Rivals/Scout/ESPN ND Recruit Rankings

[The Polish Irishman]

Rivals/R250Rank/RR/Star Rating
Ishaq Williams 16 6.1/
Stephon Tuitt 22 6.1/
Aaron Lynch 28 6.0/
Matthew Hegarty 70 5.9/
Ben Koyack 82 5.9/
Ben Councell 91 5.8/
George Atkinson 126 5.8/
Davaris Daniels 178 5.8/
Troy Niklas 221 5.8/
Eilar Hardy 217 5.8/
Josh Atkinson NR 5.7/
Everett Golson NR 5.7/
Jarrett Grace NR 5.7/
Chase Hounshell NR 5.7/
Anthony Rabasa NR 5.7/
Tony Springmann NR 5.7/
Brad Carrico NR 5.6/
Conor Hanratty NR 5.6/
Nick Martin NR 5.6/
Cam McDaniel NR 5.6/
Jalen Brown NR 5.5/
Matthias Farley NR 5.5/
Kyle Brindza NR 5.4/


Scout/S300Rank/Star Rating
Aaron Lynch 10
Ishaq Williams 20
Ben Koyack 25
Stephon Tuitt 44
Matthew Hegarty 105
Davaris Daniels 161
Eilar Hardy 175
Troy Niklas 75
Jarrett Grace 135
Everett Golson 254
George Atkinson NR
Josh Atkinson NR
Kyle Brindza NR
Jalen Brown NR
Brad Carrico NR
Ben Councell NR
Matthias Farley NR
Conor Hanratty NR
Chase Hounshell NR
Nick Martin NR
Cam McDaniel NR
Anthony Rabasa NR
Tony Springmann NR


ESPN/E150Rank/Scout Grade/Star Rating
Aaron Lynch 15 84/
Matthew Hegarty 36 82/
Ishaq Williams 42 82/
Davaris Daniels 65 81/
Ben Koyack 78 81/
Stephon Tuitt 90 81/
Anthony Rabasa 123 80/
Everett Golson NR 80/
Ben Councell NR 79/
Troy Niklas NR 79/
George Atkinson NR 79/
Kyle Brindza NR 79/
Eilar Hardy NR 79/
Josh Atkinson NR 78/
Jalen Brown NR 78/
Jarrett Grace NR 78/
Nick Martin NR 78/
Tony Springmann NR 78/
Brad Carrico NR 77/
Matthias Farley NR 77/
Cam McDaniel NR 77/
Conor Hanratty NR 76/
Chase Honshell NR 76/



Current Rivals Team Rank: #10
Current Scout Team Rank: #8
Current ESPN Team Rank: #9

 

[BGIF]

...

Current Rivals Team Rank: #10
Current Scout Team Rank: #8
Current ESPN Team Rank: #9

These numbers will rise when the actual enrollments are re-ranked next September.

 

[ND_HAS_RISEN]

It amazes me how ESPN doesn't have at LEAST Tuitt and Lynch as 5*'s.

Hell it took them almost 4 hours just to hear the first of any ND recruit on ESPNU's NSD coverage today... Such a joke...

 

[IrishLax]

All sites have us in the lower half of the top 10. I'm very, very happy with that.

 

[IrishInFl]

Except MaxPreps which has us at #1

 

[irishff1014]

Let ESPN keep under rating our classes. There is a new attitude in town and this is not the same Notre Dame football program of the past. Kelly will have them talking about us again.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Let ESPN keep under rating our classes. There is a new attitude in town and this is not the same Notre Dame football program of the past. Kelly will have them talking about us again.

+1. As intriguing/exciting recruiting rankings are, bringing in the RIGHT guys is more important. Lou was a master of balancing blue chips with big egos and gritty, undervalued, hungry kids from places like PA and NJ that would work their butts off, and the results spoke for themselves. BK is trying to do this, and for the first time in awhile I feel this team will have some attitude and toughness.

