OT Dolphins - Steelers, player recruiting ranking

[jed2410]

So you took a few players from 2 of the 32 teams in the league to make your point. Why not expand to the rest of the playoffs then and see how well it holds up?

 

[Dingaan1828]

IMO, the weakness in the star system is this: While the majority of 4 and 5 star players justify their rankings, vast numbers of lesser ranked players play just as well. The star system has missed on those guys. In other words, there are a lot more true 4 or 5 star players than the current rankings identify. The proof is the existence of so many in the NFL.

If a college team can recruit only 4 or 5 star players, by all means do so (see Alabama). But, there is a vast talent pool just as good if you are a keen evaluator (see Butch Davis). It's all in the eye of the evaluators.

 

[bshaw28]

Stars aren't the end all be all - but they definitely matter.

knowledgeable professionals give players their star ratings based on their observed talent. No one gets it right all the time, but they're right more often than not. 5 Star players go on to be great players a larger % of the time than 3 Star players do. It's a percentage/likelihood/numbers game. It's a "best guess" system, not a "blind guess" system.

NFL Scouts & GM's get paid very well and spend countless hours evaluating talent. They have plenty of college tape, workouts and interviews to help their to evaluations, and they still still completely miss a good amount of the time. BUT, 1st round picks go on the be great players a greater % of the time than 2nd rounders. 2nd rounders are great a larger % than 3rd rounders, and so on.

5 star players are more valuable than 3 stars players, on average. 1st round picks are more valuable than 3rd round picks, on average. These players are highly rated for a reason.

 

[JayCane20]

Stars don't matter in the NFL but it's a proven fact that the team with the most blue chippers typically wins in college football.

 

[kendallcanes]

Give me 75% 4 and 5 star guys... Then I want some underrated, hardworking mother****ers challenging these over-hyped momma boys.

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

So you took a few players from 2 of the 32 teams in the league to make your point. Why not expand to the rest of the playoffs then and see how well it holds up?

Because I'm lazy and that seems like a lot of work. I had a sample size of two teams. Both teams appear to have majority non blue chip talent. If you find a playoff team where this doesn't hold up, I'd be happy to revise my hypothesis. Science!

 

[404CANES]

To debunk the stars done matter crowd:

So despite comprising less than 1 percent of all recruits, five-stars accounted for a quarter of 2015 first-rounders. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of all recruits are designated as being three stars or less, yet their representation in the first round is nearly half that.

Put it this way: About one in four five-star recruits like No. 1 pick Jameis Winston goes on to become a first-rounder, but only about one in 64 three-star recruits like No. 2 Marcus Mariota does. Any generalizations about star-ratings that use NFL rosters as justification are giving disproportionate weight to the outliers.

3 debunked recruiting myths that prove Signing Day is crucial | FOX Sports

Its not about where you are drafted, it's what you do when you get to the league. A lot of bama players get drafted in the first 3rds but dont pan out as far making an impact in the league. They look good playing with other 4-5 stars against programs with lesser talent. Once you get to the league, you get exposed in camp and if they survive, then on sundays. I to will take a 2-3 star with some dog in him from Sfl, cali, Tx over a 4-5 star from other non-powerhouse areas....stars matter, but coaching and development outweighs crying over misses on 4-5 star divas

 

[52CANES]

IMO, the weakness in the star system is this: While the majority of 4 and 5 star players justify their rankings, vast numbers of lesser ranked players play just as well. The star system has missed on those guys. In other words, there are a lot more true 4 or 5 star players than the current rankings identify. The proof is the existence of so many in the NFL.

If a college team can recruit only 4 or 5 star players, by all means do so (see Alabama). But, there is a vast talent pool just as good if you are a keen evaluator (see Butch Davis). It's all in the eye of the evaluators.

The star system doesnt account for how good the 3stars are. It doesnt mean the players ranked 1-300 are 20% to 40% better than player 500.

Take for example, ESPN and their 100pt scale for rating players. The #100 ranked player, a 4star is graded an 84/100 when the first3 star, all the way at 301 is graded an 80/100. Whats the difference is the lowest 30 or so 4 stars and the first group of 3 stars on espn's 100 point grade scale? Nothing.

 

[Dwinstitles]

Why do people still try to make this argument?

5 and 4 star kids are more likely to be successful than the 3 stars.

i know

who cares thats the nfl has nothing to do with us. bama osu clem fsu mich lsu uf stay relevant cuz of 4 n 5 stars

 

[Dwinstitles]

Stars don't matter in the NFL but it's a proven fact that the team with the most blue chippers typically wins in college football.

this

 

[1mg of Epi]

To debunk the stars done matter crowd:

So despite comprising less than 1 percent of all recruits, five-stars accounted for a quarter of 2015 first-rounders. Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of all recruits are designated as being three stars or less, yet their representation in the first round is nearly half that.

