ADVERTISEMENT

5-star recruits

Rice should have been 5 stars ..which shows how flawed the whole thing is. If you look at what Rice did at RU and then in the NFL, should have been 5 star based on field performance. Hamilton has been a good not great player for RU with 1 big year left. Think of all the 4 star players who haven't panned out for RU..Berkeley Hutchinson, OL Newell, OL Forst, RB Williams, QB Savage, DB Knight, WR Shuler, RB Huggins. and there are a few others.
 
As for Leonard and maybe Rice, I believe I remember some saying that the rating system back then was somewhat different from todays. It was a lot more difficult to get more stars was the story.
Based on the number of players in the NFL that were not 5 stars, I think it is safe to say that it is only meaningful until they step on the college playing field for the first time.
 
For the stars system I have seen a couple of different takes on it.

1. It is based on potential to make the NFL. Since these kids are underclassmen in HS when they are first rated a lot would be based on physical attributes like size, speed, etc...
2. It is based on which schools offered a kid. If schools that are perennial top 10 schools offer than the kid will be at least 4 stars. If the kid only has offers from FCS and smaller FBS schools then he is a 2 star at best.

Maybe it is a combination of the 2.

We see with the 2016 QBs that Russo is behind Haskins and JG but was equal if not better to them at a recent Rivals top 11 combine.
 
Can't remember name but I believe dt (Nate Robinson?) that couldn't get into Miami and then came to Rutgers was a 5 *. He wound up at Akron after Schiano gave up on him.

GO RU
 
Rice should have been 5 stars ..which shows how flawed the whole thing is. If you look at what Rice did at RU and then in the NFL, should have been 5 star based on field performance. Hamilton has been a good not great player for RU with 1 big year left. Think of all the 4 star players who haven't panned out for RU..Berkeley Hutchinson, OL Newell, OL Forst, RB Williams, QB Savage, DB Knight, WR Shuler, RB Huggins. and there are a few others.

how could anyone on earth know what Ray would be while he was in high school? he was a 3 star defensive back. committed to Cuse. You don't get to re-rank them after the fact
 
If only we'd gotten Dwayne Jones...

Back in the old days, I knew that whenever RU got a highly rated commit, he certainly had qualifying issues. Many of the guys listed above did not have firm offers from the power teams due to issues. Hell, Nate Robinson committed to Miami and was not admitted and then fell to RU. Which certainly opened the eyes of many who thought (mistakenly) that RU had higher standards for football players than the Canes. I would say that Savage lived up to his ranking but we could not protect him and his skills were wasted. Rice certainly did much better in college than anyone could have predicted (he was a smallish defensive back prospect) and Schiano did a great job jumping on him when PP was fired at Cuse. There were many RU regimes that would not have been capable of doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyNewark51
how could anyone on earth know what Ray would be while he was in high school? he was a 3 star defensive back. committed to Cuse. You don't get to re-rank them after the fact

That's the point i'm making. Why does everyone get apoplectic about the rankings? If more people would actually re-rank the players after 3 or 4 years...opinions would be very different. You have a portion of the RU fan base that wants the coaching staff out based on Rivals star rankings and class rankings...are you seriously kidding me?
 
Can't remember name but I believe dt (Nate Robinson?) that couldn't get into Miami and then came to Rutgers was a 5 *. He wound up at Akron after Schiano gave up on him.

GO RU

It was Nate Robinson. Worst case of Nuke La Loosh disease I've seen in a recruit.
 
With ratings, I think you have to keep in mind the number of kids who are part of each * group. There are only 25 or so 5* kids a year and hundreds of 2* and 3*. It makes sense that just as many 2 and 3* kids would make it to the NFL as 5*s simply because of the discrepancy in numbers within the grouping that you are starting with.
 
Please tell me one D1 Coach who right now wouldn't trade his 2013 5 star Defensive End for 2 star Kemoko Turay? Not to say that some of these 5 star kids don't turn out to be great (see Clowney and a few others). However, it is such an inexact science.

Besides, has a guy like Tom Lemming ever coached a football game in his life? What qualifies him to pick a top 150 and rate stars?
 
With ratings, I think you have to keep in mind the number of kids who are part of each * group. There are only 25 or so 5* kids a year and hundreds of 2* and 3*. It makes sense that just as many 2 and 3* kids would make it to the NFL as 5*s simply because of the discrepancy in numbers within the grouping that you are starting with.


This has been hatched and re-hatched here a thousand times.
 
So are we at all in the running for Gary?
Never were as far as I know. He did visit at least.

As far as the star system, it is not science. The last Superbowl didn't have a single player that was rated 5 stars out of High School, and that's counting both teams.

This is why it is so silly if not stupid to get too hung up on stars.

MSU gets mostly 2-3 star players and only a few 4 stars, yet they finish in the top 25 nearly every year and in the top 5 the last two years, the ONLY school to do so in the last two years.

It is a lot more about finding players that fit the system that is being run at that school and coaching them up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyNewark51
That's the point i'm making. Why does everyone get apoplectic about the rankings? If more people would actually re-rank the players after 3 or 4 years...opinions would be very different. You have a portion of the RU fan base that wants the coaching staff out based on Rivals star rankings and class rankings...are you seriously kidding me?

I know what you mean. I misinterpreted the original post
 
The best way to understand the star system is to think of it as a probability. It's 5 AM so I'm not going to find the data but I think there were 8 5* drafted in the first round last year. There are about 35-50 5* players per year so 8/50 5* were 1st round picks. That's 16% chance of being a 1st round pick if you're a 5*. There are about 250-350 4* per year so let's say 6/300 4* or 2% of being a first round pick. 2* and 3* percentages are less than that.

How this translates to a quality college team is the odds of a players being a starter, all American, 1st NFL pick, etc. also increase with the number of stars. With 85 scholarship players You need about 50-55 contributors including the 2 deep and special teams. 85 2* players => about 25 contributors. 85 3* players => 43 contributors and so on. So you can't really build a team with nothing but 2 & 3 stars unless your coaching staff is that much better than the averages of identifying which 2/3* will contribute.

Stars are or at least should be awarded based on the evaluation by the recruiting service of a player. I know 247 has a decent description of what a 2/3/4/5* player is.

Also remember that people develop at different times in their life and the evaluation is a snapshot of that person to that point.

So yes stars matter for a team but not as much for an individual player. Be concerned if you're team has nothing but 2 & 3 stars but not so much if Russo is a 3* vs 5* or whether Ray Rice should have been 5*
 
ADVERTISEMENT