This articles Ignores kickers and long snappers
Rankings by 247C as of Feb 5:

Look just at the number of low ranking players --- the number of players each team has below 400.

If we dip down to sign Smith and Russell, we will have

A&M: (9 below 400) 421, 454, 501, 538, 741, 786, 802, 898, 1201

By this measure, we might struggle to compete successfully against the better teams in the SEC West.

Alabama: has no player below 400, only two below 300 (308, 321) and only four more between 200 & 300. This will probably be the strongest class any college has ever signed. Try to compete against them with a class of over 1/3 players ranked below any of their players.

LSU: (5 below 400) 452, 544, 571, 613, 670

Auburn: (5 below 400) 416, 725, 512, 514, 2176

Mississippi State: (8 below 400) 652, 705, 731, 752, 756, 854, 855, 1647

Arkansas: (11 below 400) 400, 503, 511, 533, 574, 574, 607, 778, 881, 1077, 1089

Mississippi: has many

Sips: Even the low-life sips have only three players ranked below 400 (611, 654, 698). And some Ags want to start playing them again???'

Trust Jimbo and his evaluation of players vs the ESPN's Rivals etc..

While ranking proves to be a big decider in how a team competes, there is also player development to get to the next level. Many stories of 3 star guys making it to the NFL HOF and 5 star guys not playing much at all in college. Trust in Jimbo

were any of our 4 early entrants to the NFL this year Top 400 in their respective classes?

MidTnAg said:

---

This articles Ignores kickers and long snappers
Rankings by 247C as of Feb 5:

Look just at the number of low ranking players --- the number of players each team has below 400.

If we dip down to sign Smith and Russell, we will have

A&M: (9 below 400) 421, 454, 501, 538, 741, 786, 802, 898, 1201

By this measure, we might struggle to compete successfully against the better teams in the SEC West.

---

Just my 2 cents worth, but don't we have to trust that a) our staff evaluates talent better than t.u. and hopefully as well or better than the rest of the SEC West, and b) that we are now developing players better. I think there's a lot of evidence that this is the trend.

Many of those players won't start. Some won't even backup. You don't measure a team by its backups.

MidTnAg said:

---

This articles Ignores kickers and long snappers
Rankings by 247C as of Feb 5:

Look just at the number of low ranking players --- the number of players each team has below 400.

Sips: Even the low-life sips have only three players ranked below 400 (611, 654, 698). And some Ags want to start playing them again???'

---

First, I'm not sure what this completely arbitrary number has to do with anything. Second, you're scared to play big bad t.u. because they might have talent too? And where are you getting 3 for them, they have 7 that are 400+ on composite (one is a juco that would be 400+ based on his composite score).

Lastly, we have more commits than they do, so what if our last couple guys are lower rated? We have the same # of blue chippers, and ours didn't need a late January ratings bump to get there.

JT said:

---

were any of our 4 early entrants to the NFL this year Top 400 in their respective classes?

---

Trayveon Williams: 313 and 4 star
Tyrel Dodson: 408 and 3 star
Erik McCoy: Not Top 500 and 3 star
Jace Sternberger: Not Top 500 and 3 star

I will trust Jimbo & Co. to spot talent among the 3 stars and to build the majority of them up to be contributors.

It's what so many coaching staffs (outside of the "Top 10" recruiting ranked teams) have to do to make their NCAA teams competitive. The majority of their players are 3 star rated or less.