TheOneWhoKnocks
New member
- Messages
- 691
- Reaction score
- 46
Always complaints about ESPN rankings. Has anyone ever did a 4years later kinda thing comparing the diff sites?
In ESPNs final rankings they dropped him to a 3 star. Crazy
#9 WR and 55th overall on Scout
In ESPNs final rankings they dropped him to a 3 star. Crazy
Think he has been a 3 star the entire time, and since ESPN didn't do any coverage of the Army All-American game, doubt that their opinion would change.
Always complaints about ESPN rankings. Has anyone ever did a 4years later kinda thing comparing the diff sites?
Is it really that crazy? If a 5 star is a future 1st round draft pick, a 4 star is a future NFL player and a 3 star is a solid college contributor I'm not sure it's all that wild. Consider the amount of talent already on the ND roster. Several players have elite size, speed, or a combination of both. McKinley has decent size and speed but doesn't necessarily excel in either. He does have strong hands and is fairly polished as a senior in high school but perhaps they are worried that he has a lower ceiling and may not end up being 'the guy' at Notre Dame. I think McKinley is a 4 star talent, but I could see potential limit to his upside bringing down his star ranking.
Is it really that crazy? If a 5 star is a future 1st round draft pick, a 4 star is a future NFL player and a 3 star is a solid college contributor I'm not sure it's all that wild. Consider the amount of talent already on the ND roster. Several players have elite size, speed, or a combination of both. McKinley has decent size and speed but doesn't necessarily excel in either. He does have strong hands and is fairly polished as a senior in high school but perhaps they are worried that he has a lower ceiling and may not end up being 'the guy' at Notre Dame. I think McKinley is a 4 star talent, but I could see potential limit to his upside bringing down his star ranking.
Your point isn't wrong in theory, but in practice are you going to tell me that there are 87 WRs better than McKinley? Because that's what ESPN says right now... not sure if they're done updating or not.
Your point isn't wrong in theory, but in practice are you going to tell me that there are 87 WRs better than McKinley? Because that's what ESPN says right now... not sure if they're done updating or not.
I think what ESPN is trying to say is the 20+ 3, 4 and 5 star DB's that he's rung up 3000 yds on in the last two seasons were even more overrated. So when 5 star CB Biggie Marshall says he's the best WR in the country as a junior we should ignore him and listen to a guy in Bristol who shares a cubicle with Wizard and the Big East mascots.
I think what ESPN is trying to say is the 20+ 3, 4 and 5 star DB's that he's rung up 3000 yds on in the last two seasons were even more overrated. So when 5 star CB Biggie Marshall says he's the best WR in the country as a junior we should ignore him and listen to a guy in Bristol who shares a cubicle with Wizard and the Big East mascots.
McKinley has decent size and speed but doesn't necessarily excel in either. He does have strong hands and is fairly polished as a senior in high school but perhaps they are worried that he has a lower ceiling and may not end up being 'the guy' at Notre Dame. I think McKinley is a 4 star talent, but I could see potential limit to his upside bringing down his star ranking.
In all seriousness, I think a lot of guys get overlooked this way. Some guys cover up there lack of instincts and skill with raw talent. But where you get a kid who is a good athlete, like McKinnley, with good size, and good speed, and then you throw in the coordination and instincts, he becomes more valuable than kids with better measurables.
Kizer is a great example. The whole is better than any of the parts suggested.
And if you go to the pros, do you say, "Larry Fitzgerald has decent size (6'3) and speed (4.63 gasp!!!!!), but he just doesn't stick out at anything." No, you don't. He's a stud.
If you look at McKinley's tape, and take into account that he is killing one of the best leagues in the country, you have to figure he's going to be good.
Always complaints about ESPN rankings. Has anyone ever did a 4years later kinda thing comparing the diff sites?
Not entirely true.ESPN had Golden Tate as a top 100 player while the rest of the sites had him as a 3 star...that's all I got.
I'm not saying that McKinley can't or won't be great - hell, he could turn out to be an NFL Hall of Fame player some day. Anquan Boldin is the main player that comes to mind for me when I'm thinking of a guy with less than ideal measurables that turned out to be a stud. Wes Welker is another. But that said - measurables still matter when identifying elite talent. It's not all there is to the game but speed and size still play a huge role in football. A player that is bigger/stronger/faster than another player will always have a higher ceiling until he proves he can't understand the nuances of his position that keeps him from being great. Sorry for this clusterfvck of a post - my son is crawling all over me.
Can't rep. Would rep twice.
tried to rep you crusader...too funny man
Repped him...hilarious!!
They just had a dude on their recruiting nation that just claimed we lead for alloway. They couldn't be more not in tune with what is going on. That ship sailed a long time ago and everyone seems to know it except them
ESPN had Golden Tate as a top 100 player while the rest of the sites had him as a 3 star...that's all I got.
Not entirely true.
ESPN had Golden Tate ranked like number 10 overall. The other sites had him as a 4 start not 3 star if I remember correctly.
Even if remotely true, a broken clock is correct twice in 1440 minutes.
It is true he was number 11 overall.
ESPN Football Recruiting - Player Rankings - ESPN
What a bust of a top 150
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well Eric Berry wasn't bad. Looked at ND's folks included.... Forgot about Kerry Neal #26.
Looks like their average was about 2/1440 lol