why do you keep going back to the same argument about if those teams were really that good or not. the 2009 and 2010 teams were very good, the personnel fit the defensive scheme perfectly and the frogs and williamson hit some home runs in the offensive line with guys like cannon, newhouse, etc....
was there any team prior to the2009-2010 teams that matched up to them? they had talent and depth on the defensive side of the ball, were physical in the offensive line, you had a very good quarterback in dalton, talent at wide receiver, and they played with a focus that i am not sure can be matched during any other 2-year period during gary's time and that isn't a knock on him. that is more a nod to those players.
never been a huge ratings guy because i think the system is misunderstood and has a huge flaw it in. first, for some reason a 3-star recruit is viewed by many as an average recruit which isn't right. supposedly the system is based upon whether or not a kid projects to the nfl which i have never understood why that is the benchmark, but someone decided that was the benchmark so an offensive line prospect like marcus cannon at 6'3" won't project to be a highly rated offensive tackle prospect because he is too short so someone tell marcus he won't make it very long in the nfl at that height at tackle.
another big flaw is the rating system is not based upon how a kid projects in a specific system so take someone like greg mccoy who was a 3-start coming out of woodrow in dallas because of why? goodness knows it wasn't his athletic ability so maybe because at 5'10" he didn't project well as an nfl corner, but in gary's system with those feet and hips and his aggressive nature he was a perfect fit if he trusted the scheme. thing is none of that gets factored into the ratings because the experts i would bet don't try to project in that manner because they have as much a clue as most of the posters on this board
finally, how do you rate kids across the metroplex, state, and country if you don't understand the level of competition. multiple examples here. maponga didn't look like an athlete, didn't have great measurables, but according to the coaches in his district he was a nightmare to block and all he did was make plays in a solid district. if you don't go flip those rocks, talk to those coaches, and know the talent in that district how do you rate him? andy dalton basically pitched the ball back to the tailback and then blocked for joseph at katy and occassionally threw deep on play action so without the summer passing leagues we have now how do you know about his arm strength and intangibles unless you go to katy high? how do you know about jimmy young in nw louisiana or foltz in kansas unless you really knew those areas which aren't loaded with subscribers so if you are a service you cover the big areas and the big schools
one thing i always liked about anthony bourdain's travel show was he often went to the places were the average people ate and focused on the skill of the chefs who took the leftover parts and made great meals. a truly great chef can take good ingredients, bring out the best in those, meld them together and create a remarkable meal. stopped eating at steak houses because i got tired of paying way too much money for supposedly prime meat that really wasn't done much with, had some sauce on it to try to dress it up, and the sides really don't go well with the meal
sound familar? the 09-10 teams had talent and we see that because that was the group the did send multiple kids to the nfl, that talent was developed, and it fit together. these teams now have talent, but it isn't being developed, the quality of kitchen staff has fallen off, and the executive chef would rather be on "food network, travel channel etc..." than be in kitchen
