[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg202944#msg202944 date=1506435582]
Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.
[/quote]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans. 

Case in point, I never had any respect for Colin Kaepernick as a player.  I hated the fact the Niners drafted him and never bought into him as the franchise QB.  I told my Niners friends I would trade DeShaun Watson as a Soph in college for Kaepernick in a nano.  This was two years ago, before Kaepernick became a social justice warrior.

But I have mad respect for Kaepernick for having the courage to speak out on what he believes in and for the incredible efforts he has put into helping others. 

I have respect for anyone who plays football because it is so physically and mentally taxing, and fraught with risk of serious injury.  At the same time, why should I respect Ryan Burns' game, compared to the vast numbers of players who have been and are more productive?  Let's not look at recruiting rankings in a vacuum.  Nobody has a gun to anyone's head telling them they have to take a Top 20 rated QB in a given class.

On a related note, recruiting ranking are always flawed, because they measure against the population of a certain class, not an objective measure of ability against certain fixed standards of performance.  There will always be a Rivals Top 250, but should there be?  Maybe some years there would be a Rivals 150, because there just aren't that many 4-5 star talents.  I mean isn't it a lot more useful and accurate if a grade is applied to a player, based on demonstrated ability, versus how he stacks up against peers a given year?  Like, a 5 star recruit should meet a certain criteria for what a 5 star is.  It should have nothing to do with "this guy is the best of all them this year, so he's a 5 star."  Maybe the reality is there aren't any 5-star players in the class?

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg202944#msg202944 date=1506435582]
Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.
[/quote]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans. 

Case in point, I never had any respect for Colin Kaepernick as a player.  I hated the fact the Niners drafted him and never bought into him as the franchise QB.  I told my Niners friends I would trade DeShaun Watson as a Soph in college for Kaepernick in a nano.  This was two years ago, before Kaepernick became a social justice warrior.

But I have mad respect for Kaepernick for having the courage to speak out on what he believes in and for the incredible efforts he has put into helping others. 

I have respect for anyone who plays football because it is so physically and mentally taxing, and fraught with risk of serious injury.  At the same time, why should I respect Ryan Burns' game, compared to the vast numbers of players who have been and are more productive?  Let's not look at recruiting rankings in a vacuum.  Nobody has a gun to anyone's head telling them they have to take a Top 20 rated QB in a given class.

On a related note, recruiting ranking are always flawed, because they measure against the population of a certain class, not an objective measure of ability against certain fixed standards of performance.  There will always be a Rivals Top 250, but should there be?  Maybe some years there would be a Rivals 150, because there just aren't that many 4-5 star talents.  I mean isn't it a lot more useful and accurate if a grade is applied to a player, based on demonstrated ability, versus how he stacks up against peers a given year?  Like, a 5 star recruit should meet a certain criteria for what a 5 star is.  It should have nothing to do with "this guy is the best of all them this year, so he's a 5 star."  Maybe the reality is there aren't any 5-star players in the class?

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.