Ironman8
Jaqen H'ghar
- Messages
- 11,652
- Reaction score
- 902
Right on great commitment.
Can we recruit a punt return unit now?
Shaun Crawford should be able to help with this starting in '15.
Right on great commitment.
Can we recruit a punt return unit now?
247Sports has had Milton (Mass.) Academy three-star kicker Justin Yoon as its top kicking prospect nationally since early June.
I have to ask. How can you be the top kicker in the country and be a 3 star? I know kickers tend to get the shaft along with centers in the star department but that doesnt makes sense to me. The "stars" are supposed to be an indication of "pro potential". Would not the #1 kicker who has a 4.4 hang time and a 60 yard FG range be considered to have "pro potential"?
I have to ask. How can you be the top kicker in the country and be a 3 star? I know kickers tend to get the shaft along with centers in the star department but that doesnt makes sense to me. The "stars" are supposed to be an indication of "pro potential". Would not the #1 kicker who has a 4.4 hang time and a 60 yard FG range be considered to have "pro potential"?
ceiling."Pro-potential" is also heavily influenced by position. Very few Ks get drafted, because they contribute is significantly less on-field than a QB, WDE or CB. Thus, the 3ceiling on Ks.
There are lots of problems with ranking high school kids based on NFL projections. But the low ceiling for Ks is at least consistent with the system they've adopted.
Is it because they contribute less overall, or there is less of a drop off between the #1 kicker and the #10 kicker in the NFL?
That surely plays into it as well. The combo of skill and athleticism necessary to be an NFL K is far more common than it is for QB, WDE or CB, so it's not difficult to find guys who can do the job adequately. And even the best K in the world doesn't give you enough of an edge to merit a big salary discrepancy over the guys beneath him.
Don't disagree, but this is where the stars system fails. In college, there is a much bigger discrepancy between the best kicker and an "average" kicker than in the NFL. So, while it is true a kicker is much easier to replace in the NFL, I don't think it is the case in college.
Composite rating, while the other 9 are 2
s. That means the vast majority of programs are going to be signing unranked Ks (if they keep one on scholarship at all). I think that adequately reflects the relatively importance of signing an elite K at the college level.Only 13 Ks are ranked in 247's 2015 class. Of those, only 4 have a 3Composite rating, while the other 9 are 2
s. That means the vast majority of programs are going to be signing unranked Ks (if they keep one on scholarship at all). I think that adequately reflects the relatively importance of signing an elite K at the college level.
That just shows that recruiting sites don't reflect the importance of kickers at the college level (I am not arguing that programs view them as important either, just saying that that metric doesn't necessarily support your argument).
and the #1 K as a 3
. The thing is how many programs have lost multiple games because their kicker stunk (Oregon, Boise, FSU, etc).
QB, WDE or CB makes a couple key plays, the K never gets put on the spot in the first place.I think that most programs undervalue kickers, that is until they lose a big game because of it.
ceiling.In fact I think you see more and more top programs investing in kickers (LSU, Alabama, Florida, ND, Stanford, etc).
.The best NFL QBs make 5-6 times what the best K does. I think most people would agree that the salary differential there is largely reflective of the disparity in on-field contribution. The recruiting services use the same logic in rating the #1 QB as a 5and the #1 K as a 3
.
But if your 5QB, WDE or CB makes a couple key plays, the K never gets put on the spot in the first place.
I'm not arguing about how most programs value their kickers. I'm arguing that: (1) positional disparities in NFL salaries largely reflect the differences in on-field contributions; (2) the recruiting services have chosen to rank high school football players in a similar position-sensitive manner; and (3) that's why Ks have a 3ceiling.
You could argue that (2) is counterproductive, but the system is at least logically coherent.
I agree completely. If, as the HC of a college program, you can attract one of those 13 ranked Ks to your school, you'd be a fool not to sign him. An elite K is always going to contribute more to your on-field success than, say, the 4th string MLB. But I don't have a problem with the recruiting services recognizing the relative importance of certain positions by capping Ks at 3.
rating but I do think that some of the best have deserved a low 4
rating.I don't think that there has ever been a K who deserves a 5rating but I do think that some of the best have deserved a low 4
rating.
I'm excited to see Yoon. I know Brindza has a solid FG %, but he still makes me nervous whenever he lines up for a FG, IDK why.
That's reasonable, though I think you'd agree that they're pretty rare.
I'm excited to see Yoon. I know Brindza has a solid FG %, but he still makes me nervous whenever he lines up for a FG, IDK why.
Solid leg for anyone.
FIFY
Uhhh no when you turn 20 any man can kick a football about 70 to 85 yards. Can you not?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NotreDame?src=hash">#NotreDame</a> commit expected to miss remainder of senior season due to an injury. <a href="https://twitter.com/BGInews">@BGInews</a> has the latest. <a href="http://t.co/BOR2w8r4Sn">http://t.co/BOR2w8r4Sn</a> (VIP)</p>— Tom Loy (@TomLoy247) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomLoy247/status/514046861397590016">September 22, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Anyone care to post what happened to him? Is it a recurrent use injury or trauma?