forums

When they were recruits: 2014′s first-round draft picks

Advertisement
Good stuff. I was surprised to see Jaccobi McDaniel not drafted, wasn't he a 5* like #1 player coming out? Overall it kind of shows you just how much of a crap shoot it is in recruiting. To me it seems like it is becoming harder and harder to truly identify who the kids are that are going to be willing to put the effort in outside of the season to separate themselves. Which, to me is why you see the likes of UF and UM struggle to keep kids off the party wagon... I think it is only a matter of time at FSU as well, they are enjoying some success but its looking more and more like a cesspool up there and that will snowball eventually...
 
frostycane said:
Good stuff. I was surprised to see Jaccobi McDaniel not drafted, wasn't he a 5* like #1 player coming out? Overall it kind of shows you just how much of a crap shoot it is in recruiting. To me it seems like it is becoming harder and harder to truly identify who the kids are that are going to be willing to put the effort in outside of the season to separate themselves. Which, to me is why you see the likes of UF and UM struggle to keep kids off the party wagon... I think it is only a matter of time at FSU as well, they are enjoying some success but its looking more and more like a cesspool up there and that will snowball eventually...
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. Some of the best college athletes I've worked with were also the biggest party-ers. Some kids just have a knack for being able to go out all night and still show up the next day. What I think becomes the downfall of a program is complacency and a sense of entitlement. Kids come in with a high ranking to a perennial contender and think, "oh this is gonna be easy". I think that's why Saban has been so great up there. He's kept the mindset from taking over the program. I don't think Miami lacked talent and that all those high ranked recruits were devoid of any talent. I think they were entitled and lacked the hunger and work ethic. They felt they had "made it" so to speak and Coker wasn't the guy to do anything about it.

Just my opinion, though.
 
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
 
Advertisement
i dont want 5-star recruits
i dont want 4-star recruits

I WANT FUTURE 1ST ROUND PICKS
 
SRuback said:
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wont say stars dont matter, but I will say that its not everything. What kills me is when people on this board say that, "The days of finding diamond in the rough types like Ed Reed and Santana Moss are over. Recruiting has changed. They would be 3-4 star guys in todays age." I just dont buy that and that theory is slaughtered every year around draft time. Khalil Mack was some nobody LB out of Fort Pierce and he went to a no name school to play college ball and 3-4 years later ESPN pundits are predicting he will be an All Pro after being a top 5 pick.

Having an eye for talent and developing that talent is what matters. Jarvis Landry was a 5* WR going into LSU. Beckham was a 4*. Who was the 1st round draft pick and who was the 2nd?

Ermon Lane was the 4* stud and Tyre Brady was a 2*. I predict that Brady is the one who will be makin the most noise in 2-3 years.
 
Jassid82 said:
SRuback said:
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wont say stars dont matter, but I will say that its not everything. What kills me is when people on this board say that, "The days of finding diamond in the rough types like Ed Reed and Santana Moss are over. Recruiting has changed. They would be 3-4 star guys in todays age." I just dont buy that and that theory is slaughtered every year around draft time. Khalil Mack was some nobody LB out of Fort Pierce and he went to a no name school to play college ball and 3-4 years later ESPN pundits are predicting he will be an All Pro after being a top 5 pick.

Having an eye for talent and developing that talent is what matters. Jarvis Landry was a 5* WR going into LSU. Beckham was a 4*. Who was the 1st round draft pick and who was the 2nd?

Ermon Lane was the 4* stud and Tyre Brady was a 2*. I predict that Brady is the one who will be makin the most noise in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Stars obviously aren't the end all be all, but I believe the truth is far closer to that side of the argument than the nonsensical "stars don't matter" stance.

It's all about the percentages. There are far, far more 2-3 star recruits than 4-5 stars in terms of quantity. Two- and three-star recruits account for more than 86 percent of signees nationally, so for every Kahlil Mack or Blake Bortles who dramatically exceeds expectations there are countless others that never have much of an impact in college.

"The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure -- injuries, academics, even coaching -- individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies."

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by recruiting ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.

