In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
But what I see on the field year end and year out is one best looking athletic teams in the country....big, Deep, strong and fast, , etc The 05 and 06 teams were sick...and probably the most talented team in the country 3 years in a row.
Last year 13-0, nuff said
this year, about 40 seconds away from a 2nd straight title game....this with playing 12 freshman
So the recruiting services are undervaluing LSU every single year, am I am calling you guys out that rank teams and players from Louisiana. The coaches are doing work.
Rivals, Scout, 247....Get our Tigers 1 or 2 where they belong...number 8 is way too low... I am just saying that based on a 10 year run of having the most talented (top 1-3) teams fielded almost every single year... This year's class is full of talent...
#8? come on now...just feels low to me
I tend to disagree. Nearly all of our commits are slightly underrated. A couple others are overrated.
I would say we may have the deepest class of all. Just lacking in the star potential but that should change soon.
cpt I think we have had a couple #1 ranked classes...yes, but we have mainly ended up around 6-8 consistently...
I mean Texas is up there every year, and they don't show it on the field. Alabama does...
LSU looks the part every year...When we played up for Alabama, we dominated them in the second half... LSU is as talented as ever, and I think this class is pretty solid also.
#8 seems under-rated...we may finish inside the top 5, but it probably should be there right now...but I dont' follow other teams due to the time constraints... My point is, LSU's incoming talent is being undervalued by the recruiting services.
Just Look at D. Hunter, tell me he isn't going to be a first rounder before he is done at LSU?
Stars don't measure - HEART, DETERMINATION, EFFORT, "CHIP" ON A PLAYER'S SHOULDER, MOTOR, COACHABILITY, CHARACTER, LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, WILLINGNESS AND DESIRE TO GET BETTER ! COACHES DO !
** CASE IN POINT - LEWIS NEAL.
Most of it has to do with exposure or lack of it for the majority of the guys we sign. LA, while it's improving, has been notoriously underevaluated and underrated by recruiting sites. The majority of LA kids don't hit the major camps/combines in order to get the exposure needed to elevate their ranking. Also film is a little harder to come by with many LA kids.
Another part is that our classes under Les have been classes built around athleticism and upside. Hard to rank kids high when they are almost purely upside. Scouts are a little gunshy with going out on a limb with high rankings with kids that are seen as boom or bust types in their eyes.
Our staff is very good at recognizing upside and particular body/athletic types that fit into our schemes. Sometimes it's all about how a kid fits what you're doing and our staff has been very successful finding those type of kids for our system.
Then the one that irks me more than any, hype. A ton of the more highly ranked kids are ranked where they are more based on hype and what people say about them than what they show on film or on the field. It's like some kids have been hyped up so much that the hype supercedes what some scouts see with their own eyes. These days kids are known about at such an early age that people get set on what they 1st saw rather than what they continue to see as time goes by. Avery Johnson was a prime example of this. He's a talented young man no doubt but much of his reputation was based on 2 things, his lineage and that sophomore camp showing when he blew up De'Anthony Thomas. That hype carried him much higher in the rankings last year than he deserved to be honest. It took most of the sites until November or later to finally start to drop him significantly in the rankings even though he had a very unimpressive camp circuit and sr season. Again, hype not what they were seeing with their own eyes. Lots of kids have talent but if it's not put to use on the field, are they really worthy of the ranking they get? Not to me.
I prefer a under-rated class to one inflated by fan demand. It's hard to separate the hype from the real.
There will always be a Morris Claiborne or a Jacob Hester who emerges.
There's not that much difference between a fourth or fifith rated class and a ninth or tenth.
Jefferson and Lee were four star quarterbacks - just as Rettig and Jennings are. On the LSU roster is Rob Bolden who was one of the most sought after QBs in this class. Bolden still has his stuff to prove.
Great thread.. Our coaches seem to offer kids that fit the needs of the system. The ability of a staff to evaluate kids find that 3 star kid that develops into a contributor is what makes championship teams. I'll take our coaching staff and their 3-4 star kids over that trash on the west coast all day, every day.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned how well our coaches have developed our players. Outside of a couple of positions such as QB, the staff has done an excellent job at turning kids with high upside into NFL caliber players. Even QB may become a position of strength next season.
"That was Death Valley. It's where opponent's dreams come to die." - Miles
Ill take a deep class over a not so deep but some star power any day.. This is why we always have deep talented rotations and can lose players and not miss a beat most of the time.. A good example is Clemson.. I have seen several top classes but usually its due to 2-3 5 star, highly touted kids.. When ya look at the ranking it looks great, but as you look closer at the class it has looked very top heavy.. If one or two guys dont work out like they are projected then they are in deep trouble.. jmo
I disagree about where we "should be" in rankings.. By this logic then explain to me what the difference in the #1 and #6 class really is? The difference is basically an opinion that the #1 MLB will be a better player than the #9 MLB for example.. But in most cases when you compare the athletes measurables there is little to no difference.. maybe the #1 MLB is an inch taller and maybe runs a 4.5 instead of a 4.6 or he had better stats.. Very rarely you see the #1 recruit at a respective position ends up being #1 on the NFL draft board 4 yrs later.. IMO LSU coming in at #6 is just as good as a #1 or #2. Same calibur athletes with same measurables and the future will tell who works harder and has a better football IQ etc... I think if we finish in the top 10 every year and keep solid coaches I am satisfied.. Even last year's class who many ppl said was poor turned out to be pretty damn good and it was outside the top 10 in some rankings.. I never once thought it was a down year last year, especially with CLM's and co. track record on talent they put on the field every year...
you dont get no jewelry for recruiting classes only w's. ill take an underrated class of 3 * any day over an overated class of 5*.
When asked who our natural rivals are I reply: Everybody we hate em all!!!
The best example of all lies in the the USCw team. They nearly always finish with 4-5 5* recruits. That means at least 20 of them on the team in any one year (almost all of the first team potentially). But, tell me how many years since 2000 have they legitimately won a BCSNC: One. The other year they were "awarded" a championship was the year we won the BCSNC, while the AP gave them the NC. The star-rating system is supposed to identify the players among all recruits that are "can't misses" to make it to the pros. We all know how that turned out for LSU players in recent years. Gimme 18-19 4* recruits/year who fit our scheme and I'll show you a team that will always be near the top.
The ratings are pretty accurate. Top 10 is where you have to be to be consistent at the elite level.
Does having 1-2 more 4 stars really matter? Not really.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports