Rankings Often Don't Translate To On-Field Success

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/31/2811916/rankings-often-dont-translate.html#

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on his claim that he has 90 percent of the 2010 season in Texas in a data base.

Rick

[FloMoGrad]

90% of all HS game films sounds like bullshit. Either way, what a great job, watch tape all day, travel to watch games and meet players. Cool gig to say the least.

I think it's interesting that TCU and stanford weren't even in the Top 50 recruiting classes, yet both finished the year in the top 5.

It's more about what you do when you get them here than it is about getting them here.

Chicken/Egg.

[FirefightnRick]

It's more about what you do when you get them here than it is about getting them here.

Exactly.

Rick

[forevereagle]

On a related note, ESPN follow up on 2007 top 150. Very interesting to see where they are now and what happened during their careers. Many will not play in the NFL and are/were lower draft picks.

Edited February 1, 2011 by forevereagle

[FloMoGrad]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I changed dramatically from 17-20. Grew taller, started filling out, faster stronger, all those things. So if I got a grade my Sr. yr, it had nothing to do with how much I had blossemed in the next 2-3 yrs.

So to try and predict who's going to be the best in 3-4 yrs is never going to be accurate.

I look at recruiting grades as a arbitrary number assigned in order to quantify the "quality" of ones class. They are not and never will be an accurate predictor of an athlete's potential, career success and prospects for a career in the NFL.