recruiting rankings for oline

[blazers]

This article attempts to conclude that recruit rankings seem more accurate around DB's, LB's, DL, maybe WR, but not so much regarding OL or QB

http://thebiglead.com/2016/01/19/recruiting-rankings-2016-signing-day-michigan-harbaugh/

They have a tiny sample size, but it is kinda interesting. Do ya'll agree with the premise or have any other numbers to back it up? Since offensive skills are probably harder to project or evaluate, it does seem like D rankings might be overall more accurate.

Should help me fret less when we have low-star OL, and also help me feel okay about myself when fretting heavily over low-star defensive players

 

[UNC '92]

This article attempts to conclude that recruit rankings seem more accurate around DB's, LB's, DL, maybe WR, but not so much regarding OL or QB

http://thebiglead.com/2016/01/19/recruiting-rankings-2016-signing-day-michigan-harbaugh/

They have a tiny sample size, but it is kinda interesting. Do ya'll agree with the premise or have any other numbers to back it up? Since offensive skills are probably harder to project or evaluate, it does seem like D rankings might be overall more accurate.

Should help me fret less when we have low-star OL, and also help me feel okay about myself when fretting heavily over low-star defensive players

Without going into great detail, I agree with the premise of it. I feel like it's almost impossible to accurately reflect how good most players are going to be unless they are ridiculous athletes at a skill position where athletes are what you need. Even then it is difficult. I don't feel like any of the high school recruiting sites out there can tell you how smart a kid is or what intangibles they really bring that help them at their positions. QB and OL are great examples of this. And regarding QB, yeah it's easy to say someone is a great athlete and will be good, but that position, in the end, requires more than that.

 

[Archer2]

I agree with UNC '92. I tend to think the more cerebral positions, of which QB/OL are probably the most cerebral, are harder to evaluate. Mental intangibles are more difficult to ascertain/quantify than physical ones.

 

[blazers]

it would be cool to see team rankings over the yrs just including D players.

 

[blazers]

^ if there was a ranking of D only vs O, I'm guessing UNC would be pretty mediocre this decade. We've had a few big names like Travis Hughes or Greg Webb, but it seems most of our bigger recruits have been on the offensive side.

 

[Begbie_Nole]

Disagree on grouping QBs with O-line. All you have to do is look at pro-bowls over the last decade. Much more often QBs were 4-5 star recruits and the OL were 2, 3, or no star recruits.

OL is by far the most difficult to project success from 17 to 25 years old.