 

[IrishLax]

Along those same lines, when you listened to BK at the press conference yesterday talk about how he had a plan and the plan came together... you know he isn't blowing smoke like some other coaches. He said from day 1 that they needed to focus on tall/fast DBs and bigs for the trenches with special emphasis on DEs. We did just that.

There is not one guy in this class who is a "huh?" scholarship. Every single player fits a mold or a skill set that was predefined before the recruiting season started. I would argue that if players were graded on fit for a team and not by some hypothetical one-size-fits-all star rating that ND would be in competition for an elite ranking not just top 10.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Along those same lines, when you listened to BK at the press conference yesterday talk about how he had a plan and the plan came together... you know he isn't blowing smoke like some other coaches. He said from day 1 that they needed to focus on tall/fast DBs and bigs for the trenches with special emphasis on DEs. We did just that.

There is not one guy in this class who is a "huh?" scholarship. Every single player fits a mold or a skill set that was predefined before the recruiting season started. I would argue that if players were graded on fit for a team and not by some hypothetical one-size-fits-all star rating that ND would be in competition for an elite ranking not just top 10.

Which is exactly why I felt Hegarty could have gained a 5th star after committing to ND, he is absolutely PERFECT for BK's system.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Wow ESPN moved us up to 9 from 12....

 

[irishpat183]

Wow ESPN moved us up to 9 from 12....

I guess they've been reading IE!!!!

 

[irishpat183]

As far as the rankings go, I could care less. We got the guys we wanted that fit our system. You can recruit all the "5 star" guys you want, but if you have nowhere to put them or they don't fit your gameplan, who cares??? Sure, it's nice to have those kind of guys, but I'll take guys that fit our gameplan over them anyday.

Building a good foundation and system from the INSIDE OUT. Hopefully, the days of ND putting too much of a premium on "skill" guys is over. That's not how you build a successful program that competes every year. I don't just want to be good every 3 years. I want to be good EVERY YEAR. And it seems this class is a great step in the right direction.

Let em' hate. Cause pretty soon, they'll be hating from behind us.

 

[DillonHall]

I don't know how anyone can complain about the ratings unless he/she has studied the other schools' recruits as closely as he/she has followed the Irish recruits.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I don't know how anyone can complain about the ratings unless he/she has studied the other schools' recruits as closely as he/she has followed the Irish recruits.

Reps to you. It is always comical visiting other teams boards to see that all boards are convinced that their recruits are underrated. I guess if the Big Ten can have 12 teams, can the Rivals 150 have 200 people?

 

[IrishLax]

Reps to you. It is always comical visiting other teams boards to see that all boards are convinced that their recruits are underrated. I guess if the Big Ten can have 12 teams, can the Rivals 150 have 200 people?

I always find it interesting how exactly fans do that. There is a difference between blindly saying "omg this guy is underrated" and recognizing that a guy might excel in a certain system compared to his rating.

For instance, in the press conference yesterday (and I want to say someone on ESPN mentioned this too... maybe Meyer) they talked about how Ben Councell was a bit of a tweener in a 4-3 and was pretty underrated because of that but in the 3-4 at the OLB position he is an elite prospect.

That is different from, for instance, my totally subjective belief that Conor Hanratty is underrated because he declined the AAAB invite and dropped significantly afterwards.

When I go to other team's boards, it interesting to see how many people say "well, this guy is a 4* on Scout and a 3* on Rivals... Rivals has him underrated" without thinking that maybe scout has him overrated. There are also guys like Niklas where some sites list him as a TE, others listed him as an OT and we recruited him as a DE. How can you evaluate those ratings when we recruited him for a different position?

At the end of the day, what I think is most important (and something Meyer mentioned on ESPN... seriously love that guy as an analyst) is that for the very upper echelon of players the rating matters and scouts tend to get it right. As you move down the scale, even into the bottom of the "elite" ESPNU 150, the granularity starts to fall off. The way he put it was, for guys "147 through 287" you can't tell by looking at ratings or stars who is a better recruit. At that point it's up to the coaches, not the recruiting services, to really peg how a guy fits with their team and has potential to develop.