195.jpg


196.jpg


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769
 
SRuback said:
Jassid82 said:
SRuback said:
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wont say stars dont matter, but I will say that its not everything. What kills me is when people on this board say that, "The days of finding diamond in the rough types like Ed Reed and Santana Moss are over. Recruiting has changed. They would be 3-4 star guys in todays age." I just dont buy that and that theory is slaughtered every year around draft time. Khalil Mack was some nobody LB out of Fort Pierce and he went to a no name school to play college ball and 3-4 years later ESPN pundits are predicting he will be an All Pro after being a top 5 pick.

Having an eye for talent and developing that talent is what matters. Jarvis Landry was a 5* WR going into LSU. Beckham was a 4*. Who was the 1st round draft pick and who was the 2nd?

Ermon Lane was the 4* stud and Tyre Brady was a 2*. I predict that Brady is the one who will be makin the most noise in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Stars obviously aren't the end all be all, but I believe the truth is far closer to that side of the argument than the nonsensical "stars don't matter" stance.

It's all about the percentages. There are far, far more 2-3 star recruits than 4-5 stars in terms of quantity. Two- and three-star recruits account for more than 86 percent of signees nationally, so for every Kahlil Mack or Blake Bortles who dramatically exceeds expectations there are countless others that never have much of an impact in college.

"The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure -- injuries, academics, even coaching -- individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies."

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by recruiting ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.

195.jpg


196.jpg


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769
Click to expand...

according to this article, we are recruiting better than most fans are giving the staff credit for, so once again comes the question of player development by this staff:

'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class*
• FIVE-STAR (≤ 10,000 points): USC, Florida, Texas, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, Michigan.
• FOUR-STAR (6,000–9,999 points): Miami, Clemson, Tennessee, UCLA, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Stanford, North Carolina, California, Ole Miss, Nebraska, Virginia Tech.
• THREE-STAR (4,000–5,999 points): Washington, Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Penn State, Michigan State, Texas Tech, Missouri, Arizona State, Maryland, Mississippi State, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Utah, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, TCU, NC State, Illinois.
• TWO-STAR (2,000–3,999 points): Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Louisville, Wisconsin, South Florida, Boston College, Baylor, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, Kansas State, Kentucky, BYU, Vanderbilt, Purdue.
• ONE-STAR (≥ 1,999 points): Cincinnati, Washington State, Duke, Northwestern, Syracuse, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Connecticut, Temple.
- - -
* Based on Rivals' accumulated rankings, 2008-12.
 
Advertisement
LuiiisMDO said:
SRuback said:
Jassid82 said:
SRuback said:
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.
W
Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wont say stars dont matter, but I will say that its not everything. What kills me is when people on this board say that, "The days of finding diamond in the rough types like Ed Reed and Santana Moss are over. Recruiting has changed. They would be 3-4 star guys in todays age." I just dont buy that and that theory is slaughtered every year around draft time. Khalil Mack was some nobody LB out of Fort Pierce and he went to a no name school to play college ball and 3-4 years later ESPN pundits are predicting he will be an All Pro after being a top 5 pick.

Having an eye for talent and developing that talent is what matters. Jarvis Landry was a 5* WR going into LSU. Beckham was a 4*. Who was the 1st round draft pick and who was the 2nd?

Ermon Lane was the 4* stud and Tyre Brady was a 2*. I predict that Brady is the one who will be makin the most noise in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Stars obviously aren't the end all be all, but I believe the truth is far closer to that side of the argument than the nonsensical "stars don't matter" stance.

It's all about the percentages. There are far, far more 2-3 star recruits than 4-5 stars in terms of quantity. Two- and three-star recruits account for more than 86 percent of signees nationally, so for every Kahlil Mack or Blake Bortles who dramatically exceeds expectations there are countless others that never have much of an impact in college.

"The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure -- injuries, academics, even coaching -- individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies."

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by recruiting ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.

195.jpg


196.jpg


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769
Click to expand...

according to this article, we are recruiting better than most fans are giving the staff credit for, so once again comes the question of player development by this staff:



'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class*
• FIVE-STAR (≤ 10,000 points): USC, Florida, Texas, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, Michigan and Alabama.
Click to expand...


The 5* group has won 12 championships in a row...We are the last team to win that is not in the group.
 
