- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 8,316
- Reaction Score
- 22,913
Skip the first two paragraphs if you're going to rely on strawmen, read them if you prefer context.
I don't want to rain on Byron Jones' parade, he had a very good career and a great day, we all want him to do well at the next level, so I'm starting a new thread. I'm not a fan of the star system. It's seriously flawed when you get past the top 100-200 players. There's a point where you're simply splitting hairs. There's a huge gap in coaching (at both levels). There are players, like Byron Jones, who don't play till late in their career and maybe don't have the instincts others do (so their ability hasn't yet shown itself). Fit, motivation, personal issues... there are too many variables to accurately predict success once the obvious film popping size/speed/talent that separates most of the the 4 and 5 star athletes from everyone else disappears.
Other offers, which is also flawed, is a better way to examine how well we are recruiting. Ignore our level for one second and look at Alabama. Do they want to beat out other SEC, Big 12, B1G schools for recruits, or do they want to beat out Conference USA and the American? Does Ohio State want to compete with the MAC for most of their recruits, or do they want to pluck the ones they think can contribute from Toledo's grasp? The same logic applies to UConn. We don't need to beat out the P5 programs (beating some regional ones would be nice) consistently, but we need to do better than beating out FCS programs. Those are not our peers. We will find success stories from time to time, we'll need to. Edsall made a living off that, and we can be mediocre and occasionally have very good seasons, but Diaco better be a hell of an evaluator and a better coach than we've seen so far.
This is not meant to be statistically perfect, but just a discussion of the aggregate and why we should recognize outliers for what they are.
The 2016 Scout.com class has 3,185 players.
320 4-5 star players
530 3 star players
2,335 2 or fewer (also unranked) players.
If we assume those numbers are standard, roughly 2335+/- 2 star athletes per season, and we assume that at any given time 3 of those classes are draft eligible (Junior, RS Jr/Senior, RS Senior), then there are roughly 7,000+/- 2 star (or below) athletes from HS eligible for any given draft.
Similarly there are 2,550+/- 3+ star players available for any give draft.
Of the 9500 players available to enter the draft, roughly 74% should be 2 star or below. Meaning that when we see a 2 star athlete do well at the combine it shouldn't be a surprise, they have the POTENTIAL to outnumber everyone else there 3-1.
If anyone has a link that shows the draft picks with their HS rankings, please post it. I found the top 50 prospects from last year.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...rofiles-of-top-50-prospects-in-2014-nfl-draft
Of that 50, 3 (6%) were 2 star athletes. Going later in the rounds, that percentage is sure to go up. Let's assume (yes, I know that's totally arbitrary) it doubles every 50 picks. So: 50 (3), 100 (3+6), 150 (3+6+9), 200 (3+6+9+18) 224 (3+6+9+18+18) = 54 2 star athletes out of 224 draft picks.
That's a very impressive 24%. Except one problem, they outnumbered the other athletes 3:1.
So if those numbers are close to accurate (I have no idea if they are, but I've tried to be logical and fair, and would appreciate anyone able to find the actual numbers), then:
170 3+ star athletes likely get drafted out of 2,550 eligible, or 6.67%
54 2 star athletes likely get drafted out of of 7,000 eligible, or .77%
You could argue that three classes is too many, and it really should be 2:
170 3+ star athletes likely drafted out of 1,700 eligible, or 10%.
54 2 star athletes likely drafted out of 5,100 eligible, or 1.05%.
Based on some reliable information and numbers, and my assumptions, it's clear that 3+ star athletes are far more likely to get drafted, and that 2- star athletes are so numerous, that it should come to no surprise when a few of them make a splash. It also means that 3+ star recruits are roughly 10 times as likely to get drafted as 2 star athletes. I like those odds.
Also, we seem to have had more than our fair share of these 2 star athletes make the NFL. However, THAT COACH IS GONE. We know Edsall could find the high 2 star athletes that were underrated or simply not rated at all. We also know that isn't what he preferred to recruit (because that's not how he recruits at Maryland). So using his success as an example of why the star ranking is "meaningless" is totally illogical. He proved it's flawed, not meaningless. He still lands 2 star recruits, but a) they aren't the majority, and b) some of them have other P5 offers.
So my question is:
If you're going to point out ONE 2 star athlete ( it could be 20 and the point still stands) that put on an impressive performance at the combine as if that proves something, are you also going to tell us about the 6,999 that didn't? (or 5,099 if you only consider 2 classes)
I don't want to rain on Byron Jones' parade, he had a very good career and a great day, we all want him to do well at the next level, so I'm starting a new thread. I'm not a fan of the star system. It's seriously flawed when you get past the top 100-200 players. There's a point where you're simply splitting hairs. There's a huge gap in coaching (at both levels). There are players, like Byron Jones, who don't play till late in their career and maybe don't have the instincts others do (so their ability hasn't yet shown itself). Fit, motivation, personal issues... there are too many variables to accurately predict success once the obvious film popping size/speed/talent that separates most of the the 4 and 5 star athletes from everyone else disappears.
Other offers, which is also flawed, is a better way to examine how well we are recruiting. Ignore our level for one second and look at Alabama. Do they want to beat out other SEC, Big 12, B1G schools for recruits, or do they want to beat out Conference USA and the American? Does Ohio State want to compete with the MAC for most of their recruits, or do they want to pluck the ones they think can contribute from Toledo's grasp? The same logic applies to UConn. We don't need to beat out the P5 programs (beating some regional ones would be nice) consistently, but we need to do better than beating out FCS programs. Those are not our peers. We will find success stories from time to time, we'll need to. Edsall made a living off that, and we can be mediocre and occasionally have very good seasons, but Diaco better be a hell of an evaluator and a better coach than we've seen so far.
This is not meant to be statistically perfect, but just a discussion of the aggregate and why we should recognize outliers for what they are.
The 2016 Scout.com class has 3,185 players.
320 4-5 star players
530 3 star players
2,335 2 or fewer (also unranked) players.
If we assume those numbers are standard, roughly 2335+/- 2 star athletes per season, and we assume that at any given time 3 of those classes are draft eligible (Junior, RS Jr/Senior, RS Senior), then there are roughly 7,000+/- 2 star (or below) athletes from HS eligible for any given draft.
Similarly there are 2,550+/- 3+ star players available for any give draft.
Of the 9500 players available to enter the draft, roughly 74% should be 2 star or below. Meaning that when we see a 2 star athlete do well at the combine it shouldn't be a surprise, they have the POTENTIAL to outnumber everyone else there 3-1.
If anyone has a link that shows the draft picks with their HS rankings, please post it. I found the top 50 prospects from last year.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...rofiles-of-top-50-prospects-in-2014-nfl-draft
Of that 50, 3 (6%) were 2 star athletes. Going later in the rounds, that percentage is sure to go up. Let's assume (yes, I know that's totally arbitrary) it doubles every 50 picks. So: 50 (3), 100 (3+6), 150 (3+6+9), 200 (3+6+9+18) 224 (3+6+9+18+18) = 54 2 star athletes out of 224 draft picks.
That's a very impressive 24%. Except one problem, they outnumbered the other athletes 3:1.
So if those numbers are close to accurate (I have no idea if they are, but I've tried to be logical and fair, and would appreciate anyone able to find the actual numbers), then:
170 3+ star athletes likely get drafted out of 2,550 eligible, or 6.67%
54 2 star athletes likely get drafted out of of 7,000 eligible, or .77%
You could argue that three classes is too many, and it really should be 2:
170 3+ star athletes likely drafted out of 1,700 eligible, or 10%.
54 2 star athletes likely drafted out of 5,100 eligible, or 1.05%.
Based on some reliable information and numbers, and my assumptions, it's clear that 3+ star athletes are far more likely to get drafted, and that 2- star athletes are so numerous, that it should come to no surprise when a few of them make a splash. It also means that 3+ star recruits are roughly 10 times as likely to get drafted as 2 star athletes. I like those odds.
Also, we seem to have had more than our fair share of these 2 star athletes make the NFL. However, THAT COACH IS GONE. We know Edsall could find the high 2 star athletes that were underrated or simply not rated at all. We also know that isn't what he preferred to recruit (because that's not how he recruits at Maryland). So using his success as an example of why the star ranking is "meaningless" is totally illogical. He proved it's flawed, not meaningless. He still lands 2 star recruits, but a) they aren't the majority, and b) some of them have other P5 offers.
So my question is:
If you're going to point out ONE 2 star athlete ( it could be 20 and the point still stands) that put on an impressive performance at the combine as if that proves something, are you also going to tell us about the 6,999 that didn't? (or 5,099 if you only consider 2 classes)
Last edited: