Stars and Recruiting Ranking discussion

[sjt18]

Comparing how evaluators see players coming out of high school compared to how they are viewed coming out of college and placing it on the same level isn't fair at all.

LOL, "fair"? They're in business to sell subscriptions and clicks. You as a recruiting "guru" know that UT and all other major programs employ recruiting consultants. Their job is to find the right players with the right potential. They actually get paid to do what you say isn't "fair"... as do the coaches. That's just not how the recruiting sites and reporters get paid.

High school players are way more so wild cards. That's why you have to continue to stack high-profile recruits year after year. And there are several examples where NFL GMs take guys that were rated 5 stars that didn't do much production wise in college

You have to build a roster with quality depth. My point isn't that Bama et al aren't doing that. My point isn't that most of the kids who get 5* ratings aren't very good prospects. My point is that there is plenty of talent that isn't labeled 4/5* for a coach who knows how to find and develop it to compete at the highest level.

Dabo did what I'm talking about. His recruiting rankings got better after he actually beat Bama and won an NC. On the whole, his results have not been better since the recruiting sites started "loving" his recruits. He found 3* that were actually 4/5* talents.

You watch this all the time. You know that the difference between a top 5 class and a #15 class can very easily come down to signing some mid-3* guys who are better than 4* guys. The margin between those ratings is past the ability and staffing the recruiting sites have.

 

[sjt18]

The thing that brought UGA & UA back to the top of the SEC (and thus the nation), was excellent coaching and top-notch, upper level recruiting. Any other team from any other conference does not apply to what UT has to achieve, especially if they don't have to do't in conference against the Tide & Dawgs.

Saban in particular came with a novel advance in the game. His 3-4 D coupled to a punishing ground game changed the game. He is an excellent recruiter and knows what to look for. Smart simply landed in the most favorable recruiting job in the country and has made the best of it.

IMHO, UT has always been one of the places where the right guy could do what those guys have done... or like Carroll did at USC. Great facilities, support, money, location, etc. But it doesn't seem that anyone can duplicate what the other guys did the way they did it.

Heupel is "novel". His O is different and exciting. He's building a culture at the same level as those championship programs but not the same as they are. He's a very good coach but a better leader than coach.

IMO, the things he's shown can get UT there. No guarantees. The wheels could definitely fly off. But IMHO, the fact that many of the nation's most pursued players are taking a really long look at the program indicates that he has put himself in a really good position to launch.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My point was it's not fair to compare the smallest amount of inaccuracy with NFL GMs going off college film and recruiting rankings going off high school film. Obviously, the recruiting rankings are not going to be as accurate. I don't have the numbers or anything right in front of me but most players that get drafted in the first 4 rounds, IMO the rounds where you are expecting those picks to contribute in a role in some way, are usually 4/5 stars or high 3 stars with great coaching. Obviously there will be exceptions as there are to anything. He's using those exceptions to say the whole rankings system is off completely. The rankings system are nowhere near perfect but they are generally pretty solid by the end of each cycle. Note it is still up to the coaching staffs of each respective school and the player himself to develop the potential out of those recruits

That's not what he said. He said:

Just demonstrating the inaccuracy of the recruiting sites. The supposed best 30 players according to them are NEVER the 30 best according to GMs when the draft comes around. There are occasions when a 3* has an unrecognized high ceiling and a 5* doesn't. But that is STILL inaccuracy in the ratings.

He said that the inaccuracy is demonstrated. Not that it's completely "off". His argument for months/years has been that the recruiting sites do a pretty good job with the most high profile kids, but that the accuracy falls off after that. That's not a "completely off" argument. It's probably pretty close to what you've agreed to.

I think the greater problem here is calling high school recruits "wildcard", as in harder to scout and predict while also saying that you *have to* "stack up" rankings that correspond with the recruiting sites.

So having inferred that the only way to build talent is to stack up wildcard high rankings, now answer my question. Just say that a school filled its roster, tear after year, with all of the 2-3 star recruits that end up as draft picks (i.e. NFL level players), would they be talented enough to compete for titles?

