On Those Recruiting Rankings

You have to remember, that's where they were as seniors in high school. BIG changes take place after the freshman year.

True but it is also who is doing the coaching? What coaches 'see' a 'olb' that is better as a 'fb' or a 'rb' that is a better 'db'? Rivals etc. ranking services base a great deal on team records, 20 second You Tube clips or word of mouth by a 'buddy' that has had some good input in the past.

Skill players, in particular qbs, are obvious but it is a quality coaching staff that truly sees a 'fit' no one even conceived of.

This is whay UCLA is off the cliff and Notre Dame is fast approaching it - they allegedly recruit great players and fail to garner much interest in them by the NFL. The players are fortunate if they can open some eyes at the combines and that's because their college results were average at best.

It is also what happened in the last few years of Carroll's regime.

Recruited a lot of four-five star players who are not really four-five caliber players.

Vidal Hazelton a "five-star" receiver? Please.

Chris Gallippo? Back injuries made him smaller, slower.

Aaron Corp a five-star qb? Decent but not great qb at an FCS school. The list goes on, especially with "four" star players. Brice Butler was a four-star receiver coming out of high school, but, in his fourth year in the program, could not beat out a true freshman.

Schools like Stanford are "systems" teams. They're success is predicated on their ability to execute around a hub like Luck or Gerhart. On the other end of the spectrum you have "athletic" teams. They're recruiting the primary players with less support players to fill out positions. Each have their merits...