forums

T Chris Washington commits

Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
We only have 4 4* OL on the team and they make up most of those 3-5 guys we feel confident about.
Click to expand...


Fair point. I’d prefer we try to emulate Wisconsin when it comes to the OL. They have a bunch of 3 stars, converted TEs, and converted DEs. If you can evaluate and develop you don’t need to beat Georgia and Alabama at recruiting every year consistently to have a good offensive line.


The staff likely recognizes we aren’t getting 4-5 Jalen Rivers every class anytime soon.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
The reason I said pre 08 doesn't count is because that is when you notice a massive jump in the recruiting services. Prior to that they were very hit or miss. Currently 90% of 5 stars make NFL rosters. as opposed to 07 when it was like 40%.

My point is that yes 5 stars are better than 4 stars most of the time and 4 stars are better than 3 most of the time. We have a bunch of guys on here that literally think we can win NCs with a bunch of 3 stars and they literally think 3 stars are better than the others.
Click to expand...
We're so far away from a National Championship it's untrue.

We're in the process of rebuilding (a process that has stopped, started and stalled over the last 15 years). As we don't offer monster bags, we're not appealing to these 4* and 5* players that you're adamant we need to compete for said National Championship.

Our first goal should be to win 10 games in back to back seasons (thereby winning the worst P5 division in football), closely followed by trying to not get our teeth kicked in by Clemson in the ACC Championship Game. We can do that with our current level or recruiting, assuming the evaluations and development is there.

Do that and suddenly what Miami does offer (great lifestyle, great football alumni, that 'it' factor, being the home school for a lot of the SoFl prospects we covet) becomes much more appealing to the calibre of recruit we need to challenge for National Championships.


Whilst I'd love to think we're in line for No.6, looking beyond that first hurdle of being consistently good is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
 
Ajcane8 said:
You’d agree that 35 is fewer than 90, correct?

Using % of total drafted as some sort of arbiter of recruiting services’ “success” rate just seems a little disingenuous because, like I said, it’s a lot easier to be “right” when taking 9 guesses as opposed to 1000.
Click to expand...
Its not disingenuous at all. Its the only logical way to look at it.

Think of it like this. I come up to you and say hey. I got 3 lottery tickets. You can take one of them.

Lotto Ticket A has a 33% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 3 tickets and I will pick one as the winner.
Lotto Ticket B has a 4% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 300 tickets and I will choose 12 winners.
Lotto ticket C has a 1% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 900 tickets and I will choose 90 winners.

Do you choose Ticket A since it has the highest chance of winning you the million dollars? Or do you say "Well 90 is bigger than 1 so I choose C."
 
Patreek said:
Fair point. I’d prefer we try to emulate Wisconsin when it comes to the OL. They have a bunch of 3 stars, converted TEs, and converted DEs. If you can evaluate and develop you don’t need to beat Georgia and Alabama at recruiting every year consistently to have a good offensive line.


The staff likely recognizes we aren’t getting 4-5 Jalen Rivers every class anytime soon.
Click to expand...

This is true, but look at what happens to Whisky every time they play a team that actually recruits at a high level. They beat up on the trash B1G west teams, but can't beat teams with actual talent.
 
Advertisement
OldhamA said:
We're so far away from a National Championship it's untrue.

We're in the process of rebuilding (a process that has stopped, started and stalled over the last 15 years). As we don't offer monster bags, we're not appealing to these 4* and 5* players that you're adamant we need to compete for said National Championship.

Our first goal should be to win 10 games in back to back seasons (thereby winning the worst P5 division in football), closely followed by trying to not get our teeth kicked in by Clemson in the ACC Championship Game. We can do that with our current level or recruiting, assuming the evaluations and development is there.

Do that and suddenly what Miami does offer (great lifestyle, great football alumni, that 'it' factor, being the home school for a lot of the SoFl prospects we covet) becomes much more appealing to the calibre of recruit we need to challenge for National Championships.


Whilst I'd love to think we're in line for No.6, looking beyond that first hurdle of being consistently good is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of your statements. I am arguing with someone says 3 stars are BETTER than 5 stars. I agree that we are far away and are not able to win the recruiting battles. I just want to point out that loading up with blue chips is how you win NCs.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
Its not disingenuous at all. Its the only logical way to look at it.

Think of it like this. I come up to you and say hey. I got 3 lottery tickets. You can take one of them.

Lotto Ticket A has a 33% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 3 tickets and I will pick one as the winner.
Lotto Ticket B has a 4% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 300 tickets and I will choose 12 winners.
Lotto ticket C has a 1% chance of winning a million dollars. There are 900 tickets and I will choose 90 winners.

Do you choose Ticket A since it has the highest chance of winning you the million dollars? Or do you say "Well 90 is bigger than 1 so I choose C."
Click to expand...
Never mind that your premise totally disregards the crux of my argument - I’ve already conceded that 33 is higher than 1.

If ticket a costs $10,000 and ticket c costs 3$, I’d probably buy a couple ticket c’s - not because I don’t want ticket a, but because I have no way of getting my hands on a ticket a, unless I’ve won with a ticket c.
 
Ajcane8 said:
Never mind that your premise totally disregards the crux of my argument - I’ve already conceded that 33 is higher than 1.

If ticket a costs $10,000 and ticket c costs 3$, I’d probably buy a couple ticket c’s - not because I don’t want ticket a, but because I have no way of getting my hands on a ticket a, unless I’ve won with a ticket c.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am arguing. I am not saying "well if you can't get a 5 star just don't get a lineman at all". I am fine with picking up 3 stars if thats really all we can get. I just can't stand these porsters that think stacking 3 stars is better than stacking 5 stars.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
That is not what I am arguing. I am not saying "well if you can't get a 5 star just don't get a lineman at all". I am fine with picking up 3 stars if thats really all we can get. I just can't stand these porsters that think stacking 3 stars is better than stacking 5 stars.
Click to expand...

It’s a defense mechanism, ppl here at cis do it all the time, its no different than the classic line a south Florida 3 star dog is a 5 star any where else

It’s just homerism
 
jsy said:
It’s a defense mechanism, ppl here at cis do it all the time, its no different than the classic line a south Florida 3 star dog is a 5 star any where else

It’s just homerism
Click to expand...

Very true. Thankfully the coaches don't believe that BS.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
That is not what I am arguing. I am not saying "well if you can't get a 5 star just don't get a lineman at all". I am fine with picking up 3 stars if thats really all we can get. I just can't stand these porsters that think stacking 3 stars is better than stacking 5 stars.
Click to expand...
Anyone who argues that —^ isn’t all that bright... on the whole. But, and again, you’ve basically admitted this without actually saying the words (35 v 90) - o line is just different. More often than any other position group, 3* o linemen routinely outperform (per nfl draft/performance) their 4/5* counterparts.

Would I prefer Evan Neal and Issiah Walker to Zion Nelson and this kid? Yes. Duh. But you don’t need 4/5 of those former guys to have a good (even playoff-level) o line. Deshaun Watson was much more important than Mitch Hyatt in 2016.
 
Ethnicsands said:
What is your data set that tells you a 25% hit rate on FIRST rounders is underwhelming?
Click to expand...

It probably is more of a matter of opinion than anything else. This topic is just one I have always kind of struggled with.

The game is setup to give a site every advantage. They get all players to choose from. They get all film to review. They get all interviews. They get all camps. They get grade transcripts (at least the information of them). They get to use coaches paid millions of dollars for their evaluations. They get to use all athletic data. They get to see All-American games. They get to change their evaluations as soon as they see a program offer a player.

Then, they get to make HUNDREDS of choices from those players (5 and 4-stars).

After all that, they only get less than 25% (25% exactly this year in the second best year they’ve had since 2005) of their ELITE choices as 1st round picks. They don’t even get HALF of their hundreds of choices in the first round (since 2005).

If you told me I’d still get more than you did after you completely name the player pool to me, I’d be embarrassed as an evaluator, personally.

To me, it’s not a question of “there’s thousands of 3-star players out there, of course you will get more out of that larger pool”, it’s a question of, “you get all that information, get to use others evaluations and change your minds when it’s obvious you’re low on players, and you still can’t even get half?” Not only that, players are the stars they are because YOU say they are that. I’m like Puerto Rico, don’t even get a vote until after the vote has been cast.

Like I said, different perspectives. Recruiting sites give fans things to talk about. I want elite athleticism and elite film in my players (which usually result in elite star rankings).

I think we all agree we will win lots of games if we do that.
 
Advertisement
Ajcane8 said:
Anyone who argues that —^ isn’t all that bright... on the whole. But, and again, you’ve basically admitted this without actually saying the words (35 v 90) - o line is just different. More often than any other position group, 3* o linemen routinely outperform (per nfl draft/performance) their 4/5* counterparts.

Would I prefer Evan Neal and Issiah Walker to Zion Nelson and this kid? Yes. Duh. But you don’t need 4/5 of those former guys to have a good (even playoff-level) o line. Deshaun Watson was much more important than Mitch Hyatt in 2016.
Click to expand...

Lol no I still disagree with 35 v 90. I am saying you take the higher percentage guys. Which are 5 stars. I do agree that the recruiting services are worse at grading OL than any other position, but they are still pretty solid at ranking them.

Also agree Watson was more important than Hyatt.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
Lol no I still disagree with 35 v 90. I am saying you take the higher percentage guys. Which are 5 stars. I do agree that the recruiting services are worse at grading OL than any other position, but they are still pretty solid at ranking them.

Also agree Watson was more important than Hyatt.
Click to expand...
So you’ll concede that the recruiting sites are appreciably worse at grading o linemen, but are willing to wholeheartedly trust their grades. To each his own. Never mind the fact that at least 8 (I only looked at the first 10 linemen drafted) 3*/un-ranked linemen were drafted before a single 4* (and 4 or 5, un-drafted, 5*s) in this last draft.
 
Advertisement
Ajcane8 said:
So you’ll concede that the recruiting sites are appreciably worse at grading o linemen, but are willing to wholeheartedly trust their grades. To each his own. Never mind the fact that at least 8 (I only looked at the first 10 linemen drafted) 3*/un-ranked linemen were drafted before a single 4* (and 4 or 5, un-drafted, 5*s) in this last draft.
Click to expand...

You are using a single draft class. I am looking at the trend over the past 5 years which is a much larger sample size.

They may be worse at grading O linemen, but they still are very good at it. The fact is the teams that stack 4 and 5 star Olineman are generally better than teams that stack 3 star and unranked O lineman.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
You are using a single draft class. I am looking at the trend over the past 5 years which is a much larger sample size.

They may be worse at grading O linemen, but they still are very good at it. The fact is the teams that stack 4 and 5 star Olineman are generally better than teams that stack 3 star and unranked O lineman.
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure that my point - that of the first 10 linemen drafted, more are 3* than 5/4 - isn’t true over the last 5 years. It might be, but I don’t feel like looking it up... lol

That’s self fulfilling. Better teams sign more blue chippers - again, no one is arguing against that. I know you’ll scream “OUTLIER!!!” - but, from my quick glance, clempsuns 2016 line had 2 blue chippers starting.

And, if you hit at a 35% rate at your job - unless you’re a big league third baseman - would you be considered “very good?” Especially if people in the same industry, working on a slightly different project, hit at 90%?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top