PDA

View Full Version : A Word on 5 Stars


ironman4579
07-31-2007, 07:04 PM
Everyone wants the 5 stars at recruiting time. Everyone thinks about how great they'll be, and how much they'll help your team. But how much do 5 stars really help? How great or even good are they? I looked back at the last 2 drafts(It was difficult to find guys high scool rankings any farther back, for me at least) and looked at each player drafted in the first round's star ranking and position ranking(if something isn't included for a player, I couldn't find it.Also, most of these guys were recruited between 2002 and 2004):

2007 Draft
1.JaMarcus Russell-4 star #6 pro style QB
2.Calvin Johnson-4 star #6 WR
3.Joe Thomas-4 star #18 OT
4.Gaines Adams-3 star ?
5.Levi Brown-4 star #32 DT
6.LaRon Landry-4 star #5 ATH
7.Adrian Peterson-5 star #1 RB
8.Jamaal Anderson-2 star WR
9.Ted Ginn-5 star #1 CB
10.Amobi Okoye-2 star OG
11.Patrick Willis-3 star #60 ILB(no that's not a misprint)
12.Marshawn Lynch-4 star #2 RB
13.Adam Carriker-3 star #46 SDE
14.Darrelle Revis-3 star #46 CB
15.Lawrence Timmons-4 star #5 OLB
16.Justin Harrell-4 star #36 DT
17.Jarvis Moss-5 star #1 WDE
18.Leon Hall-4 star #10 CB
19.Michael Griffin-4 star #9 CB
20.Aaron Ross-4 star CB
21.Reggie Nelson-4 star #4 S
22.Brady Quinn-4 star #10 Pro Style QB
23.Dwayne Bowe-4 star #21 WR
24.Brandon Meriweather-3 star #16 S
25.Jon Beason-4 star #6 OLB
26.Anthony Spencer-3 star #17 WDE
27.Robert Meachem-5 star #3 WR
28.Joe Staley-2 star TE
29.Ben Grubbs-3 star #23 DE
30.Craig Davis-4 star #12 WR
31.Greg Olsen-5 star #2 TE
32-Anthony Gonzalez-4 star #16 WR

I this past draft there were more 3 stars drafted in the first than 5 stars. Only 5 of the 32 picks were 5 star recruits. And lest you say "Well, everyone knew this was a weak draft" we'll go back to '06, a pretty good draft.

2006 Draft
1.Mario Williams-4 star ?
2.Reggie Bush-5 star #1 RB
3.Vince Young-5 star #1 Dual Threat QB
4.D'Brickashaw Ferguson-3 star #29 OG
5.AJ Hawk-3 star #30 OLB
6.Vernon Davis-4 star #4 TE
7.Michael Huff-?
8.Donte Whitner-4 star #3 CB
9.Ernie Sims-5 star #1 ILB
10.Matt Leinart-?
11.Jay Cutler-?
12.Haloti Ngata-5 star #1 DT
13.Kamerion Wimbley-4 star #4 WDE
14.Broderick Bunkley-4 star #22 DT
15.Tye Hill-?
16.Jason Allen-4 star #5 ATH
17.Chad Greenway-?
18.Bobby Carpenter-4 star #13 OLB
19.Antonio Cromartie-4 star #6 CB
20.Tamba Hali-4 star #5 SDE
21.Laurence Maroney-4 star #18 RB
22.Manny Lawson-2 star #62 WDE
23.Davin Joseph-4 star #6 OG
24.Johnathan Joseph-?
25.Santonio Holmes-3 star #38 WR
26.John McCargo-?
27.DeAngelo Williams-4 star #11 APB
28.Mercedes Lewis-5 star #1 TE
29.Nick Mangold-4 star #3 C
30.Joseph Addai-?
31.Kelly Jennings-?
31.Mathias Kiwanuka-?

While there where less 3 stars and more 4 stars, there were still only 5 5 stars(that I could find)

So I guess my point is, every year, people either get excited about the 5 stars they got, or depressed because they didn't get any. But really, it seems like it's the 4 star type guys that overall make the biggest impact. So keep an eye on those 4 star recruits.

Vikes99ej
07-31-2007, 07:20 PM
Just look at Willie Williams. I'm sure U fans were pretty excited when they got his commit.

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 07:53 PM
Just look at Willie Williams. I'm sure U fans were pretty excited when they got his commit.

Or Kyle Wright for that matter. He was the ONLY 5 star QB that year and the #5 player on the rivals100. Pro style QB's behind him that year were Brady Quinn, Jamarcus Russell, Andre Woodson, Chris Leak, Drew Tate, Matt Ryan, and a few others.

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 07:53 PM
what was micheal griffins? you forgot to put how many stars he was

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 07:55 PM
what was micheal griffins? you forgot to put how many stars he was

My bad HD. Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it up top as well, but he was a 4 star recruit.

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 08:01 PM
Wow linebackers have come from all over the place 2-5 star.... that seems to be the position with the biggest descrepency... and i cant help but laugh everytime i see jammal anderson as a 2 star receiver... if you went back in time and told people how high he would be drafted as a DE... they wouldnt belive you

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 08:02 PM
By the wya nice list.. its appriciated when someone takes time to make a list like this

Vikes99ej
07-31-2007, 08:05 PM
Also, look at the recently released Darnell Bing. He was highly sought after in high school.

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 08:15 PM
One of the things I find interesting is that basically none of the first round OT over the last couple years were rated highly within the OT position, if they were rated in that position at all. Even this coming season, Jake Long and Sam Baker were not ranked highly at all, with Long being a 4 star and rated the #21 OT, and Baker even lower I believe(I'd check but Rivals is screwed up for me at the moment)

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 08:17 PM
One of the things I find interesting is that basically none of the first round OT over the last couple years were rated highly within the OT position, if they were rated in that position at all. Even this coming season, Jake Long and Sam Baker were not ranked highly at all, with Long being a 4 star and rated the #21 OT, and Baker even lower I believe(I'd check but Rivals is screwed up for me at the moment)

well the way i look at it.. they are still kids... they are still growing into their bodies and strength and athletic abilities... you cant judge until realistically they are like 20

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 08:20 PM
By the wya nice list.. its appriciated when someone takes time to make a list like this

Thanks. Basically I just wanted to show that everyone wants, or is happy to get, or upset to miss, a guy like Shane Hayle, but you might end up being just as happy in the long run with a guy like Jon Major or Etienne Sabino.

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 08:20 PM
well the way i look at it.. they are still kids... they are still growing into their bodies and strength and athletic abilities... you cant judge until realistically they are like 20

I fully agree with you there.

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 08:21 PM
Thanks. Basically I just wanted to show that everyone wants, or is happy to get, or upset to miss, a guy like Shane Hayle, but you might end up being just as happy in the long run with a guy like Jon Major or Etienne Sabino.

unless they are USC... cause you go there... your basically a man already.. its an assembly line

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 08:26 PM
I just looked it up again. Sam Baker was a 4 star and the #4 OG at the time. So at least he was kind of high in the OG rankings.

BerninWI
07-31-2007, 08:57 PM
5-stars was an honor only bestowed upon 25 players each in '03 and '04. So it wasn't even possible for the entire first round to be comprised of five star players, hypothetically. In '07, 20 percent of the 5-star players went in the 1st round. In '06, you have 22 documented, and 5-stars made up 5 of those 22. So that projects to 29 percent of the 5-stars eligible for that class, going in the first round (without knowing the rankings of the rest). All of the Rivals250 is 4-stars or better. And I know players beyond that get 4-stars as well. Let's say 300 more (I don't know the exact number). That would mean that there are 12 times more of an opportunity to be a first rounder than for 5-stars. 17 of the 300 4-star players, went in the first round, or 5-6 percent. For '06, it would be 6 percent too. For 3-star players, how many are there? I know there's a lot. Let's say around 700. That would mean that 7 of 700, or 1 percent, made the first round in '07. 3 of 700 in '06, which projects to .6percent when extrapolated for 32 players. So you have a 20-29 percent chance to be a 1st rounder if you're 5 stars....5-6 percent chance if you're a 4-star.....and .6-1 percent chance if you're a 3-star. The probabilities dramatically favor the higher rated player.

If you get a 5-star player, your probabilities increase tremendously that you're going to get a stud. Same with 4-star. And on down. The problem I have is when an individual player is dismissed simply for not being 5-stars. Clearly, they can be elite players, because some are 1st rounders. Others are 2nd rounders, and that means they would hypothetically be the best player on almost half the D-1 teams. I can't imagine Jack Ikegwuonu going outside the 1st round next year as a Badger fan, and he was a 1-star player. So the emphasis might be too great on stars in some places. And there have been a lot of politics at scout for example the last couple years because they dismissed their midwest recruiting analyst, and since the perception is that midwestern players and players who commit to some midwestern schools are worse (and they magically drop stars after committing). So let's analyze each player individually when we can, but stars aren't a bad indicator of probability, unless a compelling defense proves otherwise.

Thanks for the research.

HoopsDemon12
07-31-2007, 09:10 PM
5-stars was an honor only bestowed upon 25 players each in '03 and '04. So it wasn't even possible for the entire first round to be comprised of five star players, hypothetically. In '07, 20 percent of the 5-star players went in the 1st round. In '06, you have 22 documented, and 5-stars made up 5 of those 22. So that projects to 29 percent of the 5-stars eligible for that class, going in the first round (without knowing the rankings of the rest). All of the Rivals250 is 4-stars or better. And I know players beyond that get 4-stars as well. Let's say 300 more (I don't know the exact number). That would mean that there are 12 times more of an opportunity to be a first rounder than for 5-stars. 17 of the 300 4-star players, went in the first round, or 5-6 percent. For '06, it would be 6 percent too. For 3-star players, how many are there? I know there's a lot. Let's say around 700. That would mean that 7 of 700, or 1 percent, made the first round in '07. 3 of 700 in '06, which projects to .6percent when extrapolated for 32 players. So you have a 20-29 percent chance to be a 1st rounder if you're 5 stars....5-6 percent chance if you're a 4-star.....and .6-1 percent chance if you're a 3-star. The probabilities dramatically favor the higher rated player.

If you get a 5-star player, your probabilities increase tremendously that you're going to get a stud. Same with 4-star. And on down. The problem I have is when an individual player is dismissed simply for not being 5-stars. Clearly, they can be elite players, because some are 1st rounders. Others are 2nd rounders, and that means they would hypothetically be the best player on almost half the D-1 teams. I can't imagine Jack Ikegwuonu going outside the 1st round next year as a Badger fan, and he was a 1-star player. So the emphasis might be too great on stars in some places. And there have been a lot of politics at scout for example the last couple years because they dismissed their midwest recruiting analyst, and since the perception is that midwestern players and players who commit to some midwestern schools are worse (and they magically drop stars after committing). So let's analyze each player individually when we can, but stars aren't a bad indicator of probability, unless a compelling defense proves otherwise.

Thanks for the research.

there is a chance to get a whole first round out of them... juniors declare early

Jericho@SC
07-31-2007, 09:19 PM
I think it's time they came out with a more objective way of judging prospects.

I know in baseball for instance, every minor league player is given a grade (20-80) for each of their 5 tools (hitting, fielding, power, arm, speed) by scouts.

For example, SS player x in the minor leagues can be graded by NY Yankees scout as:

Hitting: 60 (above average)
Power: 40 (below average)
Fielding: 70 (well above average)
Arm: 20 (below average)
Speed: 80 (outstanding)

These kinds of grades are also given for each pitcher's pitches depending on the velocity, accuracy and movement of their slider, curveball, fastball, etc.



Applying categorical grading like this to each HS football player at their respective positions can tell you a lot more than just measurables and some comment like

"Explosive with the ball in his hands and has huge upside" or

"The best runningback to come out of Texas in the last 2 years"

Like say, for cornerbacks you could judge them on a scale of 1-5 (3 being average, 4 above average, 5 elite) for

1. Speed
2. Ball Skills/awareness
3. Size
4. Coverage skills
5. Tackling/Physicality

In this case, Patrick Johnson would be rated

Speed: 4
Ball Skills/awareness: 4
Size: 5
Coverage Skills: 5
Tackling/ Physicality: 4

That's part of the reason why I kinda like scout better than Rivals. They tell you the strengths and weaknesses about prospects instead of just listing height, weight, 40 time.

BerninWI
07-31-2007, 09:22 PM
there is a chance to get a whole first round out of them... juniors declare early

Then less would be eligible for the next draft. It all evens out.

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 09:29 PM
5-stars was an honor only bestowed upon 25 players each in '03 and '04. So it wasn't even possible for the entire first round to be comprised of five star players, hypothetically. In '07, 20 percent of the 5-star players went in the 1st round. In '06, you have 22 documented, and 5-stars made up 5 of those 22. So that projects to 29 percent of the 5-stars eligible for that class, going in the first round (without knowing the rankings of the rest). All of the Rivals250 is 4-stars or better. And I know players beyond that get 4-stars as well. Let's say 300 more (I don't know the exact number). That would mean that there are 12 times more of an opportunity to be a first rounder than for 5-stars. 17 of the 300 4-star players, went in the first round, or 5-6 percent. For '06, it would be 6 percent too. For 3-star players, how many are there? I know there's a lot. Let's say around 700. That would mean that 7 of 700, or 1 percent, made the first round in '07. 3 of 700 in '06, which projects to .6percent when extrapolated for 32 players. So you have a 20-29 percent chance to be a 1st rounder if you're 5 stars....5-6 percent chance if you're a 4-star.....and .6-1 percent chance if you're a 3-star. The probabilities dramatically favor the higher rated player.

If you get a 5-star player, your probabilities increase tremendously that you're going to get a stud. Same with 4-star. And on down. The problem I have is when an individual player is dismissed simply for not being 5-stars. Clearly, they can be elite players, because some are 1st rounders. Others are 2nd rounders, and that means they would hypothetically be the best player on almost half the D-1 teams. I can't imagine Jack Ikegwuonu going outside the 1st round next year as a Badger fan, and he was a 1-star player. So the emphasis might be too great on stars in some places. And there have been a lot of politics at scout for example the last couple years because they dismissed their midwest recruiting analyst, and since the perception is that midwestern players and players who commit to some midwestern schools are worse (and they magically drop stars after committing). So let's analyze each player individually when we can, but stars aren't a bad indicator of probability, unless a compelling defense proves otherwise.

Thanks for the research.

Yes, but in 2002, you had 38 5 star players. So conceivably, there could have been 63 5 star players available for the 2006 draft with early entry. That's enough for almost 2 full rounds. Now, as you point out, there are usually far less 5 stars than 4 star. Certainly the probability favors the 5 stars. I'm simply making the point that you could potentially have just as much success with a 4 or even 3 star player as with a 5 star.

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 09:36 PM
Then less would be eligible for the next draft. It all evens out.

As you say. My simple point was that a player with less than 5 stars can be just as productive as a 5 star player.

BerninWI
07-31-2007, 09:48 PM
Yes, but in 2002, you had 38 5 star players. So conceivably, there could have been 63 5 star players available for the 2006 draft with early entry. That's enough for almost 2 full rounds. Now, as you point out, there are usually far less 5 stars than 4 star. Certainly the probability favors the 5 stars. I'm simply making the point that you could potentially have just as much success with a 4 or even 3 star player as with a 5 star.

It's not that conceivable. That would mean that nearly every player from '02 had to stay 4 years and every junior 5-star declared early. And then the '05 and '07 drafts would be gutted. But then you agreed with me for your next post, so I'm confused.

My simple point was that a player with less than 5 stars can be just as productive as a 5 star player

I know some people need to be informed of that fact. It's pretty obvious. But some still need the obvious stated. I don't personally, but I enjoyed the study, and thanks for putting the info in black and white for future reference. We just disagree a little on the methodology and resulting conclusion. I agree with the basic spirit.

JT Jag
07-31-2007, 09:53 PM
As you say. My simple point was that a player with less than 5 stars can be just as productive as a 5 star player.They have to be, considering sub-5 star players get a lot more overall opportunities then the few 5-star players that are around.

TheMikey10
07-31-2007, 09:53 PM
Well, considering there are usually 25-27 Five Stars, 1/5 chance of having a guy becoming a First Round pick is pretty darn good odds

ironman4579
07-31-2007, 09:56 PM
It's not that conceivable. That would mean that nearly every player from '02 had to stay 4 years and every junior 5-star declared early. And then the '05 and '07 drafts would be gutted. But then you agreed with me for your next post, so I'm confused.



I know some people need to be informed of that fact. It's pretty obvious. But some still need the obvious stated. I don't personally, but I enjoyed the study, and thanks for putting the info in black and white for future reference. We just disagree a little on the methodology and resulting conclusion. I agree with the basic spirit.

