Feldman on Miami & Golden

[TedHendricksOffspring]

And 247 has him at 20. It's all relative and a composite ranking to a judge a player. The rankings are for judging talent. Production is for judging how the talent has developed and improved. That's my point and it's been my point from the beginning of the thread.

Then how do you know how talented a guy is if (1) the ranking services can't even agree, and (2) the rankings never play out the way they should. What evidence do you have that the ranking services rate the talent accurately? How can you look at all of the mistakes three years later but still rely on them to compare two teams?

You composite the rankings to make an educated estimation. Rankings play out the way they should a lot more than not. Jameis Winston played like the #1 QB as did Tim Tebow. There is a ton of examples that confirm this point.

As far as evidence, I don't have concrete evidence that the rankings are accurate because as you said it is a guess/estimation of talent and potential. It's the player and the coaching development that either results or doesn't result in the player realizing their ranked talent.

The last three years are perfect examples of talent being developed being developed vs. not being developed and that is on the coaching staff. Luther Robinson, David Perry, and Jelani Hamilton are all examples of talent being wasted and poorly utilized because of inferior coaching at their position. The mistake you are referencing is Duke's players have gotten the most out of their talent while our guys have largely gotten nearly the minimum out of theirs despite having more given talent. The best way I can summarize my point is this: Having more talent does not make you the better player. Developing and producing does. That responsibility falls largely on the coaching staff. I'm not saying that Duke's players are better than ours, but to say they are more talented that ours is a different conversation.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Based on the guys that actually played their positions, the rankings are relatively accurate. You can't judge the accuracy of ranking if it's never tested.

WTF? The rankings ARE tested. And I AM judging the accuracy of the rankings. They suck. When ESPN says that the #5 QB in America signs with a school, and then the kid NEVER PLAYS QUARTERBACK, then the rankings are absolutely worthless.

They don't play because they may fit another position better. Trayone Gray plays QB, but that's not what he'll play in college. Torrance Gibson is technically the best QB in all of high school next year, but he could very easily be the best wide receiver if that was where he played the majority of the time. If someone is just so talented that they can excel at multiple positions, it doesn't make sense to say the ranking was, "wrong," for how well they could play QB or any other position for that matter. It's just means they're one of the real exceptions that could play multiple positions at the highest of levels.

But it's stone cold proof that the ranking services are just guessing. They don't even know where a guy is going to play.

You just hit the nail on the head. Recruiting services is just guessing, but so is any evaluation of a player even if its from a coaching staff. An educated guess is what is being made about how good the player will be in the future. I choose are to use recruiting rankings to follow and evaluate recruits because there's multiple points of view done by well-respected people who get paid to it and by and large they are usually accurate.

I'm not criticizing you if you don't and because of inconsistincies as well as huge misses I understand why some people don't follow them. I just think it does a serviceable job at providing a value as to the talent potential of a player.

 

[AntwanJ306]

TH, I sincerely appreciate the responses, and despite the criticism I have taken here, I think it is a legitimate debate. Thanks for staying on topic. I see your points, and I hope you see where I've been coming from too. See you in another thread.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Aldarius was in a system that played to his strength while Allen was not. No argument here about that. What I'm saying is Johnson had more talent than Hurns, which he did, but he had an awful work ethic. He realized 50% of his talent while Allen realized 100%. You just said a reason that Hurns wasn't spotted sufficiently in high school was because of a bad system so how did I say he had a poor work ethic in high school?

You raise an interesting point that further proves how badly flawed HS ratings are.
Potential and work ethic. Some kids have higher potential levels then others. Some reach their potential levels earlier than others. Some later for various reasons. Some need to work hard to fulfill their potential. For others it comes easy.
All this plays a factor in HS ratings. As does, as you agreed, where they play, the type of system they play in, etc etc.
Most of the top schools get the players who have met or are close to meeting their high potential levels and thus mitigate the risk of the unknown. But there is a curve ball to all this and thats work ethic. You can have seemingly high potential kid who's reached it at the high school level but doesn't have the work ethic to sustain it through college. These are you fools gold kids like Aldarius. What good was the high potential level if he didn't have the work ethic to reach it in college? These are highly rated kids who turn out to be busts. We've had a bunch of those throughout the year. Seantrell Henderson also comes to mind.
Other kids like Chick who seems to have a high work ethic but reached his potential ceiling at the high school level. Sure he's serviceable at the college level but based on his HS rankings has proven to be overrated.
You cannot tell me that he is more talented then the DUKE DE Anunike who was a lower rated player who reached his high potential level in college for whatever reason.
That's why these HS rankings are kind of crap shoot. Sure their are some hits, but their are also an equal amount of misses.

The logic is not flawed. When players declare for the draft, their tape is analyzed and they are graded/ranked at their position just like in high school. It's the exact same process except it's done after 4 years of development and with multiple eyes being paid to evaluate the players. I said nothing of the sort that NFL scouts look at high school grades to reevaluate players, especially since new grades are made available to them. That's why there's a grading system. If a low rated recruit does turn into a star in college, I've been saying for 10 pages that COACHING could have put him in a scheme to succeed, maximize his talent, and surround him with other players that he can feed off of to be successful.

And maybe the lower rated player was undervalued at HS. Eddie Johnson was 2-3 star LB that instantly came in and played better than higher rated LBs. Was it that the much maligned D'onofrio scheme that made his succeed and maximized his talent? You yourself would be hard pressed to say that it was. So in his case it points to the flawed HS rating system underrating him.

I'm using the high school ratings because that is numerical evaluation of talent. You are ignoring my point that talent is not the same thing as production. Were the 2007 New York Giants more talented than the 2007 New England Patriots? No. Same goes for 2002 Miami vs. 2002 Ohio State and 1986 Miami vs. 1986 Penn State. Production is not always reflective of talent, especially on a single given day. The gap talent wise between the two teams was large and still is, but the coaching gap is even larger.

Not sure where you're going with these comparisons since the NFL is near equal parity among teams and the 2002 OSU had tons of NFL talent.

Cutcliffe changed the scheme and recruited a brand new breed of player while being the 4th best team in his own state. Ted Roof, his predecessor went 6-45 over the previous 5 season and hadn't been to a bowl game since 1960. We think Golden took over a dumpster fire? Duke football was on life support. A 6 year rebuild in a weak recruiting bed when you're getting Plan D players and have no history since the 60's or NFL success to sell is about how long it should have taken.

Funny that Golden led a more impressive turnaround at Temple but this board doesn't much acknowledge it.
Anyhow you agree Cutcliff brought in a "New Breed of Player". You mean as more "Talented" than they had before? Gee whiz you don't say?

We beat them in 2011 because we out talented them and had a senior QB throw to NFL receivers against freshmen and sophomores on Duke's defense while our average defense went up against other freshmen and sophomores on Duke's offense. Last year, the talent gap really showed when it took our Duke, the most talented player on the field, accounting for 5 TD's four different ways to beat them by 4 in a slugfest. If he isn't hurt this year, we may have actually won.

But aren't you arguing that "WE OUT TALENTED THEM THIS YEAR" also. And we had a SR QB throwing the BETTER WR'S.
If we beat them in 2011 with MORE TALENT. Why didn't we this year WITH MORE TALENT?
Thank you, nice chatting with you. I'm done.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

TH, I sincerely appreciate the responses, and despite the criticism I have taken here, I think it is a legitimate debate. Thanks for staying on topic. I see your points, and I hope you see where I've been coming from too. See you in another thread.

No problem Antwan. You made your fair share of solid points. It all boils down to just trusting the rankings and the debate was fair/legitimate. I'll see you in other threads.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Aldarius was in a system that played to his strength while Allen was not. No argument here about that. What I'm saying is Johnson had more talent than Hurns, which he did, but he had an awful work ethic. He realized 50% of his talent while Allen realized 100%. You just said a reason that Hurns wasn't spotted sufficiently in high school was because of a bad system so how did I say he had a poor work ethic in high school?

You raise an interesting point that further proves how badly flawed HS ratings are.
Potential and work ethic. Some kids have higher potential levels then others. Some reach their potential levels earlier than others. Some later for various reasons. Some need to work hard to fulfill their potential. For others it comes easy.
All this plays a factor in HS ratings. As does, as you agreed, where they play, the type of system they play in, etc etc.
Most of the top schools get the players who have met or are close to meeting their high potential levels and thus mitigate the risk of the unknown. But there is a curve ball to all this and thats work ethic. You can have seemingly high potential kid who's reached it at the high school level but doesn't have the work ethic to sustain it through college. These are you fools gold kids like Aldarius. What good was the high potential level if he didn't have the work ethic to reach it in college? These are highly rated kids who turn out to be busts. We've had a bunch of those throughout the year. Seantrell Henderson also comes to mind.
Other kids like Chick who seems to have a high work ethic but reached his potential ceiling at the high school level. Sure he's serviceable at the college level but based on his HS rankings has proven to be overrated.
You cannot tell me that he is more talented then the DUKE DE Anunike who was a lower rated player who reached his high potential level in college for whatever reason.
That's why these HS rankings are kind of crap shoot. Sure their are some hits, but their are also an equal amount of misses.

The logic is not flawed. When players declare for the draft, their tape is analyzed and they are graded/ranked at their position just like in high school. It's the exact same process except it's done after 4 years of development and with multiple eyes being paid to evaluate the players. I said nothing of the sort that NFL scouts look at high school grades to reevaluate players, especially since new grades are made available to them. That's why there's a grading system. If a low rated recruit does turn into a star in college, I've been saying for 10 pages that COACHING could have put him in a scheme to succeed, maximize his talent, and surround him with other players that he can feed off of to be successful.

