24/7 Rating at Correlation to Making It to the NFL

[awbuzz]

Player ranking and Percentage that make it to the NFL by 24/7 Sports composite rating.

Note that a higher percentage of unrated players make it that those in that group than players rated below 85%

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Oh joy, it’s the dreaded recruiting rankings debate thread risen from the dead. Just what this board needs!

On a serious note, the numbers tell me you can make your hay in the lower range if you have top notch talent evaluators and enough of them to scour the country (iow, watch film) looking for the guys who fell through the cracks. Looking at raw numbers, there’s more guys that fall through the cracks than there are guys who are consensus No-brainers.

 

[4shotB]

Oh joy, it’s the dreaded recruiting rankings debate thread risen from the dead. Just what this board needs!

.

I do see the emoji and like you, I cringe at the oft repeated thread topics here but any post or poster that brings data to the table is welcome imo. I thought @BCJacket had a great post on this (recruiting) topic because of the analysis that he did.

 

[awbuzz]

I stumble upon this and @BCJacket 's earlier posts made me think it'd be worth posting for a "fact" based discussion from data over 14 years. That time period should smooth out many anomalies.

This year, 50 players made the cut at being rated a 97.5 or greater. If the perecentages hold true, 24 of them will NOT make the NFL.

 

[okiemon]

Also an interesting article — though somewhat depressing for the UGA-haters among us — in the AJC today by Michael Cunningham in which he mentions this topic of recruiting rankings. At the risk of repeating a posting on another thread, here's the link for those who haven't yet read it.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check...gia-tech-stays-afloat/qfweUaz8Uj0uU6TZJPk3bK/

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I’m trying to decide if the conclusions drawn from this data is anything different from what we already knew or suspected? Even me, a known star system skeptic, realizes that your odds of making the NFL are greater the higher ranked you are as a recruit. But then again, I’ve always thought there’s more than one way to skin a cat and that there’s enough guys that fall through the cracks, if you’re adept at finding them, to fill out a pretty decent college roster.

Of course it’s much more likely to be good if your team is loaded full five and four star players. I’m sure CPJ would agree with that as well.

 

[Jmonty71]

Player ranking and Percentage that make it to the NFL by 24/7 Sports composite rating.

Note that a higher percentage of unrated players make it that those in that group than players rated below 85%

While recruiting scores do matter, it gives a starting point of an individual. However; it does not measure that man's heart, desire to get better, determination or willingness to be a good team member. I think there are certain intangibles that are not thought of. I rather have a high 3 star that wants to be at GT and play as a team, versus some 5 star looking for a payday in the NFL and cares only for himself.

 

[awbuzz]

No doubt that most coaches would prefer to have a team filled with upper 4* and 5 * players. Talent can over come a lot of other issues.
Simplified example - Combine the two best High School basketball teams compete against Duke, UNC, etc.... you know who is going to win.

Heck, I'd bet that the Atlanta Falcons would handle Alabama, Clemson, UGA, Oklahoma, etc. on the football field too.

 

[awbuzz]

Lots of talented players screw up. One of the poster boys for that would be JaMarcus Russel. Granted he made the NFL... but talk about a waste of talent.

 

[ibeattetris]

I think the one thing I don't enjoy about correlating things to NFL is it misses on college athletes that fit their college scheme but never had a chance to play NFL. Justin Thomas was an amazing QB for GT, but there was almost no chance he was going to play in the NFL as a QB. Robert Godhigh was one of our best ABs and had almost no chance at playing rb at the next level (maybe he would have now with how much NFL offenses have changed). I'd want as many future NFL players as I could on defense, but on offense I don't think it's as important.

I obviously would never turn down a 5* wanting to come to Tech, but I think a 3star that is a 100% fit for your scheme could definitely out produces a square peg trying to fit a round hole. If GT's new goal is to put players into the NFL over winning games, then we should definitely be looking at stars only, otherwise, I think there is more to consider.

 

[ibeattetris]

I’m trying to decide if the conclusions drawn from this data is anything different from what we already knew or suspected? Even me, a known star system skeptic, realizes that your odds of making the NFL are greater the higher ranked you are as a recruit. But then again, I’ve always thought there’s more than one way to skin a cat and that there’s enough guys that fall through the cracks, if you’re adept at finding them, to fill out a pretty decent college roster.

Of course it’s much more likely to be good if your team is loaded full five and four star players. I’m sure CPJ would agree with that as well.

Stars are just projections of 17-18 year old kids in the NFL 3-5 years later. A lot can change in that time. Recruit rankings are going to have a hard time knowing what 5 years in the weight room and hard work can do for a lower ranked player. Freak athletes with NFL measurables in highschool *should* project to be NFL players. It's the ones who still have room to grow, or are less sought after/don't attend camps that won't get the stars.

 

[YJMD]

On a serious note, the numbers tell me you can make your hay in the lower range if you have top notch talent evaluators and enough of them to scour the country (iow, watch film) looking for the guys who fell through the cracks. Looking at raw numbers, there’s more guys that fall through the cracks than there are guys who are consensus No-brainers.

This assumes you have the ability to project talent significantly better than the 24/7 guys and that your scholarship offers are unrelated to their rankings. Guys from lower down the list are frequently folks who develop into NFL talent rather than misses in evaluation overall.

That said, I do think it's really important to be able to evaluate players independently from the services and especially for their fit for your system and culture.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Wait, those numbers are an argument for the validity of rankings?

What would an argument against be?

 

[ncjacket79]

Also an interesting article — though somewhat depressing for the UGA-haters among us — in the AJC today by Michael Cunningham in which he mentions this topic of recruiting rankings. At the risk of repeating a posting on another thread, here's the link for those who haven't yet read it.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check...gia-tech-stays-afloat/qfweUaz8Uj0uU6TZJPk3bK/

Fair article actually.

 

[ibeattetris]

Wait, those numbers are an argument for the validity of rankings?

What would an argument against be?

Projecting where a 17-18 year old athlete will be in 3-5 years at a 20-50% rate seems pretty solid to me. A lot can change in those years like injuries/passion. Obviously anything after top targets becomes a bit of a crap shoot.

I still attest that you can have non-NFL talent produce at a top collegiate level. Alabama has won national championships with QBs who weren't NFL caliber because they fit the scheme. My thought is you need to maximize your talent where it is most important and fill the gaps with people who are great fits elsewhere .

 

[ATL1]

Projecting where a 17-18 year old athlete will be in 3-5 years at a 20-50% rate seems pretty solid to me. A lot can change in those years like injuries/passion. Obviously anything after top targets becomes a bit of a crap shoot.

I still attest that you can have non-NFL talent produce at a top collegiate level. Alabama has won national championships with QBs who weren't NFL caliber because they fit the scheme. My thought is you need to maximize your talent where it is most important and fill the gaps with people who are great fits elsewhere .

I think they made the league.

 

[nyto]

Side note. What the heck is Purdue doing in the top 25 of recruiting rankings?
https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/

 

[ibeattetris]

I think they made the league.

On a roster? Maybe, I'll take your word for it there.

 

[ibeattetris]

Side note. What the heck is Purdue doing in the top 25 of recruiting rankings?
https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/

Purdue is beginning to heavily invest in football. Their coach is getting paid 6mil a year and they are coming off a good (for Purdue) season. We should be able to do the same. It does help they signed 25 kids. Their average rating per player is lower than most of the teams below them until about rank 33. They still had a great year. I believe CGC will get us there.

 

[WreckinGT]

If we completely got rid of recruiting rankings would college football change at all? If not then they don't seem all that meaningful.