Home› The Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

WOOF!

dncdnc Member Posts: 56,726
in The Fisch Bowl (Recruiting)


We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • huskyhooliganhuskyhooligan Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,427 Swaye's Wigwam
    Well now that UW has 3 five stars I guess this puts us at 33%, assuming at this point Smalls and Huard are not drafted. Unless I'm missing a five star other than Shaq.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,349 Founders Club
    The 5 star % isn’t bad considering the sample size but goddamn 12/87 is terrible.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,877
    I'm assuming that you have to have entered the draft to be a factor on the denominator?

    I'd love to dig more into the TCU numbers ... I know we had a number of dudes for a while flake out for being a little too fast strategy
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,349 Founders Club
    @dnc?? A Q??!!??

    What’s the tim frame on this?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,726
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    @dnc?? A Q??!!??

    What’s the tim frame on this?

    The Athletic dug into 11 years of data to find the answer. For three-, four- and five-star prospects, which schools had the highest percentage of prospects drafted?

    Using the 247Sports Composite Rating, we tallied the total three-, four- and five-star prospects signed at each of the 65 Power 5 programs from 2009 through 2019 and how many of each star rating were drafted from 2012 through 2022 in the seven-round event that features more than 250 picks each year. Then we tallied the percentages for each school. The top and bottom 10 featured some usual suspects and some surprises.

    To prevent small sample sizes, we limited the rankings to schools that signed at least five five-star prospects and 20 four-star prospects.

    Here, we examine the core question: If you’re a three-, four- or five-star recruit, which school gives you the best chance to go pro?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,349 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    @dnc?? A Q??!!??

    What’s the tim frame on this?

    The Athletic dug into 11 years of data to find the answer. For three-, four- and five-star prospects, which schools had the highest percentage of prospects drafted?

    Using the 247Sports Composite Rating, we tallied the total three-, four- and five-star prospects signed at each of the 65 Power 5 programs from 2009 through 2019 and how many of each star rating were drafted from 2012 through 2022 in the seven-round event that features more than 250 picks each year. Then we tallied the percentages for each school. The top and bottom 10 featured some usual suspects and some surprises.

    To prevent small sample sizes, we limited the rankings to schools that signed at least five five-star prospects and 20 four-star prospects.

    Here, we examine the core question: If you’re a three-, four- or five-star recruit, which school gives you the best chance to go pro?
    TYFYS
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • theknowledgetheknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,910 Founders Club
    Any chance someone can post this article in the Wam?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,349 Founders Club
    theknowledge said:

    Any chance someone can post this article in the Wam?


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Geevis_and_ButtheadGeevis_and_Butthead Member Posts: 992
    What does this say about the "evaluations" of Brandon Huffman and Greg Biggins and the rest?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,087 Standard Supporter
    Geevis_and_Butthead said:

    What does this say about the "evaluations" of Brandon Huffman and Greg Biggins and the rest?

    They’re not good at this and are easily influenced by stupid stuff.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NeGgaPlEaSeNeGgaPlEaSe Member Posts: 5,729
    dnc said:



    We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

    Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





    Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
    Smalls and Huard going to drop t)3 average around here
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    edited April 2023
    Oregon has had 14-5* guys.

    5 drafted (KT, HN, J-Stew, DAT, AA)
    1 going this draft (NS)
    1 undrafted (Colvin)
    3 still at UO (JD, DM, JC jr)
    2 transferred (Flowe, Seastrunk)
    2 medically retired (Tyner, Kaumatule) then transferred.

    Of the guys who stayed at Oregon 6 of 7 were drafted
    Of the guys currently at Oregon, 2 of 3 will be drafted (Conerly and Dickey) D. Manning may if he has a solid year.
    So 8-9 of 10 will be after their careers at Oregon.
    Conerly (keep hope alive) or Dickey could always portal.

    NOC.

    #butstill





    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    46XiJCAB said:

    Oregon has had 14-5* guys.

    5 drafted (KT, HN, J-Stew, DAT, AA)
    1 going this draft (NS)
    1 undrafted (Colvin)
    3 still at UO (JD, DM, JC jr)
    2 transferred (Flowe, Seastrunk)
    2 medically retired (Tyner, Kaumatule) then transferred.

    Of the guys who stayed at Oregon 6 of 7 were drafted
    Of the guys currently at Oregon, 2 of 3 will be drafted (Conerly and Dickey) D. Manning may if he has a solid year.
    So 8-9 of 10 will be after their careers at Oregon.
    Conerly (keep hope alive) or Dickey could always portal.

    NOC.

    #butstill





    Do you see Connerly getting drafted as a TE or LT?
    LT.

    Where he’s the starter.

    Cool story though.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,726
    46XiJCAB said:

    CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

    46XiJCAB said:

    Oregon has had 14-5* guys.

    5 drafted (KT, HN, J-Stew, DAT, AA)
    1 going this draft (NS)
    1 undrafted (Colvin)
    3 still at UO (JD, DM, JC jr)
    2 transferred (Flowe, Seastrunk)
    2 medically retired (Tyner, Kaumatule) then transferred.

    Of the guys who stayed at Oregon 6 of 7 were drafted
    Of the guys currently at Oregon, 2 of 3 will be drafted (Conerly and Dickey) D. Manning may if he has a solid year.
    So 8-9 of 10 will be after their careers at Oregon.
    Conerly (keep hope alive) or Dickey could always portal.

    NOC.

    #butstill





    Do you see Connerly getting drafted as a TE or LT?
    LT.

    Where he’s the starter.

    Cool story though.
    He isn’t the one talking about moving Conerly to TE, that’s Lanning.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rodmansragerodmansrage Member Posts: 6,264
    dnc said:



    We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

    Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





    Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
    texas, wtf? so, does this mean sark has gotten his guys in there?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    rodmansrage said:

    dnc said:



    We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

    Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





    Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
    texas, wtf? so, does this mean sark has gotten his guys in there?
    Can we get a breakdown by staffs. MB, CK, MH, WT, MC and DL. That would be really interesting.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,726
    46XiJCAB said:

    rodmansrage said:

    dnc said:



    We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

    Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





    Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
    texas, wtf? so, does this mean sark has gotten his guys in there?
    Can we get a breakdown by staffs. MB, CK, MH, WT, MC and DL. That would be really interesting.
    Go for it
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    edited April 2023
    dnc said:

    46XiJCAB said:

    rodmansrage said:

    dnc said:



    We now have hard evidence Ducks can't develop.

    Always nice when actual data confirms your priors.





    Twelve 4 stars drafted out of 87 is worse than I wood have guessed quite honestly.
    texas, wtf? so, does this mean sark has gotten his guys in there?
    Can we get a breakdown by staffs. MB, CK, MH, WT, MC and DL. That would be really interesting.
    Go for it
    I did my 20 whole minutes of "data driven research" on Oregon's overall 5* success.

    Pass.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.