Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Scott says young receivers have a lot to prove but will get their chance
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 106
| visibility 1

Scott says young receivers have a lot to prove but will get their chance


Jul 22, 2011, 5:30 PM

 
Scott says young receivers have a lot to prove but will get their chance

WR coach Jeff Scott has a lot more tools this season with the five new players – Martavis Bryant, Sammy Watkins, Charone Peake, Adam Humphries and Stanton Seckinger Full Story »


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice


Jul 22, 2011, 5:51 PM

Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach. Based on the Morris interview the other day, Morris is very disappointed in the WRs' performance in spring camp. I expect Chad Morris will be coaching both Jeff Scott AND the WRs next season. I'll bet that Morris has essentially put Jeff Scott on notice Morris won't tolerate another year of underperforming recruits.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice


Jul 22, 2011, 6:17 PM

Jeff Scott's job is safe so long as he continues to bring in hot recruits, but can we not move him to another position and move elliot to WR coach?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I agree. And get a RB coach to coach RB's***


Jul 22, 2011, 9:47 PM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Jul 22, 2011, 7:21 PM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

Relatively speaking, of course. Maybe some of them were able to beat defensive backs in high school for position, but last year they weren't. They might have good hands, and they might run good routes, but if they don't have the speed it doesn't matter for the most part. Hardly fair to bash Jeff Scott for that.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Jul 22, 2011, 8:14 PM

Hardly fair to use the exact statement of Coach Morris to defend him either. Didn't hear anyone in 2010 talking about how slow our WR's were. The exact assessment was, they can't catch the ball, nor could they run routes. Jeff had that same 29 days of practice he mentioned in the article in 2010 to teach route running and catching. He didn't get the job done!!!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I'm not using Coach Morris's statement. I'm using what I saw


Jul 22, 2011, 9:21 PM

on the field. Our receivers very rarely created any separation. We threw very few times downfield. Did you see something I didn't?!?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"All those 'Fire Brownell' guys can kiss it." -Joseph Girard III

"Everybody needs to know that Coach Brownell is arguably the best coach to come through Clemson." -PJ Hall


Yup


Jul 22, 2011, 9:43 PM

I also saw an injured QB, who couldn't make deep passes. A bad OC and key injuries will make any coach look bad.

Judge you normally aren't a naysayer, everything ok?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Jul 22, 2011, 9:25 PM [ in reply to Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow. ]

Contrary to Morris's claim about the lack of WR speed the other day, WR speed isn't likely that bad, because the 40-time data contradicts that. More likely poor route running (thanks in part to Jeff Scott's coaching ability) makes the WRs look slower since they don't run crisp routes to help them gain separation.

Last season the roster had receivers whose 40-yard-dash times (as reported by Rivals.com) were 4.4, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.6, 4.6, & 4.6 (not that Rivals.com is 100% acurate.) Our best WR last year, Hopkins had a 40-time of 4.6 and got good separation, so there was ample speed.

During spring camp there were at least five 4-star WRs. Rivals.com listed them as having 40-times of 4.4, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, & 4.6.

Our springtime DBs however, were really fast. They show 40-times of 4.4, 4.4, 4.4, & 4.5. Our best CB last year, Gilchrist, had a 40-time of 4.5, so the younger DBs are probably fast enough to hang with just about anybody, and they probably tend to make our WRs look slower than they are.

When I looked at the Rivals data on Tulsa’s players under Morris. It looks like his WRs were roughly the same speed, but it looks like Tulsa’s DBs were a bit slower. On average, the star rankings of Tulsa's WRs & DBs were a lot lower. And, on average, Tulsa's players were shorter. (Guys like AJ Green and Julio Jones were listed on Rivals as having 40-times of 4.5, but they’re 6’4" and 6’5".

I’m not sure if the DB speed or overall size difference with Tulsa's players affected Morris’s perception of the WR speed or our WR’s all have real-world-football speed that is slower than their Rivals.com-reported 40 times. If it were one or two guys I could accept it, but statistically it seems unlikley that so much of the Rivals data would be skewed against Clemson's WRs and and towards Tulsa's.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Jul 23, 2011, 12:53 AM

Thank you for your post.
Much appreciated.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Jul 23, 2011, 9:22 AM [ in reply to Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow. ]

Great data, Razz. I, too, don't think our receivers are the slowest in the land. Nor do I think that to be successful they have to be able to outrun everybody else. I imagine it would take a lot of the football field for a 4.4 guy to run down a 4.6 guy who has a 5 yard separation, and a great route gets the separation. Most DB's start out backing up, and then have to turn to react to the route, and I know of no one who can run a 4.4 40 yds backwards. The coots Jeffery isn't the fastest player on the foeld, but he gets the job done. Now, he's a coot, and I can't stand that, but just saying, you don't have to be the fastest to be successful. He is, however, bad seed.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Geez, those are estmations though


Jul 24, 2011, 8:21 PM [ in reply to Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow. ]

A lot of those are hand timed by their own coaches. They have to report a sub 4.6 or nobody is going to come recruit them.

Have you not noticed how every high school has a guy that runs a 4.4 and then when you get to the NFL combine there are only 10 guys in the country that can actually run that fast.

I assure you that we have WRs that run 4.7 or worse...everybody does.

We know that Rivals data is off, we just don't know by how much.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yep. That's why above I noted that caveat.


Jul 25, 2011, 12:16 AM

Above I wrote (with emphasis added here): Last season the roster had receivers whose 40-yard-dash times (as reported by Rivals.com) were 4.4, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.6, 4.6, & 4.6 (not that Rivals.com is 100% acurate.)

But statistically over a larger sample size, it's hard to imagine Clemson's WR recruits' 40-times are being falsified more than other schools' WR recruit 40-times (like Tulsa's recruits). So the Rivals 40-time data is probably useful for relative comparisons of different sets of players (like Clemson's WRs vs. Tulsa's WRs or Clemson's WRs vs Clemson's DBs.)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't think its that useful in the way you're using it


Jul 25, 2011, 12:48 AM

I really think the eyeball test in a college game is more accurate than their high school 40 time. Separation and top end speed in a game is real. Morris' comments are coach-speak.

Since the HS numbers are more likely to be false in some way, I personally wouldn't pass it off as a definitive indicator of anything. Ex. Spiller runs a 4.37. What WR is .03 behind Spiller? Your eyeball test knows that none of them are even close to having that kind of explosiveness even though at one point someone tried to pass it off that they did.

I will say to your overall point, if they all run a 4.6, they are fast enough to contribute....but I think you're logic is flawed in this way: It's very obvious that we didn't have a Julio Jones/A.J. Green type athlete at WR. A guy like that would make more of a difference than 6 guys with better than average 40 times. I assume we agree there.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I swear you make the best anti-Dabo arguments***


Jul 22, 2011, 9:51 PM [ in reply to Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow. ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow.


Aug 16, 2011, 6:46 PM [ in reply to Regardless of star ratings, our WRs last year were slow. ]

You're born with a certain amount of natural muscular ability with regards to speed.

Speed, however, can be developed to a certain extent.

Jeff Scott doesn't develop wide receivers.

He needs to be bumped to administration as an executive assistant to Brad.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice


Jul 22, 2011, 9:30 PM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

Stars mean NOTHING.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This gets old


Jul 22, 2011, 9:41 PM

They do mean something, but they aren't exact. They are good for what they measure, but just like the SAT, if you train for a better 40, you will have a better 40.

Look at our history of 5 and 4 stars and tell me they weren't some of our best.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If so, then there is no need to be particularly excited


Jul 22, 2011, 11:17 PM [ in reply to Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

about the incoming freshmen. No more so than any other class.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Here's statistical proof that stars mean a LOT...


Jul 23, 2011, 4:18 AM [ in reply to Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

Please read the following five Yahoo Sports articles providing statistical analyses showing that star ranking mean a LOT. Please let us know if you agree or disagree with the data and statistical analyses. If you disagree, please let us know any problems with the data or statistical analyses.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-track-record-at-th?urn=ncaaf-312394

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Judging-the-recruiting-rankings-gam?urn=ncaaf-312875

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-overachieving-team?urn=ncaaf-313921

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-underachieving-tea?urn=ncaaf-314624

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

A must read for anybody who thinks stars don't matter.


Jul 23, 2011, 12:10 PM

Putting a star beside a players name doesn't make them any better than they were before the star. Star rankings miss on a lot of players. Of course, nobody has ever claimed otherwise. The facts are out there in black and white, and the correlation is undeniable. Star rankings are a decent general indicator of future success. Having a higher ranked recruiting class is a good thing, while having a lower ranked class is a bad thing, generally speaking.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


See below.***


Jul 24, 2011, 1:01 PM [ in reply to Here's statistical proof that stars mean a LOT... ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

They mean less for an individual to succeed, but as a whole


Jul 23, 2011, 10:17 AM [ in reply to Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

a team is much better off with 4 and 5 star players.

This said, a player is much more likely to be successful if he is a 5 star vs a 3 star.

