• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rivals/Scout/etc. National & Regional Rankings

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Wiltfong was on BM5 this morning talking about the final 247 is based on what round guys would get drafted in the NFL. He said the best Guards are typically 2nd round and Davis and Myers are the top 2 Guards, hence dropping them to 4 stars. If that's the case, then why haven't they always been 4 stars? Same with dropping Martell to #92 bc he'd be lucky to be a low 3rd rd pick at 5'10?
 
Upvote 0
flybuckeye said:
Wiltfong was on BM5 this morning talking about the final 247 is based on what round guys would get drafted in the NFL. He said the best Guards are typically 2nd round and Davis and Myers are the top 2 Guards, hence dropping them to 4 stars. If that's the case, then why haven't they always been 4 stars? Same with dropping Martell to #92 bc he'd be lucky to be a low 3rd rd pick at 5'10?
Click to expand...

I get what they're doing. It's a bit of an experiment that will allow to engage in objective analysis of their rankings based on players' ultimate draft position. But is the goal to project pro potential or college potential in these rankings? I thought it was the latter.
 
Upvote 0
OH10 said:
I get what they're doing. It's a bit of an experiment that will allow to engage in objective analysis of their rankings based on players' ultimate draft position. But is the goal to project pro potential or college potential in these rankings? I thought it was the latter.
Click to expand...

Those goalposts move every year. Sometimes they go based on how players perform present-day, sometimes they go based on potential, and I guess NFL draft position is the new thing over the last year or so.
 
Upvote 0
If it's to gauge draft position it's ridiculous. Draft position is influenced by factors that have nothing to do with a player... which is to say, if that's what they're doing they seem to be trying to divine the needs of NFL teams 4 years hence. Not only that, but they're trying to determine, for example, if QB A is a better prospect than LT B.... and then rank them accordingly?!??! What does it mean to have a guy rated 55th, if he's the #1 QB in the class? I mean, I guess on the one hand I get it - considering the Wentz/Goff class last year (neither should have been a top pick, in my IMO, but were because... quarterback!!!!!eleventy!!!) But... really, shouldn't they revamp their rankings altogether?

I mean... if you're the #1 rated LT in a class year that's more important than where you rank as against top players from other position groups. I think ranking "overall" is pretty much straight up voodoo. What's the difference between #1 OLB Barron Browning and #1 CB Jeffrey Okudah? Apparently the difference is the #3 WDE K'Lavon Chaisson. Sorry, that makes literally zero sense to me as anything other than a list of guys who should end up being very good college players, based on their HS performances and measurables.

Trying to make some kind of "science" out of it is silly. Besides, really, we're talking about tiers anyway, I'd think. Is Shuan Wade better than Jeffrey Okudah? Worse? On what metric? It's impossible to say. But, they're both top tier talents for sure. And... I think it's fair to say you can differentiate those two from, say, Reip.

I hope that makes sense.

Edit: To further illustrate.... Tate Martell is the #2 rated Dual Threat QB. Would Ohio State have done better to take each of the 13 OTs that are rated higher than him? Of course not. And... again... what does it even mean to say there are 13 OTs rated in front of the second best dual threat prospect in the class? None of those OTs can scramble for a first down. None are going to ever throw a slant pass. How does one even begin to evaluate the value of #13 OTs footwork against Martell's ability to throw a 20 yard out? It's ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...
This guy agrees...
MV5BMjEwMTU3MDkzOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzc2NjM5MQ@@._V1_UX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
 
Upvote 0
I thought the point of recruiting high school kids was to get them an education and help your college football team? Urban Meyer recruits based on which kids are going to help his football program, not which are going to be the highest draft picks. Obviously those things sometimes coincide but why 24/7 uses this "NFL draft stock" logic is beyond me.

2016 NFL Draft:

#1 Jared Goff - 24/7 #266 player overall
#2 Carson Wentz - 24/7 Unranked
#3 Joey Bosa - 24/7 #53
#4 Ezekiel Elliott - 24/7 #70
#5 Jalen Ramsey - 24/7 #39
#6 Ronnie Stanley - 24/7 #145
#7 DeForest Buckner - 24/7 #384
#8 Jack Conklin - Unranked (in fairness he was unranked by Scout and Rivals too)
#9 Leonard Floyd - #123
#10 Eli Apple - #45

My point is it's hard enough trying to project which 16/17/18 year olds are going to be good college players little alone high NFL draft picks. 24/7 obviously sucks at it, using their own logic.

I stand with all the BKBs.
 
