Now 5.9 4 star. Click his name above if it is still showing as 5.7.
Nick Henrich
- Thread starter Skerz4Life50
- Start date
Now 5.9 4 star. Click his name above if it is still showing as 5.7.
A
About damn time Rivals!! 3 star my ***. GBR
He may jump into the top 250 as well. Should find out in less than an hour I believe.
5.9 4* usually are in the Rivals 100, could be just outside
Good deal. the kid definitely wasn’t a dam 3 star, that’s for sure. 5.9 4 star is a nice jump too. Still think it’s BS Luke McCaffery and Ronald Thompkins didn’t get there 4th star but hey...at least Nick Henrichs made a big jump 
Ty Robinson got a big boost too. I know he isn't a commit, but I think that is well deserved as well
The two you mentioned could still potentially get bumped. We will know later in the week. Monday was the top 10. Yesterday was Rivals 100, today Rivals 250, and then I believe the rest of the week will be further updates. Not saying they will or won’t change, but it basically just means they won’t be in the top 250.Good deal. the kid definitely wasn’t a dam 3 star, that’s for sure. 5.9 4 star is a nice jump too. Still think it’s BS Luke McCaffery and Ronald Thompkins didn’t get there 4th star but hey...at least Nick Henrichs made a big jump
Good deal, these other two definitely deserve there 4th stars as well. On ESPN and 24/7, McCaffery and Thompkins are 4 Stars and fairly high up at that. Crossing my figures.
Looks like he is #107
Maybe I just don't know how to read those Rivals charts but doesn't the graphic say he's no. 107 now?
Well deserved, kid is a beast. Would not be surprised to see McCaffrey get a bump later in the year if he lights it up on the field.
McCaffrey’s ranking history is a little strange...
If you click on his name above and then scroll down to the bottom, you can see in a graph that between his Sophomore year and Junior year Rivals had him ranked 108 for 1 ranking. Other than that he was never ranked. Not sure if that was because they had him ranked at a position at that time and have since been evaluating him as an athlete or quarterback or what the change was.
I think that’s the biggest rating bump I’ve seen a Husker commit make. Anybody recall a bigger one? Or other big jumps?
Odd that it doesn't come over on the link, but his national number is 107.
Now all the stargazers will be pleased....
Positional rankings haven’t been updated. All new player rankings will be updated by Sunday
Edit: looks like he will be the #5 OLB
that school east of here on I80 sucks
He must be having a hell of a fall camp and showing definitive improvement to get a bump like that. Hopefully a few of the others get their extra star as well so we can meet the magic 45% needed to compete for natties. 3 stars won’t cut it, need some analyst to grant them their 4th star.
Some people would rather live with their heads in the sand.
Remember too, guys, that McCaffrey is bound to get a recruiting boost as his senior season progresses; he's rated the way he is because he hasn't played the QB role yet as a starter. If he's as successful at that as I think he's going to be, look to see him get boosted to a 5.8 or 5.9 4 star.
He was a composite 4 Star on 247. Rivals just hadn’t reviewed his film. He may get bumped again when they see him in person.
No head in the sand. Everyone knows that it takes talent to win championships. As they say, Jimmy and Joes over xs and os. But does an analyst putting an extra star behind someone’s name mean that they are now more talented than they were before? If the recruiting analysts can’t always agree on their analysis of a player, than why would coaches? Keep in mind that the analysts are mostly taking into account current measurables and their own criteria in film review, then maybe in general trying to project what level a player may perform at, but for the most part they are scoring a player where they are right now. Coaches attempt to take into account aptitude, attitude, character, etc and they try to project what the player will become within their specific system/development/culture.
I just don’t know about the 45% metric being floated around. My gut tells me it is more about the half a dozen or so elite players on the roster (top 3 round draft pick types), than about the star composition of the roster. I would agree that the elite players more than likely come from the top of the recruiting rankings, but that doesn’t mean that the entire team must come from the top of the rankings. I guess my contention would be that there isn’t that much difference between the 100th ranked recruit and the 200th ranked recruit whether they are 3 star or 4 star ranked. Either could be capable of contributing in some fashion, and with some luck, maybe become a difference maker. Last year’s recruiting class has been mentioned while differentiating 4 stars vs 3 stars. It seems to me that just as many 3 stars players from that class are flashing during fall camp as 4 star players.
Farrell basically said this. Said he loved his tape after seeing it and would push for him to move up. I’m sure some had.
Mike Ferrell "said I want to see him in action", before I move him up. Good for 5 star..
Never understood the talent argument... how many HS seniors lead teams to national championships? ZERO. How many teams made of true freshman are national champions. Zero. What a kid does in HS is pointless, it is the program that builds a perceived talent into a monster. Alabama is the best at development and system...Clemson is next...then there is everybody else. Alabama breeds competition and perfection...is incredible organized and purposeful. What we are now seeing at NU is similar, but we totally overestimate the quality of the average coach in college. Just because a guy is overpaid doesn't make him good...a huge percentage of college coaches fail over and over and over again, are fired and rehired by someone they know, they aren't surgeons, doctors, lawyers...they aren't ceos or managers, they are coaches...many of them can't string sentences together, couldn't organize a birthday party yet because there is a culture of nepotism and hire by trust mentality many inept people find themselves leading major programs....MR, case in point. Regions, Schools, Talent do not win...coaches and systems do.
And since 2005, how many championships have been won by a team with a bunch of untankec or lowly ranked recruits. When Nick Saban was at Michigan St, his teams were 500 every year but 1. Was he not a developer of talent then? Clemson was an average ACC team until Dabo started pulling in top classes.
Development matters, no doubt. But if Saban and Sweeney can develop 4/5 stars into NFL stars they will always beat your 3.13 star team regardless of who is your coach.
Nick Saban coaching current Alabama talent beats Nick Saban coaching current Nebraska talent 99 times out of 100.
To pretend that talent doesn’t matter is naive and ignoring statistics and history.