Star Debate/Ratings thread

[jayparr]

I don't get your point. I think you make the mistake of assuming that every star ranking given to a prospect is accurate. From experience, I can guarantee you that's not accurate. Often times players are ranked a certain way because they're ranked on other sites and the first site doesn't want to appear uninformed. Sometimes it's because a player went to one service's camp and not anothers. There are a host of reasons a kid could be ranked as a four star by one service and three by another, and talent usually has very little to do with it.

I respectfully understand your reply. If you look at that 07 class. There were some 8 or so 4 stars signed. Only half of them panned out,BUT DID THEY EVER!!!! Enough that that 4 were the very nucleus of a great team. Bay Bay was a lower star who wasn't in that class. Also look at the offers of a 3 star compered to a 4 star. A5 star. forget about it. There are also higher ratings in each star category. A high rated 4 star is a lot more apt to make it as a medium 3 star. I have studied and studied the offer sheets between the ratings. Take the )7 class: Willie White and Donly were lower rated 4 stars than Derrick Morgan. The offer sheet says it all. If a recruit has offers from say Al. Ga., Fsu, Ohio St, N.D., LSU, and VT. verses a 3 star who might at best have say Vt. FSU GA TECH Middle Tenn. Wofford, and uab. Means a lot to me.

 

[jayparr]

I respectfully understand your reply. If you look at that 07 class. There were some 8 or so 4 stars signed. Only half of them panned out,BUT DID THEY EVER!!!! Enough that that 4 were the very nucleus of a great team. Bay Bay was a lower star who wasn't in that class. Also look at the offers of a 3 star compered to a 4 star. A5 star. forget about it. There are also higher ratings in each star category. A high rated 4 star is a lot more apt to make it as a medium 3 star. I have studied and studied the offer sheets between the ratings. Take the )7 class: Willie White and Donly were lower rated 4 stars than Derrick Morgan. The offer sheet says it all. If a recruit has offers from say Al. Ga., Fsu, Ohio St, N.D., LSU, and VT. verses a 3 star who might at best have say Vt. FSU GA TECH Middle Tenn. Wofford, and uab. Means a lot to me.

 

[jayparr]

SORRY I WAS TYPING AS YOU GUYS WERE FINISHING UP!!!!!!!

 

[gtdrew]

I'll start a thread on this tomorrow.

 

[IronJacket7]

Stars don't matter. At all.

Here is what you said GTDrew. Just in case you forgot...

 

[gtdrew]

Here is what you said GTDrew. Just in case you forgot...

You're right. I did say that. And I believe it. I think star rankings are an unreliable way of evaluating talent. I think stars are more a function by which to sell subscriptions than to actually tell how good a recruit is. And if I were to find out that our coaching staff was relying on star rankings to evaluate prospects, rather than their own evaluation, I'd be furious.

 

[awbuzz]

You're right. I did say that. And I believe it. I think star rankings are an unreliable way of evaluating talent. I think stars are more a function by which to sell subscriptions than to actually tell how good a recruit is. And if I were to find out that our coaching staff was relying on star rankings to evaluate prospects, rather than their own evaluation, I'd be furious.

Make that most of us!

 

[IronJacket7]

You're right. I did say that. And I believe it. I think star rankings are an unreliable way of evaluating talent. I think stars are more a function by which to sell subscriptions than to actually tell how good a recruit is. And if I were to find out that our coaching staff was relying on star rankings to evaluate prospects, rather than their own evaluation, I'd be furious.

I don't think any team in the FBS relies on the star ratings of any recruiting service website... Every coach/team evaluates there own players that they chose to recruit. But star ratings do mean something. Whether accurate or not they mean something. I am sure there is some bolstering of stars or biased approach by the services. But bottom line, if you go and look at the TOP 10 recruiting classes of any recruiting service you will find you FBS national champion in that Top 10 within a year or two of that class.

 

[johncu]

Look at the 4 stars in the class of 07. I would much rather have that class than this one. No doubt about that. Had you rather have Dwyer or Kinlaw, Burnett or the austin twins, Morgan or Simmons. I know we had several 4 stars from that class that did not work out also. But just look what they accomplished! The coaching staff early in the recruiting process always put out offers to 4 and 5 star players. And lots of them. We just don't hear back from many. ALWAYS take a 4 over a 3. ALWAYS!!!

That's a ridiculous statement to make. Would you rather have 2* Vance Walker or 4* J.C. Lanier? Would you rather have 2* Phillip Wheeler or 4*Anthony Barnes? Would you rather have walk-on P.J. Daniels or 4* Rashaun Grant? Would you rather have walk-on Robert Godhigh or 4* B.J. Bostic? Would you rather have 3* Demaryius Thomas or 4* Willie White? Would you rather have 3* Jemea Thomas or 4* Laurence Marius? Would you rather have 2* Andrew Gardner or 4* Nick Claytor? Would you rather have unrated Chris Reis or 4* D.J. Donley? Would you rather have 2* Orwin Smith or 4* Ajenavi Eziemefe? Would you rather have 2* Adam Gotsis or 4* Anthony Williams? Would you rather have 2* Paul Davis or 4* Ryan Ayers?

Your statement "ALWAYS take a 4 over a 3" is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the top 10 picks in last year's NFL draft. According to you, they should ALL be 5 star players, with maaaaybe one or two 4 stars sprinkled in.

1. Eric Fisher 2*
2. Dion Jordan 4*
3. Sharrif Floyd 5*
4. Star Lotulelei 3*
5. Luke Joeckel 4*
6. Lane Johnson unrated
7. Chance Warmack 3*
8. Jonathan Cooper 3*
9. Dee Milliner 5*
10. Ziggy Ansah unrated

Just to provide some other recent examples, glancing over the NFL stat leaders:

J.J Watt 2*
Matt Ryan 3*
Colin Kaepernick 3*
Alfred Morris 2*
Russell Wilson 2*
Jordy Nelson 2*


The star rankings are a guide. To rely on them as the sole indicator of a player's talent is RIDICULOUS.

 

[jayparr]

That's a ridiculous statement to make. Would you rather have 2* Vance Walker or 4* J.C. Lanier? Would you rather have 2* Phillip Wheeler or 4*Anthony Barnes? Would you rather have walk-on P.J. Daniels or 4* Rashaun Grant? Would you rather have walk-on Robert Godhigh or 4* B.J. Bostic? Would you rather have 3* Demaryius Thomas or 4* Willie White? Would you rather have 3* Jemea Thomas or 4* Laurence Marius? Would you rather have 2* Andrew Gardner or 4* Nick Claytor? Would you rather have unrated Chris Reis or 4* D.J. Donley? Would you rather have 2* Orwin Smith or 4* Ajenavi Eziemefe? Would you rather have 2* Adam Gotsis or 4* Anthony Williams? Would you rather have 2* Paul Davis or 4* Ryan Ayers?

Your statement "ALWAYS take a 4 over a 3" is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the top 10 picks in last year's NFL draft. According to you, they should ALL be 5 star players, with maaaaybe one or two 4 stars sprinkled in.

1. Eric Fisher 2*
2. Dion Jordan 4*
3. Sharrif Floyd 5*
4. Star Lotulelei 3*
5. Luke Joeckel 4*
6. Lane Johnson unrated
7. Chance Warmack 3*
8. Jonathan Cooper 3*
9. Dee Milliner 5*
10. Ziggy Ansah unrated

Just to provide some other recent examples, glancing over the NFL stat leaders:

J.J Watt 2*
Matt Ryan 3*
Colin Kaepernick 3*
Alfred Morris 2*
Russell Wilson 2*
Jordy Nelson 2*


The star rankings are a guide. To rely on them as the sole indicator of a player's talent is RIDICULOUS.

The conversation is based on BEFORE they even put on a COLLEGE UNIFORM. SO OF COURSE you always should take the highest rated player, because all they ever played to the point we are talking about is while they are still in HIGH SCHOOL!!!!

 

[kg01]

The conversation is based on BEFORE they even put on a COLLEGE UNIFORM. SO OF COURSE you always should take the highest rated player, because all they ever played to the point we are talking about is while they are still in HIGH SCHOOL!!!!

Please make this discussion it's own thread.

Somebody say something nice/informative about Antonio Simmons, the guy who actually chose to commit to GT.

By the way, jayparr you're actually very wrong. I'll elaborate once you make your thread.

 

[Eric]

I moved all the post here...have at it.

 

[IronJacket7]

I moved all the post here...have at it.

Lmbo

 

[johncu]

The conversation is based on BEFORE they even put on a COLLEGE UNIFORM. SO OF COURSE you always should take the highest rated player, because all they ever played to the point we are talking about is while they are still in HIGH SCHOOL!!!!

Exactly. So it is absurd to compare Simmons to Derrick Morgan, like I said. All we have to go on is their high school play. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that people are capable of making their own evaluations. If I was a coach, I would take the highest rated played according to MY ratings, not Rivals'. I'm sure there would be a lot of overlap, but not always.

I'm sorry, but anybody who watched Jemea Thomas on film and though "meh, just a 3 star, don't want him" made a huge mistake. Jayparr, you are advocating exactly such a philosophy.

 

[kg01]

I'm sorry, but anybody who watched Jemea Thomas on film and though "meh, just a 3 star, don't want him" made a huge mistake. Jayparr, you are advocating exactly such a philosophy.

He's also ignoring the fact that coaches' livelihoods depend on how they evaluate talent. Sites like Rivals are excellent for compiling info for fans but I doubt they have many successful coaches on staff to evaluate talent. Who would you be trusting these duties to if you simply go based on rankings/stars?

 

[jayparr]

He's also ignoring the fact that coaches' livelihoods depend on how they evaluate talent. Sites like Rivals are excellent for compiling info for fans but I doubt they have many successful coaches on staff to evaluate talent. Who would you be trusting these duties to if you simply go based on rankings/stars?

I promise this is my last statement on this subject. And that statement is that the factory top 10 teams over the course of any number years you would like to insert is they have a whole lot of 4 and 5 star players. So that is my point with exclamation point. Coaches do decide on recruits based many times on who offered and the star ratings. Prospects are INVITED by national combines to attend based on the prospects prior film, coaches, scouts etc. Prospects video also plays a role. So yes a player still in high school that attends these combines by invitation only through offers, video, and scouts are the highly rated stars. These are the Saban type recruits or any factory. So if I was a coach I most certainly go by this system. And this is what comprises to 20 rankings year end and year out. So yes at that time that if had a choice of Donley over Reis I would have taken Donley because do hit the 4 star more than the 2 star. And that wold have a miss. I'll tell you that if we got all 4 star recruits instead of 2 and 3 star. We would be absolutely bananas! Thank you all for this thread, and I will continue to read with great interest!

 

[jayparr]

I promise this is my last statement on this subject. And that statement is that the factory top 10 teams over the course of any number years you would like to insert is they have a whole lot of 4 and 5 star players. So that is my point with exclamation point. Coaches do decide on recruits based many times on who offered and the star ratings. Prospects are INVITED by national combines to attend based on the prospects prior film, coaches, scouts etc. Prospects video also plays a role. So yes a player still in high school that attends these combines by invitation only through offers, video, and scouts are the highly rated stars. These are the Saban type recruits or any factory. So if I was a coach I most certainly go by this system. And this is what comprises to 20 rankings year end and year out. So yes at that time that if had a choice of Donley over Reis I would have taken Donley because do hit the 4 star more than the 2 star. And that wold have a miss. I'll tell you that if we got all 4 star recruits instead of 2 and 3 star. We would be absolutely bananas! Thank you all for this thread, and I will continue to read with great interest!

Ups I was working all night so sorry for the poor grammar.

 

[Eric]

I promise this is my last statement on this subject. And that statement is that the factory top 10 teams over the course of any number years you would like to insert is they have a whole lot of 4 and 5 star players. So that is my point with exclamation point. Coaches do decide on recruits based many times on who offered and the star ratings. Prospects are INVITED by national combines to attend based on the prospects prior film, coaches, scouts etc. Prospects video also plays a role. So yes a player still in high school that attends these combines by invitation only through offers, video, and scouts are the highly rated stars. These are the Saban type recruits or any factory. So if I was a coach I most certainly go by this system. And this is what comprises to 20 rankings year end and year out. So yes at that time that if had a choice of Donley over Reis I would have taken Donley because do hit the 4 star more than the 2 star. And that wold have a miss. I'll tell you that if we got all 4 star recruits instead of 2 and 3 star. We would be absolutely bananas! Thank you all for this thread, and I will continue to read with great interest!

Randy Shannon was one who went by a recruiting site...Rivals.

 

[AE 87]

My two cents (after 7 points):
1) stars are not meaningless because they do reflect relatively thoughtful evaluation by people with some expertise
2) consequently, teams with a lot of players who've been evaluated highly are more likely to have better talent than teams who do not (someone earlier expresses this point well as the difference between judging a class and judging a player)
3) I suspect the better coaches are typically better evaluators of talent (especially for their systems) than the recruiting sites
4) consequently offer lists are also a decent indicator of talent (e.g. early offers from several teams who typically get better talent indicates the kid is probably pretty good)
5) no evaluation or no ranking INDICATES NOTHING -- you simply don't know if he was unevaluated because unknown or because deemed unworthy
6) sometimes scheme matters -- e.g. we are looking for a different skill set in QB and OL than that which earns the big stars by the recruiting services
7) the differences between recruiting sites on whether a kid is a 3* or a 4* should also encourage hesitancy in treating them as absolute numbers

So, I'm more excited when we land (and more disappointed by our failure to land) a 4* or highly recruited guy that we pursue than I am a 3* or less-recruited guy. However, that's an emotional reaction because it's nice when other people see you as successful. Trusting that our coaches are getting guys that they really want who aren't as widely regarded is not as emotionally satisfying, but I consider it probably more rational.

 

[IronJacket7]

Our Highest Rated recruiting Class in the last 10 years is below. Our best season in the last 10 years (2009 we went 11-3) was filled with these players. And a few others (Michael Johnson, Roddy Jones, Anthony Allen etc... all of them were high 3 stars at that). So... Do stars matter???