Looks like he has a long way to go based on what he did this past weekend. But he still has his senior year to improve.
When did I ascribe 100% of his problems to his position coach? I never claimed to know what the issue was, and I speculated it was a mix of his composure and coaching. I only cited Swoopes' success to counter that 42% completion rate from high school you threw out, which is obviously less relevant than how he did in college. Seems like you just pop in to stir up trouble. Get better hobbies.
http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/high...cle_c67f3538-a5dd-11e5-ab15-8f02df64690f.html Austin Westlake QB Sam Ehlinger named AP player of year
Crazy that he already has more passing yards and TDs than Brees and Foles with still his senior year to go. 2017 is a long ways away but Ehlinger could be good one.
Swoopes seems like a good kid, but he's really the final nail in the coffin for the last few years of Mack's recruiting. Emblematic of his approach to the recruiting game itself and how other schools in the state began to pass us by.
Different times, different systems. He could be a good one but any comparisons are silly and premature. And no, I don't care how many stars he has.
Not comparing them really but stats are stats and throwing 35 TDs with 0 Ints in the regular season and breaking school records, whomever they were set by, as a junior is impressive anyway you look at it. Obviously he is really young but he looks pretty darn good if you ask me, haven't said much more than that really. And not sure what stars has to do anything.
Orange Bloods is reporting that Texas is not interested in bringing in Murray. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sources have told me Texas is not interested in Texas A&M QB Kyler Murray. UT is focused on future QBs Shane Buechele & Sam Ehlinger</p>— Anwar Richardson (@AnwarRichardson) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnwarRichardson/status/678764512250429440">December 21, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> http://www.burntorangenation.com/20...ransfer?_ga=1.261262989.1283478493.1447102145 They'll have 5 scholarship QBs next season (Swoops, Heard, Merrick, Locksley and Buechele) and Sam Ehlinger replacing Swoops in 2017. They might just be feeding this to OB though so who knows. Shane Buechele starting in January is huge. That's like starting a freshman with a lot of the benefits that you get from redshirting. Starting a semester early is a big part of how Malik Jefferson adapted so quickly to the college game. At the same time, the kid from Westlake (Ehlinger) had 20 more Touchdowns than Buechele and 1 less interception. Buechele only averaged 185 passing yards a game. I mean, I really don't follow high school football and don't know how you evaluate 1 QB over another. Just looking at the stat list makes you understand how a guy like baker mayfield can get passed on by all the major programs. There are so many factors to navigate through. http://www.maxpreps.com/leaders/football/offense,passing/texas/stat-leaders.htm
At the same time, the kid from Westlake (Ehlinger) had 20 more Touchdowns than Buechele and 1 less interception. Buechele only averaged 185 passing yards a game. I mean, I really don't follow high school football and don't know how you evaluate 1 QB over another. Just looking at the stat list... This is the kind of bull**** that should infuriate everyone, not just me.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. When you look at the statistics of Texas high school QBs it is very overwhelming and the difficulty of properly figuring out who the most talented players are seems very difficult. For instance, a QB from El Paso lit it up this year but does not seem to be on any college program's radar. Like it or not, the ranking system works in a general sense. You can grab outliers but the teams that gather a large number of the best ranked players by these sites win games. Do you HAVE to have a top 5 class to do well? No but getting the top performing players in High School gives a good opportunity for success. It's funny to have this debate in a UT thread considering their top ranked recruiting class won a national championship in their senior season. That is just one example but still funny to note nonetheless. This is a good read: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right Here is a sample from the article: There is also an unbiased strong correlation between recruiting star ranking and percentage drafted. Are recruiting stars EVERYTHING? No. They are a part of the equation but dismissing them the way a lot of you do is just silly.
It works in if you aggregate it over time, you are more likely, per capita, to find a hit in one pool than in another pool. However it's like baseball, even the very very best hitters don't get a hit in 60+ % of their at bats. Most highly ranked players don't turn into superstars. However when you use it to perform very marginal analyses (TEAM X averaged 3.1 stars and team Y averaged 3.33, therefore TEAM Y is the best!).... or when you use it to project on to a given player (KYLER MURRAY WAS A FIVE STAR! MUST GET!).... or when you use it as a substitute for getting players that fit a designed philosophy (the Mack Brown approach)..... or if you use it not cognizant of the fact that, given the growth of HS football, where in the number of skilled players has increased dramatically, whereas the # of mythical 5 star unicorn imaginary titles have stayed largely the same (again, the Mack Brown approach)... ...that's foolish, and you are misusing the data.
