NFL Draft

[LWSVOL]

Where each draftee was rated coming out of high school into college.

 

[sjt18]

By my count 88 of the 262 drafted players were rated either 4/5*. About 250-300 players receive a 4/5* rating in each class. That's not a terrible % for the recruiting sites- a little below 25%. They do a decent job with the players they give high rankings to. It is warranted overall when fans get excited about 4/5* commitments.

What is NOT warranted is the handwringing and disappointment when a 3* commits.

My argument has been that they neither have the resources or motivation to find ALL players worthy of a 4/5* ranking. I counted 25 players that were talented enough to be drafted who weren't even evaluated by the recruiting sites. The greater indictment against the recruiting "experts" is that they DID rate 45 draftees... and gave them 2* which is essentially someone who might be able to play for a lower level school. They hand out 3* rankings pretty freely... so when they give 2*... they're saying a guy isn't very talented.

This is why you can say that the rankings make general statements on talent but are NOT an ironclad predictor... and are even more limited when applied to specific players except for 5* recruits... where they hit about 50% future draftees.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

By my count 88 of the 262 drafted players were rated either 4/5*. About 250-300 players receive a 4/5* rating in each class. That's not a terrible % for the recruiting sites. They do a decent job with the players they give high rankings to.

My argument has always been that they neither have the resources or motivation to find ALL players worthy of a 4/5* ranking. I counted 25 players that were talented enough to be drafted who weren't even evaluated by the recruiting sites. The greater indictment against the recruiting "experts" is that they DID rate 45 draftees... and gave them 2* which is essentially someone who might be able to play for a lower level school. They hand out 3* rankings pretty freely... so when they give 2*... they're saying a guy isn't very talented.

This is why you can say that the rankings make general statements on talent but are NOT an ironclad predictor.

Good points. But some seem to use flawed logic to say recruiting rankings don’t matter and the services are not accurate or trustworthy. While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rule usually wins out in the end. Yes there are recruiting misses. Does star rating guarantee success? No. But it’s the best predictor of success.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

By my count 88 of the 262 drafted players were rated either 4/5*. About 250-300 players receive a 4/5* rating in each class. That's not a terrible % for the recruiting sites. They do a decent job with the players they give high rankings to.

My argument has always been that they neither have the resources or motivation to find ALL players worthy of a 4/5* ranking. I counted 25 players that were talented enough to be drafted who weren't even evaluated by the recruiting sites. The greater indictment against the recruiting "experts" is that they DID rate 45 draftees... and gave them 2* which is essentially someone who might be able to play for a lower level school. They hand out 3* rankings pretty freely... so when they give 2*... they're saying a guy isn't very talented.

This is why you can say that the rankings make general statements on talent but are NOT an ironclad predictor.

I don't know anyone who ever said they were an iron clad predictor, but over 20+ years it's fairly conclusive that a higher percentage of 5 stars get drafted than 4 stars and a higher percentage of 4 stars get drafted than 3 stars, etc., etc.

 

[sjt18]

I don't know anyone who ever said they were an iron clad predictor, but over 20+ years it's fairly conclusive that a higher percentage of 5 stars get drafted than 4 stars and a higher percentage of 4 stars get drafted than 3 stars, etc., etc.

And you STILL miss the point.

Using the draft as a measure of accuracy which is fair... the recruiting services MISS significantly more players with the talent to play in the NFL than they find and give 4/5 stars to. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that folks can understand it. In general, you can say that 4/5* players have talent. But you cannot say their rating makes them better than any given 3*... and many who are lower.

I was actually a little generous. There were 16 5* draftees in this class. There are usually around 35 5* rankings handed out. They were under 50% with guys they considered elite... and WAY worse than that on 4* in this particular draft. About 24% of 4* were drafted. Around 8-9% of 3* were drafted. That's not a significant enough difference to call their 4* rankings accurate.

 

[sjt18]

Good points. But some seem to use flawed logic to say recruiting rankings don’t matter and the services are not accurate or trustworthy.

Come on. PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE without quitting and filling in the blanks. I did NOT say they "don't matter". When they give a guy 5* then it is at least a 50% bet that they have elite talent. That's not bad. The 24-25% of 4* guys who get drafted doesn't offer as much support.

They are not accurate or trustworthy when applied to specific players. They are when applied generally just because of the way the odds compound.

But the biggest strike against them is that they limit the number of 4/5* rankings they hand out to artificially inflate their accuracy. If they actually tried to find and rank EVERY player with 4/5* level talent then they would appear to be as accurate as they actually are.

While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rule usually wins out in the end. Yes there are recruiting misses. Does star rating guarantee success? No. But it’s the best predictor of success.

It is generally a predictor of success but not specific. If UT has a 3.5 star average class then it is accurate to say that UT's class is more talented than Mizzou's 3.0 star class. But that prediction becomes far less accurate when you say that a particular 4* DE is better than Mizzou's 2* DE.

 

[sjt18]

Good points. But some seem to use flawed logic to say recruiting rankings don’t matter and the services are not accurate or trustworthy. While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rule usually wins out in the end. Yes there are recruiting misses. Does star rating guarantee success? No. But it’s the best predictor of success.

