In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 278
Online now 337 Record: 3833 (12/17/2013)
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.
On Twitter: @Niebuhr247
Paul Mainieri = 328-135 ovr (70.8%), 119-89 SEC (57.2%), 21-10 NCAA (67.7%), 3 CWS App., 1 National Title
People still get angry and gnash teeth over recruiting rankings? I thought this ended somewhere around 2005. LSU offered the kid, he accepted and now it's over...who cares what he's ranked by internet recruiting sites? If the kid's a bust, then he's a bust; if he's an AA, then he's an AA; or maybe he's somewhere in between...regardless, these recruiting rankings (and stars) have zero effect on how the kid will turn out at the college or professional level.
Agree... if anything, a lesser ranking will often motivate a kid even more, just like Neal, TM7, etc.
Proud to support everything Louisiana
This is an acceptable response on tigerdroppings, but understand you're posting this on a pay site where people specifically pay for recruiting news/rankings/insight etc...obviously, many people here would like to see prospects properly ranked.
Keith, I appreciate the fact that you are here and discussing this topic, and I will say I agree that he should be a 3 star. IMO he is one of the very elite pure pass rushers in this class. Made evident by his performance during the game at the shrine bowl. But taking his height into account it's natural to question if he can continue that ability vs 6'6 OTs in college. I actually think he can strap up next year and play on 3rd downs for us, but wouldn't be shocked if he took a few years either.
I agree with The notion that recruiting rankings really don't matter and are just a fun thing. You say that claiming we trust our staff over you all is a classic response. Well obviously that's going to be true. If the analysts working for these recruiting sites were such good talent eviauators they would be working as a full time scout on staff in the nfl or college. These type prospects are where the analysts struggle IMO because its much harder to appreciate Neal's unquantifiable ability vs looking at 6'5 DE that runs a 4.6
Dunbar did ok at 6'0"
You really pay to see ranking that you can get for free? Interesting.
Properly? What's properly? How you want them ranked? The is the most inexact freaking science there is.
These ranking are educated guesstimates and should be taken with a grade of slaw. Letting where a kid ranked ruin your day is ludicrous IMO. Do you think adding a star or raising the kid's ranking is going to make him play better? I just don't understand why anyone would get upset because a kid isn't ranked where you think he should be? In the big picture, what does it matter...
This post was edited by TigerNE 16 months ago
A couple things ....
-I'm not really heavily involved in the rankings ... I was at Rivals. Not here nearly as much. Really focus more on the reporting aspect.
-I only came on here to give you some insight into rankings are done.
-I like Lewis Neal. He knows I like him. Anybody that follows me on Twitter knows this. In fact, the story at the top of this thread is about how even though he's small, he's really good.
-Finally, I actually suggested him recently for a ratings bump. Will he get it? Not sure. I do my job, and I let the rating people do theirs without me pushing them.
I'm just shedding some light on the thought process behind rankings. That's all.
Well, to be honest, Lewis does care about his ranking.
He doesn't like being the lowest-ranked Tigers commit. It bugs him.
I know some of you see this as a slight, but I look at it the other way. There aren't many DEs his size with an 85 rating. He's very good. If he wasn't, given his frame, he wouldn't be where he is.
Anyway, you guys pay for answers, so I will always give them.
You may not like them. And trust me, I don't like getting ripped. But this is a business. I work for you. Not the other way around.
I really do believe if you all could attend an event with me I could point things out better, and I'm pretty sure it would all make more sense.
This thread has gone crazy...
"You can learn more character on the two-yard line than anywhere else in life." - Former LSU Coach and AD Paul Dietzel
Flutie did OK as a 5-9 QB .... but there are a million 5-9 QBs that didn't make it.
I was only saying that because when people like to insult people in my business, they always go back to that.
Hey, those coaches make a fortune They outta be good at what they do.
But even the Miles, Meyers and Sabans of the world aren't 100% dead on
hahahaha .... Trust me, I've seen worse.
You guys/gals are pretty civil
Keith, if anything I'm probably defending you, 247, and the recruiting sites in general. After following recruiting for the last 20 or so years back when magazines and 1-900 #s were the rage, I'm very jaded when it comes to stars and ratings. Too many busts...like all of these kids ask for the 5* ranking and the associated unrealistic expectations that come with it from crazed fanbases. The rankings are probably better now than ever with all of the camps and the ability of kids to get their name and film out to the masses, but it's still a very inexact science IMO. The kids still play against different talent levels all over the country and then there's the whole demeanor, attitude, and maturity issue that limits a lot of kids when transitioning from high school to college and college to the NFL. I come to these sites to figure out where the kids are going to go, not to over analyze a 16 year old kid's first step and argue with analysts so LSU can get another 20 points in the team recruiting rankings. It's just not worth worrying about IMO. The LSU staff is going to recruit who they're going to recruit regardless of what anyone thinks about them on these recruiting sites, so I take the rankings as just kind of a general guideline to a kid's talent level but not the end all be all. Neal is who he's going to be regardless if he's a 2* or 5*.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on the 'well, I'll trust (insert name of LSU staff member) over your assessment'. It's a cop out and lame response for someone who can't come up with a legitimate retort to the points that have been presented. The staff's aren't perfect, the analysts aren't perfect...it's impossible to correctly project all of these kids every year no matter your experience or eye for talent and people and see (and look for) different attributes.
GET AT ME
Agree 100% with you. Thus why they sign way more than 85 in a 4 year span
Keith, thanks for the contribution. I liked the article. It pointed out some of the underrated (possibly undervalued) guys who may not get the major pub but have the potential to do great things in college.
Personally, I think Neal should be rated a little higher but it doesn't upset me. Hopefully he lives up to the potential that, based on my bitesize amount of knowledge, I believe he possesses.
I started to add something to this effect when I linked the article. I didn't think the list was intending to disrespect the kids on it. The title is "Looks Can Deceive."
This list could be looked at as the, "We could only rank X number of guys as four and five stars, so we had better say something good about these guys that have shown they might be a force on the next level."
It could almost be looked at as a recruiting writer's "ace in the hole" to keep his credibility in the future. Four years from now when Neal, Andrew Billings or Jaylen Miller is a first day NFL draft pick, he can say, "We knew exactly what LSU was getting in him. We warned fans not to take him lightly" list.
Appreciate Keith coming over. Always a good thing when we can get a little more than just an article.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by chinese58 16 months ago
Yes, I pay for the rankings, ugh...
Had some long response then a "Bug" hit the site and it got lost. So I'll leave it at that. Neal deserves better, bottom line. He's our only guy I can honestly say is ranked way lower than he should be.
Then, once again, don't list him at 6'1"!
My "great post" had nothing to do with the offers, it has to do with the issue about the height. If Neal is downrated because he's not really 6"1", are the other guys listed at 6"1" also 5'11", or are they really 6'1"? Maybe you should bump them all up to 6'3" in that case so it's clearer why they're rated higher, if it's about size.
I understand Sonny's rationale for not putting the real numbers up, but at the same time it's your product that lists height and weight, and that you're turning around and arguing against.
No big deal and those of us that follow recruiting know the numbers aren't very reliable anyway. Would be nice to fix them when the actual height is known and is being used as the basis for the rankings.
It would just be nice if there was some internal consistency of the 247 height information. That's why I said "good post".
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by NorfolkVaTiger 16 months ago
Thanks for stopping by Keith. Appreciate the insight even if we have a bone or two to pick over some minor details. Looking forward to seeing how Neal does once he gets to LSU.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports