The first round of the draft and recruiting stars.
- Thread starter graddawg
- Start date
When you consider the sheer volume of 2 and 3 star players in comparison to the number of 4 and 5 star players, that's a much higher percentage for the blue chippers than for the non-blue chippers.
Still not a fan of recruiting rankings especially on an individual level, but those numbers tend to give them a little bit of a push for having some validity.
Still not a fan of recruiting rankings especially on an individual level, but those numbers tend to give them a little bit of a push for having some validity.
that 19 of the 32 picks were 4 or 5 stars. I don't know if that is normal but to me, I would say Rivals did pretty good for this draft.
I want to say there are only 25 five stars/year.
I want to say there are only 25 five stars/year.
than all these lower ranked players? Over 40% of first rounders were not even four stars. That's missing on a lot of great players.
I don't know if his shortcoming was evaluating talent or just recruiting talent. Most likely both.
pretty impressive although it's usually pretty easy to identify a 5 star prospect.
The 2 star first round picks seemed to come from non-bcs schools where their rosters are full of 2 star players: Idaho, Fresno, Boise, TCU
The 2 star first round picks seemed to come from non-bcs schools where their rosters are full of 2 star players: Idaho, Fresno, Boise, TCU
that most recruiting analysts look at offers and then rate them. They let the coaching staffs do the dirty work and say offers by LSU, Georgia, Florida, and Texas = 5-star.
G
Goatdawg
Guest
on the whole, you'll get a good picture of who gets the best players by the rankings. ESPECIALLY the best college players. Individually it is a different story. I'd say they get it right more times that not, though, still.
But they have no way of getting everybody, knowing if they'll act right, what type of guidance they'll get, etc. But I don't think you'll find a better way to rate incoming recruits. Just like you won't find a better way to match 2 teams for a ch'ip better than the BCS. Both (recrootin and BCS) have flaws, but they are still the best there is.
But they have no way of getting everybody, knowing if they'll act right, what type of guidance they'll get, etc. But I don't think you'll find a better way to rate incoming recruits. Just like you won't find a better way to match 2 teams for a ch'ip better than the BCS. Both (recrootin and BCS) have flaws, but they are still the best there is.
The percentages of success rate for a 4 and 5 star player are much higher, but the sites still have a lot of misses, which is why I don't put a whole lot of stock into rankings.
If a player has a good offer list and the coaches had him as a high want, that's more important to me than the star system. Still though, 19 or 21 out of 32 is not bad when you consider the number of 4 and 5 star players each year in comparison to the number of 2 and 3 star players in each class.
ETA: Here is the Rivals article on it: Recruiting stars vs. All-America
The numbers that really matter are that a 5 star has a roughly 1 in 15 chance of being an All-American. It's 1 in 54 for 4 stars, 1 in 147 for 3 stars, and 1 in 358 for 2 star and below. 1 in 145 players overall end up All-Americans, so your odds are better with 4 and 5 star players, though they still aren't great odds.
And this was the piece done on the draft: Recruiting Stars vs. NFL Draft
And the numbers that matter from this piece were that 40-48 percent of 5 stars ended up getting drafted in the first 3 rounds, around 10 percent of 4 stars ended up drafted in the first 3 rounds, 3.6 percent of 3 stars got drafted in the first 3 rounds, and less than 1 percent of 2 stars got drafted in the first 3 rounds.
Again, not great percentages for any grouping, but using the offer sheet to rate players (as these sites tend to do) has a touch of validity.
If a player has a good offer list and the coaches had him as a high want, that's more important to me than the star system. Still though, 19 or 21 out of 32 is not bad when you consider the number of 4 and 5 star players each year in comparison to the number of 2 and 3 star players in each class.
ETA: Here is the Rivals article on it: Recruiting stars vs. All-America
The numbers that really matter are that a 5 star has a roughly 1 in 15 chance of being an All-American. It's 1 in 54 for 4 stars, 1 in 147 for 3 stars, and 1 in 358 for 2 star and below. 1 in 145 players overall end up All-Americans, so your odds are better with 4 and 5 star players, though they still aren't great odds.
And this was the piece done on the draft: Recruiting Stars vs. NFL Draft
And the numbers that matter from this piece were that 40-48 percent of 5 stars ended up getting drafted in the first 3 rounds, around 10 percent of 4 stars ended up drafted in the first 3 rounds, 3.6 percent of 3 stars got drafted in the first 3 rounds, and less than 1 percent of 2 stars got drafted in the first 3 rounds.
Again, not great percentages for any grouping, but using the offer sheet to rate players (as these sites tend to do) has a touch of validity.
G
Goatdawg
Guest
None of us, not even Coach34, know who the coaches are REALLY offering and who they are really going after hard. Steve doesn't really know. Yancy doesn't really know. All of that crap is also very subjective. It's all about the money and ego trip for those guys. They fight within (like rivals vs. scout) as much as they do the whole egg bowl bickering.
So I just make my own opinion. Stars definitely have a relevance though.
So I just make my own opinion. Stars definitely have a relevance though.
Basically, if you hear about a guy from early on, then he's likely a Plan A guy. If you were after a handful of guys at a certain position, and you didn't land any of them, and then all of a sudden a few new names pop up in the final month or so, then you know those guys are likely Plan B or C guys.
It's inexact, like anything else, but if you follow it, you can get a pretty good idea whether you're having to go to fall back plans or not. Another indicator is if you undersign, like we did in 2007. We missed on almost all of our top targets remaining on the board at the end of the 2007 class, and we had to back fill some even after signing day. It doesn't mean your fall back guys can't end up being good players, but I tend to think we had a better year when we aren't hearing new names late in the game.
ETA: I'll give you the example of Joel Kight. He was not highly rated, but we were after him early and often, and our staff made it clear that they liked him even though he was undersized. He had a couple other good offers, but our staff's interest is the main reason I was happy we landed the guy, and he obviously has turned out to be a player. To give you an example on the opposite end of the spectrum, we landed Cedric Smith, a CB from Alabama at the end of this past signing class. He wasn't on our list until the very end, and he only popped up after we missed out on another player, Dequan Menzie, at his position. Yancy tried to pump up that signing by saying the staff thinks he's a steal, etc., but I'm not buying it. He was a fall back, whether they think he has a shot to contribute or not.
It's inexact, like anything else, but if you follow it, you can get a pretty good idea whether you're having to go to fall back plans or not. Another indicator is if you undersign, like we did in 2007. We missed on almost all of our top targets remaining on the board at the end of the 2007 class, and we had to back fill some even after signing day. It doesn't mean your fall back guys can't end up being good players, but I tend to think we had a better year when we aren't hearing new names late in the game.
ETA: I'll give you the example of Joel Kight. He was not highly rated, but we were after him early and often, and our staff made it clear that they liked him even though he was undersized. He had a couple other good offers, but our staff's interest is the main reason I was happy we landed the guy, and he obviously has turned out to be a player. To give you an example on the opposite end of the spectrum, we landed Cedric Smith, a CB from Alabama at the end of this past signing class. He wasn't on our list until the very end, and he only popped up after we missed out on another player, Dequan Menzie, at his position. Yancy tried to pump up that signing by saying the staff thinks he's a steal, etc., but I'm not buying it. He was a fall back, whether they think he has a shot to contribute or not.
for? somehow estimated time of arrival doesn't work so i need updating on my message board abbreviations. FYI would have worked for me.... TIA.
I use it a lot, because I'm an idiot and I usually think of something else after I submit a post.