Give me a decent coach full of 4 and 5 stars players and he will beat a great coach with 2 and 3 stars 9 out of 10 times.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Simple math...


Jul 23, 2011, 10:20 AM

If you sign a team full of 4 and 5 star guys, then more of the guesses are bound to be correct.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I assumed that was a given***


Jul 23, 2011, 12:50 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Of course it is. Did someone say differently?***


Jul 24, 2011, 12:50 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

4?


Jul 22, 2011, 9:38 PM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

Joe Craig redshirted, Martavias Bryant had to go to a prep school, and Hopkins was by far the best on the team.

The only mistake made was Craig red shirting and Napier made that decision.

Morris was calling out the Seniors and red shirt juniors... On 3rd base... Get it? Meaning shape up or you won't make it with the younger talent around... Jeff's recruits

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I thought the only reason Craig redshirted was size?***


Jul 23, 2011, 12:09 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I thought the only reason Craig redshirted was size?***


Jul 23, 2011, 12:55 AM

'thought so, too.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No. He deferred to enroll in a bathroom weapons program. :-)***


Jul 23, 2011, 4:05 AM [ in reply to I thought the only reason Craig redshirted was size?*** ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes and no


Jul 23, 2011, 9:59 AM [ in reply to I thought the only reason Craig redshirted was size?*** ]

No player wants to red shirt. The coaches just didn't think he was ready, but later said he should have played just to spread the field.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Hopkins, McNeal, Jones, & Ford all 4-star WRs. See below.***


Jul 23, 2011, 6:33 PM [ in reply to 4? ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

See below.***


Jul 24, 2011, 1:00 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Your post below doesn't deny that there were FOUR 4-star WRs


Jul 24, 2011, 7:33 PM

That was the point of my response to this sub-thread entitled "4?", where the author mistakenly thought I was referring to Martavis Bryant as the "4th" 4-star WR.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm sorry, but you lost me...


Jul 25, 2011, 12:36 PM

Again, just because we had some 4 star players who haven't yet shown a 4 star talent, that doesn't automatically mean they weren't coached well. It very possible they weren't true 4 star guys to begin with. Happens all the time, all over the country. As has been substantiated by YOUR links, recruiting rankings are not an exact science, and they miss more than they hit.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please read the sub-thread posts IN CONTEXT before replying.


Jul 25, 2011, 4:49 PM

In this sub-thread, entitled "4?" (started by ElemntsOfWay) he denied my claim that there were FOUR 4-star WRs on the team in 2010. I think he forgot about Brandon Ford and he mistakenly thought that I had counted Martavis Bryant. So I replied to his post, listing the four 4-star WRs. But you jumped in the middle with an out-of-context post. You did the same thing at least once below. Please read the threads and sub-threads in context and try to keep track of the conversation and who said what. It would save a lot of time and misunderstanding.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Huh?


Jul 26, 2011, 12:32 PM

So you are agreeing that stars are not an exact science, and that trying to evaluate 1,000,000+ high schools kids on a scale from 2-5 misses A LOT more than it hits? Or are you maintaining it was poor coaching?

I'm fully aware of all the context here. Are you?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Huh?


Jul 27, 2011, 2:33 AM

You wrote: So you are agreeing that stars are not an exact science

Yes, I'm agreeing that stars are not an exact science. (I already told you that in an earlier reply to you.)

You wrote: ...and that trying to evaluate 1,000,000+ high schools kids on a scale from 2-5 misses A LOT more than it hits

I never made any comment about 1M+ HS kids, etc. I guess it depends how you define evaluating 1M+ kids. I don't know. What I do know is that if you look at our roster, most of the 4-stars and some of our 3-stars perform like 4-stars-- except at wide receiver, where only 1-out-of-4 4-stars and 0-out-of-4 3-stars performed like 4-stars. Maybe that's a bad stroke of luck or maybe it's poor coaching.

You wrote: Or are you maintaining it was poor coaching?

Read what I wrote in my original post:
"Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10751134#10751134


You wrote:
I'm fully aware of all the context here. Are you?

If you were really aware of the context of this subthread entitled "4?" then you wouldn't have posted "See below". I still don't think you get the concept of replying to sub-threads. The indentations show that the reply was to the post above it that was less-indented. Look at this subthread entitled "4?". Read the comment entitled "4?" which denied my claim that were actually four 4-star WRs. I replied by listing the four 4-star WRs, and then you replied to me "See below" where you address the completely different issue of the accuracy of star-rankings.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10754531
See what I mean? It causes a lot of confusion when you derail a subthread with an out-of-context post that's irrelevant to the subthread. Almost everybody else adheres to this convention.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

LOL. Do you really expect me to read all that nonsense?


Jul 27, 2011, 11:00 AM

The bottom line, again, is that you have no basis for your opinion.

The facts are these guys played under a QB who was afraid to throw the ball, a couple of them are still developing, a couple them have irrefutably displayed less than 4 star talent, and a couple of guys coached by the same coach have shown tremendous talent and one is a star in the NFL.

Conversely, it's shallow-minded to attach yourself to some wrong-more-than-right star system that tries to rank 1M+ kids on a scale from 2-5.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think that sums up your way of looking at others' opinions


Jul 27, 2011, 1:08 PM

You wrote: The bottom line, again, is that you have no basis for your opinion.

I gave you the basis for my opinions. If you disagree that's fine. But to say that I have no basis for my opinions shows me how you view others' opinions. I understand the basis for your opinions. I just disagree.

You wrote:
The facts are these guys played under a QB who was afraid to throw the ball...
But the QB who was supposedly afraid to throw the ball, sure made Hopkins (and only Hopkins) look good. I guess that's just my "no basis" opinion and all of the WRs did just as well as Hopkins, or the QB only threw accurately to Hopkins while throwing off-target to all the other receivers. To you, that probably seems liks a perfectly logical basis for your opinion.

You wrote:
...and a couple of guys coached by the same coach have shown tremendous talent and one is a star in the NFL.
Are you referring to Aaron Kelly, who was already one of Clemson's best receiver (and a senior) when Jeff Scott started coaching him halfway through the 2008 season? Kelly was a free agent who, I think, is warming the bench in Atlanta if he didn't get cut. Or are you referring to Jacoby Ford, who was a FOUR-STAR NCAA 60M-dash champion and who was already one of Clemson's best receivers and a junior when Scott started coaching him halfway through the 2008 season? That's your proof of Jeff Scott's coaching ability? That's quite a stretch in my "no-basis" opnion.

You wrote:
Conversely, it's shallow-minded to attach yourself to some wrong-more-than-right star system that tries to rank 1M+ kids on a scale from 2-5.
That statement says a lot about your views of other peole's opinions and the way you debate here.
1) I never said anything about the 1M+ kids thing. Those are your words.
2) If people express a differing opinion, it's "shallow-minded"-- unlike your illogical stances above about the QB accuracy or Jeff Scott putting WRs in the NFL.

Reasonable adults can disagree without name calling.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What are you talking about? I said your opinion was fine,


Jul 27, 2011, 6:27 PM

, but you have no basis for it. And you don't.

You blame the fact that 3 of 4 WRs, who were 4 star guys coming out of high school, didn't perform up to your expectations due to a lack of coaching, but the only thing you can base it on is a quantity of stars. Does not ring funny to you? Not at all?

Are you saying Coach Swinney was the guy responsible for making Kelly the record breaking WR that he was? I though you said he couldn't coach either? What about Tyler Grisham? He wasn't highly recruited and he made the NFL. Who's fault was that? Are you saying Scott had nothing to do with Kelly or Ford? Are you saying Jacoby was naturally talented and not really well coached? But wait, I thought this whole thing revolved around natural talent? How do you decide when a coach gets credit for that ans when he doesn't? Another silly angle by you. Yo';re not making sense.

Are you really suggesting that our QB play was okay last year? Are you really suggesting that poor QB play was not part of the problem with ball distribution? Really? Did you watch any games? If you did, do you have any clue what is you're seeing out there?

Again, the guys you say underperformed, it can be much more justifiably said that they DID meet their ranking, or they were not accurately ranked to begin with (because we know that happens more often than not), or they are still developing.

Nuke Hopkins: has shown 4-star talent.

Marquan Jones: He has had a ton of touches, but he has not shown anything remotely related to poor coaching. he is a nice serviceable guy, be he's clearly NOT one of the top 0.04% of most talented players in his class. It's absurd to suggest he is.

Bryce McNeal: The jury is still out. He dropped some balls last year, but he was also running open repeatedly. unfortunately our poor offense and poor QB play prevented him from seeing more touches. In any event, it's too early to judge McNeal.

Brandon Ford: He's not even playing at WR anymore because he outgrew the position! Regardless, he showed some improvement late in the season last year and may end up exhibiting some semblance 4 star talent if he develops in his new position.

You admit the industry misses on individual players more so than not. So it is entirely possible these guys weren't ranked correctly to begin with. I can't say that I know for sure, but neither can you.

To simply write them off as poorly coached is shallow-minded, at best.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Fine? "No basis", "silly", "ignorant", etc. That's fine?


