PDA

View Full Version : Only few of the Rivals 100 make a Pro roster.


EricCartmann
05-16-2009, 04:45 PM
I was going over the Rivals Top 100 recruits through the years, and noticed few if any make it to an NFL roster. Actually very few seem to even make an impact in college.

Of the 300 players selected as the top 100 recruits coming out of high school between 2002-2004, I am only seeing 2 Potential NFL Hall of Famers, Haloti Ngata (#2 in 2002), Adriane Peterson (#1 in 2004). Still too early to comment on guys from the Rivals 2005 class.

So what's my point? Point is don't get too happy if your school got a "good" recruiting class, it does not mean jack.

the decider13
05-16-2009, 04:51 PM
Guys can be extremely good college players and not have successful pro careers. It happens.

jkpigskin
05-16-2009, 04:58 PM
this makes sense to me... the transition from college to the nfl is much larger than high school to college. Plus the 3-4 years you are at college are the years that you mentally mature and you see if you have the head to play the game. Also another factor is size... in high school you can be a freak athlete but not have prototypical size. the nfl puts so much on size that a small RB who was a high recruit wont have the same impact when he tries to transition to the pros.
these athletes bodies are still developing and we have a better sense when they are exiting college rather than entering it. And there are those cases (Darrius Heyward-Bey) who do not start football until late in high school or college and once they get the hang of it, could surpass those who have reacehd their maximum potential despite having played football all their life

AntoinCD
05-16-2009, 05:00 PM
2002-Obviously Ngata at #2 was a big hit but after that it wasn't great. Its still too early to give up on Vince Young but it really needs to happen sometime soon. But overall, yes not a very good year.

2003-Doesn't have any outstanding players yet in the NFL but there is great potential. Sims, Bush, Olsen, Griffen, Nelson, Landry. All of these players are at the worst potential pro bowlers and two of the best young safeties(Landry and Griffen) came out of this year so overall not too bad.

2004-The top half of this class has some outstanding players. Obviously AD is up there at the top, but players like Keith Rivers, Glen Dorsey, Derrick Harvey(all first year players last year taken in the top 10), Zach Miller, Marshawn Lynch and CALVIN JOHNSON. AD and CJ alone make this class very good.

Overall it is tough to make projections from college to the NFL, let alone high school to the NFL. 2002 was the worst year recently but '03 and '04 were realtively good.

superman
05-16-2009, 05:07 PM
wait, why wouldn't i be excited if my fav college had a sick recruiting class?

they're all gonna go to diff pro teams or not make it at all

EricCartmann
05-16-2009, 05:32 PM
wait, why wouldn't i be excited if my fav college had a sick recruiting class?

they're all gonna go to diff pro teams or not make it at all

Because it's really 50/50. Florida St. the last couple of years should be just as good as USC or Florida (according to Rivals Rankings). Just looking at the 2004 class, it seems not much of those guys even made an impact in college, much less the pros.

hagy34
05-16-2009, 05:40 PM
Guys can be extremely good college players and not have successful pro careers. It happens.

Exactly. Also, recruiting is probably even more of a toss up than the NFL draft. Kids go through huge changes phyiscally in college....

wicket
05-16-2009, 05:48 PM
you know we are talking about the top 100 from the about 3000 guys that actually sign loi to div1 schools. so unless you expect about 30 potential hof-ers per class it does say something. surely the effect is exagerated but scout and rivals do want to sell their goods so they make a big fuzz about it

AntoinCD
05-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Exactly. Also, recruiting is probably even more of a toss up than the NFL draft. Kids go through huge changes phyiscally in college....

Yea Aaron Curry is a great example there. He was a 2 star(I think) prospect coming out of high school at 6'2 195 but four years and fifty pounds later he is the highest rated linebacker prospect out of college in a while

EricCartmann
05-16-2009, 06:51 PM
you know we are talking about the top 100 from the about 3000 guys that actually sign loi to div1 schools. so unless you expect about 30 potential hof-ers per class it does say something. surely the effect is exagerated but scout and rivals do want to sell their goods so they make a big fuzz about it

Yeah I realize that. You would think they could predict talent better, However...

I can understand, it an impossible job. After all, how can you scout 20,000 potential prospects and predict how much they will grow or faster they will be?

LonghornsLegend
05-16-2009, 06:52 PM
Julio Jones will certainly add to that slim total here pretty soon.

superman
05-16-2009, 07:03 PM
Because it's really 50/50. Florida St. the last couple of years should be just as good as USC or Florida (according to Rivals Rankings). Just looking at the 2004 class, it seems not much of those guys even made an impact in college, much less the pros.

don't you think having a good class gives them a better shot though?

EricCartmann
05-16-2009, 08:51 PM
don't you think having a good class gives them a better shot though?

But of course, it is something, and something is always better than nothing. Looking at the Rivals Recruit Rankings by teams in 2005, and how these teams fared in 2008:

USC Rivals Recruting Class in 2005 was #1, and in 2008 this team finished ranked #2 (You can say this recruiting class lived up to expectations)

OU #2 in 2005, and finished ranked #5 2008 (You can say this recruiting class lived up to expectations)

Florida #15 in 2005, and finished ranked #3 in 2008 (You can say this recruiting class exceeded expectations)

Utah #59 in 2005, and finished ranked #3 in 2008 (You can say this recruiting class exceeded expectations).

Tennessee, Texas A&M, Miami, Michigan, and Nebraska also had huge recruiting classes in 2005, but none did much of anything in 2008.

On the flip side, you have TCU, BYU, and Georgia Tech all had recruiting classes ranked in the bottom half of D1, but all finished in the top 25.

A good recruiting class does not seem to guarantee much of anything. It is still a coin flip at the end of the day.

LonghornsLegend
05-16-2009, 09:02 PM
Texas also had a #1 recruiting class in 2002 I believe that led to their 05 championship, they are consistently a top 10 team but that was the strongest class probably in ten years.

Mr. Hero
05-16-2009, 09:04 PM
What, how highly recruited a kid is doesn't guarantee they'll beast in college or the NFL? When did this happen...

GhostDeini
05-16-2009, 09:41 PM
Ngata in HOF ???????? Umm, let his career PLAY out. Now Peterson, was a Pro Football HOF'er in highschool.

Kslice28
05-16-2009, 10:47 PM
Interesting that the Vikings now have 2 #1 overalls in AP and Harvin

superman
05-16-2009, 11:13 PM
But of course, it is something, and something is always better than nothing. Looking at the Rivals Recruit Rankings by teams in 2005, and how these teams fared in 2008:

USC Rivals Recruting Class in 2005 was #1, and in 2008 this team finished ranked #2 (You can say this recruiting class lived up to expectations)

OU #2 in 2005, and finished ranked #5 2008 (You can say this recruiting class lived up to expectations)

Florida #15 in 2005, and finished ranked #3 in 2008 (You can say this recruiting class exceeded expectations)

Utah #59 in 2005, and finished ranked #3 in 2008 (You can say this recruiting class exceeded expectations).

Tennessee, Texas A&M, Miami, Michigan, and Nebraska also had huge recruiting classes in 2005, but none did much of anything in 2008.

On the flip side, you have TCU, BYU, and Georgia Tech all had recruiting classes ranked in the bottom half of D1, but all finished in the top 25.

A good recruiting class does not seem to guarantee much of anything. It is still a coin flip at the end of the day.

if you have a good recruiting class (recent history) opposed to another teams bad recruiting class (recent history), i'd say the good recruting class has more than a coin flips chance of being better. maybe like a dice. give the bad recruiting class one of the numbers on it and roll.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-16-2009, 11:19 PM
I was going over the Rivals Top 100 recruits through the years, and noticed few if any make it to an NFL roster. Actually very few seem to even make an impact in college.

Of the 300 players selected as the top 100 recruits coming out of high school between 2002-2004, I am only seeing 2 Potential NFL Hall of Famers, Haloti Ngata (#2 in 2002), Adriane Peterson (#1 in 2004). Still too early to comment on guys from the Rivals 2005 class.

So what's my point? Point is don't get too happy if your school got a "good" recruiting class, it does not mean jack.

This is a fairly brutal post/topic.

First, and correct me if i'm wrong, the Rival recruit list is for High School to the pros, so how they turn out in the NFL is nothing of relevance. Their is an entire draft process for the college to NFL, and even after that, many busts occur. Expecting anything from a high school list is just being dumb and has nothing to do with anything.

You are only seeing 2 potential HoF guys in that 3 year span? Sooooo, what is your point. Do you know how many people make the HoF? Do you think you are a bit premature? Let us not set our sights too high, as the HoF is a pretty unique list. Why not talk Pro Bowls or sometihng of meaning?

The lack of Rivals in the NFL and HoF means don't get excited for a good recruiting class? You have done nothing to prove that people shouldn't. The NFL doesn't matter in this instance for a college team. The fact that you put this in the NFL forum makes it even more humourous. Does a player not making it in the NFL mean that he does nothing in college? I do believe that many top college players don't translate to the NFL, even some Heisman winners. I'd be pretty excited to get them in a recruiting class.....

I may be missing something, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

America
05-16-2009, 11:30 PM
Texas also had a #1 recruiting class in 2002 I believe that led to their 05 championship, they are consistently a top 10 team but that was the strongest class probably in ten years.

and that happened with 3 of their 5 stars busting. that class was amazing, but it was pretty much VY who made that class notable.

BamaFalcon59
05-17-2009, 12:05 AM
The percentage of five star players drafted is higher than the percentage of four star players drafted.

The percentage of four star players drafted is higher than the percentage of three star players drafted.

The percentage of three star players drafted is higher than the percentage of two star players drafted.

The percentage of two star players drafted is higher than the percentage of non-ranked players drafted.

So the guys are obviously doing something right. It's not an exact science, but for the most part higher ranked players make more impact than lower ranked players. But a few thousand players sign D-1 football scholarships each year, so of course some mistakes will be made or some players missed out on.

OneToughGame
05-17-2009, 12:16 AM
I personally love when 2 & 3 "star" recruits become top 5 picks (like Curry.) I just like cheering for the underdogs I guess.

holt_bruce81
05-17-2009, 12:23 AM
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/05/11/star-crossed-top-recruits-of-2005-more-likely-to-be-arrested-tha/#cont

In 2005, Rivals.com ranked 28 men as five-star football recruits. The players were the cream of the crop, the top football players in America. They signed to play for top teams across the country, from USC to Miami, Penn State to Oklahoma.

There was just one problem: Turns out they were more likely to be arrested than drafted by the NFL

Kind of interesting.

Iamcanadian
05-17-2009, 12:34 AM
Well, I just reread Rivals predictions for the 2009 draft and it was generally terrible.
As for predicting recruiting classes, you'd be surprised how ratings on high school prospects change quickly when one of them is suddenly sought by a number of top colleges. It is amazing how fast their ratings jump from a 2 star to a 4 or 5 star based just on who is recruiting them.
Does anybody here really think Rivals has the staff to scout a large # of high school prospects??? They rely on hype a lot more than fans realize.

BamaFalcon59
05-17-2009, 12:38 AM
It's not so much hype as it is trust. Rivals, and fans, should trust coaching staffs to diagnose who the better players are. If a player has offers from the top schools then he likely is worthy of a high rating.

I would say coaches of many schools buy into hype more than Rivals. You would be suprised how many college coaches offer players based on their Rival's star rating.

So, basically it is a positive feedback system. Rivals buys into offer hype from coaches, and then other coaches will offer that player due to their Rivals rating.

And the whole bit about college coaches checking Rivals is not a joke, it happens.

Iamcanadian
05-17-2009, 01:07 AM
It's not so much hype as it is trust. Rivals, and fans, should trust coaching staffs to diagnose who the better players are. If a player has offers from the top schools then he likely is worthy of a high rating.

I would say coaches of many schools buy into hype more than Rivals. You would be suprised how many college coaches offer players based on their Rival's star rating.

So, basically it is a positive feedback system. Rivals buys into offer hype from coaches, and then other coaches will offer that player due to their Rivals rating.

And the whole bit about college coaches checking Rivals is not a joke, it happens.

The top programs in the NCAA spend an absurd amount of money on their scouting departments. They may use Rivals as a beginning resource but hardly depend on it for their final decisions. The farther down the feeding chain a NCAA school is, it is likely they lack the scouting/financial resources of the top programs and have little choice but to use Rival's ratings. Even in the NFL, the more successful franchises spend a lot on scouting and the chronic losers often lack the financial resources to compete on an equal footing.