Put it this way: About one in four five-star recruits like No. 1 pick Jameis Winston goes on to become a first-rounder, but only about one in 64 three-star recruits like No. 2 Marcus Mariota does. Any generalizations about star-ratings that use NFL rosters as justification are giving disproportionate weight to the outliers.

3 debunked recruiting myths that prove Signing Day is crucial | FOX Sports

Its not about where you are drafted, it's what you do when you get to the league. A lot of bama players get drafted in the first 3rds but dont pan out as far making an impact in the league. They look good playing with other 4-5 stars against programs with lesser talent. Once you get to the league, you get exposed in camp and if they survive, then on sundays. I to will take a 2-3 star with some dog in him from Sfl, cali, Tx over a 4-5 star from other non-powerhouse areas....stars matter, but coaching and development outweighs crying over misses on 4-5 star divas

This is a canes board. It's about what recruits do in college. If you read the article or research you'll see that the percentage of high rated recruits who make it in the NFL is also greater to a degree that's statistically significant.

 

[TP801]

This is kinda my point, nearly all the top skill position guys on both teams were lightly recruited. If Miami missed on a five star wr and grabbed a two star who might only have a few offers from lesser programs, most would say it was a bust. Yet odds seem pretty good that either player could be playing on Sunday. It's not like Ajayi and Brown came up in an era before Rivals or the Internet so they had a chance to fly under the radar (like an Ed Reed back in the day). Take raw talent and develop it. Sure it's great to grab players who are polished out of high school, but Miamis issue the last few years has been player development, not recruiting. Coach Kool speaks to that. Don't care if Rumph can't recruit a 5 star to save his life, if he can coach up 2 and 3 stars, then we're on the right track. So far he looks to be doing a decent coaching job.

Miami's issue has been a lot of things and recruiting is one of them. Miami has missed on guys like Patrick Johnsonn (five star), Amari Cooper (five star), Dalvin Cuck (five star), etc. Stupid, false dichotomy argument that makes no sense. The best players on the team are largely the highest-ranked recruits. There's some exceptions particularly on the line but These are our first round picks since the 2007 draft:

Greg Olsen (five star)
Kenny Phillips (five star)
Brandon Meriweather (four star)
Jon Beason (four star)
Ereck Flowers (four star)
Artie Burns (four star)
Phillip Dorsett (three star)

There's no bright-line and coaches can make their own evaluations but there's a reason that the top programs continue to load up on 4 and 5 star players. Being a 3 star doesn't mean you're a "raw" talent sometimes it just means you aren't very good.

Yes, rankings do have a correlation to winning. But a top 10 recruiting class (which I think we'll have) is plenty to be competitive for a national championship. Don't have to be #1 .

A. Highly rated class + poor coaching = not competitive for championship
B. Lower rated class (between 10-25) + excellent coaching = getting to playoffs is possible
C. Low rated class + bad coaching =not even a prayer
D. Highly rated class + excellent coaching = very high chance of making playoffs

"The coaches that recruit well are those that build consistent programs. Examples of this include Nick Saban and Mark Richt."
The Real Value of Recruiting in College Football

Uh oh, don't tell the anti Richt crowd that he's considered a good coach.

Not sure what this has to do with your original post at all.

True. Got off point. My initial post was simply looking at two teams in the NFL playoffs. A small sample size to be sure, but if you agree that being a starter on an NFL in the playoffs tends to suggest that the player is talented, then it's interesting to see that the overwhelming majority of players (I haven't finished going through the list of starters so maybe this changes ) were 3 star or below recruits. A team of purely 3 star or below NFL players would blow the doors off Alabama. So if a coach has a Butch Da Gaaaaawd like ability to spot and develop 3 star or below talent, you can win a championship. Thing is, a recruiting site can't rank every player in S FL as 4-5 stars even though I'd contend that a 2 or 3 star S. FL player is likely to be a better player than a 4 star from Wyoming. For teams like Bama, Oregon, and Notre Dame that don't have hundreds of elite athletes within a 40 mile drive of campus, then you certainly will want a highly ranked recruiting class. For schools like Miami and USC in talent hotbeds, there is a much better chance that a coach will have the opportunity to examine every single athlete with a microscope and ID the ballers, even if they don't have lots of stars.

Miami doesnt have that or anything close to Butch Davis, chili dog nerds decided Richt was better than Butch

 

[TP801]

Give me 75% 4 and 5 star guys... Then I want some underrated, hardworking mother****ers challenging these over-hyped momma boys.

Lmoa wut??? The best players and really only guys drafted from UM since Golden got her have been 4 star and five star guys what the one exception being dorsett and he was still a four star on one of the recruiting sites.

 

[kendallcanes]

Oh please don't be making my opinion based on Golden's recruiting.

But lets get this straight. These Divas go to these websites, and it effects them. A lot think their **** don't stink. That is what I meant by that momma boy comment. You obviously bring in the stud athletes and talent, but you also want other guys on the roster that are ******* hungry, with something to prove that will out work the 4 and 5 star guys. It breeds competition within the roster, which is ultimately what we really want.