I wasn't disagreeing with your original premise, which was the reason for my second post. The first post was simply stating a scenario that, while highly umlikely, was still possible, though not probable. Clearly that would never happen. I also wasn't drawing the conclusion that 5 stars and 4 stars were equal at all times. I was simply saying that 5 stars and 4 stars COULD be equal, and people should not be upset or happy because they did or did not land a 5 star recruit.

Race for the Heisman
08-01-2007, 12:04 AM
This is very much like the first round quarterback debate. Yes, 50% will be busts, but it remains a fact the first round quarterbacks are more likely to pan out than 2nd, 3rd rounders, etc. No one is saying that 4 star, 3 star recruits can't succeed, because they obviously can, but a 5 star recruit is more likely to, given the greater talent.

ironman4579
08-01-2007, 01:05 PM
I think some of you have missed the point. Of course a 5 star is more likely to succeed. Obviously there's talent there that someone has seen. The simple point was that a 4 star or even 3 star recruit can be just as successful as those 5 star recruits, so people shouldn't be overly upset that their favorite team didn't get that prized 5 star recruit.

Bama37228
08-01-2007, 09:04 PM
Now let's look at the recent championship teams....hmmm....yep...they all usually have great recruiting classes. Stars matter.

jared
08-01-2007, 10:18 PM
Maybe it's just me but it seems like sites sometimes give guys an extra star when he commits to a big time program. As in some 2-star guy isn't really on Rivals' radar, then they notice that Ohio State signed him so now all of a sudden he's a 3-star. Maybe I'm just imagining things though. 5 stars to me means someone definitely has the athletic potential to someday be in the NFL. A 3-star player could potentially have the same athleticism but may have been overlooked by scouting services that can't possibly have enough resources to cover all the high schools in America.

reigle9
08-02-2007, 10:23 AM
I've always looked at it as being the 5* guys are the athletic freaks and have a huge ceiling but the 4* guys are the football players.

P-L
08-02-2007, 10:28 AM
I know it's been said before, but looking at a player's offer list is usually more of an indicator than their star rating.

reigle9
08-02-2007, 10:36 AM
I know it's been said before, but looking at a player's offer list is usually more of an indicator than their star rating.

I completely agree if you could know for sure. It's flawed logic because it's impossible to know.

Kids like to claim offers to get attention (which I don't think is wrong) or just to make themselves look better. Last year Cedric Everson claimed he had 35 ints and the NFL thought he was too good for college. It turned out he had about 3 offers.

etk
08-02-2007, 10:58 AM
The discrepancy between a highly ranked 4 star and a 5 star can be very small. Sometimes it is a toss-up for a team to choose one or the other, so I think it would be fairer to divide the players into categories based on their positional rank instead of star rating. VVHTs, VHTs, HTs etc. Most of those prospects you listed were among the tops at their position anyway, so I wouldn't see the lack of 5 stars as a trend or anything.

P-L
08-02-2007, 05:23 PM
The discrepancy between a highly ranked 4 star and a 5 star can be very small.
Sometimes scouting services only give out a certain number of 5-star rankings, regardless of how good the high 4-star guys are.

CC
08-03-2007, 09:39 AM
Maybe it's just me but it seems like sites sometimes give guys an extra star when he commits to a big time program. As in some 2-star guy isn't really on Rivals' radar, then they notice that Ohio State signed him so now all of a sudden he's a 3-star. Maybe I'm just imagining things though. 5 stars to me means someone definitely has the athletic potential to someday be in the NFL. A 3-star player could potentially have the same athleticism but may have been overlooked by scouting services that can't possibly have enough resources to cover all the high schools in America.

I see what you are saying and I agree that it occurs. However, it does make a lot of sense. If a top team offers a lower ranked prospect they obviously think highly of that player, since they have so many options. Rivals/Scout sees this and assumes that the player has something they missed and re-evaluates the tape, and in turn bumps the player up.

ironman4579
08-17-2007, 09:56 PM
Now let's look at the recent championship teams....hmmm....yep...they all usually have great recruiting classes. Stars matter.

I'm pretty sure if/when I have the time, I can probably disprove this.

CC
08-18-2007, 11:21 AM
I'm pretty sure if/when I have the time, I can probably disprove this.

Recent champions: Florida, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas.

No, you can't.

ironman4579
08-18-2007, 01:07 PM
Recent champions: Florida, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas.

No, you can't.

You might be right there, and if so, I'll gladly admit it. So far Florida has alot more 5 stars than I thought they did.