Super Bowl rosters - rankings as recruits

[Gator Fever]

As far as the NFL draft a write up showed one year that the number of 5 star recruits and 2 star recruits taken in the first round was equal but that there are like 25 - 30 or so five stars compared to about 1,600+ two stars in most recruiting years.

In that year a five star was 3 times more likely to be a first rounder over a four star while a four star was 3 times more likely than a 3 star to be a first rounder just based on how many there are. Three stars were about 6 times more likely than a two star that year to be a first rounder based on the numbers.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

For this chart to have any context you would have to account for how many actual recruits each ranking consisted of. If there is a much smaller total number of 4 and 5 stars every year than 3 or less then the percentages would greatly favor the 4 and 5 stars on a per capita basis even if they make up just less than 50% of that chart.

The second pie does that. you have to have a pretty large monitor to even see the slice of the pie that represents blue chippers.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Did your buddy need a little help, donk? Didn't keep him from embarrassing himself, did you? Never mind, it was very chivalrous anyway. What a gentleman you are!

Are you truly of the opine that stars don’t matter? Or the common sense approach that sometimes they don’t tell the whole story?

 

[ThreatMatrix]

United Airlines Boy and AR primarily.

Insti doesn’t count... for anything.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

The piece of information that really stands out to me is that 13 of 14 3 star players and 19 out of 21 2 and 3 star starting players in the two "Super Bowl" teams starting lineups went to power 5 schools. That says to me that coaches at such schools are more able to distinguish among the various 3 star players and maybe even 2 and 3 star players than the recruiting services.

This is an issue I have been wondering about since I ran into the hardcore star gazers here. Particularly I wonder if the 3 star players that are actually signed by the top power 5 teams are in fact different than the 3 star players that sign at lower school and if they are in fact different than the 4 star and 5 star players such top programs sign. For example this year Mullen apparently believes that Weston in UF's class this year is much better than the recruiting rankings. Similarly Ira Henry seems to be getting interest beyond his recruiting rankings.

The pie charts posted are essentially meaningless, as it lumps in with the 3 star guys 100s of 2 star and zero star guys. But then again I am not trying to sell a recruiting site to star gazers.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

Are you truly of the opine that stars don’t matter? Or the common sense approach that sometimes they don’t tell the whole story?

Of course, stars matter. They matter a great deal. I have said so on here many times. My complaint is with the star worshippers-- the astrologers who care more about the stars in the recruiting class than the performance on the field. There are posters on this board who, even knowing how they turned out, would rather sign Ivey, CeCe, and Clayton than Taylor, Polite, and Malik.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

Of course, stars matter. They matter a great deal. I have said so on here many times. My complaint is with the star worshippers-- the astrologers who care more about the stars in the recruiting class than the peeformancp on the field. There are posters on this board who, even knowing how they turned out, would rather sign Ivey, CeCe, and Clayton than Taylor, Polite, and Malik.

My biggest complaint is the tendency to consider stars after guys sign. Once these guys sign, they are not any number of stars, they are UF players and barring something really strange each of us should want the best for them.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Of course, stars matter. They matter a great deal. I have said so on here many times. My complaint is with the star worshippers-- the astrologers who care more about the stars in the recruiting class than the peeformancp on the field. There are posters on this board who, even knowing how they turned out, would rather sign Ivey, CeCe, and Clayton than Taylor, Polite, and Malik.

So, although you accept the "yokel" moniker you do not consider yourself a "stars don't matter, yokel". Fair enough.

 

[BMF]

The piece of information that really stands out to me is that 13 of 14 3 star players and 19 out of 21 2 and 3 star starting players in the two "Super Bowl" teams starting lineups went to power 5 schools. That says to me that coaches at such schools are more able to distinguish among the various 3 star players and maybe even 2 and 3 star players than the recruiting services.

This is an issue I have been wondering about since I ran into the hardcore star gazers here. Particularly I wonder if the 3 star players that are actually signed by the top power 5 teams are in fact different than the 3 star players that sign at lower school and if they are in fact different than the 4 star and 5 star players such top programs sign. For example this year Mullen apparently believes that Weston in UF's class this year is much better than the recruiting rankings. Similarly Ira Henry seems to be getting interest beyond his recruiting rankings.

The pie charts posted are essentially meaningless, as it lumps in with the 3 star guys 100s of 2 star and zero star guys. But then again I am not trying to sell a recruiting site to star gazers.

I'm a "stars matter" person, but fully understand that non-4 and 5 stars develop into contributors and some become super stars.

Three of the non 4/5 stars that are on the Pats roster include Edelman, who was a QB at Kent State, the LS who went to Naval Academy, and the fullback Develin who was a DE at Brown (Ivy League). They've got several others from G5 and 1AA schools as well.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

So, although you accept the "yokel" moniker you do not consider yourself a "stars don't matter, yokel". Fair enough.

Well, I accept"yokel" from posters not clever enough to recognize one.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

That says to me that coaches at such schools are more able to distinguish among the various 3 star players .

And they get first pick of the better 3* players.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

And they get first pick of the better 3* players.

And the power 5 programs on average have better coaching (despite UF's last decade) and training staffs that should allow all players to develop more fully.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Taylor, Polite, and Malik.

Taylor dropped in the rankings because he gained 60 pounds of fat, Polite was undersized for DE and too slow for LB, and Malik, Davis I assume, was a 4 star.

People normally only bitch about the shytbag low 3 or 2 stars we steal from Sunbelt or Div 3 teams.

The fruitloop stars-dont-matter crowd think that people who do pay attention (which is everyone but two dudes) think that coaching doesn't matter. Of course it does but a baker needs the ingredients too before he can make a cake.

 

[BMF]

And the power 5 programs on average have better coaching (despite UF's last decade) and training staffs that should allow all players to develop more fully.

That's true about having better staff's to develop players. But the biggest development factor for a player, imo, is to actually play. These schools that are full of 2 and 3 star players (mostly the Group of 5 schools) are playing all non-4 and 5 star kids. So, as these kids may actually have an advantage over a P5 3-star kid who has to wait until he's a redshirt junior to actually get real game experience. A kid from Boise, if he's good enough, can roll in as a freshman and start for 4 years. In fact, when you see those gaudy numbers being put up at G5 schools most of those kids are 2 and 3 star recruits - occasionally they land a P5 transfer or a JUCO kid that may have been a 4-star out of HS but didn't qualify.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

First paragraph was excuses. Yes, Davis was, finally, a four star. If given a choice between the number one recruiting class and the National Championship, many on this board would choose tecruits.

 

[AnObfuscator]

I really don't understand the point of this. NFL doesn't use stars ... they use college performance and combine performance. It is apples and oranges. Stars do matter, but, it might be the system that awards stars that is a bit skewed. With that said, any system awarding stars on a curve will always be skewed. Class rankings are what I think kinda don't matter too much because it gets too dang murky once you get out of the top 5 to say one team did a better job recruiting than the other.

Right, the NFL doesn't use stars for talent evaluation, that's why this IS a useful comparison. The NFL ignoring stars and doing their own independent talent evaluation is an error check on the effectiveness of the star rating as a proxy for talent.

 

[T REX]

And they get first pick of the better 3* players.

I was gonna post the same thing...plus better coaching, better facilities and more exposure.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

Right, the NFL doesn't use stars for talent evaluation, that's why this IS a useful comparison. The NFL ignoring stars and doing their own independent talent evaluation is an error check on the effectiveness of the star rating as a proxy for talent.

I mean, seriously, how was this not clear?

 

[neteng]

Right, the NFL doesn't use stars for talent evaluation, that's why this IS a useful comparison. The NFL ignoring stars and doing their own independent talent evaluation is an error check on the effectiveness of the star rating as a proxy for talent.

Wait. I must have misunderstood when the combines were held. I thought they were for players after they completed at least 3 years of college and declared for the draft and wasn't aware that they did them on the kids when they came out of high school. Forgive me, I was pointing out the obvious of how much one can change (good or bad) over time in a college program as well as the disparity of high school competition across the country that is hard to evaluate.

 

[fischerwood]

The piece of information that really stands out to me is that 13 of 14 3 star players and 19 out of 21 2 and 3 star starting players in the two "Super Bowl" teams starting lineups went to power 5 schools. That says to me that coaches at such schools are more able to distinguish among the various 3 star players and maybe even 2 and 3 star players than the recruiting services.

This is an issue I have been wondering about since I ran into the hardcore star gazers here. Particularly I wonder if the 3 star players that are actually signed by the top power 5 teams are in fact different than the 3 star players that sign at lower school and if they are in fact different than the 4 star and 5 star players such top programs sign. For example this year Mullen apparently believes that Weston in UF's class this year is much better than the recruiting rankings. Similarly Ira Henry seems to be getting interest beyond his recruiting rankings.

The pie charts posted are essentially meaningless, as it lumps in with the 3 star guys 100s of 2 star and zero star guys. But then again I am not trying to sell a recruiting site to star gazers.

I think good coaches are better evaluators of talent than almost all Kiper type evaluators. Just MHO