The Blue Board

Let's say the average percentage of a population that is a varsity athlete is one percent of a state's population. For California that would roughly be sample of 397,000 and for Georgia 98,000.

So for California that would be 211/397,000 and for Georgia 80/97,000 or 1 per 1882 for California and 1 per 1,225.

Now this a very rough calculation but it puts those numbers into a real perspective. Not just throwing out the fact that California produces a larger real number of talent.

Who has had the best recruiting classes the past few years?
Who has won 2 NC's in the last 3 years?

The answer to both is Bama, recruiting matters.

In theory, this list should turn into NFL prospects. It's not like anyone is getting worked up about it bud, but if you can find a better place to discuss recruiting rankings than this website I'm all ears. I didn't know I wasn't on a recruiting website.

People are confusing themselves with the per capita analysis.

Put it this way, if the Cali players weren't that good they wouldnt be playing on NFL rosters.

The population differences have no bearing on how many kids make an NFL roster.

Cali has more top talent, not because the state is larger, but because when you line a Cali player up next to the "Georgia" player, the Cali player is winning the battle on the field.

So we are going to excuse the fact that by having a larger set of players to take from, you are statistically more likely to have a greater set of talent?

Yes it doesn't matter on a national top prospect list. They always have MORE top talent than GA, no matter how many you're pulling that top talent from.

Theres about 3 or 4 QB's in just Texas that are better than him. No joke.

Boise enefits from their competition. They don't have to out recruit Bama just Hawaii and such.

Gotcha. Well then.

I could be wrong, but I dont think that fits in the NFL model.

The top 2 highschools producing NFL talent are in Ft. Lauderdale and Pittsburgh.

Im pretty sure they arent the largest highschools in the country.

I believe it...

No we are getting way to complex and talking programs versus location. You can take into account cheating/recruiting for a program but not as well for an area. Doesn't seem an accurate comparison.

You don't seem to get that the reason I'm asking isn't because of what I've seen from Browne...it's what I'm not seeing. Sorry I don't have the time to go to camps to watch these kids. But from what I have - i.e. their films - I'm only seeing a limited amount of throws from Browne. Basically, he's got the ability to throw to wide open receivers and he can chuck it downfield. That's great, but there's a lot more I'd like to see from him - which is why I've been asking why he's a 5*. I'm assuming the staff here has seen more than I have.

Disagree on the drop - they're both about the same. In fact, Browne's film at time seems choppy. Reminds me of Will Mahone's film where everyone looked incredibly fast, and it turns out it was "sped up," if you will. Hack's mechanics are fine. "Better at progressing through reads"? Because you know what reads these kids are making? If you ask me, Browne tends to hold the ball too long most of the time. USC has a good OL, but there will be plenty of times he can't hold the ball nearly that long in college. Although I'll give you he's good at escaping the rush.

Hack shows better anticipation, better ability to throw the ball into tight windows against better competition. If you're going to make assumptions about their progressions, then I can feel free to say that Hack reads the defense better and gets the ball out quickly.

And like I said before - it's difficult to say that Browne actually throws an accurate ball when 1) most of this throws are to WIDE open receivers, and 2) most of his throws are just tossing the ball up and letting his receiver make a play on it. Like I've said - Browne obviously has skills, but I assume that to be rated a 5* he must have shown more off film than he's shown on it.