That's a hard spot to answer, no? You can either say that a roster full of NFL level talent isn't talented enough to compete, or you can admit that stacking up recruiting stars isn't what you "have to" do.

 

[LittleVol]

there's 224 players drafted into the NFL every year. 7 rounds x number of pics per round

Recruiting echelon- Rivals 250, Top 247, On3 300?

And... there are 4 stars even just outside of those top 250 ish...

Which means there should be enough
4 stars to supplement the entirety of the NFL Roster.

So why was there 37 Pro-Browlers
( 3 STAR OR LOWER ) in the Pro Bowl??? 😅

Why is half the NFL 3 Stars or lower?????

 

[sjt18]

That's not what he said. He said:



He said that the inaccuracy is demonstrated. Not that it's completely "off". His argument for months/years has been that the recruiting sites do a pretty good job with the most high profile kids, but that the accuracy falls off after that. That's not a "completely off" argument. It's probably pretty close to what you've agreed to.

.Very close. I actually don't think being 60% on 5* guys is "great" when the way they describe a 5* is "future" high draft pick and such. To be fair though some of the guys who don't make it had injuries or other issues not directly related to talent.

I don't spend a ton of time talking about 4* accuracy since we never seem to get past these other points that seem so obvious. The sites rank about 2000 players each year. About 400 will be given 4*. Around 70-80 of them will eventually be drafted- 17-20%. Around 1600 kids will get 2/3* ratings with roughly 10% of them being drafted. Maybe I'm being too hard... but I don't find that very impressive.

I think the greater problem here is calling high school recruits "wildcard", as in harder to scout and predict while also saying that you *have to* "stack up" rankings that correspond with the recruiting sites.

So having inferred that the only way to build talent is to stack up wildcard high rankings, now answer my question. Just say that a school filled its roster, tear after year, with all of the 2-3 star recruits that end up as draft picks (i.e. NFL level players), would they be talented enough to compete for titles?

That's a hard spot to answer, no? You can either say that a roster full of NFL level talent isn't talented enough to compete, or you can admit that stacking up recruiting stars isn't what you "have to" do.

That kind of is my point in a nutshell.

It is unlikely that a coach could find a whole roster of those 2-3* players. But it isn't unlikely for them to find say... 10-20 of them. Those "off" ratings would probably constitute the difference between a team averaging #15 and #5.

There are literally innumerable examples of teams that are 10-20 places behind another team matching up talent wise on the field. UT belonged on the field with Bama... and 247 said Bama had the most talented roster by a wide margin. UT smoked LSU who was about 10 places higher according to the roster talent composite ranking.

I actually think @allvolrecruiting is off by a matter of degrees if at all. Some here are delusional about the supposed authority of the recruiting sites.

 

[sjt18]

there's 224 players drafted into the NFL every year. 7 rounds x number of pics per round

Recruiting echelon- Rivals 250, Top 247, On3 300?

And... there are 4 stars even just outside of those top 250 ish...

Which means there should be enough
4 stars to supplement the entirety of the NFL Roster.

So why was there 37 Pro-Browlers
( 3 STAR OR LOWER ) in the Pro Bowl??? 😅

Why is half the NFL 3 Stars or lower?????

I don't understand the how's or why's but there were 259 players drafted this year.

 

[LittleVol]

I don't understand the how's or why's but there were 259 players drafted this year.

Yeah i saw that too, but what I didn't know is if that was the same every year. Trades or what not account for those extra spots a i guess

 

[Boston Vol]

Yeah i saw that too, but what I didn't know is if that was the same every year. Trades or what not account for those extra spots a i guess

compensatory picks that the league gives out for free agents lost and minority hires.

 

[allvolrecruiting]

LOL, "fair"? They're in business to sell subscriptions and clicks. You as a recruiting "guru" know that UT and all other major programs employ recruiting consultants. Their job is to find the right players with the right potential. They actually get paid to do what you say isn't "fair"... as do the coaches. That's just not how the recruiting sites and reporters get paid.


