Gary Tinsley moved to DE

[dpodoll68]

If you're 6'2" 210 lbs 4.5 LB in Florida, you're a 4-5 star player depending on how many SEC schools offer you.

If you're 6'2" 210 lbs 4.5 LB in Minnesota, you're at best a 3 star player.

I'm learning so many new things today!

Previously, I had been taught here that the only thing Rivals looks at when assigning a star rating is the prospect's offer list. Now, I'm being told that the prospect's state of residence, height, weight, and 40 yard dash times are also important. I can't believe how much smarter this site has made me!

For those wondering - piddling, unimportant things like functional strength, hip flexibility, leverage, read and recognition ability, not to mention nebulous concepts like the prospect's room for physical and emotional growth as well as the level of competition they play against, are totally unimportant and are not factored in when assigning star ratings to prospects. They don't even watch video - they are simply handed a handwritten piece of paper with 5 columns at the top - offers, height, weight, 40 yard dash, and state. Ratings are assigned solely on this information. The videos and accompanying critiques on the site are just for funsies, and in no way impact the ratings.

 

[dinkything]

If you're 6'2" 210 lbs 4.5 LB in Florida, you're a 4-5 star player depending on how many SEC schools offer you.

If you're 6'2" 210 lbs 4.5 LB in Minnesota, you're at best a 3 star player.

How many 210# LB's from within a 250 mile radius of the Twin Cities can/could run a legit 4.5 40 coming out of high school?

Rural South Dakota's Chad Greenway ran a legit 4.78 40 coming out of college. I bet Ben Leber, Sam Maresh, James Laurinaitis, Karl Mecklenberg, et al. were all in the 4.6-4.8 second range.


If the Upper Midwest kid is offered by the Gophers/Badgers/Hawkeyes, then he is a 3 star.

If you throw in offers from some of the Midwest powers...Ohio State, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Michigan, and possibly Penn St., then he's a 4 star

If he gets offers from the national power programs...Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and/or several of the SEC/Big 3 in Florida schools...then he is a 5 star.

Should be pretty straight forward.

 

[dpodoll68]

Rivals 2011 OLB prospects

Leilon Willingham - #13 OLB, 4-star, 1 helmet school offer (Michigan), 8 total BCS offers, signed with UCF
Armonze Daniel - #21 OLB, 3-star, 0 helmet school offers, 5 total BCS offers, signed with Marshall
Videl Nelson - #28 OLB, 3-star, 0 BCS offers, signed with Northern Illinois
Gionni Paul - #33 OLB, 3-star, 3 helmet school offers, 11 total BCS offers, signed with Miami
Franklin Shannon - #37 OLB, 3-star, 2 helmet school offers, 13 total BCS offers, signed with Oklahoma
Rahim Cassell - #60 OLB, 3-star, 1 helmet school offer, 10 total BCS offers, signed with Oregon
Darius Lee - NR, 2-star, 3 total BCS offers, signed with Virginia
Antoine Pozniak - NR, 2-star, 3 total BCS offers, signed with South Florida

I guess Rivals missed the memo on these guys.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I see people lumping Beal into this group of players who are overrated because they are from Florida, well Beal is from New Jersey and played 1 HS season in PA (only lived there for like the 4 months of the football season).

The other thing about MN kids not getting enough recruiting stars...really? We signed a 4 star kid from MN (Maresh) and a 3 star from FL (Tinsley)...who has done more at this level? I realize that argument can go both ways, but lets give up on this mentality that we don't get enough respect.


As far as Tinsley goes, he will definitely be one of our 4 best LBs come this fall. Hacksaw might actually be a little bit of a victim of his own versatility. He is one of our few LBs that can play on the outside as well as in the middle, but the idea that he might not be one of our better defensive players is "out there".

I get what is trying to be conveyed by the entire, Kill is going to play the "best" players and not "the most talented guys", well Tinsley was probably our best defensive player last season. He has not merely been a talented guy who hasn't quite put it together (Hageman), he was a good Big 10 LBer last season.

He is a little behind some other guys because he was injured and he didn't get to get as many reps and all that. I understand that if a game was played today that Ryan Grant would be more ready to play than Tinsley, but Tinsley is a good football player and he will be on the field as much as any of our LBs.

 

[BisonGopher]

How many 210# LB's from within a 250 mile radius of the Twin Cities can/could run a legit 4.5 40 coming out of high school?

Rural South Dakota's Chad Greenway ran a legit 4.78 40 coming out of college. I bet Ben Leber, Sam Maresh, James Laurinaitis, Karl Mecklenberg, et al. were all in the 4.6-4.8 second range.


