Gridiron Kings

[Bogtrotter07]

Me too.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Ironing Queens on Lifetime.

I watch it sometimes with yo mamma.

I ironed yo momma one day.

 

[koonja]

If our cable company only gives us espn, espn2, and espn classic, does anyone know a way to watch it online?

 

[clashmore_mike]

If our cable company only gives us espn, espn2, and espn classic, does anyone know a way to watch it online?

What cable/internet provider do you have? Try espnnetworks.com

You can watch ESPN, espn2, ESPNU, and buzzer beater all live there.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

 

[koonja]

What cable/internet provider do you have? Try espnnetworks.com

You can watch ESPN, espn2, ESPNU, and buzzer beater all live there.

Timewarner cable, but thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out.

 

[clashmore_mike]

Timewarner cable, but thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out.

You should be good to go then. I think you have to sign in with a username from TW the first time you try to watch on your computer, but after that you are good. I have TW and if there are 2 games I want to watch, it makes it easy. One on TV and one on laptop.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Likey.

Which do me some reminding to yo momma.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

^^I hit a triple on my yo mamma joke. You bunted down the first base line. lol

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Yo momma just whispered to I that me was safe.

 

[koonja]

Darby is pretty built, he looks like he's ready for the combine, lol. CJ looks like he is a little less physically mature than the others at this point, he's less lean and cut. DB looks like a badass.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Darby is pretty built, he looks like he's ready for the combine, lol. CJ looks like he is a little less physically mature than the others at this point, he's less lean and cut. DB looks like a badass.

 

[koonja]

Well, doesn't he remind you of GoldenITF's momma?

Very much so.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Well, doesn't he remind you of GoldenITF's momma?

Her legs?

I'd say that was a ground rule double. Well played deer, well played.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Very interesting. Gotta love someone with that kind of flexibility.

And...um...That's what she said.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

I'd say that was a ground rule double. Well played deer, well played.

Yo momma whispered that to me. Cougar. MILF.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From Gridiron Kings: Day 1:

If rankings were based solely off of events like these, Greenberry would be a five-star.

Is anyone else frustrated that Greenberry isn't a 5 yet? I know they take measurables into account, but dominating at "events like these" must be the single best indicator of success at the next level for skill recruits.

This is the 4th or 5th 7ON tourney that Greenberry has dominated, playing all different positions against elite talent... #smh

 

[koonja]

From Gridiron Kings: Day 1:



Is anyone else frustrated that Greenberry isn't a 5 yet? I know they take measurables into account, but dominating at "events like these" must be the single best indicator of success at the next level for skill recruits.

This is the 4th or 5th 7ON tourney that Greenberry has dominated, playing all different positions against elite talent... #smh

I'd say yes but everytime I mention stars everyone freaks out and starts talking about how stars don't matter because our staff only recruits elite talent, not based on stars, lol.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd say yes but everytime I mention stars everyone freaks out and starts talking about how stars don't matter because our staff only recruits elite talent, not based on stars, lol.

I can understand where they're coming from, and they're right that it doesn't really matter.

It just strikes me as either incompetence or laziness. When a kid like Greenberry dominates 4 or 5 such events, there should be a strong presumption in favor of him being a 5. When multiple recruitniks tweet, "Gee, this kid looks like a 5," it's clear that they're aware of his domination. At that point, they ought to justify not giving him a 5th , because it undermines the credibility of their assessments otherwise.

So what's the problem, Shurburtt? His 4.6 40? Because that's clearly holding him back against elite competition.

 

[koonja]

I can understand where they're coming from, and they're right that it doesn't really matter. QUOTE]

That's where I disagree with about everyone on this site. Stars do matter, and they are usually accurate. Almost every 5-star is a sure-fire stud. Same goes for 4-stars over 3-stars. Of course there are exceptions where a 3 will become better than a 5. That's all I'm going to say because I could go on all day about how stars matter.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

I have a conspiracy theory for this... but that is for another day.

 

[IrishInFl]

I have a conspiracy theory for this... but that is for another day.

 

[military_irish]

I can understand where they're coming from, and they're right that it doesn't really matter. QUOTE]

That's where I disagree with about everyone on this site. Stars do matter, and they are usually accurate. Almost every 5-star is a sure-fire stud. Same goes for 4-stars over 3-stars. Of course there are exceptions where a 3 will become better than a 5. That's all I'm going to say because I could go on all day about how stars matter.

I for one do not think stars matter THAT much. I believe they are more for the fans than coaches or anyone else. With that being said I do get excited about get a 5 star over a 3 star. Then again there are thousands upon thousand recruits, evey site can not accurately place stars on players. 5 stars are for the most part more talented but that does not always equate to success in college.

With Greenberry not get a 5 star yet, I think I remember reading that the analysis want to see what he can do in pads this up coming season. If he dominates in pads then he will with out a doubt be a 5 star. Grading someone on 7-on-7 would not be that accurate considering they are not tackling or wearing pads.