In this particular class, 3 times as many 3* or below players were drafted as 4/5* players. Yes. There are a lot more of them... but the fact still stands that a lot of those guys had 4/5* talent and were misevaluated by the recruiting sites.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

And you STILL miss the point.

Using the draft as a measure of accuracy which is fair... the recruiting services MISS significantly more players with the talent to play in the NFL than they find and give 4/5 stars to. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that folks can understand it. In general, you can say that 4/5* players have talent. But you cannot say their rating makes them better than any given 3*... and many who are lower.

I was actually a little generous. There were 16 5* draftees in this class. There are usually around 35 5* rankings handed out. They were under 50% with guys they considered elite... and WAY worse than that on 4* in this particular draft. About 24% of 4* were drafted. Around 8-9% of 3* were drafted. That's not a significant enough difference to call their 4* rankings accurate.

The recruiting rankings are valid, there's 20 years of data that proves it. I'm not going to argue with you about it though because I've seen you discuss this enough to know it's a fruitless venture. I also don't dislike you and as long as I've been up today, it'd probably be best if I knocked off and circled back with you later when I have more patience, lol.

 

[LWSVOL]

And you STILL miss the point.

Using the draft as a measure of accuracy which is fair... the recruiting services MISS significantly more players with the talent to play in the NFL than they find and give 4/5 stars to. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that folks can understand it. In general, you can say that 4/5* players have talent. But you cannot say their rating makes them better than any given 3*... and many who are lower.

I was actually a little generous. There were 16 5* draftees in this class. There are usually around 35 5* rankings handed out. They were under 50% with guys they considered elite... and WAY worse than that on 4* in this particular draft. About 24% of 4* were drafted. Around 8-9% of 3* were drafted. That's not a significant enough difference to call their 4* rankings accurate.

there were 25 of the 34 five star players in Rivals 2017 class that were drafted. 5 others signed as UDFAs. That leaves 4 and 2 of them are still in college. But the 5 star kids are easy for services to find.

Lot of players lower ranked or not in the database at all, analysts never see much if anything on them. The high schools don't always send in tape on players or contact the services. The most important part is high schools getting the tape sent in... recruiting services don't have the resources to scour the entire country watching high school players. That is how the majority get over looked.

I've been to Rivals HQ multiple times and seen their operation. Its all about high schools contacting them regarding players.

 

[LWSVOL]

In this particular class, 3 times as many 3* or below players were drafted as 4/5* players. Yes. There are a lot more of them... but the fact still stands that a lot of those guys had 4/5* talent and were misevaluated by the recruiting sites.

thousands of players never get evaluated. Some of those end up drafted. I counted 45 players that did not have a star from Rivals. My guess is, Rivals never saw tape on them out of high school. Most of those never made it into the database.

Lot of players do not have 4/5 star talent out of high school but college development produces that. There are 5 stars that fail to live up to their tanking also, like Aubrey Solomon.

 

[VAVol85]

Where each draftee was rated coming out of high school into college.

Seems like a lot of lineman (especially OL) rated 3 and below that developed and were drafted.

 

[VolMarine1371]

Where each draftee was rated coming out of high school into college.

Now let’s do a list of players that went un drafted and signed free agent deals. Curious to how many 3*,4* and 5* players that signed undrafted free agent deals.

 

[LWSVOL]

Seems like a lot of lineman (especially OL) rated 3 and below that developed and were drafted.

that is where most high school OL land, in the 3 star range. take 2022 class for example:

OT only 19 that are 4/5 stars

OG only 17 that are 4/5 stars

OC only has 1 4/5 star

that is just 37 players rated as 4/5 stars for 32 NFL teams.

 

[LWSVOL]

Now let’s do a list of players that went un drafted and signed free agent deals. Curious to how many 3*,4* and 5* players that signed undrafted free agent deals.

very time consuming to find that. If you look at recent past years of the draft, I have tried to do that. flag the UDFAs

 

[ftsandersvol]

5* - Do not want.

 

[sechamp2012]

Well, I'm not going to apologize for a service that charges but doesn't do their due diligence on some players. Just waiting for unpaid people to send them info so they can charge people. Sounds like a good gig just trusts High School people to send the best highlights. I guess that's why I stay on the periphery of the Services. I wonder how many of those 0 Stars started somewhere else (lower) then ended up at say Penn State. I assume with the Portal you will not see players with 0 Stars drafted from a place like Lenoir Rhyne. They will be paid in college to move up to a P5.

 

[VAVol85]

that is where most high school OL land, in the 3 star range. take 2022 class for example:

OT only 19 that are 4/5 stars

OG only 17 that are 4/5 stars

OC only has 1 4/5 star

that is just 37 players rated as 4/5 stars for 32 NFL teams.

Good information…thanks.

 

[Vol8188]

25% of the 5*s went in the first round (8/32). That means if we signed only 5* players we could predict approximately 25% of them would be first round players.

25% of 25 commits is 6.25. If we had 6 players a year taken in the first round we would be competing for a NC annually.