Jul 27, 2011, 11:28 PM

You have an interesting vocabulary for expressing "fine".

This is going nowhere. You misundertood my original post and every attempt that I've made to explain it. You don't seem to understand how you're mischaracterizing my posts. You keep making up stuff that I didn't say and then arguing against the words that you put in my mouth, while calling me shallow-minded, silly, ignorant, etc. I don't think I've ever had a discussion quite like it. It's remarkable. It's clear to me that we won't come to any mutual understanding, so take your last shots. I'm done.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It isn't going anywhere because you can't admit the error of


Jul 28, 2011, 11:43 AM

your ways.

Okay, so you adjusted your tune a little from your first response. Now you say it's "either a statistical aberration or poor coaching". Thing is, either way, when you say that you ARE basing that on wrong-more-than-right "stars".

If the players in question don't all pan out as "4 stars" (LOL), then that in no way, shape, or form has to fall into one of those two categories. First off, it wouldn't be a statistical aberration. Not sure where you're getting that from. Secondly, I gave several other potential reasons, which as a whole and by looking closer at the reality of the situation (and not just some wrong-more-than-right "stars", makes a much stronger case.

I completely understand. Obviously you do not.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice


Jul 23, 2011, 8:39 AM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

This just points out what I saw as a football manager for Clemson from 1962-1965. We had a lot of hot shot can't miss recuits that never played a down in college. They were great in high school, but in college, they were like everyone else. Then it came down to work ethic, effort and desire. They all got same coaching, some excelled, some just coasted for 4 years. You are quick to blame the coaches , Razz, but I know from experience that what makes a star player is between the kid's ears. Some just think all they have to do is walk on the field, cause that's what they have been told all their lives and can't or won't make the adjustment. You rag on the coaches because they aren't who you want, but injuries and player attitude has more to do with it and coaches can't always control that...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice


Jul 23, 2011, 9:32 AM

You're wasting your effort there, tony. Razz doesn't want to be fair to our coaches, no matter what. Broken records don't suddenly start playing a different tune.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Read my following reply & tell me exactly how I'm "unfair".


Jul 23, 2011, 1:13 PM

Most of my opinions are based on hard data which I provide in my posts. Please review the data in the following post and tell me exactly how I've been "unfair".
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10752492

You may have a different opinion, but after reviewing my logic and data, I think it's hard to say that I'm "unfair". Agree or disagree, I think one would have to admit that I've made a logical, data-backed case.

Instead of simply insulting me, please make a coherent case refuting the data and statistical analyses. I'm open to data and logic, but not baseless assertions and insults.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's not "hard data"...


Jul 24, 2011, 1:29 PM

Recruiting rankings of individual players are absolutely, no doubt at all, subjective. The bottom line is they hit more than they miss.

You seem to be confused.

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10754496#10754496

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You missed my point. Was I being "unfair"?


Jul 24, 2011, 11:58 PM

Or did I make a well-reasoned case? I have no problem with people saying, "You're wrong, and here's my reasoning why." I have a problem with people simply dismissing an honest well reasoned argument and instead insulting me by saying that guy "doesn't want to be fair", as David78 did above.

Of course scouting ratings are subjective. By "hard data", I was refering to the correlation data showing that the subjective ratings correlate well to team success, winning, NFL-draft, etc.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, I didn't miss your point at all. Correct me if I'm wrong


Jul 25, 2011, 12:33 PM

, but you seem to be saying that recruiting rankings are precise and that our wide receivers should have played better simply because they were ranked 4 stars. Correct?


My point is, and reality is rankings of individual players miss more than they hit. Only 1 in 33 4 and 5 star players ever end up making any type of All-American list. If they were truly 4 and 5 star players coming out of high-school, then more than 3% of them should make some type of all-american grade. By the same token, the VAST MAJORITY of the NFL is made up of 2-3 star players or guys who were never ranked at all. That tells you they should have been higher ranked in the recruiting process.

In other words, recruiting rankings are not an exact science, and in fact they miss more than they hit.

I don't know who you're talking about as far as "people simply dismissing an honest well reasoned argument", but it wasn't me.

I'm not sure what you think you've been reading in those links, but virtually all of it backs what I'm saying here. Your "correlation data" does a very nice job of substantiating my argument.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes you missed the point. Yes you're wrong.


Jul 25, 2011, 4:58 PM

StanleyTiger wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that recruiting rankings are precise and that our wide receivers should have played better simply because they were ranked 4 stars. Correct?

Incorrect. I never said the recruiting rankings are precise. Read what I wrote.

And I'm certainly not saying that just because we had four 4-stars that we should have 4 All-Americans (i.e. the best few players in the country). That's absurd.

StanleyTiger wrote: I don't know who you're talking about as far as "people simply dismissing an honest well reasoned argument", but it wasn't me.

That's the problem with some of your posts. I think it would save everyone a lot of time if you were to read the sub-thread replies in context. For example, in this sub-thread I was responding to David78's post that I didn't "want to be fair". But you apparently didn't read the subthread, so you didn't understand the context of my reply to David78. So you felt compelled to jump into the middle of the sub-thread and derail it with a post that's out-of-context and pretty irrelevant to the sub-thread.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, I'm not wrong. Not in anything I said.


Jul 26, 2011, 12:36 PM

You have most definitely asserted that just because we had some 4-star receivers on our roster that didn't play as well as you (without basis) think they should have, that that automatically means they were poorly coached.

I have read everything in context and precisely countered all of it. There is no problem with anything I've said in this thread. I would suggest you look within yourself as opposed to getting testy and making a bunch of junk up to cover your tracks.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You said that I said rankings are "precise". That's WRONG!


Jul 27, 2011, 2:19 AM

You wrote:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that recruiting rankings are precise and that our wide receivers should have played better simply because they were ranked 4 stars. Correct?"
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10757058#10757058

Per your request, I corrected you and you're wrong about what I said. I never said that recruiting rankings are precise. In my original post I wrote:
"Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10751134#10751134

You also wrote:
"You have most definitely asserted that just because we had some 4-star receivers on our roster that didn't play as well as you (without basis) think they should have, that that automatically means they were poorly coached."

I never said any such thing. Show me where I said that.

If you're not wrong about the way you've misrepresented what I've said, then please show me where I said recruiting rankings are precise and that automatically means the wide receivers were poorly coached. Just copy and paste it my posts into your reply.

I still don't think you get the concept of replying to sub-threads. The indentations show that the reply was to the post above it that was less-indented. Look at this subthread entitled "4?". Read the comment entitled "4?" which questioned my claim that there weren't really four 4-star WRs. I replied by listing the four 4-star WRs, and then you replied to me "See below" where you address the completely different issue of the accuracy of star-rankings.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10754531
See what I mean? It causes a lot of confusion when you derail a subthread with an out-of-context post that's irrelevant to the subthread. Almost everybody else adheres to this convention.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: You said that I said rankings are "precise". That's WRONG!


Jul 27, 2011, 2:43 AM

Disregard the last paragraph. I meant to say:

I still don't think you get the concept of replying to sub-threads. The indentations show that the reply was to the post above it that was less-indented. Look at this subthread where Davd78 accuses me of being unfair.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10752119
I responded to David78 explaining why I wasn't unfair.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10752540
Then you made the reply that recruiting rankings are subjective-- which has nothing to do with whether or not I was being unfair.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10754559
See what I mean? It causes a lot of confusion when you derail a subthread with an out-of-context post that's irrelevant to the subthread. Almost everybody else adheres to this convention.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't undertsand the concept of sub-threads??


Jul 27, 2011, 10:58 AM

What? LMAO!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Is that your way of avoiding answering my reply?


Jul 27, 2011, 5:22 PM

You didn't answer this post. Is that because you have no logical answer and don't want to admit that you were wrong in mischaracterizing what I wrote?
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10765170

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Again, what are you talking about???


Jul 27, 2011, 6:31 PM

I didn't mis-characterize anything.

You definitively claim our WRs were poorly coached, but you have no reality based backing for that opinion... other than a qty of stars beside their name which has been shown to be inaccurate more than it is accurate.

Stars are not science, and using a few players star ranking to say a position coach isn't doing well is shallow-minded at best especially when there are a plethora of other, more reasonable explanations.

What are you not getting here?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So are you admitting you were wrong, or no?


Jul 27, 2011, 11:06 AM [ in reply to You said that I said rankings are "precise". That's WRONG! ]

It's silly and frankly ignorant to say a few kids have not been coached well, with the only basis being they had a 4-star ranking coming out of high school. Hopefully you can see that now. If not, I feel kind of sorry for you. I don't know what the heck else it is you're babbling on and on about, but it's completely irrelevant.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So you're refusing to address my points, right?


Jul 27, 2011, 1:20 PM

You just completely blew off my counterpoints where I showed the basis for my opinion, showed the illogic of your opinion, and showed why your replies are out-of-context and irrelevant.

