Quick Fact on Recruiting
Comments
-
This is why there is really no excuse for lacking talent. The players are out there.
-
Stars are great but can be a myth if you chase them ...
As always it comes back to not only finding guys that fit what you want to do, but also finding guys that you can develop into better players. -
So far, Petersen isn't doing anything to contradict his reputation at Boise. His guys come to play.
-
I'm more concerned about college not the NFL
Was Ohio State filled with 3 stars and below? -
Stan Emperterman was a .5 star diamond in the ruff.
-
This.DonaldJones said:Do you know that out of the 32 First round players that were drafted, only a few of them were 4 or 5 star players coming out of high school? Most of them were rated as 3 star or below. So don't get frustrated if we don't get the 5 star guys. Get the ones that can develop into ballers. Anyone can scout the 5 star guys but teams but can you spot out the guys that aren't rated as high?
Also, can you keep guys around for 4 years to build a more experienced team that has your system embedded in their brains?
Petros Papadakis annoys the hell out of me sometimes, but he hates sark so I tolerate him. He made a good point on the radio this week that 4 & 5-star guys often feel entitled to play, and they get pissy if they don't. Not the "OKG" "Built for Life" attitude that Pete is seeking. -
Sark says stars matter. I think other teams like Bama troll him by offering players which gives the recruits an automatic star ranking bump.
-
There are like 2 thousand more 3 stars than 4-5 stars combined. The percent of 5 stars that go to the nfl vs. the percent of the 3 stars that make it tells the story.
It's not the end all be all, but you want these guys in your program. -
hr, ykDoogles said:There are like 2 thousand more 3 stars than 4-5 stars combined. The percent of 5 stars that go to the nfl vs. the percent of the 3 stars that make it tells the story.
-
The problem is that there are a very different amount of 4 and 5 star players than there are 3 star players.
These days there aren't even real 1-stars.
If a service were to really rate people based on offers, it would be pretty accurate; but it's also stupid to think that coaching doesn't matter in who gets picked in the first round.
If a 5-star kid played under Gilby vs. under Urban Meyer, it will matter.
All in all, I find the "who gets drafted" bit pretty empty. I refuted it many times on dawgman as well. You are a hundred times more likely to get picked in the first round as a 5-star than a 2-star.
There is a bunch of additional variance in the error term that has to do with coaching, system for, etc (and of course there's just error as well).
Ultimately, it's a combination of factors, but there's no solace in getting low-rated players on average.
With Pete things are a little different because his development/scouting record is fantastic. But, with Sark there was almost a 1-to-1 between stars and development. -
Doesn't really matter anyways since Petersen is getting more 4 star players than we have had at UW. His trajectory right now in recruiting is terrific.
-
And the 3 stars he is getting are ballers.
-
ThomasFremont said:
Stan Emperterman was a .5 star diamond in the ruff.
I don't think Donald Jones knows who that it, show some respect
-
That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
-
You do, it's not even close. Percentage-wise, something like 10% of 5-stars get picked in the first round... it's like .005% of 3-stars. I did the analysis once. I wrote an academic paper on a subject very related, so I had to really know. I could go back and dig it up if people were dying to know. I did it also for all conference accolades.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
It's just confusing two different points...
a) "Is a 5-star likely to be better in college than a 3-star?" YES OBVIOUSLY.
b) "Does being a 3-star preclude you from being picked in the first round?" NO.
Those are very separate questions and have no conditional effects on each other probability-wise. -
So what is important, and I think this is what Donald Jones was saying, is a coaches ability to evaluate talent, many of whom, as you said, are going to be 3 star players (even OSU take 6 or 7, 3 star players a year). This is especially true for a program like Washington, which is not just going to get an entire class of 4 and 5 star players. It is probably true that if you were randomly picking players the best approach would be to select only the 5 star players. But if you believe your coaches are good at evaluating talent, then a coach taking a 3 star player is not an indication that they are failing at recruiting. Now if they are trying to get 4 and 5 star players and fall back at the last second on a 3 star, then yeah, it is like picking the player at random.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s. -
Have your UW report card in your holster then pop offDennis_DeYoung said:
You do, it's not even close. Percentage-wise, something like 10% of 5-stars get picked in the first round... it's like .005% of 3-stars. I did the analysis once. I wrote an academic paper on a subject very related, so I had to really know. I could go back and dig it up if people were dying to know. I did it also for all conference accolades.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
It's just confusing two different points...
a) "Is a 5-star likely to be better in college than a 3-star?" YES OBVIOUSLY.
b) "Does being a 3-star preclude you from being picked in the first round?" NO.
Those are very separate questions and have no conditional effects on each other probability-wise.
-
I know you're being sarcastic, but I went to GRCC.SpoogeDawg said:
Have your UW report card in your holster then pop offDennis_DeYoung said:
You do, it's not even close. Percentage-wise, something like 10% of 5-stars get picked in the first round... it's like .005% of 3-stars. I did the analysis once. I wrote an academic paper on a subject very related, so I had to really know. I could go back and dig it up if people were dying to know. I did it also for all conference accolades.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
It's just confusing two different points...
a) "Is a 5-star likely to be better in college than a 3-star?" YES OBVIOUSLY.
b) "Does being a 3-star preclude you from being picked in the first round?" NO.
Those are very separate questions and have no conditional effects on each other probability-wise. -
DDY has a Ph.D. in TBS
-
Kind of?BallSacked said:DDY has a Ph.D. in TBS
-
Not sure if intentional or not, but you just described players 7-25 in Sark's classes.Hippopeteamus said:
...... But if you believe your coaches are good at evaluating talent, then a coach taking a 3 star player is not an indication that they are failing at recruiting. Now if they are trying to get 4 and 5 star players and fall back at the last second on a 3 star, then yeah, it is like picking the player at random.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s. -
Shaking and about to vomitSpoogeDawg said:
Have your UW report card in your holster then pop offDennis_DeYoung said:
You do, it's not even close. Percentage-wise, something like 10% of 5-stars get picked in the first round... it's like .005% of 3-stars. I did the analysis once. I wrote an academic paper on a subject very related, so I had to really know. I could go back and dig it up if people were dying to know. I did it also for all conference accolades.BallSacked said:That's because there's way more 3 stars.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
It's just confusing two different points...
a) "Is a 5-star likely to be better in college than a 3-star?" YES OBVIOUSLY.
b) "Does being a 3-star preclude you from being picked in the first round?" NO.
Those are very separate questions and have no conditional effects on each other probability-wise. -
It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year. -
If that were true, USC would be killing it now and Boise state would win 6 games a year. Not to mention, Nebraska wouldn't have spent the better part of the 2000s as a top 25 team. To name some examples.CuntWaffle said:It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year. -
You don't get it2001400ex said:
If that were true, USC would be killing it now and Boise state would win 6 games a year. Not to mention, Nebraska wouldn't have spent the better part of the 2000s as a top 25 team. To name some examples.CuntWaffle said:It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year. -
The last class Petersen had was a 3.2 and this one figures to come in around 3.25. When Stanford and Oregon broke through on the field in 2009-2010, they started recruiting at a 3.4-3.5 average. With those classes they have contended for national championships and have a handful of major bowl wins.
This current class could have been a 3.4 had we got Eletise and Eason. The difference between that and a 3.2 seems small but it isnt. The difference is almost 1 all league guy per class. That starts to add up after a couple of classes and that can be the difference between a good, top 20 team and a loaded team that contends for Pac12 titles yearly.
Next year we should a breakthrough on the field and if that happens then for recruiting we want to see +3.3 going forward. Get +3.35 classes consistently and you will be contending for Rose Bowls almost every year (as Oregon and Stanford have done for the past 5 years). -
This is the realest shit ever poasted here about recruiting.HeretoBeatmyChest said:The last class Petersen had was a 3.2 and this one figures to come in around 3.25. When Stanford and Oregon broke through on the field in 2009-2010, they started recruiting at a 3.4-3.5 average. With those classes they have contended for national championships and have a handful of major bowl wins.
This current class could have been a 3.4 had we got Eletise and Eason. The difference between that and a 3.2 seems small but it isnt. The difference is almost 1 all league guy per class. That starts to add up after a couple of classes and that can be the difference between a good, top 20 team and a loaded team that contends for Pac12 titles yearly.
Next year we should a breakthrough on the field and if that happens then for recruiting we want to see +3.3 going forward. Get +3.35 classes consistently and you will be contending for Rose Bowls almost every year (as Oregon and Stanford have done for the past 5 years).
We could still end up around 3.3-3.4 this year if things go really well, but I think they are unlikely to.
Oregon and the Tree are great comparisons because they are teams that did a great job of developing talent as well. So we will need to be about where they were to develop kids in the way they did. -
Does anyone know what percentage of recruits are five stars? It has to be less than five.
I'm not going to ask Fetters or Kim because I hate them and they need to jump off the Aurora Bridge, plus they probably wouldn't give a good answer. -
Scout gives between 40 and 50 5-stars per year. They are bloating 3-stars but holding steady on 5-stars.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Does anyone know what percentage of recruits are five stars? It has to be less than five.
I'm not going to ask Fetters or Kim because I hate them and they need to jump off the Aurora Bridge, plus they probably wouldn't give a good answer.
So you figure 120 D1 teams. signing classes of 22 on average that's 2,640 recruits. 45 on average are 5-stars...less than 2%. -
I agree, there is way to much discrepancy between recruiting services to even validate star rankings, besides even remotely forgoing player development, inflation of rankings by recruiting a ton of skill players and no one in the trenches. We out recruited Oregon for so many years while they were on their rise. It sure the didn't transition into win loss, because Oregon took players that fit their system, and didn't chase stars.BallSacked said:
Scout gives between 40 and 50 5-stars per year. They are bloating 3-stars but holding steady on 5-stars.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Does anyone know what percentage of recruits are five stars? It has to be less than five.
I'm not going to ask Fetters or Kim because I hate them and they need to jump off the Aurora Bridge, plus they probably wouldn't give a good answer.
So you figure 120 D1 teams. signing classes of 22 on average that's 2,640 recruits. 45 on average are 5-stars...less than 2%.
