. And Purdue would lose out recruiting against Louisville. In one year, we caught up, and now we're at Louisville's level. and we leap frogged over Cincy. I can see the improvement. but the entire BIG 10 also leapfrogged over Cincy. the entire BIG 10 is improved.

I think your long winded post missed the entire point of the thread. The OP’s first line is about taking recruiting rankings with a huge grain of salt. Your last post rambles about recruiting tiers in the Midwest and how everything would be fixed if we only had more four stars.

An uninformed person must trust player rankings completely. A coach with an extensive history of evaluating players himself need not go by rankings.

In one sentence each, can you answer the following?
1) why do you feel the recent movement was a “lateral move”?
2) why do you trust rankings of a not highly sought after recruit more than the coaching staff’s opinion?

 

[FirstDownB]

I think your long winded post missed the entire point of the thread. The OP’s first line is about taking recruiting rankings with a huge grain of salt. Your last post rambles about recruiting tiers in the Midwest and how everything would be fixed if we only had more four stars.

An uninformed person must trust player rankings completely. A coach with an extensive history of evaluating players himself need not go by rankings.

In one sentence each, can you answer the following?
1) why do you feel the recent movement was a “lateral move”?
2) why do you trust rankings of a not highly sought after recruit more than the coaching staff’s opinion?

You get it. And the other point was about the error in the ratings based on evaluation date.

As an example, almost the entire 2018 class for Northwestern committed during their Jr year or just after. Their ratings remain mostly what they were at the time of their commitment (mostly 3 star), because what pundit is going to spend time re-evaluating a committed Northwestern recruit unless they start getting offers from the big boys? Now, after another year of development, some may have progressed as expected, some may have not. These are EXTREMELY developmental years for 17 and 18 year old males. It is probable that now some are more like 4 stars and some are now more like 2 stars.

You can draw a parallel with our class, except Brohm and staff have continued to re-evaluate players and run them back through a filter based on current status (not what they were projected to be 6-12 months ago) and is weeding out the ones who are not tracking to projections and replacing them with those who are exceeding projections. These upgrades are not reflected by (and may run counter to) recruiting rankings. Hence my point about a #45 class could be better than a #40 class.

Of course it is easy to counter all of this by saying we would be better off with a top 20 class full of 4 and 5 stars, but 1,000 words are certainly not required to make that observation.

 

[Wolegib]

I provided a shorter post to this thread. You asked me to elaborate, and so I did. My posts are NEVER one sentence long, and I thought you knew that when you asked me to elaborate.

I thought the last 4 additions were lateral moves as the players were about the same talent level and filled positions of need.

However, in terms of perspective, I believe national ratings are still more objective than ones provided by posters. The ratings they are given are accomplished by people who view the performance of many different players at many different levels of high school football. Sure they miss the mark on some. But to be truthful, there are many players who lose their edge and motivation once they arrive at college. the ratings of the talent level recruited by OSU has always far exceeded the rankings of the players Purdue has recruited. I think it's also been obvious on the field the ratings were correct.

 

[FirstDownB]

I provided a shorter post to this thread. You asked me to elaborate, and so I did. My posts are NEVER one sentence long, and I thought you knew that when you asked me to elaborate.

I thought the last 4 additions were lateral moves as the players were about the same talent level and filled positions of need.

I don't mind post length. The thing I can't agree with is the idea of the staff making the uncomfortable move of telling 4-5 guys to look elsewhere only to replace them with "lateral moves". That just makes no sense. My only explanation for smart football people like the Brohms is they were upgrades simply not reflected in the pundit ratings, whether by a universal grade or by how well they fit our system.

 

[Inspector100]

I provided a shorter post to this thread. You asked me to elaborate, and so I did. My posts are NEVER one sentence long, and I thought you knew that when you asked me to elaborate.

I thought the last 4 additions were lateral moves as the players were about the same talent level and filled positions of need.

However, in terms of perspective, I believe national ratings are still more objective than ones provided by posters. The ratings they are given are accomplished by people who view the performance of many different players at many different levels of high school football. Sure they miss the mark on some. But to be truthful, there are many players who lose their edge and motivation once they arrive at college. the ratings of the talent level recruited by OSU has always far exceeded the rankings of the players Purdue has recruited. I think it's also been obvious on the field the ratings were correct.

Your example comparing OSU with Purdue only showed a difference of "one" point and claimed that one point showed "losing ground for Purdue." Well the others are trying to tell you that the rankings system employed for that comparison has a deviation between 5 and 10 making your comparison without statistical validity.

 

[Wolegib]

I called them lateral moves because I believe the players that were added didn't really affect our overall rating that much, and they were players at positions of need rather than adding more depth. We needed to add a RB and TE. We needed a potential DT more than we needed a DE. in those instances, we traded a 3 star for a 3 star. the ratings might have been 5.5 verses 5.4. But they are about the same.


I believe in all ratings there is a variance. and the players who left and the players who arrived were in that variance.

Brohm stated he wanted players at certain positions, and he filled those positions. in doing so, he had to forgo signing players of basically equal talent. at different positions to me, that's a lateral move.

 

[Wolegib]

Your example comparing OSU with Purdue only showed a difference of "one" point and claimed that one point showed "losing ground for Purdue." Well the others are trying to tell you that the rankings system employed for that comparison has a deviation between 5 and 10 making your comparison without statistical validity.

a case could be made how much difference is there between somebody who is a 88 3 star player and a 92 4 star player. Your point is valid.

However, I believe you can see the difference if an entire team is composed of 92-98 point players verses a team of 78-83 point players.

a point that has been mentioned that I didn't explore is that you only start 11 players. your average rating for those 11 starters might be a lot higher than your overall team average. you could have great starters, but lack depth. We've seen that at Purdue, when a starter goes out, here is a big drop-off. whereas at OSU, not so much.

another point mentioned in other thread worth discussing. We constantly talk about developing players. A player may arrive at Purdue as a low 3 star 83 point player. but in 2-3 years, he may gain weight, and strength, and may become a solid 88-90 point player. on the other hand, somebody who arrives as a 90-92 point player may be at his ceiling and may not improve, and his muscle could turn to fat.

one thing I believe is that the higher rated player will probably provide a more immediate impact upon arrival and contribute as a freshman, whereas a lower ranked player will require more years to develop. this could mean the difference in starting 3 years verses starting 1-2 years.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

You get it. And the other point was about the error in the ratings based on evaluation date.

As an example, almost the entire 2018 class for Northwestern committed during their Jr year or just after. Their ratings remain mostly what they were at the time of their commitment (mostly 3 star), because what pundit is going to spend time re-evaluating a committed Northwestern recruit unless they start getting offers from the big boys? Now, after another year of development, some may have progressed as expected, some may have not. These are EXTREMELY developmental years for 17 and 18 year old males. It is probable that now some are more like 4 stars and some are now more like 2 stars.

You can draw a parallel with our class, except Brohm and staff have continued to re-evaluate players and run them back through a filter based on current status (not what they were projected to be 6-12 months ago) and is weeding out the ones who are not tracking to projections and replacing them with those who are exceeding projections. These upgrades are not reflected by (and may run counter to) recruiting rankings. Hence my point about a #45 class could be better than a #40 class.

Of course it is easy to counter all of this by saying we would be better off with a top 20 class full of 4 and 5 stars, but 1,000 words are certainly not required to make that observation.

Great post here.

 

[Inspector100]

a case could be made how much difference is there between somebody who is a 88 3 star player and a 92 4 star player. Your point is valid.

However, I believe you can see the difference if an entire team is composed of 92-98 point players verses a team of 78-83 point players.

...........................

Thank you for acknowledging my point has validity in your first paragraph. But, in the following paragraph, you moved the goal post. Please don't change the subject when discussing that one point. Now if you want to address another point, please move on to a different post so that "old guys" like me can keep up. You should understand this since you probably are a little older than I am.

 

[Wolegib]

Thank you for acknowledging my point has validity in your first paragraph. But, in the following paragraph, you moved the goal post. Please don't change the subject when discussing that one point. Now if you want to address another point, please move on to a different post so that "old guys" like me can keep up. You should understand this since you probably are a little older than I am.

according to that one poll, I'm actually younger than a good portion of the readers here.

my problem is probably mental. Once an idea comes to my head, my mind is filled with 20 others that want to come out, and some are related, while many are not.

in responding to your post, my mind was thinking of other posts I hadn't responded to. I have that problem of making really long posts rather than many short replies to separate ideas. .

 

[SDBoiler1]

I called them lateral moves because I believe the players that were added didn't really affect our overall rating that much, and they were players at positions of need rather than adding more depth. We needed to add a RB and TE. We needed a potential DT more than we needed a DE. in those instances, we traded a 3 star for a 3 star. the ratings might have been 5.5 verses 5.4. But they are about the same.


I believe in all ratings there is a variance. and the players who left and the players who arrived were in that variance.

Brohm stated he wanted players at certain positions, and he filled those positions. in doing so, he had to forgo signing players of basically equal talent. at different positions to me, that's a lateral move.

All I care about is what players Brohm and his staff want here. Some of the guys we cut had injuries and marginal SR years. The people that replaced them were not injured and often had good SR years.

Bottom line it doesn't really matter what you think. Brohm wanted the guys he got because he thought they were better for our program right now.

Also, your previous "points" indicated that recruiting rankings determine how good football programs are. That's B.S. It's as if coaching prowess and the systems used don't matter. Of course, they do. Brohm took Hazell's players and made them into a bowl team. These guys were from classes way below the one Brohm signs today. Our recruiting is taking a definite step up.

There are lots of programs that had great recruiting and yet had bad seasons. For instance, Notre Dame last year. MSU last year. Baylor this year. UCLA this year. Coaching matters and we have a top-notch coach and staff at Purdue. Like Tiller, Brohm has the ability to coach players up and make them better than their rankings would indicate they should be on paper.

 

[FirstDownB]

All I care about is what players Brohm and his staff want here. Some of the guys we cut had injuries and marginal SR years. The people that replaced them were not injured and often had good SR years.

Bottom line it doesn't really matter what you think. Brohm wanted the guys he got because he thought they were better for our program right now.

Also, your previous "points" indicated that recruiting rankings determine how good football programs are. That's B.S. It's as if coaching prowess and the systems used don't matter. Of course, they do. Brohm took Hazell's players and made them into a bowl team. These guys were from classes way below the one Brohm signs today. Our recruiting is taking a definite step up.

There are lots of programs that had great recruiting and yet had bad seasons. For instance, Notre Dame last year. MSU last year. Baylor this year. UCLA this year. Coaching matters and we have a top-notch coach and staff at Purdue. Like Tiller, Brohm has the ability to coach players up and make them better than their rankings would indicate they should be on paper.

I think a lot of people mistakenly carry over the basketball recruiting mentality over to the football realm. In basketball there is a smaller recruit pool, maybe 200 or so guys that the major programs are paying attention to. And they are all pretty much developed by their Jr year. Football is an entirely different animal because of quantities and also the difference in physical development a year can make in a sport where strength is so important.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

All I care about is what players Brohm and his staff want here. Some of the guys we cut had injuries and marginal SR years. The people that replaced them were not injured and often had good SR years.

Bottom line it doesn't really matter what you think. Brohm wanted the guys he got because he thought they were better for our program right now.

Also, your previous "points" indicated that recruiting rankings determine how good football programs are. That's B.S. It's as if coaching prowess and the systems used don't matter. Of course, they do. Brohm took Hazell's players and made them into a bowl team. These guys were from classes way below the one Brohm signs today. Our recruiting is taking a definite step up.

There are lots of programs that had great recruiting and yet had bad seasons. For instance, Notre Dame last year. MSU last year. Baylor this year. UCLA this year. Coaching matters and we have a top-notch coach and staff at Purdue. Like Tiller, Brohm has the ability to coach players up and make them better than their rankings would indicate they should be on paper.

If it was only about recruiting rankings, UCLA and Nebraska would be Top 15-20 programs right now.

 

[FirstDownB]

Durham just played football his senior year. no rankings by Rival, no camps at Rivals, had not been evaluated by Rivals... had almost 20 Div 1 Lacrosse offers. Was found while we recruited RB Evan Anderson when they played each other. Was offered on the spot. Scouting services are subjective at best and can’t see all these kids. I will take coach evals any day.

Thank you! Great example

 

[SDBoiler1]

Durham just played football his senior year. no rankings by Rival, no camps at Rivals, had not been evaluated by Rivals... had almost 20 Div 1 Lacrosse offers. Was found while we recruited RB Evan Anderson when they played each other. Was offered on the spot. Scouting services are subjective at best and can’t see all these kids. I will take coach evals any day.

And Brohm wasn't the only one who liked what he saw. Duke (Coach Cutcliffe) and Mizzou also offered him. Payne Durham could end up being a real steal in this class. We were fortunate to land him.

 

[lbodel]

The recent developments in the 2018 class are a perfect of example of why we should take recruit ratings with a huge grain of salt. Ratings are a good general guideline and help separate the studs from the rest of the pack, but once you get into the pack it often comes down to how well their skills translate to a specific role in a specific scheme at the next level. There is also some error based on when each player was evaluated and the extent at which they were evaluated.

Look at what has happened recently. Brohm has accepted offers from Anderson, Marks, and Durham, three unheralded players, in addition to Taylor, after initiating decommits from Coats, Parks, Harris, and McCoy, and possibly Craft to follow suit. It is understood that each of these guys was given the blessing to explore other options, unlike in recent years where players committed then left as soon as they got another P5 offer.

To paraphrase Tommy Boy, Brohm and his staff got a really good look at a T-bone steak with these guys. They had them all on campus, visited them, and of course have seen all the film and measurables. Their evaluations of these recruits far exceed those of the pundits.

To look blindly at recruiting rankings; however, one might come to the conclusion that our class has been heading in the wrong direction, or at best one step back one step forward. But in order to believe this, one would have to assert that the staff is trying to make the class worse, which makes absolutely no sense.

Average 247 rating of 4 decommits plus Craft = 0.8343
Average 247 rating of last 4 commits = 0.8295

There has been some speculation about where this class ranking ends up, but whether it is top 30, 40, or 50, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference, given the inherent errors in the ranking system as demonstrated above. I would rather have a #45 class that I know the staff has taken a close look at, has been making updates to, and is confident in every single player, than a #40 class filled with players that have not been closely evaluated since prior to their senior year.

Recruiting rankings are certainly not perfect, but they're certainly not fake news either. Football rankings tend to be more accurate as one "miss" is typically met with many more accurate rankings - since class sizes are much larger, they are more equal and balance out more. But of course a great recruiting class is not just numbers, it's getting the right players in the right spots.

That being said, your post is the exact type of post we saw every year with Danny Hope and Darrell Hazell. It doesn't matter where we rank! We have the players we want!

Well, that's great - but talent, and particularly depth, still matter.

I think this class is much better from a building depth perspective. We still have some overall talent to work on though.

And quite frankly, from a team ranking perspective - our class tends to be more inflated by the point scale. For example, Ole Miss is ranked behind us - but they have 4 four star recruits (compared to our zero) and every one of their recruits is 3 or 4 stars (ours is not). It's simply a numbers thing - they have 8 fewer recruits than us. But on the whole, it's a better class.

So no, recruitings rankings are not black and white. There's multiple factors to take into account. Is this class dreadful? Absolutely not. Is it great and exactly what we want? Eh, not really. But it's a small step in the right direction and I'll take it.

 

[IndySouthsider]

I provided a shorter post to this thread. You asked me to elaborate, and so I did. My posts are NEVER one sentence long, and I thought you knew that when you asked me to elaborate.

I thought the last 4 additions were lateral moves as the players were about the same talent level and filled positions of need.

However, in terms of perspective, I believe national ratings are still more objective than ones provided by posters. The ratings they are given are accomplished by people who view the performance of many different players at many different levels of high school football. Sure they miss the mark on some. But to be truthful, there are many players who lose their edge and motivation once they arrive at college. the ratings of the talent level recruited by OSU has always far exceeded the rankings of the players Purdue has recruited. I think it's also been obvious on the field the ratings were correct.

https://parade.com/89989/brianmclaughlin/football-team/

All 4*-5* star kids. Tell me which ones gave you memories of their college career? Mauk for his cocaine lines?

 

[Wolegib]

https://parade.com/89989/brianmclaughlin/football-team/

All 4*-5* star kids. Tell me which ones gave you memories of their college career? Mauk for his cocaine lines?

LB Beigel at UW did !!! QB Winston at FSU did. WR Beckham did. Spence did.

 

[IndySouthsider]

LB Beigel at UW did !!! QB Winston at FSU did. WR Beckham did. Spence did.

That’s not helping your cause any. There were more that had success. I would advise looking at where they went and who coached them. There is a common theme that dictates which player will be successful,


Also I am not sure you understand what the stars mean.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I don't mind post length. The thing I can't agree with is the idea of the staff making the uncomfortable move of telling 4-5 guys to look elsewhere only to replace them with "lateral moves". That just makes no sense. My only explanation for smart football people like the Brohms is they were upgrades simply not reflected in the pundit ratings, whether by a universal grade or by how well they fit our system.

The staff sees more upside in the replacements than in the ones they turned out regardless of ranking.
Wole is missing another important factor or two:
What is done to improve the players once here is more important than ranking. If we coach better, the rankings of classes will improve.
We are not competing with Ohio State in recruiting. We may be competitive with them on the field occasionally in the future. That comparison is flawed from the first sentence.

 

[Wolegib]

That’s not helping your cause any. There were more that had success. I would advise looking at where they went and who coached them. There is a common theme that dictates which player will be successful,


Also I am not sure you understand what the stars mean.

I'm sorry I don't follow college football as much as you obviously do. I listed 4 names that came to mind. I'm quite certain that many of these other players had great college careers and helped their teams to great success. Do you actually know more of these names ? I applaud you for your knowledge.

and no, I don't know the names of OSU's starting offensive linemen. or Clemson's defensive backs. Who does? or any of Iowa or Rutgers or Maryland's players. The only players I even know on IU's team are Cronk and knight. and the only reason I know their names is because they should have gone to Purdue. I don't really have the time or energy to follow every college player's career. I follow Purdue, not other teams.

Purdue offered three WRs named Moore this year. Rondale was not the highest ranked of the three. Am I going to follow the college careers of all three WRs named Moore? No. Will I even care about 2 of them? No.

Rather than names, look at the teams. the teams with these players had a lot of success and were national title contenders. just because I didn't follow their careers, or know their names doesn't mean those Parade All Americans didn't have significant college careers. Do I know who is or was on Mel kiper's top 50 ? no.

Rather than asking me how many players I know, a better question would be to look at mel kiper's top 50, and identify what their rating was when they came out of high school. That would be a much better indicator if a top rated player had a successful college career, or if it's possible a 3 star player could develop into a star.

a better question would be where do players like Bentley and Robinson stand on current NFL prospect lists. Robinson was a 4 star player and Bentley was a 3 star. Each had storied careers at Purdue. if kipper's list contains a lot of 3 star players, then I'd endorse the tried and true method of developing players. however, if Kiper's list contains a bunch of 4/5 * players, then I'd say the key to football success is not developing players, but rather recruiting 4/5 * players to begin with. admittedly, that's what a lot of successful basketball teams do. Rather than spending time developing players, they recruit players who are already developed.

an honest question. Would you rather recruit a lineman who is quick and 6'4 and 320 pounds and can play immediately? or would you rather recruit a 240 pound linemen, redshirt him one year hoping he'll gain 50 pounds and become a good player in a couple of years? in 4 years, both players will probably be just as good. but the 320 pound lineman will be good sooner. I personally would rather have the player who can contribute sooner.

I believe an excellent example is Anthony Mahoungou. he had a tremendous year as a WR this year. he's a great example of what decent coaching and development can do. This year , he was probably as good as any 4* WR who was recruited his same year. But where was Anthony Mahoungou the previous three years? my thoughts are that a 4/5* player would give Purdue 3-4 years of the success Anthony Mahoungou displayed this year. isn't it the hope if Moore signs, that he'll have 4 great years at Purdue rather than spending 3 years developing and being great as a senior?

To me that's the different in recruiting a 4/5* athlete verses a 2/3 * athlete. in 4 years, with good coaching at the proper school, they will be the same. however, a 4/5 * athlete should be able to reach and contribute at that level sooner.

I have nothing to really base these thoughts on as I haven't followed the career paths of any college players other than those at Purdue. Do my beliefs seem logical?

 

[Wolegib]

The staff sees more upside in the replacements than in the ones they turned out regardless of ranking.
Wole is missing another important factor or two:
What is done to improve the players once here is more important than ranking. If we coach better, the rankings of classes will improve.
We are not competing with Ohio State in recruiting. We may be competitive with them on the field occasionally in the future. That comparison is flawed from the first sentence.

Purdue grads compete with OSU grads for jobs. Purdue athletes compete with OSU in every other sport . I've always been of the belief that Purdue should also "STRIVE" to compete with OSU on the football field and that includes recruiting. I realize many others think that belief is foolish and unrealistic. but if you never make being #1 your goal, you will never come close to achieving it. and I believe I've made it know n in previous years, I personally don't want to settle for mediocrity. However, I've come to realize that many Purdue fans here do. I am not one of the fans that says, We're Purdue. We're not supposed to compete for a national championship or beat OSU. if our basketball team can compete, so should our football team.

I feel sorry for those of you who accept finishing in 7th place as being a great year and we should celebrate. I once lived in the heart of OSU, Florida and Alabama and those people DON"T accept mediocrity. but hey, going 6-6 is great ! So be it. Fortunately/hopefully our academic programs don't share that same mentality/philosophy.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Purdue grads compete with OSU grads for jobs. Purdue athletes compete with OSU in every other sport . I've always been of the belief that Purdue should also "STRIVE" to compete with OSU on the football field and that includes recruiting. I realize many others think that belief is foolish and unrealistic. but if you never make being #1 your goal, you will never come close to achieving it. and I believe I've made it know n in previous years, I personally don't want to settle for mediocrity. However, I've come to realize that many Purdue fans here do. I am not one of the fans that says, We're Purdue. We're not supposed to compete for a national championship or beat OSU. if our basketball team can compete, so should our football team.

I feel sorry for those of you who accept finishing in 7th place as being a great year and we should celebrate. I once lived in the heart of OSU, Florida and Alabama and those people DON"T accept mediocrity. but hey, going 6-6 is great ! So be it. Fortunately/hopefully our academic programs don't share that same mentality/philosophy.

