So I go back and watch just some of the high school highlights

[Reality Man]

of most of the running backs either playing for UM or committed to UM.

What I find amusing is I can't really tell who is going to be better (projecting). I can see differences between the players but I don't know how these recruiting experts come up with these rankings. Here are my rankings .


1. Davis (He looks like he makes the best/quickest cuts and has the best vision)
2. Isaac. (Looks to make good cuts and is physical like Davis
3a. Smith (The most physical and has good vision but definitely not that fastest/quickest)
3b. Falcon vs. Higdon (I don't know). Falcon looks bigger/faster but seem to be the same guy.
3c. Green (The quickest. Explodes but the least elusive and needs to slow down to evade).


So back to my point. Can someone tell me how rivals recruiting guru comes up with these rankings. Anything tangible? It sure seems like if you go to one of these camps and they time you and see your physique then that weighs heavily in your projection.

I would have put Weber either in top 3. Maybe #1




Reality Man

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

there was an excellent on "camp ratings" for the kids


coaches may watch (via video, etc) but the good coaches watch game films. The camps are money makers for the camps. How do you grade a RB with drills? Maybe WRs catching abilities but not runners because there's speed and game speed. Show the game film, forget the star ratings (they make money for the raters) and just check out the W-Ls