Most Reliable Source

[bailee88]

I have been reading about Josh Huff and it seems like the various services view him very differently. My question is what service, scout, rivals, ESPN have you found to be the most reliable and accurate when it comes to recruiting news and evaluating recruits.
We have a lot of good young players on the roster but a game changing RB does not seem to be on the current roster in my opinion. I hope we get Huff and he is that guy.

 

[KoolAid]

I have been reading about Josh Huff and it seems like the various services view him very differently. My question is what service, scout, rivals, ESPN have you found to be the most reliable and accurate when it comes to recruiting news and evaluating recruits.

Take a look at what every service has to say, watch some video, then check out who else offered. That should give you a good idea on how good the kid is. If you look at the WR commit we just landed, his offer list is pretty serious - therefore he can play some ball.

If Becky offers a kid, throw out everything you read about him - he can play, today, in the NFL (or Canadian league if he prefers it).

 

[amateurdwarftosser]

We need a talented workhorse RB in this class.

 

[Bisker82]

We need a talented workhorse RB in this class.

I think Donnell Kirkwood has that potential. He looks to have some power with good bursts of speed.

As far as Scout rating Josh Huff as a 2 star, take it for what it's worth; they can't even get Donnell's name correct (They have him listed as Darnell).

 

[magpie]

I agree with the principle of reading all the services and taking the common notes to determine reliability.

 

[gophergrad]

I also like to look at multiple sources when making my own evaluation of a player. But in general I like ESPN's breakdown of players. Although Huff's ESPN page has a few gramatical errors in it. Scout has loads of information but it can be hit or miss and is rarely updated after its inital posting. Rivals is better but you don't get a lot of free info other than the stars they give and who else offered.

And personally I like to think that Brewster has a team of geek's who do their own research 24/7 in a cave somewhere in the bank so when we offer a kid, he's a player no matter what these services think.

 

[dpodoll68]

Huff's ESPN page has a few gramatical errors in it.

*Irony*

Seriously though, there is one error -

"Doesn’t give defenders a clean at him"

The first is a formatting error that results in an apostrophe not showing up, so there is one legitimate error, a missing word in the above sentence so it reads better, something like "a clean look at him."

Also, you posted the link incorrectly.

 

[KoolAid]

And personally I like to think that Brewster has a team of geek's who do their own research 24/7 in a cave somewhere in the bank so when we offer a kid, he's a player no matter what these services think.

Rivals, Scout, and Espn all exist for our benefit. College coaches put little to 0 stock in these services. Most of the services will base their ratings on who has been offered what. You can't blame them, its an easy way out who is any good.

Brew's recruiting team watches A LOT of video and they have their own rating system. They'll have offers out to these kids before they're even on Scout's radar. Seems like it's worked well so far as you hear a lot of kids say Minnesota was the first to offer.

 

[KoolAid]

*Irony*

Seriously though, there is one error -

"Doesn’t give defenders a clean at him"

The first is a formatting error that results in an apostrophe not showing up, so there is one legitimate error, a missing word in the above sentence so it reads better, something like "a clean look at him."

Also, you posted the link incorrectly.

You just SMASHED a g-hole poster and an ESPN staff writer with one post.

Nice.

 

[gophergrad]

*Irony*

Seriously though, there is one error -

"Doesn’t give defenders a clean at him"

The first is a formatting error that results in an apostrophe not showing up, so there is one legitimate error, a missing word in the above sentence so it reads better, something like "a clean look at him."

Also, you posted the link incorrectly.

Nicely done.