If I had any respect for your thinking on this topic that would have hurt. But I don’t so...anyway.
You can say we should be number one in everything till the day you die but it does not in anyway make it true or realistically possible. And your logic that we can compete with the best in basketball means we can automatically do the same in football is ignorance personified. It is in no way the same game. An 8 to 10 man rotation on a basketball court playing both offense and defense can be impacted immensely by one player. There are around 50 players impacting every game in football.
College football is a completely different culture than hoops where the best teams can’t load up on 3 to 4 teams worth of very high level recruits.
The impact of money on football is even greater than it is on hoops (and we have seen how big that is). Notice that the football blue bloods just don’t change much at all over time.
Not so much in hoops. IU, Syracuse, Georgetown, UCLA, all were at one time top of the heap with Duke, Kansas, and UNC. Not anymore.
In closing. Which one of us demands that other people reach the absolute pinnacle of thier sport so our lives dreams can be fulfilled?
Here’s a hint. I’ve been to Disneyland and I made it all on my own. Nobody had to beat Michigan FOR me.

 

[Wolegib]

If I had any respect for your thinking on this topic that would have hurt. But I don’t so...anyway.
You can say we should be number one in everything till the day you die but it does not in anyway make it true or realistically possible. And your logic that we can compete with the best in basketball means we can automatically do the same in football is ignorance personified. It is in no way the same game. An 8 to 10 man rotation on a basketball court playing both offense and defense can be impacted immensely by one player. There are around 50 players impacting every game in football.
College football is a completely different culture than hoops where the best teams can’t load up on 3 to 4 teams worth of very high level recruits.
The impact of money on football is even greater than it is on hoops (and we have seen how big that is). Notice that the football blue bloods just don’t change much at all over time.
Not so much in hoops. IU, Syracuse, Georgetown, UCLA, all were at one time top of the heap with Duke, Kansas, and UNC. Not anymore.
In closing. Which one of us demands that other people reach the absolute pinnacle of thier sport so our lives dreams can be fulfilled?
Here’s a hint. I’ve been to Disneyland and I made it all on my own. Nobody had to beat Michigan FOR me.

Your reference to Disneyland proves you respect me enough to read my posts. Whether you agree with me or not is a different issue. I thank you and respect you for disagreeing with me.

 

[IndySouthsider]

There is very little that separates 25-50 in the rankings.

 

[Wolegib]

There is very little that separates 25-50 in the rankings.

Is that in reference to team or player? I would agree to team! I can see gaps ! 30 - 60 is about the same. Hazell's class ratings were actually higher than they should have been because he stockpiled good players at two positions and those players never played and created huge holes at other positions. Hazell's ratings were in the 60-80, but should have been around 90

 

[Dakota Girl]

Your reference to Disneyland proves you respect me enough to read my posts. Whether you agree with me or not is a different issue. I thank you and respect you for disagreeing with me.

Read carefully. I disrespect your thoughts on the topic. Not you. I always read your posts, well, until I get tired about four pages in.

PS: No $hi_ Alabama and OSU fan expect a lot. It’s all they have ever known and their programs have the money and ethics to keep it that way.

 

[ossim]

I wouldn't worry about the rankings from 25-75. However, outside the 75 range you're probably looking at recruiting classes where you had to settle for a lot of players who were plan C's and D's.

 

[Wolegib]

That one year Hazell killed us with 25 players and all the RBs with solid rankings to make the overall score look good but only 1
Offensive lineman! We're still paying for that mistake!

 

[njm8845]

Your reference to Disneyland proves you respect me enough to read my posts. Whether you agree with me or not is a different issue. I thank you and respect you for disagreeing with me.

I don’t do anything more than glance at your posts. Does that mean I don’t respect you?

Do you respect me for openly not respecting you?

 

[Wolegib]

I don’t do anything more than glance at your posts. Does that mean I don’t respect you?

Do you respect me for openly not respecting you?

All I ask is that you respect all posters for being able to express their opinions and if you want to attack something, attack the message and not the messenger!