But rather than make intelligent, logical counteroints, you simply say it's "silly and ignorant". I think that says a lot about the way you think.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I addressed everything worth addressing. Please try


Jul 27, 2011, 6:35 PM

re-reading my replies and then read the new ones as well.

Please be more precise in stating what I haven't addressed, or what you're not getting.

Again, it IS silly and ignorant to say some players haven't met their (wrong more than right) star rating simply because they were poorly coached. It's all in black and white. The reasons that opinion is silly are stated all throughout this thread. Kind of weird how you're not getting them.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

And you refuse to admit that you misstated what I wrote?***


Jul 27, 2011, 1:22 PM [ in reply to So are you admitting you were wrong, or no? ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

LOL.


Jul 27, 2011, 6:39 PM

No, I didn't. Your position is that our WRs are poorly coached, but your ONLY basis for that is a more often than not inaccurate star quantity beside their name. My position is that it's MUCH deeper than that, and I've listed those reasons. I am not saying one way or another how the WRs were coached, but it's obvious my position is stronger than yours. What am I misstating??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't know how else to explain it to you.


Jul 27, 2011, 11:40 PM

In my original post, I wrote:
Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach.

StanleyTiger wrote:
Your position is that our WRs are poorly coached, but your ONLY basis for that is a more often than not inaccurate star quantity beside their name.

That's a mischaracterization of what I wrote. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wrong again.


Jul 28, 2011, 11:47 AM

Sorry if "ONLY" made it difficult for you, but in any event your stance that's it's an either/or situation is incorrect and shallow, certainly if you simply write it off as poor coaching, which in effect you have done several times int he course of this thread.

It can most certainly be other, more reality based reasons.

Stars are not really that close to reality. Again, stars on an individual player basis are wrong a lot more than they're right. Therefore, it would NOT BE a "statistical aberration" if only a couple of them pan out as "4 star" players.

Hopefully you can see your error now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You're ignoring the statistical evidence & missing the point


Jul 23, 2011, 12:45 PM [ in reply to Re: He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

You're arguing against a point that nobody is making. Nobody in their right mind is claiming that every recruit fulfills his high school star-ranking when he gets to college. There are exceptions in both directions. There are individuals who don't meet expectations and individuals who exceed expectations.

But statistically, on average, guys with higher star ratings tend to do better than guys with lower star rankings-- unless they're Clemson's wide receivers. With all of the 4-star talent (and 3-star talent) that Clemson has had at WR over the last few years (including last season where only Hopkins lived up to his 4-star potential), statistically, it's just not reasonable to think it's a massive coincidence that most Clemson wide receivers don't live up to their star-ranking expectations, whereas most players at other school do live up to their expectations. Obviously it's because other schools have better coaches.

Please read the following five Yahoo Sports articles providing in-depth statistical analyses showing that star ranking matter a LOT. Teams with higher-star-ranked kids tend to succeed and beat teams with lower star-rankings. And higher star-ranked kids tend win more games and get drafted higher (and in a far higher percentage) by the NFL (4-5 years after they were star-ranked in high school). Please don't just dismiss the data and analyses without seriously reviewing it and understanding it. Please let us know if you agree or disagree with the data and statistical analyses. If you disagree, please let us know any problems with the data or statistical analyses, and/or provide your own data and statistical analysis to the contrary.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-track-record-at-th?urn=ncaaf-312394

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Judging-the-recruiting-rankings-gam?urn=ncaaf-312875

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-overachieving-team?urn=ncaaf-313921

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-underachieving-tea?urn=ncaaf-314624

In general, Dabo has done less with more talent. Dabo's teams have lost too many games to teams with inferior player-talent. That's obviously just bad coaching, and Dabo has clearly been out-coached.

In 2009, Dabo lost 4 games to 3 teams with inferior player talent; UMD, SCar, & GT (x2).

In 2010, Dabo lost 3 games to 3 teams with clearly inferior player talent (UNC, BC, & USF) and he got spanked by SCar which had slightly inferior talent.

Even good coaches lose an occasional game to an inferior team. But Dabo lost 8 games to inferior teams in the last two year-- including several losses to teams with clearly inferior player-talent and a couple spankings by teams with slightly inferior player talent. Statistically, that proves that Dabo and his crew have simply been out-coached.

Here are links to the pre-game 2-deep analyses for 3 of Dabo's 2010 losses, where the star-ranking data from Rivals and Scout are compiled and charted without any subjective analysis of the charted data. It clearly shows that Dabo lost to teams with inferior player-talent.

BC:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2011/5/24/2182690/two-deep-recruiting-comparison-clemson-vs-boston-college-2010

USF:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2010/12/22/1890972/two-deep-talent-recruiting-comparison-clemson-and-usf

South Carolina:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2011/6/14/2214467/two-deep-recruiting-comparison-clemson-vs-south-carolina-2010

Most people hold coaches responsible for COACHING players up to their talent level, but Dabo & Bowden fans seem to deny the statistical evidence of poor coaching and blame everything on the players. Good coaches teach, inspire, motivate, discipline, game-plan, & play-call, and recruit well. Dabo and Scott recruit well, but they waste a lot of player-talent because they don't do well at those other aspects of coaching. People can make all kind of emotional arguments but the stats show the reality.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, you're missing the point...


Jul 24, 2011, 1:42 PM

Just because a kid is subjectively rated a 4-star player that doesn't guarantee a darn thing. In fact, the very links you provided show only 1 in 33 players who were 4-5 star recruits ever make any type of all-american list at all. That is, the "hard data" shows that a mere 3% of 4-5 star players end up being an all-american of one form or another (let alone the recognized lists). That data in no way, shape, or form lends itself to anything you've said in this thread. in fact, your links clearly show that rankings miss more then they hit.

Furthermore, on EVERY SINGLE SATURDAY, teams lose to teams with lower recruiting rankings. Trying to break it down the form of an exact science like you did, is comical at best.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

NEWSFLASH!...


Jul 23, 2011, 10:08 AM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

"Stars" are not an exact science. They are mostly a guess, and sometimes they don't translate from high school to college. That goes for highly ranked guys and lower ranked guys, and attempting to rank all of the nation's bazillion high school players on a scale of 2-5 is not always indicative of the real world. Stars should not be taken as literally as some fans try to do.


..Just thought that might need to be mentioned here.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wrong! Here's statistical proof that stars mean a LOT...


Jul 23, 2011, 11:11 AM

Please read the following five Yahoo Sports articles providing statistical analyses showing that star ranking mean a LOT. Please let us know if you agree or disagree with the data and statistical analyses. If you disagree, please let us know any problems with the data or statistical analyses.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-track-record-at-th?urn=ncaaf-312394

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Judging-the-recruiting-rankings-gam?urn=ncaaf-312875

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-overachieving-team?urn=ncaaf-313921

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-underachieving-tea?urn=ncaaf-314624

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Nope. A) No one said the stars don't matter, B) That's not


Jul 24, 2011, 1:00 PM

statistical proof countering what I said, and C) I wasn't "WRONG".

You seem to be confused. I’m sorry, but in short, nothing in any of the blogs contradicts anything I said. They certainly don’t prove me to be “wrong”, and in fact they show my statements to be correct. Again, here’s what I said:

"Stars" are not an exact science. They are mostly a guess, and sometimes they don't translate from high school to college. That goes for highly ranked guys and lower ranked guys, and attempting to rank all of the nation's bazillion high school players on a scale of 2-5 is not always indicative of the real world. Stars should not be taken as literally as some fans try to do.

You’re confused in that you seem to think I said stars don’t matter. They do matter, but not nearly as much as some of you fans seem to think. Your blog links support that position, they don’t counter it.

This whole thing started when someone insinuated our 2010 wide receivers must have been poorly coached simply because a few of them were “4-stars”. My point is, that’s an overly simplistic approach and not based in reality. Just because a kid was ranked 4-stars out of high school, that doesn’t automatically mean he’s a great player. By the same token, just because a kid is ranked 3 stars or lower coming out of high school, that doesn’t automatically mean he’s not good enough to be an All-American in college. Again, the point here is the rankings miss a lot, both at the high end and the low end.

I’ve said dozens of times, if you sign a bunch of 4 or 5 star kids, then you’re bound to have some pretty good talent on your team. To that point, stars do have significance. But then again, when the vast majority of the NFL is made up of 2-3 star, or completely unranked players, then that clearly shows the stars are not an “exact science”. If you have enough raw talent to play in the best football league in the world, then why were you not ranked higher coming out of high school? Sure, there are some other factors, but overall it’s because stars are not completely objective. They’re not based on a binary science, and the services very frequently miss on a huge portion of the nation’s 1,023,142 high school football players.

The blogs you linked do nothing to counter my position. In fact, there is a lot more agreement with my statements than anything else.

1. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

This blog states that only 15% of 2010’s recognized (by American Football Coaches' Association, Associated Press, Football Writers of America, Sporting News, and the Walter Camp Foundation) All-Americans were 4 or 5 star recruits. That means 85% of 2010’s recognized All-Americans were 3 stars or lower. And yes, 85% of all college signees were 3 stars or lower coming out of high school, but considering they also made up 85% of the recognized All-American list, then shouldn’t they have been ranked higher to begin with? The system clearly missed on a bunch of players.

