5-star QB's usually suck
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
-
Might as well not even recruit a 5 star
-
He is so jealous we took Damon's kid over his.
-
If you were him, you would be bitter too. Don’t blame himdnc said:He is so jealous we took Damon's kid over his.
-
Probably, but them are the facts.dnc said:He is so jealous we took Damon's kid over his.
-
I don't think that's the moral of the story.MikeDamone said:Might as well not even recruit a 5 star
-
They're facts but it's still slanted.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Probably, but them are the facts.dnc said:He is so jealous we took Damon's kid over his.
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. -
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). -
Tua as well.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 don't think that's the moral of the story.MikeDamone said:Might as well not even recruit a 5 star
His retort to that was that if the guys rated below Huard weren't successful people would just say "well they're rated lower than him so who cares?" By looking at the guys who were projected as more likely to succeed, and seeing that they did not, it doesn't bode well.dnc said:
They're facts but it's still slanted.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Probably, but them are the facts.dnc said:He is so jealous we took Damon's kid over his.
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.
ATBS, it could be that the 12 below Huard all won natties or something and that wouldn't fit his narrative. -
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. -
Turned into an interesting thread
This Millen stat was debunked
His stat on Ty after 3 years wasn't although a lot of folks wanted it to be -
I think a lot of you are missing the point, which is that 5* QBs aren’t a sure thing and there are too many people expecting that Huard is going to be Cam Newton simply because he’s a 5*. It doesn’t work that way.
-
I don’t really care, but Huard does suck. Any guy that plays that bad and can’t beat out Morris isn’t great.
I know the response will be about coaching, but it’s also doogish hope to expect him to be any better than above average at his peak. -
Good thread but the entire premise is so "thanks captain obvious" that I wonder just how bored Millen is right now.
Nobody GAFabout Huard's star rating. It's the way he throws the football that led to that rating that keeps hope alive.
It's not new news that good prospects fail all the time. I'd say good try, but shit like this is really equivalent to the old man yelling at the cloud meme many of us have posted here. He's trying to make a point in an imaginary argument. -
But that's not it at all. Of the 45 5 star samples in the field, he's dropping the top 6, keeping the next 12 (Huard is 19), and dropping the next 26.whatshouldicareabout said:
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.
It's an "analysis" of upper middle 5 stars.
Which is far too specific of a sampling to worth anything when the samples directly above and directly below directly contradict the conclusion he wants to provide. -
I pretty much agree, but I do think that he is also attempting to inform Doog Nation that Huard is likely not going to be the savior (or he's just being a bitter asshole). But think about how stupid our fanbase is, led by people like Kimmie who ask how much of a hard-on the head coach has for the players' stars.chuck said:Good thread but the entire premise is so "thanks captain obvious" that I wonder just how bored Millen is right now.
Nobody GAFabout Huard's star rating. It's the way he throws the football that led to that rating that keeps hope alive.
It's not new news that good prospects fail all the time. I'd say good try, but shit like this is really equivalent to the old man yelling at the cloud meme many of us have posted here. He's trying to make a point in an imaginary argument. -
It’s something anyone that follows CFB and recruiting knows. Most QB’s are busts.
-
You're right. I do forget how stupid fans are and doogism is its own thing altogether.BleachedAnusDawg said:
I pretty much agree, but I do think that he is also attempting to inform Doog Nation that Huard is likely not going to be the savior (or he's just being a bitter asshole). But think about how stupid our fanbase is, led by people like Kimmie who ask how much of a hard-on the head coach has for the players' stars.chuck said:Good thread but the entire premise is so "thanks captain obvious" that I wonder just how bored Millen is right now.
Nobody GAFabout Huard's star rating. It's the way he throws the football that led to that rating that keeps hope alive.
It's not new news that good prospects fail all the time. I'd say good try, but shit like this is really equivalent to the old man yelling at the cloud meme many of us have posted here. He's trying to make a point in an imaginary argument.
Huard was apparently a project. It's not that surprising. I feel like hope is pretty slim thst hell be good given how bad it was for him last season. Penix is almost certainly going to win the job unless he breaks down in camp. If there is any competition whatsoever between Morris and Huard then we'll know for sure. -
Isn’t this an outdated argument anyway?
You don’t need to hit with your qb croots anymore. The portal renders it mute. Just grab a mercenary off the pile every year and pay him🤷♂️ -
The real "U" had that 5* kid out of Danville who was "can't miss", and miss he did. I now want Miami to avoid 5* QBs because Huge Mellon deductive prowess.
Just giving you shit Bleached. Although this does smack of someone trying too hard to make a point.
In football recruiting, as in life, all any of us can do is make the best decision we can with the information at hand. If a kid has enough visible talent to draw interest from many top-tier programs, and you see it too, and he wants to play for you, then you take him. Fuck the rest of it.
Nobody is going to know how the kid's brain will work at the next level until he drops back and makes decisions at game speed in the actual ... you know, game. Supposably that was the issue with the Swede. That and accuracy. But otherwise, ....
