5-star QB's usually suck
Comments
-
Those guys weren't the 12 directly above Huard. Hugh's numbers were based on #'s 7 - 18. He decided to toss them out because the top 5 guys are generational recruits.dnc said:One of them won a NY6 game.
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). -
I'm not going back and researching every 5 star QB (or every 5 star QB ranked above Huard) but I'll go through every NC winning QB. 2017 and 2014 get asterisks as the winning QB didn't start the year as the starter so you can figure out how you want to score them. Won't change the conclusions any.
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. -
I'm not misrepresenting.dnc said:I'm not going back and researching every 5 star QB (or every 5 star QB ranked above Huard) but I'll go through every NC winning QB. 2017 and 2014 get asterisks as the winning QB didn't start the year as the starter so you can figure out how you want to score them. Won't change the conclusions any.
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. -
Lawrence and Fields were absolutely above Huard in both positional ranking and composite scores. As was Can Newton. And Vince YoungBleachedAnusDawg said:
Those guys weren't the 12 directly above Huard. Hugh's numbers were based on #'s 7 - 18. He decided to toss them out because the top 5 guys are generational recruits.dnc said:One of them won a NY6 game.
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).
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. -
Yesdnc said:
Lawrence and Fields were absolutely above Huard in both positional ranking and composite scores. As was Can Newton. And Vince YoungBleachedAnusDawg said:
Those guys weren't the 12 directly above Huard. Hugh's numbers were based on #'s 7 - 18. He decided to toss them out because the top 5 guys are generational recruits.dnc said:One of them won a NY6 game.
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).
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. -
Taking 12 out of 45 five star QBs is such flawed data collection I'm legitimately blown away. Don't recruit 5 star QBs! Unless they're generational. Or unless they're ranked below the 5 star QB we recruited.🤦BleachedAnusDawg said:
I'm not misrepresenting.dnc said:I'm not going back and researching every 5 star QB (or every 5 star QB ranked above Huard) but I'll go through every NC winning QB. 2017 and 2014 get asterisks as the winning QB didn't start the year as the starter so you can figure out how you want to score them. Won't change the conclusions any.
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. -
I will say that the context of the conversation was around who the more likely starter will be between Huard and Penix. KJR ran a doog twitter poll and I think a lot more people on there than here believe Huard will be the guy. Hugh was trying to say that history is not kind to those who assume 5-star = star player.
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. -
If he's simply saying "5 star QBs aren't guaranteed to succeed" then that's an accurate (if obvious) take. Most QBs fail.BleachedAnusDawg said:I will say that the context of the conversation was around who the more likely starter will be between Huard and Penix. KJR ran a doog twitter poll and I think a lot more people on there than here believe Huard will be the guy. Hugh was trying to say that history is not kind to those who assume 5-star = star player.
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. -
Long story short, don't put your hopes on Huard being a savior for the Huskies. Even if he does live up to his ranking, it will be really hard to be a great QB if the pieces around him aren't there.
-
I guess the analysis was more about the lowest 5*s than all 5*s.dnc said:
Lawrence and Fields were absolutely above Huard in both positional ranking and composite scores. As was Can Newton. And Vince YoungBleachedAnusDawg said:
Those guys weren't the 12 directly above Huard. Hugh's numbers were based on #'s 7 - 18. He decided to toss them out because the top 5 guys are generational recruits.dnc said:One of them won a NY6 game.
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).
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.