Even when they reach out to include any all-american lists, this blog still makes a statement very similar to mine:

“Far more elite recruits are falling short of their star-studded birthright than are reaching it. Across the board, failure and mediocrity are the norm, but if you think of a four or five-star player as a guy who is supposed to become an All-American – and a two or three-star guy as someone who is definitely not supposed to become an All-American – then yes, the rankings frequently miss.”

I think it’s clear – the first blog you linked says pretty much exactly what I said.

2. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-track-record-at-th?urn=ncaaf-312394

This second blog states there’s a correlation between signing the very best recruits in the country and final season rankings, although not always. I agree that when you sign a bunch of 4 and 5 star players, then you’re bound to have some talent. When you consistently sign classes with more 4 and 5 star players then anyone else, then you’re probably going to have some good players.

Okay, and? I fully agree with that, but again, that has nothing to do with my notion that that the rankings frequently miss, or the oversimplified approach of saying we had some 4 star receivers and therefore we should have been good at that position. Again, recruiting rankings are not an exact science and the numbers clearly show they miss more than they hit.

This second blog does nothing to dispute what I said… or what the same guy said in his first blog for that matter.

3. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Judging-the-recruiting-rankings-gam?urn=ncaaf-312875

This third blog states that most of the time the teams that sign most of the 4 and 5 star players usually, but not always, tend to be pretty good.

Okay, and? Again, no one doubts that a good bit of the highest ranked kids end up being pretty good players. But the same blog also shows that “3 star teams” have a better winning percentage than the “4 star teams”. Did you notice that? That coincide with what I’m saying (and the blogger agrees)… Recruiting rankings (of individual players) are not an exact science and the numbers show they miss more than they hit.

4. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-overachieving-team?urn=ncaaf-313921

This fourth blog discusses teams who have gone against the grain of recruiting rankings. This blog lends itself nicely to the point I’ve been making. Did you really mean to include this one?

5. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-The-nation-s-most-underachieving-tea?urn=ncaaf-314624

This final blog also lists teams who have gone against the grain of recruiting rankings. The blogger again accentuates my point.

So all in all, your links which you meant to show me as “wrong”, they do nothing more than add credence to what I said. That is,

"Stars" are not an exact science. They are mostly a guess, and sometimes they don't translate from high school to college. That goes for highly ranked guys and lower ranked guys, and attempting to rank all of the nation's bazillion high school players on a scale of 2-5 is not always indicative of the real world. Stars should not be taken as literally as some fans try to do.

If we sign a ton of 4 and 5 star guys, then I think we probably signed some pretty good players. But not necessarily all of them... because individual player rankings miss more than they hit.

In summary, just because we had some 4 star wide receivers in our offense last year, that doesn’t automatically mean we should have been good at that position. It’s highly possible they were misses, like most often happens in the business of ranking a million high school kids on a scale of 2-5.

By the way, did you know that the vast majority of the NFL Pro Bowl roster last year was made up of players who were either ranked 2-3 stars, or not ranked at all?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

People who say stars don't matter and think recruiting


Jul 24, 2011, 3:17 PM

rankings are total BS are wrong. People, right here on T-net, do make that claim from time to time.

People who think recruiting rankings are an exact science are also wrong.

The truth is, as I've stated repeatedly over the years, recruiting rankings, while they miss on a lot of players, are a good general indicator of recruiting success, and to a slightly lesser extent are a decent, but flawed predictor of future success. The facts bear it out.

Too many people bash them as garbage, and they're not; it's just that people often misinterpret what they really mean and mis-apply them, reaching unfounded conclusions. A 5-star guy who doesn't pan out, or a 2-star guy who wins the Heisman proves nothing. Nor does a team loaded w/4 and 5-stars guarantee success. When people buy into those oversimplifications, it's their fault, not the recruiting service's.

Having a class full of 4 and 5-star recruits IS something to be excited about. It means that you have recruited well, and gotten a lot of players that were sought after by some proven, successful coaches. Getting a class that is lacking 4 and 5-star recruits, is in most cases, a cause for concern,at least for a school like Clemson, who supposedly wishes to compete against other schools who will be loaded with 4 and 5-star recruits. Can it be done without a lot of highly ranked recruits? Sure. But are the odds better with highly ranked classes? Absolutely.

The recruiting services are the only source of info we have for high school athletes, and for that I'm thankful, and in that regard, they provide a very valuable service.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


I'm not saying that. Not at all.


Jul 25, 2011, 12:41 PM

But to your point, team recruiting rankings can be considered "more accurate" at the top end, where all the 4 and 5 star kids are going. Again, if you sign more 4 and 5 star kids then you're bound to have more good players. But after you get out of the first 5-10 teams, maybe 15 teams, then you're really in a crapshoot as far as accuracy of rankings. They'd be more accurate lumped into tiers.

In any event, individual player rankings miss A LOT more than they hit. And just because we had some 4 star receivers who have yet to pan out, that doesn't automatically mean they were poorly coached, like some overly simplistic opinions being expressed in this thread.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sorry. Your "mostly a guess" comment threw me off course.


Jul 25, 2011, 4:13 AM [ in reply to Nope. A) No one said the stars don't matter, B) That's not ]

I appreciate your well-reasoned response. I have to apologize for leading you to write it because I completely misread what you wrote and I was too hasty to reply with "wrong!", when I actually agree with you that star-rankings are just an imperfect guide, but overall a useful indicator.

But since you did take the time to read the articles and write such a well-reasoned response, I'll take the time to make the following reply.

Link 1: I’m not saying that we should have 4 all Americans because we have 4 4-star WRs. I’m saying that when you have four, 4-star WRs (and four 3-star WRs) and you only field one decent, reliable WR (who’s a true freshman), you’ve either got a wicked statistical aberration or weak coaching.

Link 2: We agree.

Link 3: I don’t follow you. The chart shows that all grades of higher-star teams had winning percentages over all lower-star teams.

It is sad but interesting to note that Clemson (a 4-star team) went:
* 0-1 (.000) against 5-star teams (FSU). National average of 4-star vs 5-star was .371.
* 0-4 (.000) against 4-star teams (Auburn, Miami, UNC**, & SCar). National average was .513.
* 1-1 (.500) against 2-star teams (NCSU & USF). National average was .619.
* 1-0 (1.00) against 1-star teams (Wake). National average was .917.

** I think that with the NCAA suspensions, UNC only fielded a 3-star team against Clemson.

Statistically, I think that shows that Clemson has a seriously underperforming coaching staff.

Link 4: The article shows that some teams consistently outperform their star rankings. To me that proves some coaches consistently outperform others.

Link 5: The article shows that some teams consistently underperform their star-rankings. To me that proves some coaches consistently underperform others. (I think Clemson falls into that category. And if you read the national pundits, they have the same perception that Clemson is a perennial underperformer.)

Based on your comment, I did a quick web search (not an exhaustive one), and the first link that I found was the following article showing that of the 29 Pro Bowlers who were young enough to have been ranked by Rivals.com, 18 (62%) were 4-5 stars. Eight (28%) were 3-stars. Three (10%) were 2-stars or walk-ons. But all four wide receivers (100%) were 4-stars! :)
http://www.holyturf.com/2011/01/were-all-pro-bowlers-4-or-5-star-recruits/

If you have other Pro Bowl star-ranking data, I'd like to see it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Disagree...


Jul 25, 2011, 12:59 PM

LINK 1: It is not a "wicked statistical aberration" to have 4 star players and so far only 1 has shown that level of ranking. Conversely, when only 3% of 4 AND 5 star players ever make any type of all-american list, then surely a 75% miss rate for superstars is not unfounded. All 4 and 5 star players are projected to be stars at the next level, but, again, only 3% of them make an all-american list.

Thing is too, I don't we've seen the last of McNeal, Jones, or Ford. I expect with an improved offense and better distribution, they'll get a chance to show what they're made of. But in any event, simply writing it off as an aberration or bad coaching, that's way too over-simplistic.

LINK 2: We agree. The link substantiates my point.

LINK 3: Look again. 3-star teams have a better overall winning percentage than 4-star teams. But in any event, as I've said over a dozen times now, when you sign more 4 and 5 star players than most everyone, you're bound to have better talent...but that doesn't mean rankings for each player are accurate.

LINK 4: I think it's a MUCH MORE accurate assessment to say the recruiting rankings miss on a lot of the 1,000,000+ high school players in the country. When the VAST MAJORITY of the NFL is made up of them, that says it all.

LINK 5: Same thing in reverse. It shows recruiting rankings are often times based on hype instead of substance.

So all in all, and your links even state this almost exactly, recruiting rankings are not an exact science. FAR FROM IT. And rankings on on individual players are even less accurate, and they miss on a lot more than they hit.

You continue to put entirely too much emphasis on subjective rankings.

I will show the pro bowl numbers later. There are some who are not old enough to have been ranked in Rival's first year, but I think saying only 29 of them are young enough to be ranked is not accurate either.