Recruiting matters. Rankings matter.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Stars do not indicate a prospects ceiling, but their floor. Development still needs to occur to achieve whatever ceiling they are capable of reaching.

Prospects also develop at different rates, which means a 4* prospect might not start to hit their potential until their junior season, and a 3* might step on campus and dominate starting their sophomore season. Some 5* players never reach their potential and flame out. Zero-3* players also get developed when they play at whatever level they are able to play.

Still looking at Larry's list its clear the HS ranking doesn't indicate success in getting drafted. Instead, for me it states and you can be developed as a player and achieve success at any level yet still be valued by NFL teams with your work ethic, talent, field production, and overall dedication to the sport.

For college football I'm still star gazing, because CFB championships are determined by identifying the prospects floor at first and helping them to achieve their ceiling. If you look at recruiting rankings across the sites, this is an accurate statement in terms of those championships an really can't be disputed.

 

[ZippyMorocco]

I don't know anyone who ever said they were an iron clad predictor, but over 20+ years it's fairly conclusive that a higher percentage of 5 stars get drafted than 4 stars and a higher percentage of 4 stars get drafted than 3 stars, etc., etc.

There are about 35 5 stars/year. There are over 1000 3 stars. It's not surprising that 3 stars are drafted.

 

[sjt18]

The recruiting rankings are valid, there's 20 years of data that proves it. I'm not going to argue with you about it though because I've seen you discuss this enough to know it's a fruitless venture. I also don't dislike you and as long as I've been up today, it'd probably be best if I knocked off and circled back with you later when I have more patience, lol.

You keep on missing the point. About 1/3 of this year's draftees were "anointed" by the recruiting sites. That means for every 4/5* player they "find" there are 2 they don't find or even more relevant... find but misevaluate.

One of our resident statistics experts could probably translate that into some type of "range" scale that applies to recruiting classes. For instance, if a team happens to find 5 three stars who are actually 5 star talents... then a class could rightly be 10 places ahead of where they're listed. The #14 class could be #4.... #11 could possibly be top 2.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

In this particular class, 3 times as many 3* or below players were drafted as 4/5* players. Yes. There are a lot more of them... but the fact still stands that a lot of those guys had 4/5* talent and were misevaluated by the recruiting sites.

You are missing it. You are using what the draft says to try and say the recruiting services missed. That’s flawed. You say a lot of those guys had 4/5* talent but were 3*. Well those guys have been playing college ball for at least 3 years. The recruiting services make their predictions based on HS production.

Look at Tillman. Barely a 3* coming out of HS. Say he gets drafted in the first or second round next year. You gonna say he was a 4/5* talent and the services missed??

 

[sjt18]

You are missing it. You are using what the draft says to try and say the recruiting services missed. That’s flawed. You say a lot of those guys had 4/5* talent but were 3*. Well those guys have been playing college ball for at least 3 years. The recruiting services make their predictions based on HS production.

Well, no. Rivals.com - Rivals.com Football Team Recruiting Rankings Formula

Look at Tillman. Barely a 3* coming out of HS. Say he gets drafted in the first or second round next year. You gonna say he was a 4/5* talent and the services missed??

Yes. And there were a lot of folks around here calling him "underrated" when he committed/signed. One guy even dared to say his Hudl highlights looked legit. Others (as an example of what I'm saying) dismissed him because he was a 3*.

Tillman was 6'3", 200 lbs coming out of HS. In fact, all of his measurables were really good. He was productive at a powerhouse HS program. The recruiting sites... flat out missed.

 

[LittleVol]

I support the "staring" system.
It's a good way to qualify talent at that stage of their career.

Its the fans and their "star worship " that is the issue. So many factors go into player development, and kids are still growing at 17. A star ranking is a fair method to track someone's ability at that stage...

I just wish people would be MINDFUL because of what SJ mentioned in that there are many misses. So people should remember that and remain curious and open if a 3 star or below commits.
Not just trash a kid because he ain't a 4 star or above. Or trash the coaches from taking him. Just do some research and form a real opinion...

 

[bpalmer28]

And you STILL miss the point.

Using the draft as a measure of accuracy which is fair... the recruiting services MISS significantly more players with the talent to play in the NFL than they find and give 4/5 stars to. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that folks can understand it. In general, you can say that 4/5* players have talent. But you cannot say their rating makes them better than any given 3*... and many who are lower.

I was actually a little generous. There were 16 5* draftees in this class. There are usually around 35 5* rankings handed out. They were under 50% with guys they considered elite... and WAY worse than that on 4* in this particular draft. About 24% of 4* were drafted. Around 8-9% of 3* were drafted. That's not a significant enough difference to call their 4* rankings accurate.

I understand that this is a passionate subject for you, but you may want to pause and considered the possibility that your logic isn't as ironclad as you think. At least consider the possibility that the person you're replying to could also be correct.

While it wouldn't be fair to say that a 5* player's rating makes them better than any given 3*... It IS fair for someone to say it's MORE LIKELY that a given 5* turns out to be a better player than a given 3*. This is especially true for the upper-tier SEC schools, who rarely sign players who weren't evaluated for whatever reason.