BamaFalcon59
05-17-2009, 01:34 AM
The top programs in the NCAA spend an absurd amount of money on their scouting departments. They may use Rivals as a beginning resource but hardly depend on it for their final decisions. The farther down the feeding chain a NCAA school is, it is likely they lack the scouting/financial resources of the top programs and have little choice but to use Rival's ratings. Even in the NFL, the more successful franchises spend a lot on scouting and the chronic losers often lack the financial resources to compete on an equal footing.

No, major programs have been known to use Rivals ratings as a source of recruiting. It makes them look better to get hyped players. VT's Rivals guy, one of the better and unbiased ones there are, has even said he has heard of multiple schools doing it. Not VT, maybe one reason our recruiting classes are chronically underrated, but other programs. I've heard UNC, for example.

And yes, they spend a ton of money. But that doesn't mean they don't do some idiotic things or give into hype.

EricCartmann
05-17-2009, 01:52 AM
This is a fairly brutal post/topic.

First, and correct me if i'm wrong, the Rival recruit list is for High School to the pros, so how they turn out in the NFL is nothing of relevance. Their is an entire draft process for the college to NFL, and even after that, many busts occur. Expecting anything from a high school list is just being dumb and has nothing to do with anything.

You are only seeing 2 potential HoF guys in that 3 year span? Sooooo, what is your point. Do you know how many people make the HoF? Do you think you are a bit premature? Let us not set our sights too high, as the HoF is a pretty unique list. Why not talk Pro Bowls or sometihng of meaning?

The lack of Rivals in the NFL and HoF means don't get excited for a good recruiting class? You have done nothing to prove that people shouldn't. The NFL doesn't matter in this instance for a college team. The fact that you put this in the NFL forum makes it even more humourous. Does a player not making it in the NFL mean that he does nothing in college? I do believe that many top college players don't translate to the NFL, even some Heisman winners. I'd be pretty excited to get them in a recruiting class.....

I may be missing something, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

I did not think that post was harsh one bit. You just seemed to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.

I believe each year there are 4-5 players inducted into the HOF. You would think that Rivals could at least nail 2 a year? However, my main point was not really the NFL HOF, it is Rivals top recruits and their impact in college, I don't see Rivals 100 top athletes even making an impact in college much less the Pro's. Big Impact in Pros to me means HOF. Again maybe I should say "Pro Bowlers" instead of HOF'ers. So I do apologize for that. Can you ever forgive me like the way Jesus forgave the Romans?

Also please do forgive me for putting this subject in the wrong section.

I am glad to have finally met the guy who makes all the rules and has final say.

Iamcanadian
05-17-2009, 09:35 AM
No, major programs have been known to use Rivals ratings as a source of recruiting. It makes them look better to get hyped players. VT's Rivals guy, one of the better and unbiased ones there are, has even said he has heard of multiple schools doing it. Not VT, maybe one reason our recruiting classes are chronically underrated, but other programs. I've heard UNC, for example.

And yes, they spend a ton of money. But that doesn't mean they don't do some idiotic things or give into hype.

You make a good point about major programs using Rival's ranking to secure a lot of hype for their schools by signing a few of their 4 and 5 star prospects. Rivals may be way over hyped but that doesn't mean every prospect on their ranking doesn't have some real talent. It's just that Rivals rankings aren't a guarantee of future success and their star system is weak if you examine their total results.

BamaFalcon59
05-17-2009, 10:11 AM
You make a good point about major programs using Rival's ranking to secure a lot of hype for their schools by signing a few of their 4 and 5 star prospects. Rivals may be way over hyped but that doesn't mean every prospect on their ranking doesn't have some real talent. It's just that Rivals rankings aren't a guarantee of future success and their star system is weak if you examine their total results.

It's definitely not a fullproof (or is it failproof? Haha) system, but at this time they do better than the other major recruiting services (ESPN and Scout). The higher stars have a higher success rate than lower stars, and players in the 100/ 250 have higher success rates than those not in the 100/ 250. That's a good sign.

Also, it's not like the NFL where a player's character factors in as well. Considering how many players there are, that would be very difficult. So that doesn't affect the rankings initially but affects their final results.

Same deal with grades, Rivals has the GPA of many kids but it doesn't factor into ratings. This often either carries a kid to the next class, to a lower division school, or prevents them playing baseball ever.

Then there are things like coaching changes; players may be adversely affected by a coach leaving or coming in or by a coach leaving. Do you think Ben Tate (Rivals100 2006, #41 in the nation) knew that the great tradition of Auburn tailbacks was going to be put on hold by a spread offense? Or that John Dwyer (5.9 4 star RB) or Steven Threet (5.8 4 star QB who just transfered) knew that they were going to be put in a triple option? It looks good for Dwyer now, but I'm sure he was apprehensive at first.

And then some times players are hyped, but it is near impossible to get good film on them, making evaluation difficult.

Injury is also often a big variable.

That's not to say Rivals is perfect. They are notorious for giving rating bumps to players committed to schools with more subscriptions to Rivals, and don't adequately scout some states (VIRGINIA!) in comparison to the big ones (Florida, California, Texas).

There are just so many factors that play into these kids succeeding, it's extremely difficult to even do what they do.

gsorace
05-17-2009, 10:48 AM
I am only seeing 2 Potential NFL Hall of Famers

What a ridiculous thing to say

EricCartmann
05-17-2009, 11:12 AM
What a ridiculous thing to say

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

YAYareaRB
05-17-2009, 11:21 AM
the Top players in 2003 were horrid.

JHG722
05-17-2009, 11:42 PM
I personally love when 2 & 3 "star" recruits become top 5 picks (like Curry.) I just like cheering for the underdogs I guess.

http://temple.scout.com/a.z?s=186&p=8&c=1&nid=1634235

:) :) :)

JHG722
05-17-2009, 11:53 PM
As for predicting recruiting classes, you'd be surprised how ratings on high school prospects change quickly when one of them is suddenly sought by a number of top colleges. It is amazing how fast their ratings jump from a 2 star to a 4 or 5 star based just on who is recruiting them.

You should see the shady **** they do. It's really incredible and sad. My school (Temple) received a verbal from a quarterback out of Virginia this year. He is a 2 star according to Rivals and Scout. His only other offer (I believe) was from Ohio U. Well after Ohio State lost out on all the top QBs in this year's class, they started to go after less heralded recruits. They were then denied by a few less heralded recruits, who stuck with the schools they verballed to. Ohio State then contacts the guy from VA we had a verbal from and offers him. Scout and Rivals learned that he was offered by OSU, and his ranking shot up to a four star (or maybe it was a three star, I'm not sure). Anyway, the QB told OSU that he was sticking with his commitment to Temple, since he knew they were just using him to back up Pryor and didnt really value him like we did. After Rivals and Scout learned that he was sticking with Temple, his ranking dropped back down to a 2 star.

This happens pretty often. Outside of really top top prospects, it's a terrible way to gauge recruiting classes since there is so much shady **** and political **** involved with more 'major' schools.

We see this happen a lot at Temple with players we're recruiting who sign with Penn State and suddenly shoot up rankings in increased stars.

JHG722
05-18-2009, 12:11 AM
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/05/11/star-crossed-top-recruits-of-2005-more-likely-to-be-arrested-tha/#cont



Kind of interesting.

Hahahaha this got a little personal for me. One of the guys they listed, Callahan Bright, lives like 5 minutes from me and went to my rival high school. To make you guys understand, there are three high schools in my immediate area, and they are three of the worst football teams in PA and in the country. We're honestly horrendous. So this kid was a big deal, 5 star, top recruit, NFL talent and blew everything. To start, unlike his name suggests, he is not very intelligent. He wasn't academically eligible to play college football, couldn't handle prep school, couldn't handle JUCO. He went to a DII school, but I'm not sure what happened to him there.

He got busted in a sting a few years ago: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpi/is_200708/ai_n19399019/

Rivals page: http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=27548

One of the best stories I heard about him was that after he got his offer from FSU, he told FSU he and his girlfriend were a package deal, and I think said he wouldn't go to FSU unless she got a scholarship too. They told him to go **** himself :p

Total moron.

devinhester=R.O.Y 2006
05-18-2009, 12:23 AM
Here are some of the better guys from Rivals 2002 Top 100

2002

1. Vince Young
2. Haloti Ngata
3. Lorenzo Booker
9. Leon Washington
15. Justin Blalock
20. Trent Edwards
22. Jerious Norwood
29. Devin Hester
36. Marcedes Lewis
48. DeShawn Wynn
49. Kedric Golston
51. Eric Winston
55. Jarrad Page
56. Winston Justice
58. Kamerion Wimbley
59. Tambi Hali
64. Tony Ugoh
70. Parys Haralson
75. Selvin Young
98. Davin Joseph

Here are guys from Rivals Top 100 in 2003 and 2004

2003

1. Ernie Sims
2. Reggie Bush
10. Greg Olsen
14. LaMarr Woodley
20. Robert Meachem
23. Victor Abiamiri
25. Jarvis Moss
27. Donte Whitner
28. Michael Bush
30. Steve Smith
40. Antonio Cromartie
48. Vernon Davis
54. Maurice Jones-Drew
60. Michael Griffin
61. Reggie Nelson
68. Sedrick Ellis
69. Lawrence Jackson
73. Marcus Thomas
79. JaMarcus Russell
81. Tavares Gooden
87. LaRon Landry
91. Sam Baker

2004

1. Adrian Peterson
2. Ted Ginn
3. Early Doucet
5. Keith Rivers
8. Derrick Harvey
11. DeMario Pressley
13. Chad Henne
18. Frank Okam
19. Fred Davis
24. Dan Connor
28. Marshawn Lynch
33. Zach Miller
34. Brandon Siler
37. Calvin Johnson
44. Dwayne Jarrett
47. Glenn Dorsey
61. Lawrence Timmons
73. Lavelle Hawkins

devinhester=R.O.Y 2006
05-18-2009, 12:30 AM
2005 could be very successful depending on how some of the guys fair in the NFL.

1. Derrick Williams
3. Eugene Monroe
5. Rey Maualuga
7. Mark Sanchez
8. Martellus Bennett
10. Jonathan Stewart
12. Kenny Phillips
18. DeSean Jackson
19. Justin King
23. Darren McFadden
28. Macho Harris
29. Mohamed Massaquoi
42. James Davis
45. Mario Manningham
48. Michael Oher
53. Brian Cushing
57. Jamaal Charles
59. Ricky Jean-Francois
62. Curtis Lofton
68. Malcom Kelly
69. Henry Melton
78. Everette Brown
90. Rashard Mendenhall

Race for the Heisman
05-18-2009, 02:11 AM
Just to add on what has already been mentioned in passing, half of these players will never even have a chance at the NFL due to injury or legal troubles. It's just a fact. Also, sport has shown that the greatest levels of moral corruption also typically occur in the highest caliber athletes. Furthermore, given that roughly half the rookies who enter the league each year are out of it in less than two, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that only 25 or so of these players end up on NFL rosters. Getting even half that could probably be considered a success from a scouting perspective.

Dagagad
05-18-2009, 03:01 AM
This comes up every year. One of my favorite bloggers, Matt Hinton looked at it this year again, although before the draft.

He looked at the drafts from 2006-08 and found that according to rivals rankings..

you are a 5 *, you have a 1/8 chance of 1st round, 1/4 chance of 1st 3 rounds

you are a 4*, you have a 1/21 chance of 1st round, 1/12 top 3

you are a 3*, you have a 1/107 chance of 1st round, 1/29 top 3

you are a 2*, you have a 1/412 chance of 1st round, 1/99 top 3

The odds seems to line up with the stars.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Recruiting-stars-in-the-draft-We-knew-this-was-?urn=ncaaf,158543

J52
05-18-2009, 07:49 AM
The percentage of five star players drafted is higher than the percentage of four star players drafted.

The percentage of four star players drafted is higher than the percentage of three star players drafted.

The percentage of three star players drafted is higher than the percentage of two star players drafted.

The percentage of two star players drafted is higher than the percentage of non-ranked players drafted.

So the guys are obviously doing something right. It's not an exact science, but for the most part higher ranked players make more impact than lower ranked players. But a few thousand players sign D-1 football scholarships each year, so of course some mistakes will be made or some players missed out on.

Logic; ahh how I love thee.

BuddyCHRIST
05-18-2009, 07:52 AM
Many of the top prospects have been great recruits, some of those guys didn't workout in the NFL but making two jumps in competition your going to have alot of busts.

My main problem with Rivals is they drop and rise guys based on when they commit, the guys who commit early and don't bring alot of traffic to their site fall while guys who wait till NSD tend to rise.