But yet again, even if the entire pro bowl was made up of 4 and 5 star players, that wouldn't do much to counter the clear and irrefutable point that recruiting rankings miss more than they hit.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Disagree with your disagreement. :-)


Jul 25, 2011, 3:56 PM

Link 1: Per my post below, I'm not expecting all of the 4-stars to perform like All-Americans (i.e. be one of the top couple guys in the country). I'm expecting that if you have four 4-star WRs and four 3-star WRs, statistically we should expect more than one of them to be decent.

Link 3: I'm still not seeing it. But the data that I posted before pretty clearly shows that Clemson (as a 4-star team) performed far below the national average. Right? That seems like bad coaching to me, not just a statistical aberration. It's not absoluely proof. But statistically, I think that's about as much proof as you'll ever reasonably get that Dabo's staff (relative to other coaches) did less with more.

Links 4 & 5: I think that this is the fundamental difference in the way we view the stats. The stats show that over FIVE YEARS and hundreds of players, certain coaches consistently outperform their players' star-rankings and some coaches consistently underperform relative to their players' star rankings. To me that clearly shows that some coaches do a better job of developing & utilizing their player-talent and some coaches do a worse job of developing and utilizing their player-talent. If I understand your view correctly, that data merely shows that star-rankings aren't perfect. It seems that you're saying that some coaches aren't better at developing player talent than others. If that's really your view, then I'm just stunned, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wrong...


Jul 26, 2011, 12:48 PM

Simply because you have 4-star receivers on your roster, that doesn't guarantee they're of realistic 4-star talent. Happens all the time, on every roster in America. The facts are clear, the individual rankings of 1,000,000+ players are wrong a lot more than they're right.

Whether or not we won as many games as you think we should have, it has nothing to do with this discussion on our WR corp.

Not sure why you can't read it, but the link you included shows 3-star teams winning at a higher percentage than 4 star teams, which negatively affects whatever it is you think your proving int his discussion.

Links 4 and 5, although not related to individuals, can be deciphered in more ways than one. It can surely be said it shows teams rankings are not always accurate, or it can that some coaches do more with less or less with more. There is simply no way you can decidedly make that judgment. In any case, the links are more related to team rankings and not individual rankings.

And it remains 100% confirmed that recruiting rankings are not an exact science, and individual rankings miss A LOT more than they hit. Correspondingly, simply writing off a still developing WR corp as poorly coached is a baseless opinion, especially when there's evidence to the contrary.

There is no need to agree to disagree. I'm not wrong. What I've said here is objective reasoning. I'm not saying our WRs are poorly coached or that they were ranked incorrectly. However, you are trying to do that, but you fail to see it's really nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion that can go either way at this point.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Did you read that on Warchant?***


Jul 24, 2011, 7:48 PM [ in reply to Wrong! Here's statistical proof that stars mean a LOT... ]



2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


No. Yahoo Sports.***


Jul 24, 2011, 10:41 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

One was Bryant who didn't qualify till this year, so you


Jul 23, 2011, 3:31 PM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

van't cont him.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You can't blame Scott for Bryant he never qualified (till


Jul 23, 2011, 3:33 PM [ in reply to He had 4 4-star WRs in '10. I'd bet Morris put him on notice ]

this year)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not Bryant. Hopkins, McNeal, Jones, & Ford all 4-star WRs.


Jul 23, 2011, 6:11 PM

Here are the 4-star WRs that Jeff Scott had to work with in 2010 (and their Rivals-reported 40-yard dash times).
**** Nuke Hopkins, (4.6 seconds)
**** Bryce McNeal (4.5 seconds)
**** Marquan Jones (4.4 seconds)
**** Brandon Ford (4.6 seconds)

You probably missed 6'4" Brandon Ford. He was an standout WR in high school. He was recruited as a WR and played as a WR at Clemson until late September 2010 when the coaches moved him to TE, with 5 other TEs. (As if we needed 5 TEs). I'm not sure why the coaches couldn't get Ford to live up to his potential. The 2010 roster lists him at 6'4", 220 lbs-- just 15 pounds heavier than high school-- and very similar in size to NFL-1st-rounder, Julio Jones (6'3, 215).
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=8905

Here's Ford's bio from Tigernet (with emphasis added):
Overview: Reserve wide receiver in 2009 who will see more playing time this season...has the size to be an outstanding receiver for the Tigers...perhaps best on the team in the fade route...red-shirted the 2008 season at Clemson...named to ACC Academic Honor Roll for 2009-10...born New Year's Eve, 1989, one day after Clemson beat West Virginia in the 1989 Gator Bowl.

2009: Played 28 snaps in four games, he participated against Middle Tennessee, Wake Forest, Coastal Carolina and N.C. State...had one reception for four yards, it came against Coastal Carolina.

2008: Red-shirted.

Before Clemson: All-state as a senior captain at Hanahan High...#46 wideout in the nation by Rivals.com, #64 wideout by Scout.com, and #55 wideout by ESPN.com...#17 player in South Carolina by SuperPrep...Shrine Bowl pick...had 76 catches for 1,702 yards and 22 scores as a senior...led the state in receiving yards and touchdowns...third in the nation in receiving yards...team MVP as a forward/center on the hardwood...100m, 200m, 4x100m, and long jump athlete in track...coached by Jeff Cruce, an offensive lineman on Clemson's 1981 National Championship team...recruited by David Blackwell...chose Clemson over Georgia, Georgia Southern, Maryland, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia...born Dec. 31, 1989...majoring in sociology.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Hopkins seems to be a hit.


Jul 24, 2011, 1:15 PM

Marquan Jones seems to be a decent player, but do you think he was one the best players in the United States.. but merely under-coached?

Brandon Ford seems to be finding a niche and may be a part of Morris' offense, but again, do you think he was truly on of the top 0.2% of the one million high school players in the country?? Do you really think it was merely a case of him being under-coached?

Bryce McNeal, what have you seen from him that would lead you to believe his ranking was correct? Do you really think he's belongs in the best 0.2% of one million? He may catch more balls in Morris' offense, but I don't think you can say he was poorly coached in 2010 either.

And if the 3 guys above were poorly coached, what about Nuke Hopkins? Was someone else coaching him?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I agree that we are bad at evaluating recruits.


Jul 24, 2011, 11:08 PM

Especially when it comes to our receivers.

We have the sales side of recruiting locked up. Hopefully Morris can improve our evaluation.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I agree that we are bad at evaluating recruits.


Jul 24, 2011, 11:12 PM

what in the bluehell are you talking about. we just had the number 1 recruiting class in the country. we have had some great receivers in the past. last year was an off year. good lord at some of you people

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Excellent!


Jul 24, 2011, 11:47 PM

So much to love about your post. Thank you for this nugget for me to share. You have truly made my day.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Statistically, too many Clemson WRs are underperforming.


Jul 25, 2011, 4:30 AM [ in reply to Hopkins seems to be a hit. ]

I'm not claiming that based on the star-rankings we should have the best WRs in the land. I’m saying that when you have four, 4-star WRs (and four 3-star WRs) and you only field one decent, reliable WR (who’s a true freshman), you’ve either got a bad statistical aberration or weak coaching. Other than Hopkins, I think one could make the case that the other 7 star-ranked scholarship WRs underperformed their star-rankings. Maybe one could arue that Jaron Brown and Brandon Clear lived up to their 3-star ranking. It's debateable.

It's interesting that Nuke Hopkins came in as a true freshman and (arguably based largely on his talent and high school coaching) was the only reliable wide receiver-- even though some of the other WRs had been around getting "coached" by Jeff Scott for years. In my opinion, Hopkins looked like the best receiver on the team since the opener against UNT.

In my opinion, Jeff Scott has had a bevy of talented WRs, that have underperformed both as recivers and as blockers. It could be a statistical aberration, but I highly doubt it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can you show me your breakdown of our receivers and what


Jul 25, 2011, 1:13 PM

makes you think they were poorly coached?

Here's what I got:

25 William Bello WR *Fr. --- who?

18 Jaron Brown WR *Jr. --- serviceable guy. May see more touches in improved scheme and QB play. Probably never going to be an all-american.

9 Joe Craig WR *Fr. --- has yet to play a down.

88 Wes Forbush WR *Fr. --- who?

47 Will Harrison WR *Jr. --- who?

6 DeAndre Hopkins WR So. --- Probably future all-american.

26 Marquan Jones WR Sr. --- has had many touches during his time. He's been given ample opportunity. Serviceable guy but not an all-american.

11 Bryce McNeal WR *So. --- He was open o ton last year, but poor QB play affected his numbers. Has dropped a lot of balls, but overall I think he shows vast improvement in the new scheme. Still some potential.

17 Taylor Ogle WR *So. --- who?

38 Julian Patton WR *So. --- who?


Brandon Ford has been moved to TE because his size is more suited for that position. hasn't shown the ability to separate as a 4-star wide receiver should. May end up a fantastic TE, possession kind of guy though.

Brandon Clear has left the program, because after being given ample time to show his meddle, he was not able win a job.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Can you show me your breakdown of our receivers and what


Jul 25, 2011, 1:34 PM

I look at the 2010 recruited WR roster and it looks like most WRs underpeformed. Nobody overperformed.

* DeAndre Hopkins Fr, 4-star. On par. 4-star performance.
* Bryce McNeal, RSFr, 4-star. Underperformed, like a 3-star.
* Brandon Ford, RSSo, 4-star. Underperformed so badly they moved him to TE desite lack of need at TE and strong need at WR.
* Marquan Jones, Jr, 4-star. Underperformed, like a 3-star.
* Jaron Brown, RSSo, 3-star. On par. 3-star performance.
* Joe Craig, Fr, 3-star. Held out despite need at WR, so certainly didn't overperform in practice.
* Xavier Dye, Sr, 3-star (4.6) Underperformed. 2-star performance again as a senior.
* Brandon Clear, RSJr. 3-star (4.6) On par, at best.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So in other words...


Jul 26, 2011, 12:30 PM

Your OPINION is that some of the guys underperformed and you're calling it lack of coaching as opposed to lack of an accurate star rating, knowing that stars are not an exact science (it's ludicrous to think so), and knowing that judging the 1,000,000+ high school kids in America misses A LOT more than it hits?

Plus, you are aware we had a QB who was pretty much afraid to throw the ball last year, even to open receivers? And we had a poor offensive scheme as well? Plus, some of these guys are still maturing?

You do know all that, right? And yet you still overly simplistically write it off as poor coaching??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So in other words... Those are definitely OTHER words!


Jul 27, 2011, 3:21 AM

You misunderstood and mischaracterized what I wrote.

I never made any comment about 1M+ HS kids, etc. I never made a comment about the QB, who seemed to make Hopkins (but not the other WRs) look good.

In my OPINION, if you look at our roster, most of the 4-stars and some of our 3-stars perform like 4-stars-- except at wide receiver, where only 1-out-of-4 4-stars and 0-out-of-4 3-stars performed like 4-stars. Maybe that's a bad stroke of luck in recruiting or maybe it's poor coaching. Either way, the WRs have underperformed their star-rankings for 2 years, in my OPINION. If the same thing happens for 3rd year under Jeff Scott, then in my OPINOIN, Jeff Scott won't be the WR coach for a 4th year.

Read my OPINION in my original post:
"Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach.... I expect Chad Morris will be coaching both Jeff Scott AND the WRs next season. I'll bet that Morris has essentially put Jeff Scott on notice Morris won't tolerate another year of underperforming recruits."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10751134#10751134

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Bottom line, you have no basis for your opinion


Jul 27, 2011, 10:57 AM

other than "4 stars" which has been repeatedly noted here to be a mere guess that is wrong a lot more than it is right.

The facts are these guys played under a QB who was afraid to throw the ball, a couple of them are still developing, a couple them have irrefutably displayed less than 4 star talent, and a couple of guys coached by the same coach have shown tremendous talent and one is a star in the NFL.

Your opinion is fine, but it's noted it's without basis. Facts - please try to use them instead of somewhat ignorantly attaching yourself to some wrong-more-than- right star system that tries to rank 1M+ kids on a scale from 2-5.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So in other words... Those are definitely OTHER words!


Jul 27, 2011, 11:09 AM [ in reply to Re: So in other words... Those are definitely OTHER words! ]

Razz seems to have a reasonable argument that is also rather well supported.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, he doesn't.***


Jul 27, 2011, 11:13 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Stanley is slow. Very little chance he will get it.***


Jul 27, 2011, 1:25 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Only StanleyTiger's opinions are right and have basis!


Jul 27, 2011, 1:33 PM [ in reply to No, he doesn't.*** ]

Everybody who disagrees with StanleyTiger is "ignorant" and their opinions have "no basis". If another reader confirms that RazzMaTazz's opinion is well-reasoned, well then that reader is wrong and ignorant too.

What an interesting personality StanleyTiger has.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Stantard thinks it is better to have 2 star recruits. Math


Jul 27, 2011, 4:58 PM

is not his friend.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Get some help man.


Jul 27, 2011, 6:40 PM

That is all.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are you crying?


Jul 27, 2011, 6:14 PM [ in reply to Only StanleyTiger's opinions are right and have basis! ]

Look man, it's very simple...

You blame the fact that 3 of 4 WRs, who were 4 star guys coming out of high school, didn't perform up to your expectations due to a lack of coaching.

You have virtually ZERO basis for saying that, especially when you consider the same coach did and does coach some fantastic receivers.

Nuke Hopkins: has shown 4-star talent.

Marquan Jones: He has had a ton of touches, but he has not shown anything remotely related to poor coaching. he is a nice serviceable guy, be he's clearly NOT one of the top 0.04% of most talented players in his class. It's absurd to suggest he is.

Bryce McNeal: The jury is still out. He dropped some balls last year, but he was also running open repeatedly. unfortunately our poor offense and poor QB play prevented him from seeing more touches. In any event, it's too early to judge McNeal.

Brandon Ford: He's not even playing at WR anymore because he outgrew the position! Regardless, he showed some improvement late in the season last year and may end up exhibiting some semblance 4 star talent if he develops in his new position.

Not only this, but as you admit most of the time the "star" industry misses on individual players. So it is entirely possible these guys weren't ranked correctly to begin with.

I don't fully know at this point, but neither do you.

With all this taken into consideration, it is obviously ignorant and/or shallow-minded to simply write them off as poorly coached.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are your comprehending?


Jul 28, 2011, 2:58 AM

StanleyTiger wrote:
You blame the fact that 3 of 4 WRs, who were 4 star guys coming out of high school, didn't perform up to your expectations due to a lack of coaching.

No, I didn't say that. Show me where I said that. Copy and paste it so I can see.

I wrote:
"Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10751134#10751134

I also wrote:
"I'm not claiming that based on the star-rankings we should have the best WRs in the land. I’m saying that when you have four, 4-star WRs (and four 3-star WRs) and you only field one decent, reliable WR (who’s a true freshman), you’ve either got a bad statistical aberration or weak coaching."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10755863#10755863

I also wrote:
"In my OPINION, if you look at our roster, most of the 4-stars and some of our 3-stars perform like 4-stars-- except at wide receiver, where only 1-out-of-4 4-stars and 0-out-of-4 3-stars performed like 4-stars. Maybe that's a bad stroke of luck in recruiting or maybe it's poor coaching."
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10765181#10765181

StanleyTiger wrote:
You have virtually ZERO basis for saying that...

That's because I didn't say it. You did.

StanleyTiger wrote:
...especially when you consider the same coach did and does coach some fantastic receivers.

Just to be clear, you're expressing YOUR OPINION about whether or not Scott had any positive influence on Grisham & Kelly, whom Scott only coached for half of their senior years, or on the NCAA 60M sprint champion & fastest guy at the NFL combine (Ford), whom Scott coached for the last 1.5 seasons of Ford's career. And you're expressing YOUR OPINION about whether any receivers were "fantastic" (which is a subjective word) especially the two undrafted NFL-benchwarmers. Those are your OPINIONS, not facts.

StanleyTiger wrote:
Marquan Jones: ...he's clearly NOT one of the top 0.04% of most talented players in his class. It's absurd to suggest he is.

I didn't suggest it. I said no such thing. Show me where I said that. Copy and paste it.

StanleyTiger wrote:
Not only this, but as you admit most of the time the "star" industry misses on individual players.

I didn't say that. You did. If you think I said that, then copy and paste it. I said "star rankings mean a LOT" but they aren't perfect.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10752327
When I look at our roster, for the last several years, if the players stay healthy & eligible, in my opinion most of Clemson's 4-star players perform like 4-stars, all of Clemson's 5-star players perform like 5-stars, and most of Clemson's 3-stars perform like 3-stars (though quite a few 3-stars perform like 4-stars). The only exception is recently at WR where a much smaller percentage of the players have performed up to their star-rankings, and none have out-performed their star rankings. That's either a bad statistical aberration or weak WR coaching.

By the way, part of being a wide receiver is blocking, and, except for Hopkins, the WR blocking has been poor (regardless of the QB accuracy.)

StanleyTiger wrote:
"... it is obviously ignorant and/or shallow-minded to simply write them off as poorly coached."

I didn't. Show me where I said that. Copy & paste it.

I've never seen anybody shove so many words in my mouth and then call me "ignorant and/or shallow-minded" for stuff that I didn't say. I'm dumbfounded.

I'm curious. Did you graduate from Clemson, and if so, with what degree/major? How old are you?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Stan. Read it slower if you can't get it. You are not sharp


Jul 28, 2011, 11:58 AM

but I think even you can grasp this

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You poor thing...


Jul 28, 2011, 12:06 PM

Feel free to actaully debate the points instead of piping a bunch of medication-ridden nonsense. Okay? See if you can...

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10770933

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Again, yes, I am fully comprehending, are you?


Jul 28, 2011, 12:02 PM [ in reply to Are your comprehending? ]

You: "Jeff Scott had FOUR 4-star WRs in 2010, but only one (Hopkins) was really good. That's either a lot of bad luck or Jeff Scott has underperformed as a WR coach."

Wrong. Plain and simple.

1) Star rankings miss a lot more than hit. It would NOT be a "statistical aberration" if only a couple end up being serious contributors.

1A) Only 0.04% of 1,000,000+ American high school kids are rated as 4 stars or higher. There is clearly a high degree of inaccuracy involved in that.

2) 1 of the 3 of the guys in question is still developing at WR. Another has had a ton of touches and has not displayed "4-star" talent. Nothing in his game has shown poor coaching. The last guy was moved to TE for obvious reasons, albeit he finally seems to be getting his feet under him a little. Bottom line is, you can't write them off as "bad luck" or "poor coaching" at this point, in spite of your best efforts to do so.

3) Our offense was putrid last year. There were not many plays/game to distribute the ball. And that had NOTHING to do with WRs being poorly coached.

4) Our QB was not so good at looking over the field. Our QB had a bad year and missed a lot of guys running open in the secondary. If you watched any games at all, and understood what you were watching, then you would've clearly seen this.

This is the more accurate way to assess this situation. Simply pointing to stars, and calling it bad luck or poor coaching is shallow and/or ignorant. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you should try to open your mind a little and not put so much emphasis on "stars", which have been proven to be wrong a lot more than they're right. That's been my point from the beginning. Good luck.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I comprehend your OPINION. I don't twist it, then insult you


Jul 28, 2011, 2:07 PM

You keep putting words in mouth and then telling me how stupid I am for saying stuff that I didn't say. Surely you must now realize that you've been doing that because in in my post above, I copied and pasted your claims of what I said next to what I actually said, and there was obviously a big difference. I even provided links to prove that I wrote what I wrote, not what you claimed I said.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=10769380#10769380

I repeatedly challenged you to show me where I wrote any of the nonsense that you claimed I said, but you failed to do so. Obviously you can't do so because I never wrote any of the nonsense that you claim I did. So rather than manning up and admitting that you misunderstood what I wrote and mischarecterized it, you restated your OPINION, which I already knew because I actually comprehended what you wrote earlier in the thread. However, unlike you, I didn't twist what you wrote into something completely different and then tell you how ignorant and shallow-minded you are for writing something that you didn't write.

StanleyTiger wrote:
1) Star rankings miss a lot more than hit. It would NOT be a "statistical aberration" if only a couple end up being serious contributors.
That's YOUR OPINION. When I look at our roster over the last few years, the star-ranking hit most of the time. I'd say that they hit at least 80% of the time at the 3-star and 4-star level. Last season we had 1-out-of-4 4-star receivers that performed at a 4-star level, and that one was a true freshman who looked like a 4-star from the very first game of the season. That's 25%. 80% vs 25% is a statistical aberration OR weak coaching in MY OPINION.

StanleyTiger wrote:
1A) Only 0.04% of 1,000,000+ American high school kids are rated as 4 stars or higher. There is clearly a high degree of inaccuracy involved in that.
Many kids never get evaluated because they live in North Dakota or play on a crappy team or something. So saying that only 0.04% of the 1M+ HS kids are rated as 4-stars isn't the same as saying that only a small percentage of kids who are actually rated as 4-stars end up performing like lesser stars. As I said above, over the years, when I look at Clemson's roster, MOST (like 80%) of the 4-stars who remain healthy & eligible, perform like 4-stars.

StanleyTiger wrote:
"...Bottom line is, you can't write them off as "bad luck" or "poor coaching" at this point, in spite of your best efforts to do so."
Yes I can. That's my opinion. You have a different opinion.

StanleyTiger wrote:
3) Our offense was putrid last year. There were not many plays/game to distribute the ball. And that had NOTHING to do with WRs being poorly coached.

And yet, Hopkins did great in terms of route-running, hands, blocking, and actually catching a lot of balls. A large part of the reason that the offense was putrid last year was because the wide receiver position was weak. Our opponents successfully put more defenders in the box, because our receivers couldn't get open. They double-teamed our only receiving threat, Hopkins.

StanleyTiger wrote:
4) Our QB was not so good at looking over the field. Our QB had a bad year and missed a lot of guys running open in the secondary. If you watched any games at all, and understood what you were watching, then you would've clearly seen this.
I watched all of the games. I disagree with your OPINION. There were times that the WRs were open, but largely, that wasn't the case. Hopkins performed like a 4-star, but nobody else. The QB threw the ball to lots of other receivers, and they dropped way too many balls. Apparently Chad Morris agrees with me that our veteran 4-stars aren't performing like 4-stars. Morris said, "Some of these guys came in here highly-recruitd and they haven't cut it."
http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=9761

StanleyTiger wrote:
"...you should try to open your mind a little and not put so much emphasis on "stars", which have been proven to be wrong a lot more than they're right."

That's ironic. I think you should open your mind to other peoples' opinions. Most of our 4-stars perform like 4-stars, so I disagree with your claim that the star-rankings are wrong a lot more than they're right. Take a look down the roster over the last few years (at the guys who didn't come in as wide receivers) and tell me roughly percentage of the 4-stars (who have remained healthy & eligible) didn't perform like 4-stars. Name them. Good luck taking up that challenge too.

Are you a Clemson graduate? If so, what was your degree/major. How old are you?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I never seen someone type so much to say so little.


Jul 29, 2011, 12:36 PM

Bottom line, again, for the plethora of reasons I cited, it is shallow and/or ignorant to simply write off the 3 subject players as statistical aberrations or poorly coached.

Period. Please deal with it and move on.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Stantard is no Clemson man.***


Jul 29, 2011, 12:39 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Look man, the demented charade only makes you look bad.


Jul 29, 2011, 1:04 PM

Why do you have such a hard time with this? You're apparent "little man's disease", posing a Clemson guy, it's not funny, it's not witty, and it's not remotely amusing, to anyone.

It is, however, revealing of some sort of deeper mental stability issues or overuse of illicit drugs. I offered to take it easy on you in my tmail reply to you, but only if you fess up to one or the other. But since you insist on acting like a nutcase without any explanation, then I will continue to make an ### out of you. Fair enough?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

In other words, you can't take up either of my challenges.


Jul 29, 2011, 2:06 PM [ in reply to I never seen someone type so much to say so little. ]

And you can't admit that you failed my challenges because:
1) I'm right about you shoving words in my mouth that I NEVER SAID, as I detailed in my previous post. If I'm wrong, prove it by simply copying & pasting my words. You can't do it, can you? So I'll look forward to another evasive reply.
2) If you look at Clemson's roster over the last few year, you also see that most 4-star recruits at other positions (who remain healthy & eligible) perform like 4-stars, whereas only 1/4 (25%) of the 4-star WRs performed like 4-stars. If I'm wrong, simply list the names of the underperforming 4-stars at other positions. You can't do it, can you? So I'll look forward to another evasive reply.

Are you a Clemson grad? If so what was your degree/major? If not, how old are you? It's not listed in your Tigernet profile for some reason. You keep avoiding answering. I'm guessing that you didn't graduate from my beloved alma mater and maybe aren't even old enough to have applied for admission.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

LOL. Again with the wild excess...


Jul 29, 2011, 2:46 PM

To try to write off 3 players, who's success, developing success, or lack thereof , has been well documented. To simply say it has to be a "statistical aberration" or "poor coaching" is ignorant at best. As I have pointed out with several just as or more reasonable representations, it in no way, shape, or form must be one of those two things.

Sorry you're having such a hard time with this, but it's not my fault you can't see the forest through the trees.

And yes, I am a Clemson graduate, not it means a hill of beans in this discussion. And I'm not sure where or why you would come up with an age angle, but it seems par for the course with you. It's weird how you would accuse someone who has thoroughly dominated you in this exchange as being younger than you, but whatever, it makes no difference either.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

LOL. I knew you'd avoid answering my 2 points above, AGAIN.


Aug 16, 2011, 3:39 PM

Obviously you can't answer my 2 simple challenges in my previous posts and you can't admit that you're wrong so you continue to avoid answering. Classic! It must be so embarrassing for you. I'll repeat the 2 challenges again below so that you can embarrass yourself again by avoiding answering. It's really funny to watch you repeatedly squirm away and avoid answering because you know that I'm right, but you can't admit it. Squirm on...

1) I'm right about you shoving words in my mouth that I NEVER SAID, as I detailed in my previous post. If I'm wrong, prove it by simply copying & pasting my words. You can't do it, can you? So I'll look forward to another evasive reply.
2) If you look at Clemson's roster over the last few year, you also see that most 4-star recruits at other positions (who remain healthy & eligible) perform like 4-stars, whereas only 1/4 (25%) of the 4-star WRs performed like 4-stars. If I'm wrong, simply list the names of the underperforming 4-stars at other positions. You can't do it, can you? So I'll look forward to another evasive reply.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 106
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic