In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1659
Online now 203 Record: 9788 (12/4/2012)
The place for Tiger fans to talk football, basketball and recruiting
The place for Tiger fans to talk about everything Auburn and not!
Buy and sell your Auburn Tiger tickets here.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Flacco was the 39th best High School QB when he was a senior in HS. He didn't crack any Top-100's, 250's, etc....
He signed with Pitt, but in two years on campus, he couldn't crack the lineup....playing very-sparingly behind Tyler Palko. He transfers to the FCS juggernaut (NOT!)....Delaware Blue Hens! The rest is history....with more to come....
After being overlooked by "EVERY" program of significance in the college football world, and playing at the FCS level,
JOE FLACCO HAS MORE ROAD PLAYOFF WINS THAN "ANY" QB IN NFL HISTORY! And he has many years ahead of him.....
The point that I'm making, as has been done by others on here before...is that the star rating, while fun for fans, is just that. Many 2 & 3 stars will become legends...many 5 star players never play a down in college....and vice versa. We just don't know....I fully trust this outstanding staff to evaluate the needs and sign the "players" that we need, not the "stars"!
Ol' Joe Flacco is proof that the system isn't always accurate.....
Colin Kaepernick was the 34th rated QB in his HS class, and a mere 3 star......but he did score 1650 on his SAT....
This post was edited by Robbie B 15 months ago
Great. Another Player X wasn't highly recruited thread. How interesting.
Everybody, OK MOST people, love a feel-good, underdog story and that's what these are. Surprises. Nobody is surprised, or too excited, when somebody who was supposed to be great turns out to be great. At least that's what I think.
I could say that there goes Poster X (aka McBigun) being all negative about something AGAIN. How UN-interesting.
I don't think there is any question that a lot of the quarterbacks that end up being great in college or the NFL were once rated 2-star or 3-star talents. You just gave two great examples...and there are a ton more.
But the reason the star-ratings aren't irrelevant, is that they give you a pretty good idea on the odds of which player is likely to become one of the notable, successful college talents. It's the odds that are important.
I took about 10-15 minutes to go through 2003 to 2007 and compare the 3-star and 4/5-star quarterbacks of each year. There are TONS of good 3-star quarterbacks to be found in those years o recruiting.
Here are some 3-star examples of solid-to-great players...
John Parker Wilson
And there are also TONS of examples of 4 and 5-star QBs from that time period. Here are a few....
But here is the thing. While there are lots of notable names found in the 3-star rankings, there are a significant number of "never heard of him" names too. And while there are certainly "never heard of him" names found in the 4 and 5-star ranks as well, the ratios are considerably different.
The following isn't scientific, because it was just me going through the ratings and writing down the guys names that I knew to have been an impact player in college to some degree.
Here are the rough numbers.
Total 3-star QBs, 2003-2007 - 289
Notable 3-star QBs, 2003-07 - 26
Percentage - 9%
Total 4/5-star QBs, 2003-2007 - 93
Notable 4/5-star QBs, 2003-07 - 44
Percentage - 47%
So yeah, there were 26 guys, some names as big as Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy. But it took 289 players to find those 26. A 9% chance of getting a notable player are not great odds.
On the other hand, of the 93 4/5-star players, you had pretty close to a 50/50 chance of getting a notable player. Those are some pretty good odds.
And that's why the ratings do actually mean something. It's not about determining that each and every 3-star or 5-star player is guaranteed to turn out a particular way. It's about recognizing the odds of success given their evaluation.
If you have the choice, you are far better off taking a roster with four 4-star quarterbacks than a roster with four 3-star quarterbacks.
Your other point is still very true though too....we have to hope the staff is good at predicting which of the 3-star and 4-star guys are going to be the stand-outs, and which are likely to bust.
PS. I didn't bother going through the 2-star quarterbacks....there were 703 of them.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by jadennis 15 months ago
Malzahn approves of NOW Boot Camp! Well...not really...but he would if he knew about it :) www.nowbootcamp.com
From 2003 - 2008 there were 28 QBs rated 5 star. Only 13 made it to the NFL, only 8 of those started more than 1 or 2 games, and only 1 became a Pro Bowl quality player in Michael Vick. Lesson - dont be overjoyed by a 5 star QB commit. Here's the numbers for other positions:
OL - 25, 10, 3, 0
DT - 14, 9, 5, 2 (Marvin Austin maybe, Gerald McCoy)
DE - 18, 12, 5, 0
LB - 19, 10, 3, 0
RB - 29, 13, 5, 3 (McFadden, Bush, Petersen)
WR - 30, 20, 6, 4 (Desean Jackson, Calvin Johnson, Percy Harvin, Julio Jones)
DB - 27, 17, 7, 4(Ted Ginn maybe, Patrick Peterson probably, Eric Berry probably, Antonio Cromartie)
I did not consider the few ATH ranked players for simplicity. Pay closest attention on the 3rd number - those players that actually started consistently in the NFL - that's a very low number considering these were the "cream of the crop athletes". Go back thru those lists if you want a bunch of chuckles.
Bottom line is if 5 stars are going to be weighted so heavily in recruiting rankings these "analysts" need to improve their abilities about two-fold. That's why I don't get squirreled up about rankings. The numbers have a good deal of inaccuracy in them. If they ditched 5-star and stuck with 4 or less they would be much more valuable. I'll worry about a recruiting class when more than 50% are rated 3-star and lower and about the only 5-star I will get overly excited about is a DT since those pan out at a high %
13 of 28 getting to the NFL is 46%. That means you if you get a 5-star QB you have a 46% chance he's NFL quality (at least worthy of getting a shot).
There were 1,173 quarterbacks rated a 2-star or 3-star during those years. I'm doing that research, but I'd love to know if the percentage that went to the NFL was anywhere in the same universe as 46%.
Heck, even 4.6% would mean 54 of them made it, and I'm guessing that is high.
So you can ignore the ratings and think they don't mean much, but I'd much rather pick a QB from a group of 28 guys that have a 46% chance of going pro, rather than from a group of 1,173 guys that have less than a 5% chance.
I understand not getting overly excited by a 5-star, as they still are about a 50/50 shot at being NFL worthy. But again, that 50/50 is still better than 4-stars, and way, way better than 3-star and 2-star.
The point is the 5-star rating is inaccurate at best and very biased. It should be like catching fish in a bathtub. The %s match 4-star numbers so why give more credence to 5-stars?
This post was edited by nujaC 15 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports