I wanted to share some things with you all about my film evaluations and my grading system. I think some get it, but I've never really explained the overall format of what I do or how my grades really work, and how they differ from what Rivals and other recruiting services provide. So here goes:
GRADING SYSTEM
From a basic standpoint, my grades are broken into two categories. I have a current grade and than an upside grade. The current grade is where I have the players ranked based on where they are as players right now. The upside grade is meant to give what I believe each player's ceiling is should he tap into his full potential.
There's a reason for the separation of grades. Some guys are better players right now, but not every player has the same amount of growth. Some players are better suited to play early on but another player who might need work has more room to grow, which at times means he has a higher ceiling. So if a I have a player who received a 3-star or 3.5-star grade that doesn't mean that's where he will be. The upside grade is more indicative of what I think that player can be in college.
Two examples are Jeremiah Owusu and Kofi Wardlow from the 2017 class. Neither was ranked overly high on my list, with Wardlow ranking as the 2nd lowest player in the class. But both players received 4.5-star upside grades, which means that I believe both have a chance to end their careers as the caliber of player that one would see from a guy ranked in the Top 50 nationally.
If both players max out their ability I think both have more upside than Top 10 players like Darnell Ewell, David Adams and Michael Young.
So when you look at the rankings for a recruiting service you get one grade and one ranking. With mine, you have to focus as much on the projection grade (upside grade) as you do the current grade and ranking.
It's not better or worse, it's just different, and it gives you more of how I believe most coaches look at players. At least the vast majority of coaches that I know. What a player is now is important, but what you think a player can be is just as important.
With that in mind, I'm contemplating providing a sort of "re-ranking" of the classes and position groups based on an upside grade below the current grades. I'd be curious to get your feedback on that.
HOW I GRADE
Up until the 2016 class I went with a "gut" feel when I graded. I watched a kid, I broke him down and I thought to myself, "Where should he be ranked?" That's how I graded. If a guy was a 5-star its b/c I "felt" like he was a 5-star. I felt like it created more misses and was not exact enough for me. When I came to Blue & Gold I had a chance to do it from scratch, so I created a more scientific method.
Each position group has 8 specific categories that receive a grade. It varies position by position, but there is carry over with each position to make sure the grades are balanced from position to position. For example, I needed to come up with a grading system that didn't favor quarterbacks or linemen or wide receivers, etc.
There are 4 groups those 8 categories goes into. There are 2 grades that fit into a size/strength/power group, there are 2 grades that fit into an athleticism group, there are 2 grades that fit into a skill group (technique, instincts, etc) and there are 2 grades that are more "intangibles" or "finer points" which fit into one non-skill specific group.
The 8 categories are added up and the total points are provided, and then I divide them by 8 to get the "grade." I rank off that grade. The upside grade is still about my gut feel and what I see on film, b/c there's really no tangible way in my view of really grading what a player can be, even though it's not something that's apparent on film yet.
I am still tinkering with my system, but I have created a range for where players fit. So guys who receive an average grade of 89 or higher are 5-star players. 87 to 88.9 is a 4.5-star grade, and so on. I've tweaked my system a bit between the 4-star and 3.5-star grades and then 3.5-star grades and 3-star grades for the 2018 class. I did it last week actually, as I felt too many players were getting 4-star grades and not enough were getting 3-star grades. The change altered a few players on my Big Boards, I think about 2-3 (who went to 3.5 stars), but overall it didn't create a major change. I will continue to tinker with this moving forward until I really feel like I've balanced it out.
What I believe this system does is eliminate any bias as much as possible and create a more scientific grading system for me. For example, I have a personal preference for bigger receivers, so in the past a bigger receiver would be ranked higher b/c of that bias. With cornerbacks and safeties I put too much emphasis on athleticism and not enough emphasis on technique and instincts. With linebackers I put too much emphasis on instincts and technique and not enough emphasis on athleticism.
Now, there are grades that can balance those biases out. So a player who has elite size but average athleticism at WR isn't going to get the boost in my mind that a guy who lacks ideal size but has much better athleticism.
It has worked out too, but I've found there are players who I look at on film and I'm not blown away or I don't think they are better than another player, but after grading both out I am a bit surprised every now and then that one player graded out higher than another. Off gut I liked Kurt Hinish more than Myron Tagovailoa, and I told people that. Once I finally graded Tagovailoa out he actually graded out higher than Hinish, so he was ranked higher.
My grades are not really meant to be a contrast to the rankings done by Rivals, ESPN, Scout and 247. Honestly I don't think I view things the same way they do. It's not better or worse, it's just different, so when I rank a guy at a certain grade it's not meant to say, "Well, I have the guy graded out here and Rivals has him here, so they are clearly off on him." While I might think that at times, my system isn't the same as theirs. They are complements, not competitors. That doesn't mean I don't have disagreements with them, but it means overall my system is not a one-for-one with theirs, if that makes sense.
So that's how my process works. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask them here.
Fire away.
GRADING SYSTEM
From a basic standpoint, my grades are broken into two categories. I have a current grade and than an upside grade. The current grade is where I have the players ranked based on where they are as players right now. The upside grade is meant to give what I believe each player's ceiling is should he tap into his full potential.
There's a reason for the separation of grades. Some guys are better players right now, but not every player has the same amount of growth. Some players are better suited to play early on but another player who might need work has more room to grow, which at times means he has a higher ceiling. So if a I have a player who received a 3-star or 3.5-star grade that doesn't mean that's where he will be. The upside grade is more indicative of what I think that player can be in college.
Two examples are Jeremiah Owusu and Kofi Wardlow from the 2017 class. Neither was ranked overly high on my list, with Wardlow ranking as the 2nd lowest player in the class. But both players received 4.5-star upside grades, which means that I believe both have a chance to end their careers as the caliber of player that one would see from a guy ranked in the Top 50 nationally.
If both players max out their ability I think both have more upside than Top 10 players like Darnell Ewell, David Adams and Michael Young.
So when you look at the rankings for a recruiting service you get one grade and one ranking. With mine, you have to focus as much on the projection grade (upside grade) as you do the current grade and ranking.
It's not better or worse, it's just different, and it gives you more of how I believe most coaches look at players. At least the vast majority of coaches that I know. What a player is now is important, but what you think a player can be is just as important.
With that in mind, I'm contemplating providing a sort of "re-ranking" of the classes and position groups based on an upside grade below the current grades. I'd be curious to get your feedback on that.
HOW I GRADE
Up until the 2016 class I went with a "gut" feel when I graded. I watched a kid, I broke him down and I thought to myself, "Where should he be ranked?" That's how I graded. If a guy was a 5-star its b/c I "felt" like he was a 5-star. I felt like it created more misses and was not exact enough for me. When I came to Blue & Gold I had a chance to do it from scratch, so I created a more scientific method.
Each position group has 8 specific categories that receive a grade. It varies position by position, but there is carry over with each position to make sure the grades are balanced from position to position. For example, I needed to come up with a grading system that didn't favor quarterbacks or linemen or wide receivers, etc.
There are 4 groups those 8 categories goes into. There are 2 grades that fit into a size/strength/power group, there are 2 grades that fit into an athleticism group, there are 2 grades that fit into a skill group (technique, instincts, etc) and there are 2 grades that are more "intangibles" or "finer points" which fit into one non-skill specific group.
The 8 categories are added up and the total points are provided, and then I divide them by 8 to get the "grade." I rank off that grade. The upside grade is still about my gut feel and what I see on film, b/c there's really no tangible way in my view of really grading what a player can be, even though it's not something that's apparent on film yet.
I am still tinkering with my system, but I have created a range for where players fit. So guys who receive an average grade of 89 or higher are 5-star players. 87 to 88.9 is a 4.5-star grade, and so on. I've tweaked my system a bit between the 4-star and 3.5-star grades and then 3.5-star grades and 3-star grades for the 2018 class. I did it last week actually, as I felt too many players were getting 4-star grades and not enough were getting 3-star grades. The change altered a few players on my Big Boards, I think about 2-3 (who went to 3.5 stars), but overall it didn't create a major change. I will continue to tinker with this moving forward until I really feel like I've balanced it out.
What I believe this system does is eliminate any bias as much as possible and create a more scientific grading system for me. For example, I have a personal preference for bigger receivers, so in the past a bigger receiver would be ranked higher b/c of that bias. With cornerbacks and safeties I put too much emphasis on athleticism and not enough emphasis on technique and instincts. With linebackers I put too much emphasis on instincts and technique and not enough emphasis on athleticism.
Now, there are grades that can balance those biases out. So a player who has elite size but average athleticism at WR isn't going to get the boost in my mind that a guy who lacks ideal size but has much better athleticism.
It has worked out too, but I've found there are players who I look at on film and I'm not blown away or I don't think they are better than another player, but after grading both out I am a bit surprised every now and then that one player graded out higher than another. Off gut I liked Kurt Hinish more than Myron Tagovailoa, and I told people that. Once I finally graded Tagovailoa out he actually graded out higher than Hinish, so he was ranked higher.
My grades are not really meant to be a contrast to the rankings done by Rivals, ESPN, Scout and 247. Honestly I don't think I view things the same way they do. It's not better or worse, it's just different, so when I rank a guy at a certain grade it's not meant to say, "Well, I have the guy graded out here and Rivals has him here, so they are clearly off on him." While I might think that at times, my system isn't the same as theirs. They are complements, not competitors. That doesn't mean I don't have disagreements with them, but it means overall my system is not a one-for-one with theirs, if that makes sense.
So that's how my process works. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask them here.
Fire away.