And maybe the lower rated player was undervalued at HS. Eddie Johnson was 2-3 star LB that instantly came in and played better than higher rated LBs. Was it that the much maligned D'onofrio scheme that made his succeed and maximized his talent? You yourself would be hard pressed to say that it was. So in his case it points to the flawed HS rating system underrating him.

I'm using the high school ratings because that is numerical evaluation of talent. You are ignoring my point that talent is not the same thing as production. Were the 2007 New York Giants more talented than the 2007 New England Patriots? No. Same goes for 2002 Miami vs. 2002 Ohio State and 1986 Miami vs. 1986 Penn State. Production is not always reflective of talent, especially on a single given day. The gap talent wise between the two teams was large and still is, but the coaching gap is even larger.

Not sure where you're going with these comparisons since the NFL is near equal parity among teams and the 2002 OSU had tons of NFL talent.

Cutcliffe changed the scheme and recruited a brand new breed of player while being the 4th best team in his own state. Ted Roof, his predecessor went 6-45 over the previous 5 season and hadn't been to a bowl game since 1960. We think Golden took over a dumpster fire? Duke football was on life support. A 6 year rebuild in a weak recruiting bed when you're getting Plan D players and have no history since the 60's or NFL success to sell is about how long it should have taken.

Funny that Golden led a more impressive turnaround at Temple but this board doesn't much acknowledge it.
Anyhow you agree Cutcliff brought in a "New Breed of Player". You mean as more "Talented" than they had before? Gee whiz you don't say?

We beat them in 2011 because we out talented them and had a senior QB throw to NFL receivers against freshmen and sophomores on Duke's defense while our average defense went up against other freshmen and sophomores on Duke's offense. Last year, the talent gap really showed when it took our Duke, the most talented player on the field, accounting for 5 TD's four different ways to beat them by 4 in a slugfest. If he isn't hurt this year, we may have actually won.

But aren't you arguing that "WE OUT TALENTED THEM THIS YEAR" also. And we had a SR QB throwing the BETTER WR'S.
If we beat them in 2011 with MORE TALENT. Why didn't we this year WITH MORE TALENT?
Thank you, nice chatting with you. I'm done.

The rankings are a guess. So is every evaluation regardless of ranking. There are far more hits than there are misses. Most players end up playing like their grade, rather than the vague star rating they receive, which I am the first one to criticize because it is way too broad.

Eddie Johnson would fall into the category you provided of exceeding his rating and being grossly undervalued, but these are rare examples. The rankings are not a perfect system, but it is much more accurate than it is being given credit for.

I'm comparing that the NFL rankings are just as much a guess as the high school rankings. 2002 Ohio State is not even on the same shelf as 2002 Miami as far as talent is concerned.

Golden led a very impressive turnaround at Temple, but it is not as impressive as what Cutcliffe has done at Duke and I will add the slight asterisk that Golden had Big East quality players while going up against MAC teams. He also turned them into a team that won just enough games to be respectable and to lose every bowl game/big game he has coached in. 1-22 against teams with 5 losses or less is a pretty damning statistic. Other than Florida, he has lost every big game he has coached in.

Yes Cutcliffe brought in a better talented player. His classes went from being ranked in the 70's to the 60's. What a massive improvement. Our classes dropped from the 10's to the 20's where we are now. The 2011 game had a top 10 recruiting class going up against a top 75 class. The 2013 game had a top 60 class going up against a top 25 class. While we still had more talent, the gap was smaller and the differences in coaching abilities is what bridged the gap and why we gave up 48 points while getting embarrassed.

This chat was splendid. Have a lovely day. Your posts are always interesting.

 

[Miami82]

Aldarius was in a system that played to his strength while Allen was not. No argument here about that. What I'm saying is Johnson had more talent than Hurns, which he did, but he had an awful work ethic. He realized 50% of his talent while Allen realized 100%. You just said a reason that Hurns wasn't spotted sufficiently in high school was because of a bad system so how did I say he had a poor work ethic in high school?

You raise an interesting point that further proves how badly flawed HS ratings are.
Potential and work ethic. Some kids have higher potential levels then others. Some reach their potential levels earlier than others. Some later for various reasons. Some need to work hard to fulfill their potential. For others it comes easy.
All this plays a factor in HS ratings. As does, as you agreed, where they play, the type of system they play in, etc etc.
Most of the top schools get the players who have met or are close to meeting their high potential levels and thus mitigate the risk of the unknown. But there is a curve ball to all this and thats work ethic. You can have seemingly high potential kid who's reached it at the high school level but doesn't have the work ethic to sustain it through college. These are you fools gold kids like Aldarius. What good was the high potential level if he didn't have the work ethic to reach it in college? These are highly rated kids who turn out to be busts. We've had a bunch of those throughout the year. Seantrell Henderson also comes to mind.
Other kids like Chick who seems to have a high work ethic but reached his potential ceiling at the high school level. Sure he's serviceable at the college level but based on his HS rankings has proven to be overrated.
You cannot tell me that he is more talented then the DUKE DE Anunike who was a lower rated player who reached his high potential level in college for whatever reason.
That's why these HS rankings are kind of crap shoot. Sure their are some hits, but their are also an equal amount of misses.

