Quick Fact on Recruiting

DonaldJones

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?

RoadDawg55

This is why there is really no excuse for lacking talent. The players are out there.

Tequilla

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.

WilburHooksHands

So far, Petersen isn't doing anything to contradict his reputation at Boise. His guys come to play.

RaceBannon

I'm more concerned about college not the NFL

Was Ohio State filled with 3 stars and below?

ThomasFremont

Stan Emperterman was a .5 star diamond in the ruff.

Passion

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?

This.

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.

2001400ex

Sark says stars matter. I think other teams like Bama troll him by offering players which gives the recruits an automatic star ranking bump.

Doogles

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.

dnc

Doogles 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.

hr, yk

Dennis_DeYoung

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.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

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.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

And the 3 stars he is getting are ballers.

NeGgaPlEaSe

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

BallSacked

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.

Dennis_DeYoung

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.

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.

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.

Hippopeteamus

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.

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.

SpoogeDawg

Dennis_DeYoung said:

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.

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.

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.

Have your UW report card in your holster then pop off

Dennis_DeYoung

SpoogeDawg said:

Dennis_DeYoung said:

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.

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.

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.

Have your UW report card in your holster then pop off

I know you're being sarcastic, but I went to GRCC.

BallSacked

DDY has a Ph.D. in TBS

Dennis_DeYoung

BallSacked said:

DDY has a Ph.D. in TBS

Kind of?