Question for Anyone/Everyone

HeretoBeatmyChest

At what positions are star rankings most predictive? In other words at what position(s) do 4 and 5 star guys fare the best relative to the other positions.

I would bet its not QB as there are tons of big time QB recruits who don't pan out.

PurpleJ

Head Coach

bananasnblondes

Long snapper. All the best long snappers in the country are 2 stars. I have high hopes for A.J. Carty or whatever his name is.

kh83

Tail back is the first that comes to mind. But im too lazy to do any homework to back that up.

Doogles

I would guess Skill Position guys. More of an instinctual position and least likely to get passed up by some neanderthal that had a late growth spurt.

If you have the vision and the fast twitch you're pretty much legit versus being a huge fatty dominating a league of midgets.

BallSacked

RB, WR, TE - easiest to rate. Objective athletic and performance metrics I think explain most of their rating. Minimal physical transformation required. Especially now a days with these 7on7 summer tourneys allowing more film and observation to occur

OL, DTs - difficult due to the physical transformation needed, and tenacity and mean-streak I think is difficult to observe a lot of the time. I the Scouts miss a lot of leverage issues with lineman and just assume they'll fix it in college. That's a recipe for bust.

CB - difficult. scouts don't do a good job of assessing the athletic ability of corners to turn and run with wr's. It's also so technique centric and a lot of HSs teach shit technique

QB - Difficult.

Passion

Kicker. Either you make 'em, or you don't.

Non-special teams: My guess is WR, simply the tapes are easier to evaluate, and speed doesn't lie.

FremontTroll

Doogles said:

I would guess Skill Position guys. More of an instinctual position and least likely to get passed up by some neanderthal that had a late growth spurt.

If you have the vision and the fast twitch you're pretty much legit versus being a huge fatty dominating a league of midgets.

This is the commonly accepted viewpoint. But I don't think its supported by the data.

I once did an exhaustive examination comparing the % of 4/5* OL recruits that end up all conference as compared to skill position and IIRC there was not a significant difference. I will see if I can find it.

RoadDawg55

BallSacked said:

RB, WR, TE - easiest to rate. Objective athletic and performance metrics I think explain most of their rating. Minimal physical transformation required. Especially now a days with these 7on7 summer tourneys allowing more film and observation to occur

OL, DTs - difficult due to the physical transformation needed, and tenacity and mean-streak I think is difficult to observe a lot of the time. I the Scouts miss a lot of leverage issues with lineman and just assume they'll fix it in college. That's a recipe for bust.

CB - difficult. scouts don't do a good job of assessing the athletic ability of corners to turn and run with wr's. It's also so technique centric and a lot of HSs teach shit technique

QB - Difficult.

I would agree with this. Spot on regarding high school's teaching shitty technique for CB's. 7 on 7's help, but WR's/TE prospects are somewhat at the mercy of what kind of offense their high school runs and if they have a decent QB throwing them the ball. Jaelen Strong went unrecruited by FBS schools out of high school because he only caught 17 balls in an option offense. The TE commit UW got this year, Mike Neal has put up lackluster stats for the same reason (I hope).

The most difficult thing for evaluating is where the 17-18 year old is in terms of maturity. Some 18 year olds are still growing and can put on a lot of weight whereas others are basically maxed out by 16. This is a huge issue when it comes to OL and DL recruits.

Some kids have been well coached their entire life and have solid technique. Some kids receive very little coaching and are getting by purely on their athleticism. Coaches always have to battle if they want to take the kid who is already solid, but might have a lower ceiling vs the raw athlete who needs a lot of work, but could become a star.

whatshouldicareabout

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

At what positions are star rankings most predictive? In other words at what position(s) do 4 and 5 star guys fare the best relative to the other positions.

I would bet its not QB as there are tons of big time QB recruits who don't pan out.

Another question to ask is when are they the most predictive? And when you consider 'when', you also need to look at the talent above them, too.

For example, 4*/5* skill position players usually make an impact early on as underclassmen. However, if the depth above them is also 4*/5* kids, teams like Bama and FSU that are stable programs with highly talented upperclassmen, might bias the results since they are sitting or played limited snaps.