 

[Rhode Irish]

His composite rank among WRs is about 24th. I can understand why they would not move him all the way to the very top of that group based on a small sample of 7-on-7, which a 5 ranking probably requires. On the other hand, I agree that he should be moving up steadily in the rankings based on these dominating performances.

For example, ESPN only has 8 5 players, so if he were moved up to the #20-30 overall/top-3/4 WR on ESPN, he would still be a 4, but I would be OK with that. Him being #146 is a joke, though.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's where I disagree with about everyone on this site. Stars do matter, and they are usually accurate. Almost every 5-star is a sure-fire stud. Same goes for 4-stars over 3-stars. Of course there are exceptions where a 3 will become better than a 5. That's all I'm going to say because I could go on all day about how stars matter.

Correlation != Causation. It's not the 5th that makes a recruit a stud.

In this day and age, if you take the time to educate yourself, you can become just as qualified to rate prospective football talent as the guys who works for these recruiting services. And now that we can actually watch 7ON tourneys and see these kids head-to-head, it's easier than ever to rank them relative to each other.

I know Greenberry is a 5 talent, regardless of how the services rate him. I suspect they know it too, which is why I'm puzzled by his current rating. If I had to guess, there's probably a lot more politics and shady crap that influences these ratings than we realize, and that's why Greenberry remains a 4.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's where I disagree with about everyone on this site. Stars do matter, and they are usually accurate. Almost every 5-star is a sure-fire stud. Same goes for 4-stars over 3-stars. Of course there are exceptions where a 3 will become better than a 5. That's all I'm going to say because I could go on all day about how stars matter.

So you're saying that if "Kid A" was a 5 he would be a sure-fire stud, but if recruiting services graded that EXACT SAME Kid A as a 3, that suddenly he would be just another guy? I think what most people here believe is that 's are somewhat useful to get a general idea about what kind of potential a kid has, but they are not an evaluation tool in and of themselves.

Ultimately, the coaches are better at evaluating talent than the services, who go a lot on reputation and hype. So if a coach offers a 3 rather than the 4 you were hoping for, that doesn't make the coach an idiot, or the player a bum.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

With Greenberry not get a 5 star yet, I think I remember reading that the analysis want to see what he can do in pads this up coming season. Grading someone on 7-on-7 would not be that accurate considering they are not tackling or wearing pads.

That's the first thing approaching a reasonable explanation I've read to justify Greenberry's current rating, but I still call bullsh!t. When the season starts this fall, the quality of his competition becomes a big unknown; in these 7ONs, he's playing against the nation's best recruits. I don't buy for a second that the regular season is a more reliable gauge of potential.

His composite rank among WRs is about 24th. I can understand why they would not move him all the way to the very top of that group based on a small sample of 7-on-7, which a 5 ranking probably requires. On the other hand, I agree that he should be moving up steadily in the rankings based on these dominating performances.

None of their eight 5 recruits have been lighting up 7ONs like Greenberry. You could argue that 1 or 2 dominant performances at such events might be a fluke, but 4 or 5? And all against the best talent in the nation.

Smells rotten to me.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

The anaylsts look like fools when a kid skyrockets up the rankings... they try to avoid it where possible to make it look like they know what they are doing when evaluating talent.

 

[military_irish]

That's the first thing approaching a reasonable explanation I've read to justify Greenberry's current rating, but I still call bullsh!t. When the season starts this fall, the quality of his competition becomes a big unknown; in these 7ONs, he's playing against the nation's best recruits. I don't buy for a second that the regular season is a more reliable gauge of potential.

I can agree with that. I am assuming that if they don't have pads or have to tackle. When he plays DB in 7 on 7 all he has to do is tap a guy. If he has to tackle, though, who is to say he would actually tackle the guy. Not being able to tackle could easily keep you from a 5 star or even 4 star. I am not saying he can not tackle, I am sure he can. Just giving an example.

When he plays WR and has pads who says he can make the same cuts as he does at a 7 on 7 tourney.

I would eqaute it to a track star trying to play football, their speed does not always equate to burning someone.

But I would assume mid season of his senior year, he will become a 5 star. I see no reason for him not to continue his dominance in pads. Just giving examples why he might not be a 5 star, yet.

 

[koonja]

So you're saying that if "Kid A" was a 5 he would be a sure-fire stud, but if recruiting services graded that EXACT SAME Kid A as a 3, that suddenly he would be just another guy? I think what most people here believe is that 's are somewhat useful to get a general idea about what kind of potential a kid has, but they are not an evaluation tool in and of themselves.

Ultimately, the coaches are better at evaluating talent than the services, who go a lot on reputation and hype. So if a coach offers a 3 rather than the 4 you were hoping for, that doesn't make the coach an idiot, or the player a bum.

No. If recruiting services rate a guy a 5-star across the board, I'll take him at that position over any 4-star at that position (given the offense/defenses/schemes are the same, for instance, spread vs. pro). Same goes for a 4-star over a concensus 3-star.

Your hypothetical is a falacy. Show me a recruit who is a 5-star by one site and a 3-star by another? Doesn't happen.