 

[CanadianIrish]

We're #9 on Rivals, not #10.

With respect to the whole system thing, and fitting guys into a special system and expecting them to outperform their ranking, I just don't see that.

A 3 star player is supposed to be a piece of the puzzle, not a star. A 3 star may be a better piece of the puzzle in one system or another, but it's really unlikely no matter what the system that they are going to be the dominant player on the field. Having a 3 star contribute is not unexpected, it's about who's going to be the big time performers.

I don't care what system we're playing in, Cam McDaniel is not going to be the next Jerome Bettis or Michael Floyd. Can he be serviceable? Sure, but he's not going to be the focus of the offense.

According to Rivals, any player ranked 5.5 - 5.7 is deemed to have pro potential and the ability to make an impact on their college team.

Anybody ranked 5.8 - 6.0 is considered to be an all American candidate. 6.1 or higher is a Franchise Player.

When looked at that way, it's really unlikely that you overperform your rating. Again, as I've said before the way that players generally overperform is when they are moved from one position to another, in which case the original rating has little bearing. You see that all the time in the NFL draft, with TEs moving to OT, there is almost always one first round pick who was a 3 star (or lower) who started out as a TE.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Not that it matters, but Oregon should jump ND on Rivals when they update that De'Anthony Thomas signed with the Ducks instead of U$C.

 

[IrishLax]

We're #9 on Rivals, not #10.

With respect to the whole system thing, and fitting guys into a special system and expecting them to outperform their ranking, I just don't see that.

A 3 star player is supposed to be a piece of the puzzle, not a star. A 3 star may be a better piece of the puzzle in one system or another, but it's really unlikely no matter what the system that they are going to be the dominant player on the field. Having a 3 star contribute is not unexpected, it's about who's going to be the big time performers.

I don't care what system we're playing in, Cam McDaniel is not going to be the next Jerome Bettis or Michael Floyd. Can he be serviceable? Sure, but he's not going to be the focus of the offense.

According to Rivals, any player ranked 5.5 - 5.7 is deemed to have pro potential and the ability to make an impact on their college team.

Anybody ranked 5.8 - 6.0 is considered to be an all American candidate. 6.1 or higher is a Franchise Player.

When looked at that way, it's really unlikely that you overperform your rating. Again, as I've said before the way that players generally overperform is when they are moved from one position to another, in which case the original rating has little bearing. You see that all the time in the NFL draft, with TEs moving to OT, there is almost always one first round pick who was a 3 star (or lower) who started out as a TE.

I agree with everything you said except for the parts I bolded. The Heisman trophy winner in '09 was a 3* and the 4 finalists this past year were a 5*, 4* and two 3*s. People recruit 3*s hoping for them to be great and expecting them to be very good. No coach ever recruits a guy who they think has a ceiling as just "serviceable."

And it's not just about the system fitting them, it's about the player not fitting prototypical 4-3 position profiles for recruiting services. Tweeners and guys who fit better in certain systems might have all kinds of athletic ability but just don't fit a recruiting services metrics well. The most classic example is with the front 7 between a 3-4 and 4-3.

Also, recruiting services readily acknowledge this problem. They say most of the time when they "miss" on a guy it is because they are a late bloomer (Clay Matthews), play in a system that really fits their skills (Kellen Moore), did not get high school exposure (Chris Johnson) or play a different position than projected (tons of linemen... as you mentioned). Guys like Niklas are a nightmare for them to rate accurately and prime example of how what position a guy plays might completely change and in what system will totally determine whether he was underrated, overrated or somewhere in between.

So please do not discount coach's expectations for 3*s or ignore how much the positional/systemic problem affects ratings. If you look at measureables, most 3*s are very close is size, speed and athleticism to their higher rated counterparts but just have one or two weaknesses in the scout's view. Many times those weaknesses are easily correct by better coaching, player development, etc.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I agree with everything you said except for the parts I bolded. The Heisman trophy winner in '09 was a 3* and the 4 finalists this past year were a 5*, 4* and two 3*s. People recruit 3*s hoping for them to be great and expecting them to be very good. No coach ever recruits a guy who they think has a ceiling as just "serviceable."

And it's not just about the system fitting them, it's about the player not fitting prototypical 4-3 position profiles for recruiting services. Tweeners and guys who fit better in certain systems might have all kinds of athletic ability but just don't fit a recruiting services metrics well. The most classic example is with the front 7 between a 3-4 and 4-3.

Also, recruiting services readily acknowledge this problem. They say most of the time when they "miss" on a guy it is because they are a late bloomer (Clay Matthews), play in a system that really fits their skills (Kellen Moore), did not get high school exposure (Chris Johnson) or play a different position than projected (tons of linemen... as you mentioned). Guys like Niklas are a nightmare for them to rate accurately and prime example of how what position a guy plays might completely change and in what system will totally determine whether he was underrated, overrated or somewhere in between.

So please do not discount coach's expectations for 3*s or ignore how much the positional/systemic problem affects ratings. If you look at measureables, most 3*s are very close is size, speed and athleticism to their higher rated counterparts but just have one or two weaknesses in the scout's view. Many times those weaknesses are easily correct by better coaching, player development, etc.

09 was Mark Ingram, he was 4*. I think you meant Bradford in 08?

 

[IrishLax]

Scout.com: Mark Ingram Profile

#58 RB 3* on Scout... you're right he was a 4* on ESPN/Rivals. I should've looked around. Good point on Bradford though.

So 2 of the last 3 Heisman winners have been 3*s on at least one service. That's pretty telling. I'm sure Oklahoma didn't recruit Bradford saying "meh.. this guy is OK I hope he's a good 4 year backup." They said "we like this kid's game, let's see how he competes at the next level."

 

[IrishinSyria]

I agree with everything you said except for the parts I bolded. The Heisman trophy winner in '09 was a 3* and the 4 finalists this past year were a 5*, 4* and two 3*s. People recruit 3*s hoping for them to be great and expecting them to be very good. No coach ever recruits a guy who they think has a ceiling as just "serviceable."

And it's not just about the system fitting them, it's about the player not fitting prototypical 4-3 position profiles for recruiting services. Tweeners and guys who fit better in certain systems might have all kinds of athletic ability but just don't fit a recruiting services metrics well. The most classic example is with the front 7 between a 3-4 and 4-3.

Also, recruiting services readily acknowledge this problem. They say most of the time when they "miss" on a guy it is because they are a late bloomer (Clay Matthews), play in a system that really fits their skills (Kellen Moore), did not get high school exposure (Chris Johnson) or play a different position than projected (tons of linemen... as you mentioned). Guys like Niklas are a nightmare for them to rate accurately and prime example of how what position a guy plays might completely change and in what system will totally determine whether he was underrated, overrated or somewhere in between.

So please do not discount coach's expectations for 3*s or ignore how much the positional/systemic problem affects ratings. If you look at measureables, most 3*s are very close is size, speed and athleticism to their higher rated counterparts but just have one or two weaknesses in the scout's view. Many times those weaknesses are easily correct by better coaching, player development, etc.

By those standards, you'd be a 3* poster. You were very close to having a perfect post here but a few typos at the end tripped you up. Nothing a little coaching can't fix

 

[IrishLax]

By those standards, you'd be a 3* poster. You were very close to having a perfect post here but a few typos at the end tripped you up. Nothing a little coaching can't fix

haha oh well... when I'm at work I just kinda get a stream on consciousness going and then hit "submit." A man can only do so much proof reading in a day... so I try to save mine for the stuff evaluated by The Man.