77% of the starters for NFL Championships weren't 4 or 5 Stars

AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
GlennW said:
I posted this because my understand is that the "rational" for the highest ranked players is their Pro-Football "potential," NOT their College "potential," and if that is, indeed, the case, this means that the so called "recruiting experts" just missed out on 77% of their projections of the "top-ranked" players in the country coming out of high school at the time.

This is why none of us should be so enomored with how our recruits may be ranked but how they may fit in to our particular schemes and whether they'll be good fits for GA Tech student athletes.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, most descriptions of recruiting rankings I've read refer to impact on college teams.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
GlennW said:
I posted this because my understand is that the "rational" for the highest ranked players is their Pro-Football "potential," NOT their College "potential," and if that is, indeed, the case, this means that the so called "recruiting experts" just missed out on 77% of their projections of the "top-ranked" players in the country coming out of high school at the time.

This is why none of us should be so enomored with how our recruits may be ranked but how they may fit in to our particular schemes and whether they'll be good fits for GA Tech student athletes.
Click to expand...
Not really, I would argue that more than 2 percent of college kids end up being 4 and 5 star players. NFL teams can't hold all of them. So let's say a 3 star turns out as a 4 star and the 4 star stays the same, the NFL has to pick one of them even though they are both 4 star quality players at that time so maybe they pick the kid that started as a 3 star. I have said this in another thread, just because the recruiting services label a kid a 2 or 3 star but they end up like a 4 or 5 star doesn't mean the services were wrong with their rankings at that time. For instance let's say a player is a 4 star and plays up to that level from the time he steps on campus then the services were right on him and let's say a 3 star steps on campus and by year 3 and 4 he plays at the same or a higher level than the original 4 star, where they wrong about the 3 star? No, because it took him 3 years to get to the point of a 4 star. So many people see kids turn out to be all stars that weren't highly ranked and automatically think the services were wrong when in reality that kid might have taken 3 years of college to get to that point with getting in a better strength program, better coaching, better practices against better players etc, I still considered the services to be right because at that time in high school he was only a 3 star. Bama, Clemson, FSU, Michigan, Ohio state are all teams that are where they are for a reason, so for anyone to say the services mean nothing are just talking crazy. Do they get it wrong? Sure, but I would assume they get it right more times than not for that current TIME. If a kid is super dominant at the high school level but not in college he was probably a 4 or 5 star coming out of high school but maybe he got with the wrong program or was lazy so people passed him up that still doesn't mean the services were wrong because when they rated him he was that 4 or 5 star.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,045
tech_wreck47 said:
Not really, I would argue that more than 2 percent of college kids end up being 4 and 5 star players. NFL teams can't hold all of them. So let's say a 3 star turns out as a 4 star and the 4 star stays the same, the NFL has to pick one of them even though they are both 4 star quality players at that time so maybe they pick the kid that started as a 3 star. I have said this in another thread, just because the recruiting services label a kid a 2 or 3 star but they end up like a 4 or 5 star doesn't mean the services were wrong with their rankings at that time. For instance let's say a player is a 4 star and plays up to that level from the time he steps on campus then the services were right on him and let's say a 3 star steps on campus and by year 3 and 4 he plays at the same or a higher level than the original 4 star, where they wrong about the 3 star? No, because it took him 3 years to get to the point of a 4 star. So many people see kids turn out to be all stars that weren't highly ranked and automatically think the services were wrong when in reality that kid might have taken 3 years of college to get to that point with getting in a better strength program, better coaching, better practices against better players etc, I still considered the services to be right because at that time in high school he was only a 3 star. Bama, Clemson, FSU, Michigan, Ohio state are all teams that are where they are for a reason, so for anyone to say the services mean nothing are just talking crazy. Do they get it wrong? Sure, but I would assume they get it right more times than not for that current TIME. If a kid is super dominant at the high school level but not in college he was probably a 4 or 5 star coming out of high school but maybe he got with the wrong program or was lazy so people passed him up that still doesn't mean the services were wrong because when they rated him he was that 4 or 5 star.
Click to expand...
paragraphs are your friend.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Captain killem said:
One thing the rating services can't measure is heart and determination.
Click to expand...
Dallas defensive tackle Bob Lilly immortalized one of Mark Twain's quotes with his own Deep South rendition for a commercial once: "It ain't the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog." Nobody ever wrote it better, and nobody ever said it better.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,821
Here's some pretty in depth and well researched article on all of this:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ng-star-ratings-actually-predict-nfl-success/

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

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/174883892/predicting-best-nfl-draft-prospects-talent

So when you really think about it, 35 of the 80 players named to the Pro Bowl (43.8 percent) were rated as either 5-star or 4-star players coming out of high school per the 247Sports Composite, which is an incredibly high hit percentage considering the aforementioned limited number of players that receive such distinctions. Also impressive is that 19 players were rated as 2-star prospects or not rated at all, meaning nearly one-quarter of the players at the top of the league in 2016 brushed off the lack of belief in them by talent evaluators and grinded all the way to NFL greatness.

Statistical look if you're one of those "I don't care about the NFL, I only care about what happens on Saturday" people:

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.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

Lots of good info in those articles.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
Meh...

Like others said, it is a very small number.
Then those get spread among 32 teams if they make it to the league barring injury or other factors.

Recruiting stars do nothing for me.
 
Boomergump

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,262
Techster said:
Here's some pretty in depth and well researched article on all of this:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ng-star-ratings-actually-predict-nfl-success/

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

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...96710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/174883892/predicting-best-nfl-draft-prospects-talent

So when you really think about it, 35 of the 80 players named to the Pro Bowl (43.8 percent) were rated as either 5-star or 4-star players coming out of high school per the 247Sports Composite, which is an incredibly high hit percentage considering the aforementioned limited number of players that receive such distinctions. Also impressive is that 19 players were rated as 2-star prospects or not rated at all, meaning nearly one-quarter of the players at the top of the league in 2016 brushed off the lack of belief in them by talent evaluators and grinded all the way to NFL greatness.

Statistical look if you're one of those "I don't care about the NFL, I only care about what happens on Saturday" people:

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.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

Lots of good info in those articles.
Click to expand...
How many All Americans are there? If you take all of the cfb signees in total and divide by 45 you have the number of All Americans? I don't know what the numbers are, but that doesn't sound right. Maybe that number includes all teams (first, second, honorable mention etc).
 

Sideways

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,589
GlennW said:
Seventy seven percent (77%) of the starters for the AFC and NFC Championships were rated 2 or 3 Stars, or not rated at all.

68 of the 88 starters NOT being 4 or 5 Star recruits seems pretty substantial.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ionship-games-nfl-recruit-star-rating-ranking
Click to expand...

In their defense, (difficult to do this but bear with me here) some positions are notoriously hard to project to the next level. In this case from high school to college. With great running backs or wide receivers, pretty much what you see is what you get. Linemen, particularly tackles, are another story. Sometimes, four or five stars improve and stay injury free but often they have reached their ceiling in high school and that is that. Other times, guys who are three or two stars, just find a niche or get bigger and faster through a combination of weight training and maturity. It is a crap shoot either way as multiple UGA coaches can attest. Our approach of looking for the right "fit"physically, academically, and work ethic wise is a good one. Player development and red shirting may not be such a big deal to Alabama, Tennessee, UGA and the rest but those things are critical to our success. Our linemen tend to be quicker, faster, and smaller (on the whole) than the giant space eaters coveted by most teams. Years ago, UGA had two players from my neck of the woods who were recruited as 4 star linemen. One of them was heralded as the best in the state. Because of injuries, poor development, and a long litany of woes neither of them played a down. In this racket, there is no sure thing even when it looks to be a sure thing.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Sideways said:
In their defense, (difficult to do this but bear with me here) some positions are notoriously hard to project to the next level. In this case from high school to college. With great running backs or wide receivers, pretty much what you see is what you get. Linemen, particularly tackles, are another story. Sometimes, four or five stars improve and stay injury free but often they have reached their ceiling in high school and that is that. Other times, guys who are three or two stars, just find a niche or get bigger and faster through a combination of weight training and maturity. It is a crap shoot either way as multiple UGA coaches can attest. Our approach of looking for the right "fit"physically, academically, and work ethic wise is a good one. Player development and red shirting may not be such a big deal to Alabama, Tennessee, UGA and the rest but those things are critical to our success. Our linemen tend to be quicker, faster, and smaller (on the whole) than the giant space eaters coveted by most teams. Years ago, UGA had two players from my neck of the woods who were recruited as 4 star linemen. One of them was heralded as the best in the state. Because of injuries, poor development, and a long litany of woes neither of them played a down. In this racket, there is no sure thing even when it looks to be a sure thing.
Click to expand...
I once saw a stat that as i remember showed that a bit more than half of such recruits ever succeeded in college. And as you note, many never see the field except from deep on the bench and spend their careers as practice fodder.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
Sideways said:
In their defense, (difficult to do this but bear with me here) some positions are notoriously hard to project to the next level.
Click to expand...

I would go even further and say that ALL positions are very hard to predict at the next level. It has been stated quite often that you can pick out the very top of high school players. However, once you get beyond the very top, it is a crap shoot. If a LB is 6'2" and 250Lbs in high school, is he going to grow more? Is he going to work out hard? Is he going to study the game hard? If a LB in high school is 5'9" and 200Lbs, is he going to grow in a year or two? Is he going to work out harder because no one believes in him? Is he going to study harder?

I am convinced that I could put together a computer algorithm to rate players based on size, speed, and high school stats and do as well as the recruiting services at picking players that will become All Americans. If machine learning was added to the algorithm to compare stats vs strength of competition(like Massey stats), an algorithm could probably do better than the services.

I can give two examples before the services. When he was in high school, everyone believed that Hershel Walker was bigger, faster, and stronger than most college players. He got to college and proved them right. When Marcus Dupree was in high school, everyone believed that he was bigger, faster, and stronger than most college players. He got to college and played very well for one year. He never played in college after that. Both would have been rated as the top prospect in the country. One panned out, the other did not.

People get entertainment value out of paying attention to such numbers. However, to put any more value than just casual entertainment to the ratings is ridiculous.
 
RonJohn

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
Boomergump said:
How many All Americans are there? If you take all of the cfb signees in total and divide by 45 you have the number of All Americans? I don't know what the numbers are, but that doesn't sound right. Maybe that number includes all teams (first, second, honorable mention etc).
Click to expand...

There are 128 FBS teams. If each signed the max per year, there would be 3,200 recruits per year. One in 45 would be 71 All Americans. Sounds about right for firs, second, and honorable mention.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Captain killem said:
Stars belong in the sky. I'll take the football players that want to be at Georgia Tech regardless of what some egotistical *****s behind a desk think.
Click to expand...
I say hello to FSU, Bama, Clemson, Ohio state, Michigan. I know a lot don't like it but for the most part they get a lot of it right. Can you name one person on our current roster they were wrong about? I can only think of 1 and thats lee.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Captain killem said:
AJ gray dedrick mills Ricky jeune Brad Stewart etc etc etc
Click to expand...
I don't see any of them being wrong. When I think of 4 and 5 stars I think of a season like Parker Braun had. What have any of them done that shouts out 4 stars? Mills is the closest, and that's debatable. Jmo.
 
Top