I think this group of coaches will bring in our first 5star player

[rrlbees]

And the other 50% were 4 and 5 stars coming out of high school. If there are 200 4/5 star prospects in a given year and 16 become first rounders, vs 1500 1/2/3 star prospects where 16 become first rounders, which set was a higher percentage of prospects becoming 1st round picks.

a higher percentage of the pool of 4/5 star prospects become future first rounders than the pool of 1/2/3 stars.

Exactly. Bottom line is a roster of 4/5 stars is better than a roster of 2/3 stars. That's fact and I don't get why some try to argue around that.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[Libero2]

Exactly. Bottom line is a roster of 4/5 stars is better than a roster of 2/3 stars. That's fact and I don't get why some try to argue around that.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

All other things being equal I would agree. But obviously not everything is equal across the landscape of college football.


In other words if you gave an elite coaching staff (let's say Alabamas for the fun of it) and gave them a roster of 2/3 star guys, and pitted them against a novice coaching staff (let's say SUs new staff) which has a team of mostly 4/5 star guys with a few 3s sprinkled in, who are you betting on to win the game? What about which staff is likely to develop their players the best?

I would still bet on the elite staff creating the best players 4 years down the line. But if everything is equal at the start, it's better to have better players out of the gate, no questions asked.

 

[rrlbees]

All other things being equal I would agree. But obviously not everything is equal across the landscape of college football.


In other words if you gave an elite coaching staff (let's say Alabamas for the fun of it) and gave them a roster of 2/3 star guys, and pitted them against a novice coaching staff (let's say SUs new staff) which has a team of mostly 4/5 star guys with a few 3s sprinkled in, who are you betting on to win the game? What about which staff is likely to develop their players the best?

I would still bet on the elite staff creating the best players 4 years down the line. But if everything is equal at the start, it's better to have better players out of the gate, no questions asked.

Absolutely coaching ia a big part of a players development and success. But that wasn't part of the equation being discussed. I do agree with you though that you need both and coaching is probably as important if not more so.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[JoeSU]

Wasn't a local product, but was Johnny Morant a 5 star?

 

[solvaycuse44]

Agree 100%. We're never going to be a selector school on the recruiting trail, and we'll need to win consistently in order to attract 4-star recruits.

Let's hope the new coaching staff is up to the task!

I disagree with that. They could be a selector school just like alot of northern school if they got the support they need from the university & BOT alot of cash to get where it need to be. Of course goin to the ACC was a huge step!
Now do I think they would get the support needed to be a quote selector school NO but it possible

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I can't believe this thread is happening.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[xc84]

Yes, because he was under the radar. Nobody recruited him. It happens.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Somebody did. Some of those who didn't, evaluated them poorly.

 

[xc84]

And the other 50% were 4 and 5 stars coming out of high school. If there are 200 4/5 star prospects in a given year and 16 become first rounders, vs 1500 1/2/3 star prospects where 16 become first rounders, which set was a higher percentage of prospects becoming 1st round picks.

a higher percentage of the pool of 4/5 star prospects become future first rounders than the pool of 1/2/3 stars.

I knew this response was coming. That still does not negate that the "evaluators" really screwed up on a bunch of guys (1/2 of all first rounders). Shows you that a good evaluator can end up with a 5 star player that bad evaluators thought were 2-3 stars.

 

[rrlbees]

I knew this response was coming. That still does not negate that the "evaluators" really screwed up on a bunch of guys (1/2 of all first rounders). Shows you that a good evaluator can end up with a 5 star player that bad evaluators thought were 2-3 stars.

And most of those evaluators were college coaches.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

[Libero2]

I knew this response was coming. That still does not negate that the "evaluators" really screwed up on a bunch of guys (1/2 of all first rounders). Shows you that a good evaluator can end up with a 5 star player that bad evaluators thought were 2-3 stars.

Not in my opinion. What it means to me, is that 16 players developed their game above what the scouts expected was possible in HS. Sometimes it's them physically developing more after HS, sometimes it's an insane dedication in the weight room after HS, sometimes it's people mis-evaluating a kid. Sometimes a kid is overvalued by NFL scouts.

It's the same argument that NFL fans have about first round picks vs. later round picks. Not every first rounder is an all-pro, and their are certainly all-pros found later in the draft, but the fact of the matter is a higher percentage of 1st round picks go on to become all-pros than is the percentage of later round picks.

You can strike gold from either pool, but the more shots you take at the pool of more talented prospects (as determined by whatever professional scouting community you wish to consider) the more likely you are to end up with an eventually great player.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

For 2014 there are currently 40, 5* recruits, and 3 of them are already committed.

http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/CompositeRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Which one are we landing?

 

[Czar]

OR success correlates to stars. If Alabama recruits a kid, he gets a better rating. I am not saying these kids are not good. Obviously they are... but kids like Bromley, Mike Williams are out there. If Alabama recruited them, they'd be "4 star" players. They are not "under the radar". They are there...and ignored, in part, because they don't play in a football-rich state and because they may not have the years of experience a kid from e.g. FL might have.

Alabama recruited Wayne Morgan and he wasn't a universal four star.

 

[JoeSU]

I knew this response was coming. That still does not negate that the "evaluators" really screwed up on a bunch of guys (1/2 of all first rounders). Shows you that a good evaluator can end up with a 5 star player that bad evaluators thought were 2-3 stars.

I don't think you can say the evaluators "screwed-up" in all these cases. The star system doesn't reflect future potential 4 or 5 years down the road. A lot of future NFL players were in fact "2 star" guys coming out of HS, but underwent accelerated development while in college, benefiting from proper training, diet, and coaching (in some cases, aided by a late growth spurt). Let's face it - not many 2 star recruits start their Freshman year. On the other hand, many HS phenoms (5 star recruits) have already plateaued, or never realize their potential while in college.

In my eyes, the situation is really not that different from the NFL draft, where the evaluators are supposedly elite professionals, and teams have millions of dollars on the line. Despite spending countless hours evaluating every aspect of a player's potential, including many opportunities not available when evaluating HS players (player combines, conducting private workouts, observing player performance in All-Star games, conducting psychological testing, etc.), how many 1st round busts have there been? And how many obscure, late-round selections from small schools end up in the Pro Bowl?

I think we can agree it's an inexact science.

 

[xc84]

Not in my opinion. What it means to me, is that 16 players developed their game above what the scouts expected was possible in HS. Sometimes it's them physically developing more after HS, sometimes it's an insane dedication in the weight room after HS, sometimes it's people mis-evaluating a kid. Sometimes a kid is overvalued by NFL scouts.

It's the same argument that NFL fans have about first round picks vs. later round picks. Not every first rounder is an all-pro, and their are certainly all-pros found later in the draft, but the fact of the matter is a higher percentage of 1st round picks go on to become all-pros than is the percentage of later round picks.

You can strike gold from either pool, but the more shots you take at the pool of more talented prospects (as determined by whatever professional scouting community you wish to consider) the more likely you are to end up with an eventually great player.

I think if you call a kid "2 or 3 stars" and ends up a first round NFL draft choice (through talent and hard work) ... and so, the number of starts clearly didn't reflect the potential of the kid... you mis-evaluated the kid. Rating a kid should include potential or "developing after high school". After all, if someone simply rates someone based on high school performance, all that tells you is how good he was in high school, not how good he will be in college.