The logic is not flawed. When players declare for the draft, their tape is analyzed and they are graded/ranked at their position just like in high school. It's the exact same process except it's done after 4 years of development and with multiple eyes being paid to evaluate the players. I said nothing of the sort that NFL scouts look at high school grades to reevaluate players, especially since new grades are made available to them. That's why there's a grading system. If a low rated recruit does turn into a star in college, I've been saying for 10 pages that COACHING could have put him in a scheme to succeed, maximize his talent, and surround him with other players that he can feed off of to be successful.

And maybe the lower rated player was undervalued at HS. Eddie Johnson was 2-3 star LB that instantly came in and played better than higher rated LBs. Was it that the much maligned D'onofrio scheme that made his succeed and maximized his talent? You yourself would be hard pressed to say that it was. So in his case it points to the flawed HS rating system underrating him.

I'm using the high school ratings because that is numerical evaluation of talent. You are ignoring my point that talent is not the same thing as production. Were the 2007 New York Giants more talented than the 2007 New England Patriots? No. Same goes for 2002 Miami vs. 2002 Ohio State and 1986 Miami vs. 1986 Penn State. Production is not always reflective of talent, especially on a single given day. The gap talent wise between the two teams was large and still is, but the coaching gap is even larger.

Not sure where you're going with these comparisons since the NFL is near equal parity among teams and the 2002 OSU had tons of NFL talent.

Cutcliffe changed the scheme and recruited a brand new breed of player while being the 4th best team in his own state. Ted Roof, his predecessor went 6-45 over the previous 5 season and hadn't been to a bowl game since 1960. We think Golden took over a dumpster fire? Duke football was on life support. A 6 year rebuild in a weak recruiting bed when you're getting Plan D players and have no history since the 60's or NFL success to sell is about how long it should have taken.

Funny that Golden led a more impressive turnaround at Temple but this board doesn't much acknowledge it.
Anyhow you agree Cutcliff brought in a "New Breed of Player". You mean as more "Talented" than they had before? Gee whiz you don't say?

We beat them in 2011 because we out talented them and had a senior QB throw to NFL receivers against freshmen and sophomores on Duke's defense while our average defense went up against other freshmen and sophomores on Duke's offense. Last year, the talent gap really showed when it took our Duke, the most talented player on the field, accounting for 5 TD's four different ways to beat them by 4 in a slugfest. If he isn't hurt this year, we may have actually won.

But aren't you arguing that "WE OUT TALENTED THEM THIS YEAR" also. And we had a SR QB throwing the BETTER WR'S.
If we beat them in 2011 with MORE TALENT. Why didn't we this year WITH MORE TALENT?
Thank you, nice chatting with you. I'm done.

The rankings are a guess. So is every evaluation regardless of ranking. There are far more hits than there are misses. Most players end up playing like their grade, rather than the vague star rating they receive, which I am the first one to criticize because it is way too broad.

Eddie Johnson would fall into the category you provided of exceeding his rating and being grossly undervalued, but these are rare examples. The rankings are not a perfect system, but it is much more accurate than it is being given credit for.

I'm comparing that the NFL rankings are just as much a guess as the high school rankings. 2002 Ohio State is not even on the same shelf as 2002 Miami as far as talent is concerned.

Golden led a very impressive turnaround at Temple, but it is not as impressive as what Cutcliffe has done at Duke and I will add the slight asterisk that Golden had Big East quality players while going up against MAC teams. He also turned them into a team that won just enough games to be respectable and to lose every bowl game/big game he has coached in. 1-22 against teams with 5 losses or less is a pretty damning statistic. Other than Florida, he has lost every big game he has coached in.

Yes Cutcliffe brought in a better talented player. His classes went from being ranked in the 70's to the 60's. What a massive improvement. Our classes dropped from the 10's to the 20's where we are now. The 2011 game had a top 10 recruiting class going up against a top 75 class. The 2013 game had a top 60 class going up against a top 25 class. While we still had more talent, the gap was smaller and the differences in coaching abilities is what bridged the gap and why we gave up 48 points while getting embarrassed.

This chat was splendid. Have a lovely day. Your posts are always interesting.

I think you have to be careful here. Was this a numbers shift(total recruits) or an over all star average shift?