Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:35 am to uofarolltide
Tell you what. How about send a couple of those five stars you guys got on the bench over to Carolina.....
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:55 am to uofarolltide
I often wonder about the 4 vs 5 star designations. I think you said it correctly with your summation.
A Cam, Julio, Gurley, Brown etc are what we all hope that our 5 star recruits end up being. Truth is our 5 stars today may fail and 4 stars may be our all stars.
Get your average as high as possible in stars and you will be playing for a playoff. I do feel a good coach can bring up 4 stars to championship level.
A Cam, Julio, Gurley, Brown etc are what we all hope that our 5 star recruits end up being. Truth is our 5 stars today may fail and 4 stars may be our all stars.
Get your average as high as possible in stars and you will be playing for a playoff. I do feel a good coach can bring up 4 stars to championship level.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:21 am to VagueMessage
quote:
So high 3* OL and DL can probably get a lot more mileage with a good talent developer.
Isn’t a high 3 pretty good for a lineman?
Posted on 12/20/19 at 4:53 am to OleManDixon
Very few 5 stars don’t pan out due to talent or ability, very few. They don’t pan out because of drugs, arrests, attitude, etc. Even many of the 5 stars that drop out of the big schools eventually get drafted.
To be honest, if there was a way to measure their character and work ethic you could add a 6th star. But you can’t and that’s why you have 25 kids per class and only 85 scholarships. 30% or so of recruits no matter their rankings just wash out.
To be honest, if there was a way to measure their character and work ethic you could add a 6th star. But you can’t and that’s why you have 25 kids per class and only 85 scholarships. 30% or so of recruits no matter their rankings just wash out.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 5:05 am to BhamDore
quote:
Recruiting rankings are not near accurate enough to put in real stock into.
You still believe this crap? It explains vandy and bama quite well.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 5:31 am to uofarolltide
No jackass has ever won the Kentucky derby.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 6:44 am to Mkay 84
quote:
All these BAMA recruiting threads.....yep, y’all are irrelevant
Bama fans have been making recruiting threads since the 2008 signing class.
If Bama’s irrelevant after their first 2 loss regular seasons then n about a decade, then the entire SEC is full of irrelevant teams.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 6:50 am to BhamDore
quote:
Recruiting rankings are not near accurate enough to put in real stock into.
Yep, it's total coincidence that the teams that recruit at the highest level are the teams competing for championships every year.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 6:56 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:and lost to USCe and got blown away by LSU. Ed O and Muschamp must be pretty good coaches.
UGA has more 5* croots on their roster than anyone.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 7:39 am to baldona
I think it's need-based for the most part. You get three 5-star kids at the same position and 2 of them transfer after a year then you're back to one so what's the point. Just to get "ranked" higher in recruiting? So much of recruiting now is roster management and player development. Anticipating guys leaving, mining the transfer portals, juco circuit, red- shirting, grey-shirting, blue-shirting, etc. It is really an area that needs a staff of its own.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 7:53 am to uofarolltide
quote:
5-Stars Overrated?
5-stars become NFL players, All-Americans, etc as an astronomically higher rate than 4-stars or 3-stars do. Teams that finish with the most 4/5 stars almost always are the same teams that go to the playoffs and finish in the Top 10.
It doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it a WHOLE lot more likely.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 7:54 am
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:10 am to VagueMessage
quote:
There's no doubt a major correlation between consistent good recruiting classes and competing at a high rate. But I've always wondered what exactly the difference is between, say an 88 rated 3*, and a 91 rated 4*. With a good coach, could you not theoretically take a team full of 88 3* (4* begins at 89 on 24/7) and compete with a team full of 92-96 4* consistently? This whole recruiting thing is really more art than science a lot of the time.
I would say players outside the obvious skill positions are also more apt to be "coached up" much higher. So high 3* OL and DL can probably get a lot more mileage with a good talent developer.
This is why I prefer to look at the ranking of player at their position. If you need an OT, and the highest rated OT is a 4*, then that doesn't make him "worse" than a 5* Safety. IN the long run, it's a balancing act - just like the draft.
You can take the best QB, but if you fail to surround him with a good OL and WRs, he's not going to be in a position to succeed.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:12 am to uofarolltide
Yes 5 stars is just hype mostly in a lot of sports imo.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:48 am to skrayper
That's another really good point - the rating system isn't weighed necessarily the same for each position, and a class ranking is heavily dependent on player/position distribution, which a lot of coaches don't get right. I think offer lists are also another good factor to consider.
If all of your glaring and debilitating weaknesses are on the paper thin offensive line, but you don't really address those needs and add a 5* WR, a 4* QB, and three 4* RBs, your class will probably look good on paper, but that weakness is going to grow to be something you can't overcome the next year, and the G5 teams on your schedule are going to hang around until the fourth quarter.
If all of your glaring and debilitating weaknesses are on the paper thin offensive line, but you don't really address those needs and add a 5* WR, a 4* QB, and three 4* RBs, your class will probably look good on paper, but that weakness is going to grow to be something you can't overcome the next year, and the G5 teams on your schedule are going to hang around until the fourth quarter.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:50 am to VagueMessage
quote:
If all of your glaring and debilitating weaknesses are on the paper thin offensive line, but you don't really address those needs and add a 5* WR, a 4* QB, and three 4* RBs, your class will probably look good on paper, but that weakness is going to grow to be something you can't overcome the next year, and the G5 teams on your schedule are going to hang around until the fourth quarter.
I want to say that something like that hit someone, maybe Tennessee? It was not too long ago, a school had a great haul at the skill positions but didn't do nearly as well because they were thin in the trenches.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:52 am to TailbackU
quote:
I think it's need-based for the most part. You get three 5-star kids at the same position and 2 of them transfer after a year then you're back to one so what's the point. Just to get "ranked" higher in recruiting? So much of recruiting now is roster management and player development. Anticipating guys leaving, mining the transfer portals, juco circuit, red- shirting, grey-shirting, blue-shirting, etc. It is really an area that needs a staff of its own
This is pretty true. Roster management is a piece of the puzzle that is not usually talked about. Still need to be bringing in talented guys though and not just warm bodies.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:53 am to BamaTide126728
quote:
He was a 3* ranked #469 on the composite. 4* ranked #260 by 247
This also further illustrates how much of an inexact process recruiting rankings are. The same class can differ by ten positions from differing services. That player had a position difference of a whole star rating and over 200 spots overall. The class full of high 3* could be half 4* on another service.
Then you also have the alleged bias these services show toward the blue blood programs. I believe this is true to some noticeable extent, but I also think there's quite a bit of ego coddling involved for fans of teams that always finish outside the top 20 and want to believe there's a small-scale conspiracy going in favor of the Alabamas and Ohio States.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:54 am to skrayper
quote:
I want to say that something like that hit someone, maybe Tennessee? It was not too long ago, a school had a great haul at the skill positions but didn't do nearly as well because they were thin in the trenches.
I distinctly remember Butch Jones signing like 30+ people in at least one class. That will inflate a class disproportionately just from a numbers standpoint. Bobby Petrino got us a class ranked #16 on Rivals once, but he had to sign like 32 people to get it.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 8:59 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
UGA has more 5* croots on their roster than anyone.
No they don't. Just the most in the SECe and oddly enough UGA has won the SECe the past 3 years. Bama has more than UGA. Either way, 5*'s aren't guaranteed to succeed. They just have a higher chance to succeed. There will always be players that the recruiting services miss on, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 9:05 am
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News