Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Super Bowl Starters High School Ratings

  1. #1

    Super Bowl Starters High School Ratings

    I saw today that among all the starters in the Super Bowl, there are zero players who were five star recruits. With all the discussion about star ratings recently I found this to be interesting. Like most people I want as many highly rated guys we can possibly get but it shows you how important development and work ethic is.

  2. #2
    How many five stars on the 4 teams playing for the College Football Championship?

  3. #3
    Marshawn was arguably a 5 star recruit. Lemming had him #13 overall and Rivals had him #33. He was the no. 2 RB in his class after Adrian Peterson. There are only a handful of consensus 5 star recruits in a given year, whereas there are dozens of consensus 4 star recruits and hundreds of recruits that have 4 stars in one or more services. The fact that there aren't a bunch of 5 stars playing in the SB doesn't speak to the quality of the rankings, but to the rarity of 5 star recruits. Plenty of these guys were blue chippers.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by btsktr View Post
    I saw today that among all the starters in the Super Bowl, there are zero players who were five star recruits. With all the discussion about star ratings recently I found this to be interesting. Like most people I want as many highly rated guys we can possibly get but it shows you how important development and work ethic is.
    I'm sure it'd be more informative to see the average star ratings on the team rather than just if there's a 5 star player.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    True Blue Golden Bear beeasyed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjorn91 View Post
    How many five stars on the 4 teams playing for the College Football Championship?
    Will tell you from memory: Braxton Miller (4/5*), JT Barrett (4*), and 12 GAUGE (3/4*)

    Obviously, people already know what Bama's roster is like. Oregon's loaded up on stars recently, especially at skill positions.

    Carrington 4*
    Allen 4*
    Marshall 4*
    Freeman 5*

    recently, on defense

    Balducci 4*
    Buckner 4*
    Armstead 4/5* [i'm sure people will quickly point out he played poorly in championship game]
    Last edited by beeasyed; 01-23-2015 at 11:09 AM.

  7. #7
    https://twitter.com/eamaddennfl/stat...64495589892097

    That is the link to the tweet. Only 8 4 stars out of all 44 starters.

  8. #8
    This is kind of what you'd expect. Each team only gets one 1st round pick each year, so the best teams won't have disproportionately more first round, can't miss type talents than other teams. If anything, the worst teams are the ones with a bunch of top-10 picks starting. Plus, with the salary cap, you can't load up on too many upper-echelon guys even through trades/free agency.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by berk18 View Post
    This is kind of what you'd expect. Each team only gets one 1st round pick each year, so the best teams won't have disproportionately more first round, can't miss type talents than other teams. If anything, the worst teams are the ones with a bunch of top-10 picks starting. Plus, with the salary cap, you can't load up on too many upper-echelon guys even through trades/free agency.
    The surprising thing to me was the amount of four stars. On average there are 20 five stars per year but pretty close to 300 four stars. Yet there is only 8 four stars starting in the Super Bowl. You would think that NFL rosters would be flooded with them.

  10. #10
    True Blue Golden Bear beeasyed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by btsktr View Post
    The surprising thing to me was the amount of four stars. On average there are 20 five stars per year but pretty close to 300 four stars. Yet there is only 8 four stars starting in the Super Bowl. You would think that NFL rosters would be flooded with them.
    and that statement hasn't been proven untrue. only that the starters on 2 NFL teams are not predominantly 4* or higher players.

  11. #11
    http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles...aching-the-nfl

    Here is another link with data about five stars during a certain time period. 47% of them went undrafted

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by beeasyed View Post
    and that statement hasn't been proven untrue. only that the starters on 2 NFL teams are not predominantly 4* or higher players.
    Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt. After all, all of the above rosters could be flooded with 4 and 5 stars, except for the 2 best teams!

  13. #13
    True Blue Golden Bear beeasyed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by btsktr View Post
    http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles...aching-the-nfl

    Here is another link with data about five stars during a certain time period. 47% of them went undrafted
    assuming we want to stick to the topic of "chance of being drafted", it'd be more relevant to talk about more recent times (instead of 2002-2008) since recruiting sites have gotten a lot more systematic and accurate since then:

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...tars-two-stars

    For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:

    A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
    A four-star had a one-in-five chance (77 of 395).
    A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (92 of 1,644).
    A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (71 of 2,434).
    but talking about the chances of being drafted end up taking away from the point being made that few starters on the 2 teams are 4* and 5*. i'm curious to know what the numbers are for the other teams in the NFL, but berk18 makes a good point that the way the system is, it prevents teams from accumulating all the best pieces.
    Last edited by beeasyed; 01-23-2015 at 04:01 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by beeasyed View Post
    assuming we want to stick to the topic of "chance of being drafted", it'd be more relevant to talk about more recent times (instead of 2002-2008) since recruiting sites have gotten a lot more systematic and accurate since then:

    http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...tars-two-stars



    but talking about the chances of being drafted end up taking away from the point being made that few starters on the 2 teams are 4* and 5*. i'm curious to know what the numbers are for the other teams in the NFL, but berk18 makes a good point that the way the system is, it prevents teams from accumulating all the best pieces.
    Assuming that 300 players each year are either a 4 or 5 star hypothetically every year the draft could include only 4 or 5 stars. There are 224 picks total in the draft. The draft is a total crapshoot in terms of drafting players that will be longtime contributors. And NFL teams have a dramatically reduced number of potential draftees when compared to the amount of potential student athletes a college has to scout.

    My point is that it is not easy for NFL teams to identify talent. So think about how hard it would be as a college staff.

  15. #15
    Is there are 300 4 or 5 star players, and there are 225 draft slots, and probably half of those 4 or 5 star players end up failing in some way or another (academics, desire, illness and injury) even before you start to think of the other issues - like just is in the wrong position, underrated, etc - the pool every year is about 150 4 or 5 star recruits, or about 10 5 star guys and 140 4 start guys. So if they pick 100% of the 5 star guys who make it through to draft, and 50% of the 4 star guys who do the same, that brings the numbers to about what the draft actually developed last year.

    But there are a heck of a lot more 3 star guys, and the odds of one of them becoming really good is probably a lot higher than the odds of a 4 star making it through. For example - there are 1800 3 star guys. The NFL is only really taking the cream of the crop with them - and generally they will be the ones who excelled at the sport as opposed to the ones who were measured in High School and were expected to excel. The 3 star crowd are the actual performers - vs some of the 4 star crowd who are the ones who should be able to perform, so we should take a flyer on them since they have the measurables.

    In other words, they have been picked out of a larger pool because of their better on-field performance as opposed to projected performance. I think that always is a winner.

    Kind of like Scooby Wright. No measurable but a great player. Someone in the NFL will take a flyer on him because he is great - even though he will not look good on their charts. And he will be great in the NFL.

    Meanwhile, Scarlett should be huge for us. But he is leaving after years of injuries, and probably looking for a post football position with a good graduate degree. All the measurements can't help an injury bug.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •