This post by BB got me thinking, what metrics should we be using to analyze the really early commits?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Analyzing early verbals
- Thread starter absinthe
- Start date
somebody
Well-Known Member
Paraphrasing slightly:
1. What do the measurables look like?
2. Is there early interest/offers from other schools?
3. Has the prospect had standout camp (CU, regional, or national) performance(s)?
4. Is the prospect's high school a potential good pipeline?
5. What is the competition like?
If you can get positive answers from at least three of the five questions, I tend to think you are doing pretty well.
Well, I'm no scout, so I tend to defer to those who get paid know these things. My 3 primary criteria (in no particular order):
1. Star ratings- this has been discussed at length here before, but there is a strong correlation between star ratings and future success.
2. Offer lists- Obviously, the more, the better.
3. Staff priority- I always think it's a good sign if we land guys we offered early, as that can be a good indicator of how high the staff is on a player. Also, in those cases where there are reports that the staff has a kid as a top priority, I'm pretty happy if we land him. I trust the staff, and if we consistently land our priority targets, regardless of how others rate them, I think we'll be OK long-term.
With the three criteria above, I'm really looking for a kid to rate highly in 2 of the 3 categories. If there's a consensus across all 3, the kid's likely a stud. If they only rate highly in one of the above categories (generally #3 this early in the cycle), I'll look at secondary criteria:
Measurables- HS measurables are notoriously inflated, so I take these with a grain of salt.
Video- As I said, I'm no scout, but I do try to make my own evaluations in terms of explosiveness, speed, etc.
Opinions/evaluations from those I trust- There are a few people at different message boards who whose opinions I trust and who generally give honest evaluations of prospects. If they think highly of the player, this carries weight with me.
Future benefits- Are there additional benefits in the future that can be gained by signing a kid, ie closing the borders in-state, building pipelines, siblings (even though I'm not a fan of recruiting for this reason), etc.?
In terms of this class, when evaluating based on these criteria, there are 3 players I'm very happy with so far, 1 that I wouldn't complain about in a class of 25 but wonder about in a class of 16, and one that I'm skeptical about at this point.
1. Star ratings- this has been discussed at length here before, but there is a strong correlation between star ratings and future success.
2. Offer lists- Obviously, the more, the better.
3. Staff priority- I always think it's a good sign if we land guys we offered early, as that can be a good indicator of how high the staff is on a player. Also, in those cases where there are reports that the staff has a kid as a top priority, I'm pretty happy if we land him. I trust the staff, and if we consistently land our priority targets, regardless of how others rate them, I think we'll be OK long-term.
With the three criteria above, I'm really looking for a kid to rate highly in 2 of the 3 categories. If there's a consensus across all 3, the kid's likely a stud. If they only rate highly in one of the above categories (generally #3 this early in the cycle), I'll look at secondary criteria:
Measurables- HS measurables are notoriously inflated, so I take these with a grain of salt.
Video- As I said, I'm no scout, but I do try to make my own evaluations in terms of explosiveness, speed, etc.
Opinions/evaluations from those I trust- There are a few people at different message boards who whose opinions I trust and who generally give honest evaluations of prospects. If they think highly of the player, this carries weight with me.
Future benefits- Are there additional benefits in the future that can be gained by signing a kid, ie closing the borders in-state, building pipelines, siblings (even though I'm not a fan of recruiting for this reason), etc.?
In terms of this class, when evaluating based on these criteria, there are 3 players I'm very happy with so far, 1 that I wouldn't complain about in a class of 25 but wonder about in a class of 16, and one that I'm skeptical about at this point.
chitownbuff
Club Member
I'm just happy to have some verbals before the season starts. Thanks Halk.