VH3 - 5* (#2 ranked player in the nation)
Jonathan Bullard 5*
Keeanu Neal 4*
Any idea who the top Gators drafted this year were?
Jonathan Bullard 5*
Keeanu Neal 4*
Any idea who the top Gators drafted this year were?
Proof Recruiting Matters
- Thread starter Michi-Gator
- Start date
Thomas Goldkamp @ThomasGoldkamp 9m9 minutes ago
From 2008-13 recruiting classes, 75% of #Gators 5-star prospects have been drafted. 21% of 4-stars, 11% of 3-stars -
2 retweets 2 likes
From 2008-13 recruiting classes, 75% of #Gators 5-star prospects have been drafted. 21% of 4-stars, 11% of 3-stars -
2 retweets 2 likes
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to claim that recruiting is irrelevant, but there were 9 young men that became instant millionaires thursday night whom were rated 3 stars or less.
Alabama has won every recruiting title for the last century it seems, yet you had to watch on the second day of the draft to hear one of their players' names called. Once again recruiting matters, but let's not minimize the desire and work ethic that many of these so called lower tier players possess.
The football hall of fame is well represented by 3 stars and less.
Alabama has won every recruiting title for the last century it seems, yet you had to watch on the second day of the draft to hear one of their players' names called. Once again recruiting matters, but let's not minimize the desire and work ethic that many of these so called lower tier players possess.
The football hall of fame is well represented by 3 stars and less.
Its an odds game, higher star rating, higher percentage of success. And Bama may have waited until day 2 but they have how many national titles since '09?
Of course recruiting matters. Nobody ever said it didn't but Jared Goff and Carson Wentz weren't highly recruited prospects and they did ok on draft night.
You also have a highly sought after prospects like Jalen Mills, Vadal Alexander, Keith Marshall that just barely got drafted.
Yes recruiting matters but it isn't an exact science either.
You also have a highly sought after prospects like Jalen Mills, Vadal Alexander, Keith Marshall that just barely got drafted.
Yes recruiting matters but it isn't an exact science either.
Would someone remind me what Driskel and Taylor were ranked?
Must have been pretty bad if they only got drafted in the mid 6th round, right?
Or is that not how this game works?
Must have been pretty bad if they only got drafted in the mid 6th round, right?
Or is that not how this game works?
no one said it was an exact science either. As Michi said, it is a numbers game. Recruit 5 star and 4 star players ...there is a significantly better chance that your team will be successful than if you recruit 3 star players. In fact, when you string together classes out side of the top ten, the numbers become more meaningful and the odds of actually competing for championships go to nearly zero.
Errrr, no, it isn't. How many of our three star recruits were drafted ahead of those guys? Our best players were the highest ranked recruits, is the point.
Total numbers for the first round:
5 star: 7; 4 star: 15; 3 star or lower: 9. More low-ranked guys then I would think, actually.
I don't think any NFL folks consider a player's "star" rating coming out of high school any more than they think about how they spell their name.
Top ratings only indicate at the time of the rating (high school), folks thought highly of a player. Not a guarantee of success or failure in either college or the NFL. Not stunning that very highly ranked players fare well later. But it certainly isn't uncommon they fail, or that lowly rated players end up doing well. Oh...and as an aside...having a bunch of players drafted from a team doesn't mean the team was great...unless of course they come from the school you root for.
Top ratings only indicate at the time of the rating (high school), folks thought highly of a player. Not a guarantee of success or failure in either college or the NFL. Not stunning that very highly ranked players fare well later. But it certainly isn't uncommon they fail, or that lowly rated players end up doing well. Oh...and as an aside...having a bunch of players drafted from a team doesn't mean the team was great...unless of course they come from the school you root for.
In some circumstances, I think a guy's recruiting rep matters. For instance, Bryce Brown got a shot in the NFL. He flashed a little at Tenn., but basically did nothing in college.
Data shows it does matter. Very few percentage of 3 stars or less make it to the pros. While a much higher percentage of 5 stars and 4 stars do make t. So while its
Obviously not a guarantee, you want to load your college team with about 85% blue chip players not 50%.
Not really. Keep in mind it is not an apples to apples comparison. There are A LOT more 3 stars than 5 stars.
My rule of thumb: QB, OL, and DL you can kinda disregard stars. QB because so much of it is stuff you can't measure and OL and DL because body changes from 17 to 21 is so drastic that you never really know what you're getting there. LB is kinda on that next tier of not knowing what you're getting. But everywhere else...RB, WR, CB, S, etc. all jump off the screen after 5 mins, and the elite guys there are gonna be 4 and 5-star types.
Agreed at QB and OL and obviously kicker and punter are never higher than 3 stars even if they are elite. I disagree at DL, especially at the top of the heap, we have a long list of elite recruits that have become very good players at DT and DE over the past decade and very few diamond in the rough types that have gone on to be more than role players. I am sure there are some of the latter, but literally every DT and DE we've had drafted over the past decade was a high 4 star or 5 star: Fowler, Easley, Powell, Floyd, Howard, Cunningham, Thomas, and Cohen.
The amount of QB washouts is stunning....Look at the Elite 11 roster. Average is about 1 to 2 per year that end up getting drafted. Most of the top picks were not Elite 11. As oozie said, what is between the ears is as important as physical attributes. No way to tell that by watching a kid throw the ball 70 yards in the E11 competition.
There is no debate here -- irrespective of some who want to try. On average, there is a higher percentage of 4 and 5 star kids who are successful in college and the NFL. That is an irrefutable fact. Consequently, those teams that sign more four and five star kids out of high school will have better players and win more championships.
Michigan St is the example many like to use of winning without hauling in high ranked classes. But what happened when they ran in to Bama?
True. Idk I just feel DL bust on the same rate as OL and QB. Got no numbers to back it up though just a general feel. One thing to keep in mind is we've had sick defensive staffs going on about 20 years now it seems like. So that probably helped our bust rate at that position a lot.
Michigan St. didn't lose to Bama because of their recruiting classes, they've had a decent clip of NFL talent the last few years. They lost because they tried to beat Bama by being Bama...lining up in a phone booth and running right at them. It's idiotic. Why schools keep trying to copy their model is beyond me.
That's it? And they had a generational type college QB. So basically if you are not getting top 10 classes, you have next to NO chance of winning it all. Recruiting not only matters, it's everything. Taking for granted that the coaching staff can develop; which most top ones can.
Nah I understand that. The fact is the champions usually come from too recruiting teams. GA is the only team in the last 20 years
Who never got a Natty but ranked in the top 10 in recruiting consistently. The rest of teams managed at least one.
My point was that Michi wasn't (as I expected) presenting the whole picture.
You could twist this argument by saying how unimportant star rankings are by showing where two highly recruited guys like Driskel and Taylor were drafted.
Michigan State had been doing that for years under Dantoni.
That's a weak argument that they were trying to "be" Alabama.
You guys do remember that Savan coached there, right?
Right. It wasn't something new for Michigan St.( they've always played like that. My larger point is you can't line up and beat Alabama by playing the same style of ball as them. It's a waste of time. Bama gets the best talent every single year and Saban builds his team to defend against that style of play. So unless you out-talent them, which ain't likely, you're just playing right into their hands.
Who can consistently beat them? Not sure what style you trot out there. they are going to beat most top 25 teams in the country 4 out of 5 times. Top 5 teams, they are going to win 3 out of 5. There is the rare exception where you have a match up issue that would beat them more often than not (Manziel, Newton), but they lined up and pounded a pretty good Clemson defense. Clemson scored on them, but they beat up Clemson D pretty good.
I agree. But when specifically speaking of MSU, that criticism is silly.
Were they supposed to run a different offense?
Look. I get it. People are mad that we have hired two Savannah desciples and the last 5 years has everyone negative and on edge, but my Lord.
I think the trend over the last few years is pretty apparent by now. Saban wants to play in a box and let his monsters beat you up and wear on you. Teams that bring them out of that comfort zone either beats them or put up a shit ton of points on them. They didn't really beat up Clemson's defense either. Clemson gave up 21 points on special teams or something ridiculous like that. And almost half of Coker's yards came on two busted coverages. Big picture Saban's teams can't play in space.
Right. Wasn't arguing they should have changed because it's what they've been doing. I was just correcting Michi's point about them losing because of talent. They didn't lose because of talent they lost because the way they play is what Bama handles pretty easily. Michigan St. is a pretty good example of winning with underrated guys.
If common people see this, why do we continue to try and hire guys that do the exact same thing????
because they are slow, they just have way more depth than everyone and size. The officials love to help them as well, money bags must be nice. Our program has and always will be the exact opposite, we get ref'd against New Mexico states at home. It's absolutely classic
