Erik Gibson Commits to Minnesota

Donate To GopherHole
Gibson is ranked the 92nd WR by Scout, no evaluation by Rivals to date. The boys at 247 have him at 182nd, an 81 rating with a "Composite" of .8216.

The problem once again with the 247 Composite is the 92nd best WR on 247 is rated a solid 86. With two dots and a 247 rating of 81 that means they are assigning a value of approx 83 flat for the Scout rating if we do a simple average. I don't get it, and iI ask one of the enlightened to explain this wacky system. Why not assess an 86 or at least an 85. I'm vexed.

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/QQKhpfeRQqz6M" width="480" height="368.32653061224494" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/star-trek-data-QQKhpfeRQqz6M">via GIPHY</a></p>
 

Not to derail yet another thread, but if Claeys had recruited this player - what response? I'm guessing there, uh, might have been some smacktalking about Claeys recruiting a guy with no power 5 offers.

Similar to how we had to defer to the excellence that is Jay Sawvel, we probably need to trust Ciarocca. This isn't his first rodeo.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Not to derail yet another thread, but if Claeys had recruited this player - what response? I'm guessing there, uh, might have been some smacktalking about Claeys recruiting a guy with no power 5 offers.

Similar to how we had to defer to the excellence that is Jay Sawvel, we probably need to trust Ciarocca. This isn't his first rodeo.
Click to expand...

No offers in April is different than no offers after playing their senior year of high school ball.
 

btowngopher said:
No offers in April is different than no offers after playing their senior year of high school ball.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. I'm just raising the issue we have at times of the "stargazers" vs "offers" crowds and in some cases players that the prior staff offered had little of either rating or offers but the staff trusted their own evaluations. I think that's the case here, just ribbing a little. I love the slight whiff of hypocrisy in the evening.
 



He appears to have decent hands and certainly has no trouble competing for balls in traffic. He also doesn't exhibit any alligator arms going across the middle. However, his speed is obviously far from elite given he never had great separation on any play. Hopefully he'll be a great ball control receiver- can always use more of them!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 





Pompous Elitist said:
The problem once again with the 247 Composite is the 92nd best WR on 247 is rated a solid 86. With two dots and a 247 rating of 81 that means they are assigning a value of approx 83 flat for the Scout rating if we do a simple average. I don't get it, and iI ask one of the enlightened to explain this wacky system. Why not assess an 86 or at least an 85. I'm vexed.
Click to expand...

Each recruiting service has their own way of assigning ratings to a player. For example, Scout does it with a combination of player rankings and star value to get the rating. The 247 composite uses an algorithm to essentially average them all out, because an 85 on Scout might not mean the same as an 85 on Rivals.
 


dpodoll68 said:
A legitimate 4.68 is plenty fast for a junior in high school.
Click to expand...

To follow up on that, I took a quick look at the 40 times from the combine and found Travis Rudolph from Florida State (6'1", 189 lbs) ran a 4.65. For his three year career, he totalled 153 catches for 2311 yards and 18 TD's. Obviously I'm cherry picking, but as dpo states, you can be a pretty solid collegiate wide receiver with those 40 times.
 

coolhandgopher said:
To follow up on that, I took a quick look at the 40 times from the combine and found Travis Rudolph from Florida State (6'1", 189 lbs) ran a 4.65. For his three year career, he totalled 153 catches for 2311 yards and 18 TD's. Obviously I'm cherry picking, but as dpo states, you can be a pretty solid collegiate wide receiver with those 40 times.
Click to expand...

Five wide receivers from this year's combine ran a 4.68 or slower
 



dpodoll68 said:
A legitimate 4.68 is plenty fast for a junior in high school.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. He is a junior in high school. Plenty of time to improve on any/all measures too.

What's with all the negativity people? PJ was a WR in the pros. If he can't spot and get good ones we are in big trouble. I don't care about his offer list, if he's good enough for PJ I have to believe he is good enough for the Gophers, especially with the lack of receiver talent we have had lately. Welcome aboard Mr. Gibson!
 

bottlebass said:
Completely agree with this. He is a junior in high school. Plenty of time to improve on any/all measures too.

What's with all the negativity people? PJ was a WR in the pros. If he can't spot and get good ones we are in big trouble. I don't care about his offer list, if he's good enough for PJ I have to believe he is good enough for the Gophers, especially with the lack of receiver talent we have had lately. Welcome aboard Mr. Gibson!
Click to expand...

Damn it, my bigger problem than figuring out if this kid is any good based on the comments, is whether you are a "Fleckster" or a "Fleckite" based on your comments about PJ. Will have to wait for Bob's opinion, I guess.
 

Mulligan said:
Damn it, my bigger problem than figuring out if this kid is any good based on the comments, is whether you are a "Fleckster" or a "Fleckite" based on your comments about PJ. Will have to wait for Bob's opinion, I guess.
Click to expand...

My opinion has been well documented here.
 

joshvanklomp said:
Each recruiting service has their own way of assigning ratings to a player. For example, Scout does it with a combination of player rankings and star value to get the rating. The 247 composite uses an algorithm to essentially average them all out, because an 85 on Scout might not mean the same as an 85 on Rivals.
Click to expand...

What is the Scout rating? My assumption has been Scout has player rankings and a rigid number of 5,4,3,2 stars each year. I understand the overall rank of a player can vary vs all other position groups, but I don't understand how when we are looking at a single position group 247 can assign such a low value to Scouts player ranking, essentially a weighted 83 for Gibson and 81-82 for Tyrik.

It might make mathematical sense if they are weighting their values based on some unknown mean value, taking the cosines of the x and y....but it makes 0.0000 intuitive sense. They are saying Scout assessed him as the 141st best WR which is a stretch if we look at it from a straight average value standpoint.
 

coolhandgopher said:
To follow up on that, I took a quick look at the 40 times from the combine and found Travis Rudolph from Florida State (6'1", 189 lbs) ran a 4.65. For his three year career, he totalled 153 catches for 2311 yards and 18 TD's. Obviously I'm cherry picking, but as dpo states, you can be a pretty solid collegiate wide receiver with those 40 times.
Click to expand...

What is Wolitarsky's 40 time? I doubt he is much faster.
 

What was AJ Barker's 40 time? If Gibson has elite hands and routes I'll take him. We've had enough athletes that can't catch.
 


WorkingMyTailOff said:
What is Wolitarsky's 40 time? I doubt he is much faster.
Click to expand...

Correct. Similar to KJ as well. Decker 4.5. It's a nice stat but hard to evaluate it on its own.

Fruechte can run sub 4.5 but I never thought of him as fast. On the other hand, Myrick and Berkley Edwards always looked incredibly fast.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
What was AJ Barker's 40 time? If Gibson has elite hands and routes I'll take him. We've had enough athletes that can't catch.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'll take guy with an AVG 40 time who can separate and attack the ball over a speedster who is AVG at separation and going after the ball. Every time.
 


To me, he certainly looks fast enough to play receiver in the Big 10. He seems aggressive and most of his highlights are him winning jump balls. As Pompous pointed out, our current staff seems to know quite a bit when it comes to WRs so I so no reason why we wouldn't trust their judgement completely (similar to Sawvel with DBs).

For me, his tape is impressive and the people I trust obviously like him, so I'm pumped about the signing.

Welcome aboard!
 

SJUgopher said:
Ask his mom's friend.
Click to expand...

Ok, I did and she pointed out this highlight reel. Actually, I was curious to see if my memory was correct and yep, Barker was one of those underrated guys - good receiver with soft hands, and very good body control and instincts. Those punt returns are so impressive. Too bad he went off the deep end; to my knowledge he never caught on -prime Donna with a marijuana bent per reports. Quit on the game. Nice run for those 8 games. 577 yards on 30 receptions, 7 TDs. Walk on.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LQxFbDA0jzw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Ok, I did and she pointed out this highlight reel. Actually, I was curious to see if my memory was correct and yep, Barker was one of those underrated guys - good receiver with soft hands, and very good body control and instincts. Those punt returns are so impressive. Too bad he went off the deep end; to my knowledge he never caught on -prime Donna with a marijuana bent per reports. Quit on the game. Nice run for those 8 games. 527 yards on 30 receptions, 7 TDs. Walk on.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LQxFbDA0jzw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...

Nice. Great memories. Funny how quickly we forgot how talented he was...
 




Pompous is getting at one of my issues with the various rating systems. These services throw out their numbers - 3*, 4*, .860 - whatever - but I still wonder about the methodology used to arrive at those numbers. What criteria do they use? Who assigns the ratings? Are they based off film study, in-person evaluation, interviews with coaches? Maybe if you pay for their service, they explain it more. I assume there's a method behind the numbers, but without knowing that method, as far as I know, they could be throwing darts at a wall, or rolling out bingo balls to get their numbers.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but without some kind of frame of reference, it makes me skeptical about the validity of those numbers. It's like a public-opinion poll - unless you know the methodology of the poll, it's hard to tell if the results are meaningful or skewed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom