Just how many 5 Star QB's make it?

#26
#26
I do not think that it is the stars that make a good QB, but how that QB fits and operates in the system. The last thing Tennessee needs is to get some highly valued QB who does not fit within their system. The coach would either have too change his system (I do not think that would happen because all of the other players were selected for it), or try to change the QB. Trying to change a QB's style can lead to battles and a disgruntled player and team. I believe that it is better that LK told him that he would not fit, and not trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
 
#27
#27
No disrespect intended GMan, but college recruiters and college recruiting services are in the business of evaluating 17 and 18 year olds. After 4 or 5 years (for most) of the college football process, an entirely new set of criteria and standards are applied by the NFL scouts. To suggest that the high school recruiting services are ineffective in predicting how a player will perform 5 years down the road is probably true, but I seriously doubt if any scouting reports have a shelf life of over 3 months.

This may sound selfish, (and again I apologize if I missed your point) but whoever plays QB for the Vols should be 100% focused on helping us win SEC football games and not what the NFL thinks.
 
#28
#28
No disrespect intended GMan, but college recruiters and college recruiting services are in the business of evaluating 17 and 18 year olds. After 4 or 5 years (for most) of the college football process, an entirely new set of criteria and standards are applied by the NFL scouts. To suggest that the high school recruiting services are ineffective in predicting how a player will perform 5 years down the road is probably true, but I seriously doubt if any scouting reports have a shelf life of over 3 months.

This may sound selfish, (and again I apologize if I missed your point) but whoever plays QB for the Vols should be 100% focused on helping us win SEC football games and not what the NFL thinks.


Correct me if I am wrong but did our new coaching staff not state that if it is a highschool players desire is to get to the NFL then they will not get a better opportunity then here at UT? The more success our team achieves the more attention the players receive which goes for SEC's or NC's. I find it hard to believe that people think if we do not get a 4 or 5 star QB we are doomed. We have 4 ex NFL coaches on our staff and I have alot more faith in them recognizing an NFL caliber QB that they can work with then what Rivals, Scout or some on here think. It is not so much about the star ranking at QB as it is the QB who is willing to put in the work and be coached.
 
#30
#30
Correct me if I am wrong but did our new coaching staff not state that if it is a highschool players desire is to get to the NFL then they will not get a better opportunity then here at UT? The more success our team achieves the more attention the players receive which goes for SEC's or NC's. I find it hard to believe that people think if we do not get a 4 or 5 star QB we are doomed. We have 4 ex NFL coaches on our staff and I have alot more faith in them recognizing an NFL caliber QB that they can work with then what Rivals, Scout or some on here think. It is not so much about the star ranking at QB as it is the QB who is willing to put in the work and be coached.

Yes, I do believe the new coaching staff did say that in order to achieve their ultimate carreer goal of playing in the NFL, UT would be the best college for them to spend the 4-5 years developing their skills. Given the fact that 99.9% of high school aged athletes in this country (with any reasonable level of skills) would list "to play professional football" as their career goal, it's a safe assumption that 99.9% of the college coaching and recruiting staffs in the country are telling these kids, "If you wanna go pro..you should come to Florida, Alababma, Georgia, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Ohio State, Michigan," etc. etc. And, from what I can see, these schools seem to be winning the battle to sign them.

Rather than "recognizing an NFL caliber QB they can work with" I'd gladly settle with just a good college level QB (regardless of his high school recruiting reports, or how many "stars" he has) that could help us win some games...like a Condredge Holloway, a Tee Martin, and a Casey Clausen. None of these guys were "NFL caliber" but they brought the program success.

Obviously, CLK and staff's public comments thus far seem to suggest they see something in the existing QB's and that signing a QB is not a priority to them this year. Only time will tell if they're right or wrong.
Oddly enough, it is a priority to the previously mentioned schools.

No, I don't think we're doomed, not by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to place a blind trust in a new coaching staff without first seeing some tangible results. It's still very early, and a lot of good players are still out there.

Do I wish CLK would have given Boyd a chance to prove what he can do? If you'd have asked me that prior to seeing him play in the Army All-Americans game, I probably would have said, "No." After watching him throw TD after TD, leading his team to a convincing win, and hearing that he wanted to come to Tennessee, but CLK told him he wouldn't fit, I'd have to say at this point, that I exercise my God-given right as a life-long Vol fan to wonder "Why not?"
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
"5 star" is a mythical term that employs recruiting websites, adds momentum to recruiting classes and gets the fans excited.

It serves no real purpose on gauging success.

It isn't intended to guage success. It is intended to guage potential. It is an imperfect measure that is used by imperfect services, but that does not mean it is useless in ranking players.

Generally, 5* players are better than 4* players.

That sounds a little oversimplified. I mean, if you're "supposed" to be that good you should always be the ones on top. To oversimplify the other way you could plant the the Victoria Secret girls in any room and they'll be among the hottest girls there, regardless of if that room had 100 other girls or 1,000.

For the sake of evaluation from '02 to '07 Rivals listed 19 5* QB's. You can decide how much they've lived up (or not) to their ranking.

'02
Ben Olson, Trent Edwards, Vince Young, Marcus Vick

'03
Kyle Wright

'04
Rhett Bomar, Anthony Morelli, Chad Henne, Xavier Lee, Matt Tuiasosopo

'05
Marc Sanchez, Ryan Perrilloux

'06
Matt Stafford, Mitch Mustain, Tim Tebow

'07
Jimmy Clausen, Ryan Mallet, Tyrod Taylor, Cameron Newton

I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. Every quarterback you list with the exception of the guy waiting behind Tebow was or is a starter for a major college program. Several are already in the NFL, a half-dozen or so more will be, but more importantly, every single one will be a significant contributor at the highest level of college football.

By that list, the ones that are supposed to be on top are on top, and every one of them has (or assumedly will) live up to their rankings coming out of highschool.

EDIT: I don't think Matt T. ever started at quarterback, as he opted to play 3rd base for the Mariners instead. Add him to the excepted list.
 
#33
#33
It isn't intended to guage success. It is intended to guage potential. It is an imperfect measure that is used by imperfect services, but that does not mean it is useless in ranking players.

Generally, 5* players are better than 4* players.



I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. Every quarterback you list with the exception of the guy waiting behind Tebow was or is a starter for a major college program. Several are already in the NFL, a half-dozen or so more will be, but more importantly, every single one will be a significant contributor at the highest level of college football.

By that list, the ones that are supposed to be on top are on top, and every one of them has (or assumedly will) live up to their rankings coming out of highschool.

EDIT: I don't think Matt T. ever started at quarterback, as he opted to play 3rd base for the Mariners instead. Add him to the excepted list.

Was it not you that made the argument about the math of having more, say, 3*'s dilutes the validity? My point was that if you are as good as advertised you should be at the top regardless.

The second part was nothing more than listing the 5* QB's per Rivals for the stated time period for people to see. It was not in any way specifically directed at you.
 
#34
#34
That sounds a little oversimplified. I mean, if you're "supposed" to be that good you should always be the ones on top. To oversimplify the other way you could plant the the Victoria Secret girls in any room and they'll be among the hottest girls there, regardless of if that room had 100 other girls or 1,000.

For the sake of evaluation from '02 to '07 Rivals listed 19 5* QB's. You can decide how much they've lived up (or not) to their ranking.

'02
Ben Olson, Trent Edwards, Vince Young, Marcus Vick

'03
Kyle Wright

'04
Rhett Bomar, Anthony Morelli, Chad Henne, Xavier Lee, Matt Tuiasosopo

'05
Marc Sanchez, Ryan Perrilloux

'06
Matt Stafford, Mitch Mustain, Tim Tebow

'07
Jimmy Clausen, Ryan Mallet, Tyrod Taylor, Cameron Newton

I question whether the difference between five stars and four stars is as great as the difference between a victoria's secret model and a random female off the street.

All because someone is rated "*****" doesn't mean that they actually develop to be a superior college/pro quarterback. All the time, there are busts. Juxtapose that with the fact that you never see a plain Jane in Victoria's Secret catalogues. What makes a good quarterback is not as superficial and obvious or even defined as to what makes a visually appealing model.
 
#35
#35
I question whether the difference between five stars and four stars is as great as the difference between a victoria's secret model and a random female off the street.

All because someone is rated "*****" doesn't mean that they actually develop to be a superior college/pro quarterback. All the time, there are busts. Juxtapose that with the fact that you never see a plain Jane in Victoria's Secret catalogues. What makes a good quarterback is not as superficial and obvious or even defined as to what makes a visually appealing model.

Strictly speaking I rather agree with what you just said. (please note my calling the VS model example an oversimlification in my post :))

Upshot of what I was saying is that if one were to give the ratings system much credit then there should be a VERY strong correlation with ranking and success. (VS model in any given group of women) I don't subscribe to the accuracy of the rankings to that extent and apparently neither do you. That's not to say signing classes full of 5* players won't statistically, over any extended period, turn out better players than classes full of 3*s.
 
#36
#36
Was it not you that made the argument about the math of having more, say, 3*'s dilutes the validity?

No.

My point was that if you are as good as advertised you should be at the top regardless.

The second part was nothing more than listing the 5* QB's per Rivals for the stated time period for people to see. It was not in any way specifically directed at you.

I was just pointing out that the list of 5*s is pretty much a who's who of college quarterbacks, as every name on that list has lead a major college team. Being a 5* seems to be an excellent predictor that a kid will be a starter for one of the nation's elite programs.
 
#37
#37
No.



I was just pointing out that the list of 5*s is pretty much a who's who of college quarterbacks, as every name on that list has lead a major college team. Being a 5* seems to be an excellent predictor that a kid will be a starter for one of the nation's elite programs.

Another way of saying this is that being a 5* seems an excellent predictor that a kid will be recruited by one of the nation's elite programs. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when you take into account that partly how the rankings are formulated is "what schools are recruiting him?"
 
#38
#38
Another way of saying this is that being a 5* seems an excellent predictor that a kid will be recruited by one of the nation's elite programs. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when you take into account that partly how the rankings are formulated is "what schools are recruiting him?"

That is partly true, but it also seems to predict that the kid will be a significant contributor for one of those programs. For better or for worse, those athletes listed as 5* quarterbacks were better than the other guys on the teams they joined who were not 5* quarterbacks.
 
#39
#39
well if we are going to do this the best way is to compare the 5 star to the 4 star. so since we have a list of 5 star here is the 4 star
02
james banks, tyler palko, isiah stanback, brandon cox, matt moore, matt gutierrez, anthony martinez, justin zwick, troy smith, drew olson, drew statton, chris olsen, wyatt sexton, joe tereshinski, brandon kirsch, lester ricard, carl bonnell, steve breaston (future reciver)

03
john david booty, chris leak, jamarcus russell, dennis dixion, brady quinn, micheal bush (future rb), andre woodson, arron rodgers, matt flynn, blake mitchell, syvelle newton
 
#40
#40
i think i have no need to post the rest after the 03 season. its just proof that there is no difference between 5 star and 4 star.
 
Advertisement



Back
Top