• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

247 Talent Composite - 2020

Duckboy33

Well-Known Member
1,707
501
113
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 335.44
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I actually had no idea. But I have always felt that the QB winning the Heisman was as much a team effort as winning a single gam. Players often grow up with teams for which they dream to play and sign with those teams regardless of other offers. So hypnotically, If Jake Fromm had gone to LSU while Joe Barrow played at Illinois, who would likely have won the Heisman. As best I can remember, Paul Horning (sic) was the only winner from a losing team. Would either of the two Oklahoma winners have won if they played for say Kansas.
I believe that LSU would have won the Championship if it had the starting QB from any of the team that finished in the top 15.
So full circle about the requiting standing. Offensive lines and defensive front 7s win championships while QBs win Heisman. The lines are were to look when evaluating the best recruiting classes

QBs definitely get the recognition when a team is successful. I wish the Heisman voters would be more willing to vote for a lineman or a defensive player if they were truly the best player in college football. However, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the QB position. If a team has an elite QB, it can prop that team up beyond it's talent level. If a team has bad QB play, they can be limited even with a very talented roster.
 

Ron G

Well-Known Member
2,946
665
113
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
QBs definitely get the recognition when a team is successful. I wish the Heisman voters would be more willing to vote for a lineman or a defensive player if they were truly the best player in college football. However, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the QB position. If a team has an elite QB, it can prop that team up beyond it's talent level. If a team has bad QB play, they can be limited even with a very talented roster.
As part of this conversation, I was watching the ND Duke game. The QB from Duke transferred from Clemson. He was good enough to be recruited by Clemson so I believe other programs wanted him also. Had decent numbers as a backup (good enough for Duke to make him the starter). I am sure he is a better than average QB. But without the Clemson line and receivers and defense supplying field position, all he could put up was 13 points.
 

Duckboy33

Well-Known Member
1,707
501
113
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 335.44
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
As part of this conversation, I was watching the ND Duke game. The QB from Duke transferred from Clemson. He was good enough to be recruited by Clemson so I believe other programs wanted him also. Had decent numbers as a backup (good enough for Duke to make him the starter). I am sure he is a better than average QB. But without the Clemson line and receivers and defense supplying field position, all he could put up was 13 points.

You're not wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing to the contrary.
 

Ron G

Well-Known Member
2,946
665
113
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
You're not wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing to the contrary.
Of course there is not argument. It is just my point that when evaluating recruiting classes, pay more attention to the teams that sign the best linemen on both sides of the ball. After all , even average backs can run through big holes.
 

Duckboy33

Well-Known Member
1,707
501
113
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 335.44
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Of course there is not argument. It is just my point that when evaluating recruiting classes, pay more attention to the teams that sign the best linemen on both sides of the ball. After all , even average backs can run through big holes.

Agreed. Look at USC. Tons of blue chip recruits but they are mostly QBs and WRs.
 

LawDawg

Sic 'em Dawgs ... woof!
3,282
212
63
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Location
Cary, NC
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
ACC:
1. Florida State (6th nationally)
2. Clemson (8th nationally)
3. Notre Dame (11th nationally)
4. Miami FL (18th nationally)
5. North Carolina (29th nationally)
6. Virginia Tech (30th nationally)
7. NC State (35th nationally)
8. Duke (39th nationally)
9. Georgia Tech (41st nationally)
10. Pittsburgh (43rd nationally)
11. Louisville (58th nationally)
12. Virginia (59th nationally)
13. Syracuse (60th nationally)
14. Boston College (65th nationally)
15. Wake Forest (69th nationally)

Big 12:
1. Texas (7th nationally)
2. Oklahoma (9th nationally)
3. TCU (28th nationally)
4. Baylor (36th nationally)
5. West Virginia (42nd nationally)
6. Oklahoma State (44th nationally)
7. Iowa State (56th nationally)
8. Texas Tech (61st nationally)
9. Kansas State (72nd nationally)
10. Kansas (73rd nationally)

Big Ten:
1. Ohio State (2nd nationally)
2. Penn State (10th nationally)
3. Michigan (12th nationally)
4. Nebraska (24th nationally)
5. Maryland (26th nationally)
6. Wisconsin (32nd nationally)
7. Michigan State (33rd nationally)
8. Illinois (37th nationally)
9. Iowa (38th nationally)
10. Minnesota (45th nationally)
11. Northwestern (48th nationally)
12. Purdue (50th nationally)
13. Indiana (51st nationally)
14. Rutgers (57th nationally)

PAC 12:
1. USC (4th nationally)
2. Oregon (15th nationally)
3. Washington (19th nationally)
4. Stanford (20th nationally)
5. UCLA (22nd nationally)
6. Arizona State (34th nationally)
7. Utah (46th nationally)
8. Colorado (47th nationally)
9. California (53rd nationally)
10. Oregon State (54th nationally)
11. Arizona (63rd nationally)
12. Washington State (71st nationally)

SEC:
1. Alabama (1st nationally)
2. Georgia (3rd nationally)
3. LSU (5th nationally)
4. Texas A&M (13th nationally)
5. Auburn (14th nationally)
6. Florida (16th nationally)
7. Tennessee (17th nationally)
8. South Carolina (21st nationally)
9. Mississippi State (23rd nationally)
10. Ole Miss (25th nationally)
11. Arkansas (27th nationally)
12. Kentucky (31st nationally)
13. Missouri (40th nationally)
14. Vanderbilt (52nd nationally)

Top 10 G5:
1. Houston (49th nationally)
2. UCF (55th nationally)
3. Cincinnati (62nd nationally)
4. Boise State (64th nationally)
5. SMU (66th nationally)
6. USF (67th nationally)
7. BYU (68th nationally)
8. Memphis (70th nationally)
9. FIU (74th nationally)
10. FAU (75th nationally)
Where did you get this from because it isn't remotely close to what 247 is showing?
 

LawDawg

Sic 'em Dawgs ... woof!
3,282
212
63
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Location
Cary, NC
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Georgia's losing their 5 Stars
It accounts for that ... our 5* that have left aren't listed on our team - Fields, Cox, etc.

If there is a weakness, it's not reevaluating the *s based on college performance. So, a 5* who turned out not to be very good still counts as a 5*. but who the fuck is going to do that?

For 247, all they have to do is have some data weenie check rosters at the beginning of the year and run it against their high school rankings. That's easy to do with all the data they already compile for high school recruiting. Makes this sort of a freebie.
 

Duckboy33

Well-Known Member
1,707
501
113
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 335.44
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Where did you get this from because it isn't remotely close to what 247 is showing?

247 updated the numbers since I originally posted this
 
Top