If the Upper Midwest kid is offered by the Gophers/Badgers/Hawkeyes, then he is a 3 star.

If you throw in offers from some of the Midwest powers...Ohio State, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Michigan, and possibly Penn St., then he's a 4 star

If he gets offers from the national power programs...Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and/or several of the SEC/Big 3 in Florida schools...then he is a 5 star.

Should be pretty straight forward.

Its the chicken and the egg argument. Do Texas, Alabama, Florida not recruit the best players from Minnesota because those players aren't good enough or because there are enough equally talented players in their own states to pick from?

I would argue that Texas, Alabama, Florida could have just as well recruited the same talent level player from Minnesota as they could from their own states. That they choose the player from their own states is not an indication of inferior talent level of the Minnesota player, it's a simple matter of geography. Yet you look at the stars, which you just confirmed is based only on which schools have offered, and it's no wonder that the highest star rated players are in close proximity (nation wise) to the teams that have won the most national championships. It's not because they're better - it's just because they're local and thus getting offered by the right schools.

The whole system is just a positive feedback loop. The SEC schools for the most part only offer local kids, so the recruiting services give those local kids the most stars and thus the SEC schools have the highest rated recruiting classes. The only reason it's not blowing up is because the SEC schools keep winning the national championship. Sooner or later, their run has to end. Their players aren't better than midwest players.

 

[Blackhammer]

I sure hope just because a kid works hard and knows the his assignments he automatically will be good enough to start for coach Kill.You need athletic players to win in the Big Ten.I really couldn't tell you what kind of a player Ryan Grant will be .So I give him the benefit of the doubt.But when you have Sid shamelessly plugging you has the starting middle linebacker it comes off as kind of lame.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Its the chicken and the egg argument. Do Texas, Alabama, Florida not recruit the best players from Minnesota because those players aren't good enough or because there are enough equally talented players in their own states to pick from?

I would argue that Texas, Alabama, Florida could have just as well recruited the same talent level player from Minnesota as they could from their own states. That they choose the player from their own states is not an indication of inferior talent level of the Minnesota player, it's a simple matter of geography. Yet you look at the stars, which you just confirmed is based only on which schools have offered, and it's no wonder that the highest star rated players are in close proximity (nation wise) to the teams that have won the most national championships. It's not because they're better - it's just because they're local and thus getting offered by the right schools.

The whole system is just a positive feedback loop. The SEC schools for the most part only offer local kids, so the recruiting services give those local kids the most stars and thus the SEC schools have the highest rated recruiting classes. The only reason it's not blowing up is because the SEC schools keep winning the national championship. Sooner or later, their run has to end. Their players aren't better than midwest players.

I don't think that only SEC schools will win national championships, but for the most part, I do believe that the players in the SEC country and Texas are better than the players from the midwest. I would also think that top to bottom the SEC is considerably more talented than the Big 10. I love the Big 10 and I will always be a "Big 10 guy", but I don't think the talent is very comparable.

 

[jovs]

I see people lumping Beal into this group of players who are overrated because they are from Florida, well Beal is from New Jersey and played 1 HS season in PA (only lived there for like the 4 months of the football season).

The other thing about MN kids not getting enough recruiting stars...really? We signed a 4 star kid from MN (Maresh) and a 3 star from FL (Tinsley)...who has done more at this level? I realize that argument can go both ways, but lets give up on this mentality that we don't get enough respect.


As far as Tinsley goes, he will definitely be one of our 4 best LBs come this fall. Hacksaw might actually be a little bit of a victim of his own versatility. He is one of our few LBs that can play on the outside as well as in the middle, but the idea that he might not be one of our better defensive players is "out there".

I get what is trying to be conveyed by the entire, Kill is going to play the "best" players and not "the most talented guys", well Tinsley was probably our best defensive player last season. He has not merely been a talented guy who hasn't quite put it together (Hageman), he was a good Big 10 LBer last season.

He is a little behind some other guys because he was injured and he didn't get to get as many reps and all that. I understand that if a game was played today that Ryan Grant would be more ready to play than Tinsley, but Tinsley is a good football player and he will be on the field as much as any of our LBs.

You get the people that make plays on the field, Tinsley is one of the few players on the defensive side of the ball that has shown he can consistently do that. Don't you think some things are being done to try and motivate people now.

 

[Sportsfan24]

For what it's worth here is my opinion. I have had the opportunity to see southern kids compete against northern kids one on one in person at football camps and this is the conclusion I have come to.

While I will admit there are more top end football players in the south, when it comes to comparing the upper echelon football players, the Norths are just as good. Stars are based on strengths of offer, and because schools recruit primarily regional; recruits to southern schools will have a higher star count.