Upvote 0
I think basing a high school recruits ranking on potential in the NFL draft is patently absurd. We are about 3 months from the draft and even with the NCAA football season over, the draft board is going to be as tumultuous as ever...doing so 3+ years out is impossible. Even if you follow general trends, interior OL routinely get drafted in the 1st round anyways, so that argument fails as well...I am not going to bother with the research, but I have seen plenty of interior OL come off the board in the 1st round over the last 10 years.

Nonetheless, I think rankings should simply reflect how good of a player you think that prospect will be at the college level. Martell is a great example. Do I think he is a future high-round pick? In all likelihood, probably not. Do I think he could absolutely light it up at the college level? Absolutely and I think he will. NFL success is great and all, but it is not necessarily congruent with success at the college level. Great example is Troy Smith...not that he was a 5 star recruit (4 star by most), but he was one of the greatest college players I ever watched. That in no way correlated to his NFL draft pick, but he had about as big of an impact as you can have at the college level.

In sum, just project the kid to the next level in college...that is difficult enough as it is.
 
Upvote 0
wadc45 said:
I thought the point of recruiting high school kids was to get them an education and help your college football team? Urban Meyer recruits based on which kids are going to help his football program, not which are going to be the highest draft picks. Obviously those things sometimes coincide but why 24/7 uses this "NFL draft stock" logic is beyond me.

2016 NFL Draft:

#1 Jared Goff - 24/7 #266 player overall
#2 Carson Wentz - 24/7 Unranked
#3 Joey Bosa - 24/7 #53
#4 Ezekiel Elliott - 24/7 #70
#5 Jalen Ramsey - 24/7 #39
#6 Ronnie Stanley - 24/7 #145
#7 DeForest Buckner - 24/7 #384
#8 Jack Conklin - Unranked (in fairness he was unranked by Scout and Rivals too)
#9 Leonard Floyd - #123
#10 Eli Apple - #45

My point is it's hard enough trying to project which 16/17/18 year olds are going to be good college players little alone high NFL draft picks. 24/7 obviously sucks at it, using their own logic.

I stand with all the BKBs.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this is why they make the change. Their ranking loose credibility when more than half of the top ten drafted in a year weren't even in the top 100 of their 247 rankings. It's a bunch of bullshit, but if they make their goal projecting NFL draft and in 4 years all of the top 10 drafted are in the 247 top 100 it makes them look like good scouts.
 
Upvote 0
RB07OSU said:
I think basing a high school recruits ranking on potential in the NFL draft is patently absurd. We are about 3 months from the draft and even with the NCAA football season over, the draft board is going to be as tumultuous as ever...doing so 3+ years out is impossible. Even if you follow general trends, interior OL routinely get drafted in the 1st round anyways, so that argument fails as well...I am not going to bother with the research, but I have seen plenty of interior OL come off the board in the 1st round over the last 10 years.

Nonetheless, I think rankings should simply reflect how good of a player you think that prospect will be at the college level. Martell is a great example. Do I think he is a future high-round pick? In all likelihood, probably not. Do I think he could absolutely light it up at the college level? Absolutely and I think he will. NFL success is great and all, but it is not necessarily congruent with success at the college level. Great example is Troy Smith...not that he was a 5 star recruit (4 star by most), but he was one of the greatest college players I ever watched. That in no way correlated to his NFL draft pick, but he had about as big of an impact as you can have at the college level.

In sum, just project the kid to the next level in college...that is difficult enough as it is.
Click to expand...

I'll do the research for you.

There were two guards selected in the 1st round in 2016. 3 in 2015 (2 in the top 10.) 0 in 2014 (2 of the first 3 picks in the 2nd round were guards.) 3 in 2013 (all in the top 20.) 2 in 2012. 2 in 2011. Etc.

Since 2000, there have been 4 NFL drafts that didn't have an offensive guard taken in the 1st round.

It's stupid to rank young people based on something potentially 3-5 years away with so many variables at play. It's even dumber when you make up your own facts.

Edit: numbers from http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/g
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, seems to me that this was a business decision more than anything. 247 is just trying to 1) distinguish themselves from the other recruiting services to make for a more marketable product, and 2) also give themselves an easy out when it comes to assessing how good of an evaluation service they are.

When you have 3 services that all rank based on college potential, it's fairly easy to track and compare how effective they are at evaluating HS players based on college production (All-Americans, award winners, etc.). Now, 247 has an easy out - it's based on 'pro' potential, and you can't really compare them directly with scout/rivals/whomever. Just my personal tin-foil theory. I'm sure they have their own spin on it.

At the end of the day - who the hell cares.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top