What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Analyzing early verbals

absinthe

Ambitious but rubbish.
Club Member
Junta Member
This post by BB got me thinking, what metrics should we be using to analyze the really early commits?

On the topic of how to analyze early verbals, I tend to ask the following questions:

1. What do the measurables look like?
2. Is there early interest/offers from other schools?
3. Has the prospect had standout camp (CU, regional, or national) performance(s)?
4. Is the prospect's high school a potential good pipeline?
5. What is the competition like?

If you can get positive answers from at least three of the five questions, I tend to think you are doing pretty good.
 
This post by BB got me thinking, what metrics should we be using to analyze the really early commits?

Paraphrasing slightly:

1. What do the measurables look like?
2. Is there early interest/offers from other schools?
3. Has the prospect had standout camp (CU, regional, or national) performance(s)?
4. Is the prospect's high school a potential good pipeline?
5. What is the competition like?

If you can get positive answers from at least three of the five questions, I tend to think you are doing pretty well.
 
Well, I'm no scout, so I tend to defer to those who get paid know these things. My 3 primary criteria (in no particular order):

1. Star ratings- this has been discussed at length here before, but there is a strong correlation between star ratings and future success.

2. Offer lists- Obviously, the more, the better.

3. Staff priority- I always think it's a good sign if we land guys we offered early, as that can be a good indicator of how high the staff is on a player. Also, in those cases where there are reports that the staff has a kid as a top priority, I'm pretty happy if we land him. I trust the staff, and if we consistently land our priority targets, regardless of how others rate them, I think we'll be OK long-term.

With the three criteria above, I'm really looking for a kid to rate highly in 2 of the 3 categories. If there's a consensus across all 3, the kid's likely a stud. If they only rate highly in one of the above categories (generally #3 this early in the cycle), I'll look at secondary criteria:

Measurables- HS measurables are notoriously inflated, so I take these with a grain of salt.

Video- As I said, I'm no scout, but I do try to make my own evaluations in terms of explosiveness, speed, etc.

Opinions/evaluations from those I trust- There are a few people at different message boards who whose opinions I trust and who generally give honest evaluations of prospects. If they think highly of the player, this carries weight with me.

Future benefits- Are there additional benefits in the future that can be gained by signing a kid, ie closing the borders in-state, building pipelines, siblings (even though I'm not a fan of recruiting for this reason), etc.?

In terms of this class, when evaluating based on these criteria, there are 3 players I'm very happy with so far, 1 that I wouldn't complain about in a class of 25 but wonder about in a class of 16, and one that I'm skeptical about at this point.
 
Back
Top