When will this change? When northern schools perform better, which brings me to another point. The number one reason the SEC is better at football than the bigten......is coaching. They have better coaches. A lessor reason is the BCS championship game favors them, the game is played in the south (home game in their climate) and until this year they weren't as rusty do to conference championship games that shortened their layoff.

 

[gophmeister]

Stars are based on strengths of offer, and because schools recruit primarily regional; recruits to southern schools will have a higher star count.

Another point often made is down south kids play one sport whereas up here there are more multi-sport athletes.

 

[BisonGopher]

For what it's worth here is my opinion. I have had the opportunity to see southern kids compete against northern kids one on one in person at football camps and this is the conclusion I have come to.

While I will admit there are more top end football players in the south, when it comes to comparing the upper echelon football players, the Norths are just as good. Stars are based on strengths of offer, and because schools recruit primarily regional; recruits to southern schools will have a higher star count.

When will this change? When northern schools perform better, which brings me to another point. The number one reason the SEC is better at football than the bigten......is coaching. They have better coaches. A lessor reason is the BCS championship game favors them, the game is played in the south (home game in their climate) and until this year they weren't as rusty do to conference championship games that shortened their layoff.

Agreed 100% - the best high school players from the north are equal to the best players from the south. The southern players get more stars because they're offered by SEC schools, which have won the last 5 national titles.

The other point you hit on that I neglected, and which could potentially explain why the SEC schools are winning the titles, is that there are simply more of these top level players in the south due to: 1) larger population in the south, 2) significantly higher multi-year (and multi-season!) participation rates of young people in organized football programs.

I think 2 in particular is true among the southern black community. They have a very strong social incentive to participate if the talent level is there (even a sense of responsibility - if they think that they can pull their families out of poverty via professional football). I would wager that there are very few southern, black males in high school that choose not to participate in football if they are talented at that sport. And it should go without saying that the largest black population in America is in the south.

(note - I will flat out not respond to any post that mentions, gists or accuses racism - that's not my agenda and you know it, so don't go there)

 

[Unregistered User]

...so don't go there)

You went there yourself.

My mouth literally hung open when I read your post.

Just stay in ND.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You went there yourself.

My mouth literally hung open when I read your post.

Just stay in ND.

I don't think he meant anything bad by what he was saying. I think it would be naive to act like a lot of athletes don't happen to come out of poorer areas, throughout the world and of people of different racial backgrounds (Latin American baseball players, mexican fighters, aboriginal rugby players, and so on).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Agreed 100% - the best high school players from the north are equal to the best players from the south. The southern players get more stars because they're offered by SEC schools, which have won the last 5 national titles.

The other point you hit on that I neglected, and which could potentially explain why the SEC schools are winning the titles, is that there are simply more of these top level players in the south due to: 1) larger population in the south, 2) significantly higher multi-year (and multi-season!) participation rates of young people in organized football programs.

I think 2 in particular is true among the southern black community. They have a very strong social incentive to participate if the talent level is there (even a sense of responsibility - if they think that they can pull their families out of poverty via professional football). I would wager that there are very few southern, black males in high school that choose not to participate in football if they are talented at that sport. And it should go without saying that the largest black population in America is in the south.

(note - I will flat out not respond to any post that mentions, gists or accuses racism - that's not my agenda and you know it, so don't go there)

I actually think that you are missing the point. (No offense).

First, the whole SEC players getting more stars because of locality and star quality. Well, do you think it's a coincidence that the SEC schools are winning 5 straight Nat'l Championships? Like it is just happening by accident? I don't. I think the talent level in the SEC is a notch higher than the talent level in the Big 10. The best in each conference are similar, but there are MORE good players in the SEC.

Second, the population is greater in the 9 states of the Big 10 than in the 9 states of the SEC. It isn't just a matter of sheer number of people.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that it has something to do with the culture of the South compared to the culture of the Midwest. I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of MN that makes them good hockey players, just like I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of Mississippi that makes them so superior to Iowa (about same population) in producing football players.

However, that cultural difference doesn't change the fact that there are more good football players that come out of the South (per capita) than there are in the Midwest. For whatever reason that may be, it's sort of neither here nor there when discussing if the South produces more good football players than the Midwest.

 

[Unregistered User]

I don't think he meant anything bad by what he was saying.

I would think that ignorant people don't mean anything bad when they spew crap like this.

I'm not trying to rip you for your interpretation of his post, I just can't get past the generalizations and pigeon-holing that he put in the 3rd paragraph.

 

[BisonGopher]

I actually think that you are missing the point. (No offense).

First, the whole SEC players getting more stars because of locality and star quality. Well, do you think it's a coincidence that the SEC schools are winning 5 straight Nat'l Championships? Like it is just happening by accident? I don't. I think the talent level in the SEC is a notch higher than the talent level in the Big 10. The best in each conference are similar, but there are MORE good players in the SEC.

Second, the population is greater in the 9 states of the Big 10 than in the 9 states of the SEC. It isn't just a matter of sheer number of people.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that it has something to do with the culture of the South compared to the culture of the Midwest. I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of MN that makes them good hockey players, just like I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of Mississippi that makes them so superior to Iowa (about same population) in producing football players.

However, that cultural difference doesn't change the fact that there are more good football players that come out of the South (per capita) than there are in the Midwest. For whatever reason that may be, it's sort of neither here nor there when discussing if the South produces more good football players than the Midwest.

We're pretty close to being on the same page.

My most central point is that the best of the best players in the midwest are equally talented in football as the best of the best players in the south. Hence, that a southern HS star gets 5 stars, top 150, etc. etc. and a top midwest player of equal skill only gets 3 stars is nonsense.

I don't think it's wrong to say that the south has more of these elite players per capita (nevermind the larger capita) and I elaborated on how this could be expected due to differing participation rates. You made a great analogy to baseball players in Latin America. Baseball to Dominicans is like football to certain communities in the south.

 

[STPGopher]

I actually think that you are missing the point. (No offense).

First, the whole SEC players getting more stars because of locality and star quality. Well, do you think it's a coincidence that the SEC schools are winning 5 straight Nat'l Championships? Like it is just happening by accident? I don't. I think the talent level in the SEC is a notch higher than the talent level in the Big 10. The best in each conference are similar, but there are MORE good players in the SEC.

Second, the population is greater in the 9 states of the Big 10 than in the 9 states of the SEC. It isn't just a matter of sheer number of people.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that it has something to do with the culture of the South compared to the culture of the Midwest. I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of MN that makes them good hockey players, just like I don't think there is anything genetic about the people of Mississippi that makes them so superior to Iowa (about same population) in producing football players.

However, that cultural difference doesn't change the fact that there are more good football players that come out of the South (per capita) than there are in the Midwest. For whatever reason that may be, it's sort of neither here nor there when discussing if the South produces more good football players than the Midwest.

Little competion from other sports in the fall. Potential year round outdoor training. Most every school has EP like numbers for football(think competition for positions). 20 to 40k and up for many HS games, especially Texas. Some schools had/ have a separate: lunchroom for players, stadium for the Juniors/ seniors, etc.. -Summary, Football is BIG down south.

 

[Fuzzy Rumpton]

I would have to say the south has more players who are considered upper echelon players meaning players are facing tougher opponents week in and week out helping them hone their skills and preparing them for the next level.

 

[dpodoll68]

Hence, that a southern HS star gets 5 stars, top 150, etc. etc. and a top midwest player of equal skill only gets 3 stars is nonsense.

It would be nonsense if it were true, which it isn't. Dozens of "top midwest players" are given 5- and 4-star rankings each and every year.

Likewise, many players who receive offers from multiple top SEC schools are given 3-star rankings each and every year.

 

[BisonGopher]

It would be nonsense if it were true, which it isn't. Dozens of "top midwest players" are given 5- and 4-star rankings each and every year.

Likewise, many players who receive offers from multiple top SEC schools are given 3-star rankings each and every year.

You're starting from the incorrect position that the star ratings are a legitimate index of player talent. That's been shown to be bunk in this thread.

So the truth is closer to there being many more "5- and 4-star rankings" players in the midwest and more 3 star players in the south than what the services are showing.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You're starting from the incorrect position that the star ratings are a legitimate index of player talent. That's been shown to be bunk in this thread.

So the truth is closer to there being many more "5- and 4-star rankings" players in the midwest and more 3 star players in the south than what the services are showing.

I don't think it is a proven thing that star ratings are bunk. I don't think anyone has ever argued that they are 100% accurate, that's impossible. However, for the most part, the star rankings are somewhat accurate.

However, even if you don't believe in the star rankings, you are still jumping to a conclusion that they are inaccurate in favor of the Southern prospects (rathern than just a crap shoot in general).

I would argue that the inaccuracy has nothing to do with anything regional...

Our highest rated MN guys lately haven't really done a ton for the program yet.

In my opinion...

