much has been made recently by a few regarding the slow time rivals has posted for mj mcfarland, while a look at his youtube highlights shows a kid who is definitely not sluggish. let's look at some results from the ultra-slow army combine and compare that to the rivals listings. my hope is to illustrate why posted numbers aren't thoroughly ignored as they pass 'in one of my ears and out the other', but close.
rivals attempts to develop a sense of validation--that some fools sometimes point to as utter truth from the mountain--by putting a little checkmark next to some of the data, symbolizing that the number comes from some sort of official event and is not coming from thin air. one of my goals here is to present the case that while checkmarked data should get a little more respect, i don't think it should be taken as golden.
below i present an amalgam view of some stats, first from the army combine and then from rivals, on some people we have interest in. i have no doubt that there are far better examples if one wants to invest the time to look for them, but these will do.
first i want to look at everybody's favorite 5-star candidate, desmond jackson. look at the stats on him from the army and then in rivals. 6-1, check. 278, check. 5.52, no check. rivals shows him 5.0 and no checkmark. hmm . . . shuttle time is close but no checkmark. rivals says his vertical is 28in with no checkmark while he jumped 25.50 at the combine. this is not to question desmond. everybody knows what a terrific prospect he is. i'm just saying be careful with posted numbers.
now a couple of guys i like a lot, marquis jackson and mykkele thompson. first marquis. 6-0, check. 205, check. 4.88, no check. rivals show him 4.4 in the 40. also rivals shows him 4.09 in the shuttle with no checkmark. army says 4.20.
mykkele is even more interesting. besides the obvious disparity in 40 times (though not as off as marquis for some reason) look at his reported height. army says 6-0 and rivals says 6-1 with a checkmark. did rivals get that from some other official source? or should checkmarks be taken with a couple of grains of salt, too?
how about hakeem flowers who visited us from south carolina? size and weight check out but no mention of 40 time on rivals. i guess with a baloney 4.85 at the army combine, i can understand rivals leaving that off. they wouldn't stand to make much money off hakeem's recruitment with a time like that posted.
not much info on marcus hutchins in rivals, but it is interesting to note that his checkmarked height does not square with the army numbers.
i'm showing mj's numbers here so you can see what the disgruntled posters are pointing to. for the record, i am very bullish on mj after seeing the youtube. very. but i thought it might be interesting to note that rivals put up the full numbers on him whether they make any sense or not. i'm guessing rivals didn't figure to make much money off him.
here again, please don't think i am disparaging these young men in any way. am definitely not. i'm just showing the sort of thing i have noticed over the years that has made me extremely skeptical of reported numbers. so the next time somebody moans about us taking slow, slow 4.9 cedric reed instead of blazer nathan hughes and his reported 4.7, understand why there will be a stifled yawn from this corner. i might comment about our coaches apparently thinking both could make the slide to quick tackle but cedric shows potential to mount a rush more from the edge. or maybe i won't. puns like that give me the heebie-jeebies.
rivals attempts to develop a sense of validation--that some fools sometimes point to as utter truth from the mountain--by putting a little checkmark next to some of the data, symbolizing that the number comes from some sort of official event and is not coming from thin air. one of my goals here is to present the case that while checkmarked data should get a little more respect, i don't think it should be taken as golden.
below i present an amalgam view of some stats, first from the army combine and then from rivals, on some people we have interest in. i have no doubt that there are far better examples if one wants to invest the time to look for them, but these will do.
first i want to look at everybody's favorite 5-star candidate, desmond jackson. look at the stats on him from the army and then in rivals. 6-1, check. 278, check. 5.52, no check. rivals shows him 5.0 and no checkmark. hmm . . . shuttle time is close but no checkmark. rivals says his vertical is 28in with no checkmark while he jumped 25.50 at the combine. this is not to question desmond. everybody knows what a terrific prospect he is. i'm just saying be careful with posted numbers.
now a couple of guys i like a lot, marquis jackson and mykkele thompson. first marquis. 6-0, check. 205, check. 4.88, no check. rivals show him 4.4 in the 40. also rivals shows him 4.09 in the shuttle with no checkmark. army says 4.20.
mykkele is even more interesting. besides the obvious disparity in 40 times (though not as off as marquis for some reason) look at his reported height. army says 6-0 and rivals says 6-1 with a checkmark. did rivals get that from some other official source? or should checkmarks be taken with a couple of grains of salt, too?
how about hakeem flowers who visited us from south carolina? size and weight check out but no mention of 40 time on rivals. i guess with a baloney 4.85 at the army combine, i can understand rivals leaving that off. they wouldn't stand to make much money off hakeem's recruitment with a time like that posted.
not much info on marcus hutchins in rivals, but it is interesting to note that his checkmarked height does not square with the army numbers.
i'm showing mj's numbers here so you can see what the disgruntled posters are pointing to. for the record, i am very bullish on mj after seeing the youtube. very. but i thought it might be interesting to note that rivals put up the full numbers on him whether they make any sense or not. i'm guessing rivals didn't figure to make much money off him.
here again, please don't think i am disparaging these young men in any way. am definitely not. i'm just showing the sort of thing i have noticed over the years that has made me extremely skeptical of reported numbers. so the next time somebody moans about us taking slow, slow 4.9 cedric reed instead of blazer nathan hughes and his reported 4.7, understand why there will be a stifled yawn from this corner. i might comment about our coaches apparently thinking both could make the slide to quick tackle but cedric shows potential to mount a rush more from the edge. or maybe i won't. puns like that give me the heebie-jeebies.