You have to build a roster with quality depth. My point isn't that Bama et al aren't doing that. My point isn't that most of the kids who get 5* ratings aren't very good prospects. My point is that there is plenty of talent that isn't labeled 4/5* for a coach who knows how to find and develop it to compete at the highest level.

Dabo did what I'm talking about. His recruiting rankings got better after he actually beat Bama and won an NC. On the whole, his results have not been better since the recruiting sites started "loving" his recruits. He found 3* that were actually 4/5* talents.

You watch this all the time. You know that the difference between a top 5 class and a #15 class can very easily come down to signing some mid-3* guys who are better than 4* guys. The margin between those ratings is past the ability and staffing the recruiting sites have.

You’d be surprised how some coaches get paid extra for what ratings the players they land are. I know one school took a recruiting site 5 star last year for the money. Yes both college coaches and NFL GMs get paid to evaluate the talent but if a college coach misses on some evaluations, it’s just on to the next class. If the NFL GM does, he could be out of a job a lot, lot sooner

 

[sjt18]

You’d be surprised how some coaches get paid extra for what ratings the players they land are. I know one school took a recruiting site 5 star last year for the money. Yes both college coaches and NFL GMs get paid to evaluate the talent but if a college coach misses on some evaluations, it’s just on to the next class. If the NFL GM does, he could be out of a job a lot, lot sooner

I don't think college coaches at schools that expect to win get off that easy.

If a school is stupid enough to pay for that kind of thing... then no one can stop them. The wise might want to take a look at Jimbo or Miami for a while now. From 2019 to 2022 Miami averaged at #17 class. They've averaged 6.5 wins per year.

Their money though. It is that kind of thinking that signs Jimbo to the kind of contract he got I guess.

 

[Vol8188]

there's 224 players drafted into the NFL every year. 7 rounds x number of pics per round

Recruiting echelon- Rivals 250, Top 247, On3 300?

And... there are 4 stars even just outside of those top 250 ish...

Which means there should be enough
4 stars to supplement the entirety of the NFL Roster.

So why was there 37 Pro-Browlers
( 3 STAR OR LOWER ) in the Pro Bowl??? 😅

Why is half the NFL 3 Stars or lower?????

I want you realize the things you just said.

There’s 1696 guys on active rosters. There’s around 250 4/5* guys. The average nfl career is around 3 years. That’s 750 players. So no, there’s not enough 4/5 star players to make up every nfl roster.

 

[Vol423]

I don't understand the how's or why's but there were 259 players drafted this year.

That's due to teams getting compensatory picks.

 

[Vol8188]

compensatory picks that the league gives out for free agents lost and minority hires.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I didn’t know the second was a thing

 

[Vol423]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I didn’t know the second was a thing

I don't know any details, but I've heard mention of compensatory picks for minority hires.

 

[Woodlawn VOL]

Getting your share of top 4 and 5 star players is part of it. Finding the 3 and lower 4 star players that can develop into quality players is part of it. Being able to coach up your players is part of it. And recruiting the players that buy in to your system is part of it. There is bunch of moving parts, I am glad we have the type of staff that understands it takes being able to do everything well. You have to be able to run and pass. You have to strong in the trenches and on D you have to be able to stop the run and get after the quarterback. You have to have good defenders on the back end. To consistently stay a contender in the sec you have to be good across the board! GBO!

 

[allvolrecruiting]

Getting your share of top 4 and 5 star players is part of it. Finding the 3 and lower 4 star players that can develop into quality players is part of it. Being able to coach up your players is part of it. And recruiting the players that buy in to your system is part of it. There is bunch of moving parts, I am glad we have the type of staff that understands it takes being able to do everything well. You have to be able to run and pass. You have to strong in the trenches and on D you have to be able to stop the run and get after the quarterback. You have to have good defenders on the back end. To consistently stay a contender in the sec you have to be good across the board! GBO!

