[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=14488.msg154548#msg154548 date=1453937828]

Anyone wanting to bring up Nottingham as an analog to Chryst has to realize Chryst's pedigree and physical attributes are far beyond what Nottingham brought to the position.

OK, I went back and looked.  Nottingham was the #14 QB in 2011, a 4* recruit ranked 253 overall.  That's good, but you are right, Chryst ranks higher: #5 QB, 4*, #95 overall.  What's interesting is that even though we all seemed enamored by Nottingham at the time, there was no reason to be, based on his recruiting profile.  Both Nunes: 4*, 19th ranked QB, #155 overall and Hogan, 4*, 13th ranked QB, #202 overall would have been considered better recruits, even though I don't remember thinking that at the time.

By the way, as a basis of comparison, Luck was 5*, 4th ranked QB, #47 overall, which makes Chryst our highest ranked QB recruit since Luck.

Costello is 4*, #91 overall, 6th ranked QB, so pretty comparable to Chryst in terms of rankings.

BC
[/quote]

It would be a little helpful if you could note what rankings you are using in such lists. It looks like you are using Scout, which is often quite out of step with the others.

Somebody suggested we use 247 composite, as it averages several services. From there:
Costello #3 pro-style QB; score 0.9746
Chryst #3; 0.9745
Burns  #12; 0.9311
Hogan  #8; 0.8765
Nottingham #7; 0.9177
Nunes    #9; 0.9278

Burns was characterized by significant differences of opinion:
ESPN #4 (pocket), Rivals #6 (pro), 247 #10 (pro), 247-composite #12 (pro), Scout #36 (all QB).
Hogan was the other guy with pretty high variation:
ESPN #51 (pocket), Rivals #15 (pro), 247 #28 (pro), 247-composite #8 (pro), Scout #13 (all QB).
[I don't understand how Hogan's composite score can be his highest by so much, but that's what it says.]

Overall, Chryst wasn't really ranked that much higher than Burns, though it was pretty clear that Burns was much more of a project with big physical tools - which is why opinions varied so much.

As for what they have done so far at Stanford, it seems clear that Chryst did win the backup spot (though Shaw made a point of never quite saying that), but neither played enough to really evaluate how far apart they might be. We saw the most of them at the spring game - a long time ago in a very artificial environment (remember it was a spring game that made everyone favour Nottingham over Nunes).

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=14488.msg154548#msg154548 date=1453937828]

Anyone wanting to bring up Nottingham as an analog to Chryst has to realize Chryst's pedigree and physical attributes are far beyond what Nottingham brought to the position.

OK, I went back and looked.  Nottingham was the #14 QB in 2011, a 4* recruit ranked 253 overall.  That's good, but you are right, Chryst ranks higher: #5 QB, 4*, #95 overall.  What's interesting is that even though we all seemed enamored by Nottingham at the time, there was no reason to be, based on his recruiting profile.  Both Nunes: 4*, 19th ranked QB, #155 overall and Hogan, 4*, 13th ranked QB, #202 overall would have been considered better recruits, even though I don't remember thinking that at the time.

By the way, as a basis of comparison, Luck was 5*, 4th ranked QB, #47 overall, which makes Chryst our highest ranked QB recruit since Luck.

Costello is 4*, #91 overall, 6th ranked QB, so pretty comparable to Chryst in terms of rankings.

BC
[/quote]

It would be a little helpful if you could note what rankings you are using in such lists. It looks like you are using Scout, which is often quite out of step with the others.

Somebody suggested we use 247 composite, as it averages several services. From there:
Costello #3 pro-style QB; score 0.9746
Chryst #3; 0.9745
Burns  #12; 0.9311
Hogan  #8; 0.8765
Nottingham #7; 0.9177
Nunes    #9; 0.9278

Burns was characterized by significant differences of opinion:
ESPN #4 (pocket), Rivals #6 (pro), 247 #10 (pro), 247-composite #12 (pro), Scout #36 (all QB).
Hogan was the other guy with pretty high variation:
ESPN #51 (pocket), Rivals #15 (pro), 247 #28 (pro), 247-composite #8 (pro), Scout #13 (all QB).
[I don't understand how Hogan's composite score can be his highest by so much, but that's what it says.]

Overall, Chryst wasn't really ranked that much higher than Burns, though it was pretty clear that Burns was much more of a project with big physical tools - which is why opinions varied so much.

As for what they have done so far at Stanford, it seems clear that Chryst did win the backup spot (though Shaw made a point of never quite saying that), but neither played enough to really evaluate how far apart they might be. We saw the most of them at the spring game - a long time ago in a very artificial environment (remember it was a spring game that made everyone favour Nottingham over Nunes).