Former Georgia Tech running back Jonathan Dwyer has a unique opportunity to be the grizzled veteran of the Arizona Cardinals' backfield this season; he is one of just two running backs on the Cards' roster to score an NFL touchdown. While Dwyer's new situation in Arizona doesn't guarantee him many touches, mainly because he's at third on the depth chart behind Andre Ellington (my fantasy sleeper) and Stepfan Taylor, he should benefit from being the teacher instead of the student on the roster. Both Taylor and Ellington are very young, talented players with a lot of potential and a lot to learn from a guy like Dwyer. It's hard to believe that Jonathan is only 24 years old (25 on the 26th) considering he's been in the NFL for a while now, having just completed his rookie contract with the Steelers -- the prime of his career is still largely ahead of him. All it would take for him to have a big year in Arizona would be some struggles by Ellington or an injury that bumped him up a spot or two on the depth chart.
When a scout takes a look at prospect, they consider just about everything before they assign them a numerical score (unless they work for certain sites that list JHD as a two-star recruit). Everything from 40 times to vertical jumps to season statistics, so why don't they take age into account when ranking a recruit? It would only make sense; why is it fair to rate a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old in the same class equally? The 19-year-old is probably much more physically developed than the younger one, so why is it even fair to compare their speed or agility? It's a really interesting topic to think about -- comparing how five star recruits who are 17 stack up against older guys over the course of their careers would probably reveal a lot about how true or accurate recruiting rankings really are. There have surely been some examples of this in recent Georgia Tech history (which would explain why low-ranked recruits do so well here), but I haven't looked deep enough yet. Feel free to share any examples you may know or find in the comments.
CBS Sports revealed the winner of their Best in College Sports Award recently, given annually to the school that dominated in various college sports, naming Stanford the winner for 2013-2014. The formula CBS used was different from traditional ones in that it gave football and men's basketball a much higher weight than, say, swimming. This fixes a flaw experienced in other rankings where a school could dominate every track and swim meet, go 0-12 in football, and still be ranked very high among the other colleges; it emphasized certain sports over others. I would have liked for baseball to have a little more weight because people do care about it, but what they did is fine with me. Tech came in at No. 64 on the list, good for 15th in the ACC (if you count Notre Dame, Louisville, and Maryland), behind even Boston College, which Tech outperformed in almost every major sport. That puts Tech in second to last place in the ACC, ahead of just Wake Forest. That's... depressing. Really depressing. One might even call it 2013 COFH depressing. Think about it.
This next story is honestly just disgusting. Two Miami linebackers, JaWan Blue and Alexander Figueroa, were arrested and kicked off the team after being charged with sexual battery. I'm not even going to discuss what they did, but there is no worse disservice that they could do for the school that they represented than what they did. It honestly justifies the claims made by Rashad McCants simply because no one stupid enough to do what they did could ever pass a college class, especially one at a school like Miami. How they could throw away their entire lives like that is beyond me. People like them ruin the reputation of college sports, much less that of their own university, by doing those things. The focus of this, of course, is not on football; out hopes and thoughts go out to the victim and her family.
Should age be a factor for scouts to consider when ranking recruits? What examples of this can you find from over the years?