SRuback said:
Jassid82 said:
SRuback said:
Stars do matter, folks.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be top picks, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
A Four-star recruit had a one-in-five chance of getting drafted (77 of 395).
A three-star recruit had a one-in-18 chance of getting drafted (92 of 1,644).
A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

www.sbnation.com/college-football-r...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wont say stars dont matter, but I will say that its not everything. What kills me is when people on this board say that, "The days of finding diamond in the rough types like Ed Reed and Santana Moss are over. Recruiting has changed. They would be 3-4 star guys in todays age." I just dont buy that and that theory is slaughtered every year around draft time. Khalil Mack was some nobody LB out of Fort Pierce and he went to a no name school to play college ball and 3-4 years later ESPN pundits are predicting he will be an All Pro after being a top 5 pick.

Having an eye for talent and developing that talent is what matters. Jarvis Landry was a 5* WR going into LSU. Beckham was a 4*. Who was the 1st round draft pick and who was the 2nd?

Ermon Lane was the 4* stud and Tyre Brady was a 2*. I predict that Brady is the one who will be makin the most noise in 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Stars obviously aren't the end all be all, but I believe the truth is far closer to that side of the argument than the nonsensical "stars don't matter" stance.

It's all about the percentages. There are far, far more 2-3 star recruits than 4-5 stars in terms of quantity. Two- and three-star recruits account for more than 86 percent of signees nationally, so for every Kahlil Mack or Blake Bortles who dramatically exceeds expectations there are countless others that never have much of an impact in college.

"The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure -- injuries, academics, even coaching -- individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies."

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by recruiting ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.

195.jpg


196.jpg


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769
Click to expand...


I don't really buy into the All American thing. A fair amount of players are put on those list based on reputation alone. **** Seantrell Henderson and Ray Ray Armstrong made all american list and they were not that special.

All the best teams have a good mix of super elite talent and try-hard guys to keep pushing them. But truthfully the position that matters the most is QB. Get your Qb and all of sudden 2* look like 4*. Look at Texas A&M, They had decent classes not great before Sumlin got there. But with the right QB and right scheme they are a winning program.

FSU is another example on the opposite spectrum, they have great classes but couldn't get over the hump until they got a QB.
 
Advertisement
Colin Kapaernick, Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles, Jimmy Garapolo really like those charts showing how they were basically one in a million to get drafted.

Khalil Mack says, "who's Jeff Luc?"
 
rudebuddha said:
Colin Kapaernick, Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles, Jimmy Garapolo really like those charts showing how they were basically one in a million to get drafted.

Khalil Mack says, "who's Jeff Luc?"
Click to expand...

Those guys represent the whole "exceptions to the rule" topic that has been discussed above.
 
Advertisement
I did some further analysis, because I was bored at work.

The SEC has 11 1st round picks
The newly formed ACC (includes Louisville) has 8

These are the one two conferences worth comparing to each other since they are head and shoulders above the next conference.

Average star rating for a SEC player - 4 flat
Average star rating for an ACC player - 3.5

With this in mind, if your looking at it this way, seems as though the ACC is better at developping players regardless of star ranking, since the median star ranking for the ACC is 3, while the SEC is 4.
Coincedentally, out of the 3, 3 stars 2 that the SEC had drafted were recruited via the BIG 12 by TAMU. The other is Dee Ford.

Just food for thought, not saying one conference is better then the other, I just think the ACC does more with less to be completely honest. Considering both conference recruit from the same area, and realistically the ACC has the hardest footprint to recruit because they have to compete with the AAC and SEC, because of geographical overlap with other major conferences, Whiel the SEC more or less only overlaps with ACC. The B10, Big 12, Pac-12 are pretty much on a island and have to compete with other conferences coming out of the different footprint.

Like I said, ACC recruiting has to be the toughest job for the recruiters. I just realized that now, as I'm writing this.
 
rudebuddha said:
Colin Kapaernick, Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles, Jimmy Garapolo really like those charts showing how they were basically one in a million to get drafted.

Khalil Mack says, "who's Jeff Luc?"
Click to expand...

Don't know if you're purposely trying to be hyperbolic but a 2* player has a 1 in 34 chance of being drafted....So in other words- Mack represents the 1 and the other 33 2* Buffalo players that weren't drafted rounds out the 34 ):

As far as the QBs mentioned, all were 3* except for Garapolo so their chances were actually 1 in 18 instead of 1 in a million...
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top