Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
5-star QB's usually suck
BleachedAnusDawg
Member Posts: 11,526
Hugh Millen was talking about 5-star QB hit rates the other day in terms of actually data, not opinion. Let's just say that the odds of Sam Huard being worth a shit or even finishing his degree at UW are slim.
He took the 12 guys rated directly above Huard since 2000 (because the assumption would be that those guys should all be more likely than Huard to have successful careers). Huard is rated 19th overall out of the 45 total 5-star QB's since these ratings began.
This is off of memory, but it was:
- 8 or 9 of the 12 transferred from their original school and none of them ever became more than a middle of the road starter. And this is before the transfer portal so these guys had to actually try to leave.
- One of them won a NY6 game.
- Only five of the twelve won any kind of bowl game.
There were a couple other data points he mentioned that I don't recall, but they all were logical tie-ins to what you would assume a successful college QB would achieve and none of the data sounded good.
He took the 12 guys rated directly above Huard since 2000 (because the assumption would be that those guys should all be more likely than Huard to have successful careers). Huard is rated 19th overall out of the 45 total 5-star QB's since these ratings began.
This is off of memory, but it was:
- 8 or 9 of the 12 transferred from their original school and none of them ever became more than a middle of the road starter. And this is before the transfer portal so these guys had to actually try to leave.
- One of them won a NY6 game.
- Only five of the twelve won any kind of bowl game.
There were a couple other data points he mentioned that I don't recall, but they all were logical tie-ins to what you would assume a successful college QB would achieve and none of the data sounded good.
Comments
Did he takes the ones higher than Huard because they are the ones more likely to have a better career, or because they are the ones that fit his narrative better?
It would make far more sense to look at all 45 5 stars than a subset of 5 stars. It's already a very small sample, no need to reduce further.
Have done zero research but this 100% can't be true. Trevor Lawrence and Justin Fields both won playoff games and they were both top 3 overall in their class (top 2 I believe).
ATBS, it could be that the 12 below Huard all won natties or something and that wouldn't fit his narrative.
2021 - 2 star
2020 - 3 star (Saban)
2019 - 4 star (transfer)
2018 - 5 star (higher than Huard)
2017 - 5 star
2016 - Extremely high 4 star (42 overall)
2015 - 4 star (Saban)
2014 - 3 star
2013 - 5 star
2012 - 4 star (Saban)
2011 - 4 star (Saban)
2010 - 5 star (higher than Huard)
2009 - 3 star (Saban)
2008 - 5 star
2007 - 4 star
2006 - 5 star (higher than Huard)
2005 - 5 star (higher than Huard)
2004 - Extremely high 4 star (58 overall)
Go back any further and the NC winning QB's don't have 247 composite ranking profiles.
So of the 18 NCs, 7 of them were won by the extremely small pool of 5 star QBs including 4 of them with higher rankings than Huard. If we count all 38 five star QBs not listed as those who didn't win NCs (unfair since many of them are still playing) that's 7 out of 45 NC winning five stars, or 15.5% of five star QBs who won NCs.
Good luck getting anything close to that with non five stars.
Either Millen's full of shit (probably) or you are misrepresenting what he said wildly.
Perhaps both.
Were the 5-stars who won within the top-6 of the total list of 5-star QB's? If yes (Lawrence, Tua), those guys are not in the 12 directly ahead of Sam.
Chris Leak was behind him positionally (13 to 12) but ahead of him in composite score which is how 247 compares recruits across multiple classes.
And if Hugh was using a different ranking system he's still not finding one that put Huard above Lawrence and Fields (or Newton or Young).
Brody Croyle also ranked well above Huard and won a NY6 bowl. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
This data is super flawed.
EDIT: I misunderstood you. So he eliminated the guys above Huard who disprove his premise and the guys below Huard (like Tebow, Tua and Winston) who disprove his premise so he could focus on a super narrow set of rankings that supposed to prove something?
W.
JW.
Holy fuck Hugh.
Did he have some other motivation behind cherry picking numbers? Maybe. I don't know enough about his kids, his feelings about UW skipping them, etc.
I think Penix is more likely the starter based on his experience in the system (and experience in general). I don't trust him to stay healthy though. I imagine we'll see plenty of both QBs this year.