I don't know how useful it is to debate this that much since you've bashed users for using the terms multiple times and I know there is nothing anyone can say that is going to change your mind about anything. It distracts from any actual conversation about the team. I'll respond for the sake of responding: You need to stand by your argument and dismiss all of the analysis I posted about the aggregate star recruiting level correlating with wins. You can't accept that assessment and then dismiss the value of the individual pieces (5 star recruits) on a micro level. You seem to have an unwavering perception that saying something is overall valuable should mean that every piece of it is guaranteed to be a %100 grand slam guarantee. In reality, the overall average of all of these players makes the 5 star assessment valuable which means that even though you aren't guaranteed a great player, you have a higher probability of success than if you get a player that wasn't rated as highly. They are "better bets." Saying, getting a 5 star recruit is good is the same as saying getting a high school player who performed statistically at a level that was superior to the vast majority of his peers. Or, getting a player who's accomplishments and on the field execution is superior to the vast majority of his peers based on the scouts that are at games watching the players. "Stars" are a rough aggregate of a quantitive and qualitative assessment that makes it efficient to talk about the developments in recruiting on a college level. I've pointed this out to you before but if we adopt a way to talk about recruits that will keep you from bashing people then every class will be as good as every other class because ever semblance of quality is influenced by the assessments of these sites. I would absolutely love to hear your breakdown of the Mississippi vs LSU or Ohio State recruiting classes based on your personal knowledge on what type of offense/defense EACH of those players are in, what they will be expected to do on the team, how they performed on the field with regards to their quality of play, statistics etc. Basically, your perspective leaves you useless in any discussion on the value of different recruits which is why you just bash people who are having these discussions.
The big 12 expansion rumblings got me thinking about a move back to 12 teams and what we could do with divisions. We don't know what teams might be added but everyone agrees that they would have to add a team in a cover proximity to West Virginia. That could be Cincinnati or Memphis. Let's say it's Cincy and BYU from the west. This is what I would do: West Virginia needs to be in a division with a new neighbor. We can by default assign them to Division B and it makes sense for BYU to be in the opposite division since they are on the opposite side of the map. That locks in 3 spots. Division A: BYU Division B: West Virginia, Cincy Here are groupings of current big 12 teams that I don’t think can be split up: Pod 2: Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas. UT-OU is an annual game and nothing can get in the way of that. Setting up a permeant cross divisional matchup independent of rotating schedules becomes a mess and disrupts the natural 3 on, 3 off rotational schedule of a 12 team conference. Ok St and OU being locked to one another should not require an explanation Pod 3: Baylor-TCU. They’ve played 111 times despite being in different conferences for a 15 year period. Unlike Baylor-Texas, the series is tied and represents a historical rivalry and a competitive one. Pod 4: Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St. These guys have been together for over 110 years and have never been split up into different divisions. No good reason to split them up now. We have two pods of 3 teams each which could be their own division. Since we already have spots in each division taken up (BYU, Cincy/WV), these two pods need to be separated. Texas Tech has no real hard pairing but it would make sense to throw them with Texas so the Texas teams are evenly split. That would mean the only way to fill the divisions without splitting any pods is for UT,OU, Ok St and TT to join Cincy and West Virginia in a division. Yes, we would split the texas teams up but the Pac 12 did that with the California teams. Division A BYU Iowa St [Pod 4] Kansas [Pod 4] Kansas St [Pod 4] Baylor [Pod 3] TCU [Pod 3] Division B West Virginia [Pod 1] Cinci [Pod 1] Oklahoma [Pod 2] Oklahoma St [Pod 2] Texas [Pod 2] Tx Tech
Just keep it the way it was. BYU(Colorado) Cincinnati(Missouri) Iowa State Kansas Kansas State West Virginia(Nebraska) Baylor Oklahoma Oklahoma State Texas TCU(Texas A&M) Texas Tech Not as close as Colorado-Nebraska-Missouri but...
No way. The disparity between teams in one division vs the other with respect to performance in the last decade would be staggering. Teams go up and down but Kansas and Iowa St are always bad and Kansas St has good seasons every now and then. Also, you're forcing the two teams at the east and west to cross 2 time zones annually for no reason.