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Boston Vol]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I didn’t know the second was a thing

Yes, if another club hires one of your assistant coaches as a head coach, or a member of your front office gets hired as a top executive, you get compensatory picks. Here’s the official rule:

“Clubs that develop a diverse employee who is hired in the position of Primary Football Executive or Head Coach at another club, will receive a draft choice compensation in the form of a compensatory draft pick in the third round in each of the next two drafts. If a club has two employees hired for either a head coach or GM position, then that club will receive third-round compensatory pick in the next three drafts.”

 

[Dansky]

That is the goal but your fixation on stars has nothing to do with it. UT needs to build a talented and deep roster. You recruit potential. You develop it. That’s how you build a roster. That could be top 5 classes or in reality a full roster averaging in the top 20 with great development and coaching

The recruiting sites aren’t nearly as accurate at finding all the guys with elite potential as you think. Case in point they said Sampson was a 3*. The same for Spraggins who now has some projecting him as a 1st round draftee

I’d take Ohio state, Bama, Georgia,Lsu, recruiting classes over anything we can put up. Doesn’t mean we can’t compete for a title on occasion, but makes it more difficult.

 

[MarcoVol]

I’d take Ohio state, Bama, Georgia,Lsu, recruiting classes over anything we can put up. Doesn’t mean we can’t compete for a title on occasion, but makes it more difficult.

This some weird fandom “I’d take all these other teams players rather than guys who actually wanna be Vols”

 

[sjt18]

I’d take Ohio state, Bama, Georgia,Lsu, recruiting classes over anything we can put up. Doesn’t mean we can’t compete for a title on occasion, but makes it more difficult.

That’s not the argument. The question is whether it takes atop 5 classes as determined by journalists to win at a high level.

You have to have talent. You have to have great coaching. There are plenty of overlooked 3* players out there to build a great roster

 

[LittleVol]

I’d take Ohio state, Bama, Georgia,Lsu, recruiting classes over anything we can put up. Doesn’t mean we can’t compete for a title on occasion, but makes it more difficult.

You do realize Tennessee defeated 2 of the 4 teams you mentioned, right?

 

[swampfoxfan]

You do realize Tennessee defeated 2 of the 4 teams you mentioned, right?

You do realize Tennessee defeated 2 of the 4 teams you mentioned, right?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How quick they forget

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Did the recruiting sites whiff on

Tua
Hurts
May
Darnell Wright
Caleb Williams
Kyler Murray
Trevor Lawrence
Jalen Carter
Nolan Smith
Najee Harris
Derrick Henry
Jerry Jeudy
Devonte Smith
Jalen Waddle
Tee Higgins
Rashan Gary
Justin Fields

Just to name a small few?

what about all the 4 stars in all these guys classses that got passed and lost their spots by 2&3 stars in the NFL drafts in their draftable years? There are more than enough 4 stars to fill out the draft each year yet 100's of 3* guys pass them buy. It is not hard to eyeball the 5 and really high 4* guys, but impossible to predict the growth and development of the creme of the 3* guys that were not blessed with early puberty and better HS development opportunities. There is a rational expectation that the hand picked higher star guys en mass will pan out, but the portal is showing a migration of rated guys to places they can get on the field and the lower rated excellers moving on up. Easier to see in BB but plays out in FB too.

 

[Danl]

I want you realize the things you just said.

There’s 1696 guys on active rosters. There’s around 250 4/5* guys. The average nfl career is around 3 years. That’s 750 players. So no, there’s not enough 4/5 star players to make up every nfl roster.

I want you realize the things you just said.

There’s 1696 guys on active rosters. There’s around 250 guys in each draft. The average nfl career is around 3 years. That’s 750 players. So no, there’s not enough drafted players to make up every nfl roster. But somehow almost all of those 1696 players were drafted. What's up with that?

 

[Vol8188]

I want you realize the things you just said.

There’s 1696 guys on active rosters. There’s around 250 guys in each draft. The average nfl career is around 3 years. That’s 750 players. So no, there’s not enough drafted players to make up every nfl roster. But somehow almost all of those 1696 players were drafted. What's up with that?

Depending on the year you’re looking at over 400 undrafted feee agents on active rosters. No there’s not enough drafted nor 4/5 * guys to fill every roster.