Now that Christmas is over....

[BNich]

The problem in this thread is that folks like Lynch and Bortles are being brought up to refute my point.

Wrong. They confirm it. They made it to the league. They aren't as good as many of the other QBs from the SEC. But they got their contracts.

That's the point. If a 3 star athlete (outside the top 250) really wants to make it to the NFL, they should seek to maximize their field time and exposure. That's all I'm saying here, folks. Nothing more than that...

I'm with you on this. The bulk of the prospects every year are 3* and less. The 3* and less make up bench players at P5's and fill out rosters at the G5 level. If you're going to be a 3rd string in the SEC go star at G5 school and be a bigger fish in a smaller pond so to speak. Just merely signing with a P5 school isn't going to get you to the league. Being a contributor and a stand out will.

 

[whaler11]

Everyone thinks they can compete, like Medic said. But they also know when there might be a chance that they are buried behind folks on a 2-deep (it happens in hoops too, like when a point guard sees that his team recruited another point guard and them decommits). It happens all the time in multiple sports...

So why aren’t there more impactful transfers in CFB? Shouldn’t there be dozens of really good players on the market who just can’t get on the field?

Of course there isn’t - because outside of kicker and QB if you are good enough to play in the NFL you get on the field.

 

[UConnDan97]

So why aren’t there more impactful transfers in CFB? Shouldn’t there be dozens of really good players on the market who just can’t get on the field?

Of course there isn’t - because outside of kicker and QB if you are good enough to play in the NFL you get on the field.

Ughh.

Because they are STILL 3 star athletes!

C'mon man. I know that you and I are on the same page when it comes to the strong advantage that 5 star and 4 star athletes have in making it to the NFL. The percentages are already out there and they are clearly much higher for those athletes.

I'm saying that if you are in the next tier of athlete, you are so much better off being on the field multiple years and getting better numbers at schools like UConn...

 

[whaler11]

Ughh.

Because they are STILL 3 star athletes!

C'mon man. I know that you and I are on the same page when it comes to the strong advantage that 5 star and 4 star athletes have in making it to the NFL. The percentages are already out there and they are clearly much higher for those athletes.

I'm saying that if you are in the next tier of athlete, you are so much better off being on the field multiple years and getting better numbers at schools like UConn...

I don’t agree that NFL quality players don’t play.

In the modern game the pace is so high teams and there are so mang injuries teams use 6 wide receivers, 7-8 defensive backs. 7-8 defensive linemen.

Nobody keeps an NFL quality players on the bench. They move them someplace they can contribute.

If there were very good players sitting on P5 benches the transfer market would be full of them. There are next to zero.

Just because some site lumps them together as 3 stars - they aren’t equal in the minds of the people recruting them.

 

[whaler11]

Pretty much every big company in the world ranks their employees 1-4 or 1-5 and sticks 80% in the middle bucket. Do you beleive every person you work with who is rated ‘meets expectations’ is the same?

 

[Hornet22]

If you don’t get on the field you weren’t good enough to play in the NFL.

Your assumption is insane: That players good enough to play in the NFL don’t get on the field because they chose a higher level of college competition.

There is a reason why almost no one does what you are proposing. Sorry Michigan State - I’m worried I can’t compete - I’m going to go to a directional Michigan - says no one ever.

Huh? Are u even reading my posts man? Seriously

 

[whaler11]

Huh? Are u even reading my posts man? Seriously

The problem is you don’t see the logical conclusions of your assumptions.

You want what you are saying to be true. It’s just not.

 

[Hornet22]

If you don’t get on the field you weren’t good enough to play in the NFL.

Your assumption is insane: That players good enough to play in the NFL don’t get on the field because they chose a higher level of college competition.

There is a reason why almost no one does what you are proposing. Sorry Michigan State - I’m worried I can’t compete - I’m going to go to a directional Michigan - says no one ever.

Sorry. Don’t agree with you there. It’s a numbers game brother. Sometimes there are just too many crabs in the bucket. There are so many players on those rosters that were recruited that just couldn’t get on the field because the two deep just doesn’t allow for everyone to play. Heck only 60 something guys make the travel roster. That’s why you see so many guys transferring out of those schools. Because they realize there’s no room for them. Not because they weren’t good enough

 

[Hornet22]

The problem is you don’t see the logical conclusions of your assumptions.

You want what you are saying to be true. It’s just not.

It’s not about truth or lies. My point is it’s way easier for a four year starter at a UConn that puts up good numbers to get noticed and courted by an NFL scout than someone who never sees the field at Alabama. And if you think otherwise than we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Sure I know most kids who get recruited by an Alabama will choose them over UConn because they will always believe in their ability to see the field. And God bless them for that. But that choice, if it lands you on the bench, was a bad one.
It’s extremely difficult to get to the NFL from the bench. Not impossible but very difficult.

 

[UConnDan97]

I don’t agree that NFL quality players don’t play.

In the modern game the pace is so high teams and there are so mang injuries teams use 6 wide receivers, 7-8 defensive backs. 7-8 defensive linemen.

Nobody keeps an NFL quality players on the bench. They move them someplace they can contribute.

If there were very good players sitting on P5 benches the transfer market would be full of them. There are next to zero.

Just because some site lumps them together as 3 stars - they aren’t equal in the minds of the people recruting them.

We're not talking about the same thing.

There are players that are further in their development to the NFL in high school than others. Then, there are also players who are behind in their development but have the talent to be developed. Then, there are players that are behind in development and do not have the talent to be developed. Let's call that last group "RKGs".

I'm not talking about the RKGs. I'm talking about the players that have the talent but will be a multi-year development. Those players will thrive on teams that get them more burn. I'm completely confident of that. UConn's entire NFL history is made up from that group, as we've only had a couple of 4 star players (Difton, Miller) and neither went anywhere.

Nobody should be talking about the RKGs being anything more than what they are...

 

[whaler11]

We're not talking about the same thing.

There are players that are further in their development to the NFL in high school than others. Then, there are also players who are behind in their development but have the talent to be developed. Then, there are players that are behind in development and do not have the talent to be developed. Let's call that last group "RKGs".

I'm not talking about the RKGs. I'm talking about the players that have the talent but will be a multi-year development. Those players will thrive on teams that get them more burn. I'm completely confident of that. UConn's entire NFL history is made up from that group, as we've only had a couple of 4 star players (Difton, Miller) and neither went anywhere.

Nobody should be talking about the RKGs being anything more than what they are...

And almost none of UConn’s players you are talking about picked UConn over a P5. Those players are already in the G5/FCS bucket.

 

[Hornet22]

We're not talking about the same thing.

There are players that are further in their development to the NFL in high school than others. Then, there are also players who are behind in their development but have the talent to be developed. Then, there are players that are behind in development and do not have the talent to be developed. Let's call that last group "RKGs".

I'm not talking about the RKGs. I'm talking about the players that have the talent but will be a multi-year development. Those players will thrive on teams that get them more burn. I'm completely confident of that. UConn's entire NFL history is made up from that group, as we've only had a couple of 4 star players (Difton, Miller) and neither went anywhere.

Nobody should be talking about the RKGs being anything more than what they are...

Agreed.
He clearly isn’t getting the point.
It’s about the playing time thats essential.

 

[whaler11]

It’s not about truth or lies. My point is it’s way easier for a four year starter at a UConn that puts up good numbers to get noticed and courted by an NFL scout than someone who never sees the field at Alabama. And if you think otherwise than we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Sure I know most kids who get recruited by an Alabama will choose them over UConn because they will always believe in their ability to see the field. And God bless them for that. But that choice, if it lands you on the bench, was a bad one.
It’s extremely difficult to get to the NFL from the bench. Not impossible but very difficult.

If you went to Alabama for 4 years and didn’t get on the field you aren’t an NFL player anyway.

You have created a class of players that doesn’t exist. If this player had picked UConn he wouldn’t make the NFL either because if he was good enough to play in the NFL he wouldn’t be on Alabama’s bench.

 

[whaler11]

Agreed.
He clearly isn’t getting the point.
It’s about the playing time thats essential.

Yes I apologize for not recognizing the imaginary group of players you have invented.

Sure these mythical players should choose the G5 over the P5.

 

[UConnDan97]

And almost none of UConn’s players you are talking about picked UConn over a P5. Those players are already in the G5/FCS bucket.

That's not true at all. The P5 schools they were offered by were more along the lines of BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Wake Forest, etc. But most had at least one offer if not multiple from P5 schools.

That's what made Diaco's recruiting so glaringly obviously bad. Many of those folks didn't even have 1, and we all noticed...

 

[huskymedic]

Perhaps not. But I'm definitely thinking like a UConn recruiter.

I'm a little too lazy to do the analysis, but I'd love to see percentages of 3 star athletes who make the NFL via the P5 and 3 star athletes who make it outside of the P5. Anecdotally, I think the latter must be larger but having the numbers would be nice. If true, that's something I would have in my back pocket on recruiting trips for the Huskies... #REStorred

This is a start...

Do recruiting rankings matter? The 2017 NFL Draft says yes

>>Of the 90 three-star draftees, 72 of them played for Power Five programs.<<

 

[Hornet22]

And almost none of UConn’s players you are talking about picked UConn over a P5. Those players are already in the G5/FCS bucket.

Good God
Whaler, do you realize that all we’re trying to highlight is that playing time is way better than pine time?
We already know that most kids will choose a P5 over a G5 and have already done so when faced with the choice. Again, all went saying (for the sake of Monday Morning Qb’ing) is that if you chose the P5 and you haven’t seen the field you were better off choosing the G5 and starting.
That’s all.

 

[UConnDan97]

Do recruiting rankings matter? The 2017 NFL Draft says yes

>>Of the 90 three-star draftees, 72 of them played for Power Five programs.<<

Alright.

There it is in black and white then. It must also mean that the majority of players drafted from the G5 / FCS aren't even 3 stars. The bulk of those folks must be 2 stars or less. And that group I would think almost certainly would be G5 dominant by definition, since many in the P5 don't recruit the bulk of those kids...

 

[whaler11]

That's not true at all. The P5 schools they were offered by were more along the lines of BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Wake Forest, etc. But most had at least one offer if not multiple from P5 schools.

That's what made Diaco's recruiting so glaringly obviously bad. Many of those folks didn't even have 1, and we all noticed...

So now your point is some kids should pick UConn over Wake and the reason for this is some have?

Are you guys arguing that there are potential NFL players on Syracuse’s bench and they would have had a better NFL route if they went to UConn?

You think more kids should pick G5 schools over P5 schools even though some do? Somehow this is the better road to the NFL even though Huskymedic’s data just proved that laughably wrong?

 

[whaler11]

Good God
Whaler, do you realize that all we’re trying to highlight is that playing time is way better than pine time?
We already know that most kids will choose a P5 over a G5 and have already done so when faced with the choice. Again, all went saying (for the sake of Monday Morning Qb’ing) is that if you chose the P5 and you haven’t seen the field you were better off choosing the G5 and starting.
That’s all.

Oh so you just want to decide where people should have gone to school after their careers are over. Sure you’ll do a better job of distributing talent in that case.

 

[whaler11]

This is a start...

Do recruiting rankings matter? The 2017 NFL Draft says yes

>>Of the 90 three-star draftees, 72 of them played for Power Five programs.<<

Wait reality isn’t just what I want to be true?

 

[UConnDan97]

So now your point is some kids should pick UConn over Wake and the reason for this is some have?

Are you guys arguing that there are potential NFL players on Syracuse’s bench and they would have had a better NFL route if they went to UConn?

You think more kids should pick G5 schools over P5 schools even though some do? Somehow this is the better road to the NFL even though Huskymedic’s data just proved that laughably wrong?

No. My point was that there are more kids on the MSU bench that could equally get a contract if they got more exposure vs another player there on the 2-deep. That's all I've been saying. Literally nothing more than that...

 

[UConnDan97]

So now your point is some kids should pick UConn over Wake and the reason for this is some have?

Are you guys arguing that there are potential NFL players on Syracuse’s bench and they would have had a better NFL route if they went to UConn?

You think more kids should pick G5 schools over P5 schools even though some do? Somehow this is the better road to the NFL even though Huskymedic’s data just proved that laughably wrong?

And the problem is that even Medic's data doesn't show that to be wrong. All it shows is that the 3 star kids that made it came from the P5. It doesn't show the 3- star kids at the P5 who didn't make it because they couldn't crack the 2-deep. So Medic's data only shows that the G5 had not been the historical avenue for those kids more often than not...

 

[UConnDan97]

This is a start...

Do recruiting rankings matter? The 2017 NFL Draft says yes

>>Of the 90 three-star draftees, 72 of them played for Power Five programs.<<

Hey Medic, do you know historically how many kids are rated 3 stars roughly? The article you have says they are the largest talent pool, yet only produced about 20 more NFLers than the 4 stars.

Part of that I'm sure is simply because they are less talented. But another part of that must be that they are buried in the same teams if their numbers are much larger...

 

[whaler11]

And the problem is that even Medic's data doesn't show that to be wrong. All it shows is that the 3 star kids that made it came from the P5. It doesn't show the 3- star kids at the P5 who didn't make it because they couldn't crack the 2-deep. So Medic's data only shows that the G5 had not been the historical avenue for those kids more often than not...

Medic shows that your assumption based of anicdotes was horrifically wrong.

Please stop pretending there are NFL caliber players who don’t crack 2-deeps. It’s an absurd assumption.