Originally Posted by
WarEagle
May have to disagree with this one.
At this level -- and we are 'playing' the game like we are an Alabama or USC or even a Western Ky. -- a coach is aware of, using your example, the guy's drops problem. He's been looked at in person, countless tapes of him have been watched, the HS coach has been talked to and even opposing HS coaches have been spoken to.
I would bet that there's not a single (applicable) attribute we see in our game for a guy like Dorial Green-Beckham that wasn't known IRL by Mizzou, Arky, and everyone else. OK, so maybe they don't know his Kick Power, but his CAT, CIT, SPC ratings, along with SPD, AGI, ACC, BCV, ELV, BTK, TRK, SPIN/JUKE, probably even his blocking footwork/power, are all pretty well fleshed out in the recruiting reports that these coaches -- and remember, we're playing at being on the same level 'in this game' -- have become knowledgable about.
Maybe I could go along with a 'hidden' asterisk in a category that becomes an area he just never improves on, or maybe solidifies the concept thrown about on all the forums about true duds/diamonds in the rough. But as for not knowing all these grades? I just have to think that Chizak IRL at Auburn or me at an Xbox Auburn are aware of these attributes.
IMO, the recruiting pitch (recruit's vs. ours) and the Russian Roulette of pitches are the concepts that need re-worked. Love the idea of a Most really meaning something (like w/ Green-Beckham and Prox Home) more than how it works in our game. I'm also still on my soapbox about a weighted roulette system where a recruit's Most category has 14x more chance of coming up than his Least. If Green-Beckham's Most was Prox Home and I rated a C there at Auburn, this pitch would come up often enough where I would eventually be losing out b/c it's coming up for Mizzou the same number of times and they're hammering the points, killing me.
Bookmarks