Recruiting ranks are an inexact science that do a relatively good job of locating talent. Some players slip through the cracks and some guys mature a bit later. However, the inaccuracies for the most part don't have much to do with anything regional. I could buy an argument that some rural kids might have a higher chance of getting overlooked, but then again I think they also have a slightly higher chance of being vastly overrated (because they look amazing against bad competition). But in general, it just has some built in inaccuracies.

 

[highwayman]

Agreed 100% - the best high school players from the north are equal to the best players from the south. The southern players get more stars because they're offered by SEC schools, which have won the last 5 national titles.

The other point you hit on that I neglected, and which could potentially explain why the SEC schools are winning the titles, is that there are simply more of these top level players in the south due to: 1) larger population in the south, 2) significantly higher multi-year (and multi-season!) participation rates of young people in organized football programs.

I think 2 in particular is true among the southern black community. They have a very strong social incentive to participate if the talent level is there (even a sense of responsibility - if they think that they can pull their families out of poverty via professional football). I would wager that there are very few southern, black males in high school that choose not to participate in football if they are talented at that sport. And it should go without saying that the largest black population in America is in the south.

(note - I will flat out not respond to any post that mentions, gists or accuses racism - that's not my agenda and you know it, so don't go there)

I buy a lot of what you say, but you are a bit off on the population theory. The majority of population centers are still in the north, even though there have been big gains in places like Florida and Texas. In fact the "center" of US population is still Missouri. Cuurently, Texas County is considered the centroid population spot. It is shifting, however. The 1,000,000 person drop in Michigan over the last decade+ is a glaring example. Back to football...

Texas County, Missouri

 

[BisonGopher]

I don't think it is a proven thing that star ratings are bunk. I don't think anyone has ever argued that they are 100% accurate, that's impossible. However, for the most part, the star rankings are somewhat accurate.

However, even if you don't believe in the star rankings, you are still jumping to a conclusion that they are inaccurate in favor of the Southern prospects (rathern than just a crap shoot in general).

I would argue that the inaccuracy has nothing to do with anything regional...

Our highest rated MN guys lately haven't really done a ton for the program yet.

In my opinion...

Recruiting ranks are an inexact science that do a relatively good job of locating talent. Some players slip through the cracks and some guys mature a bit later. However, the inaccuracies for the most part don't have much to do with anything regional. I could buy an argument that some rural kids might have a higher chance of getting overlooked, but then again I think they also have a slightly higher chance of being vastly overrated (because they look amazing against bad competition). But in general, it just has some built in inaccuracies.

The only type of accurate index they provide is to index players based on who has offered. That's the only criteria. If you believe that there's something more to it than that, then I believe you've been duped by their marketing departments.

These companies, at the end of the day, make money by providing an entertainment service. At the end of the day, they've got to get subscribers. So, just as in the sense that bad news sells better than just reporting everything, these companies have no incentive to just lay the absolute, purest truth out on the table for their subscribers to consider. They've got to say something that people will pay for.

We can surely agree to disagree - but as you can tell I'm basically against these services. They get too much credibility and respect for what they claim to provide.

 

[dpodoll68]

The only type of accurate index they provide is to index players based on who has offered. That's the only criteria.

This is quite easily, and demonstrably, false. In fact, I have already provided a micro-example earlier in this thread. I have also provided more heavily-researched examples on numerous occasions in the past on this board.

but as you can tell I'm basically against these services. They get too much credibility and respect for what they claim to provide.

Anyone in the business of predicting things is going to have a high failure rate. Nowhere has Rivals, Scout, ESPN, 247, etc. claimed to be 100% accurate, or even very accurate at all. Research has shown, despite your obstinacy, that 5-stars have far higher success rates in terms of All-American, All-Conference, Heisman, NFL draft position, etc. than 4-stars, who in turn have higher success rates than 3-stars in the same category. As a predictive tool, it's not even close to 100% accuracy, or even 50%, for that matter. But it's far more useful than throwing darts at a board.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

This is quite easily, and demonstrably, false. In fact, I have already provided a micro-example earlier in this thread. I have also provided more heavily-researched examples on numerous occasions in the past on this board.

Anyone in the business of predicting things is going to have a high failure rate. Nowhere has Rivals, Scout, ESPN, 247, etc. claimed to be 100% accurate, or even very accurate at all. Research has shown, despite your obstinacy, that 5-stars have far higher success rates in terms of All-American, All-Conference, Heisman, NFL draft position, etc. than 4-stars, who in turn have higher success rates than 3-stars in the same category. As a predictive tool, it's not even close to 100% accuracy, or even 50%, for that matter. But it's far more useful than throwing darts at a board.

Agreed. Just like first round draft picks in the NFL. How many have been busts? A lot. How many great players have been found in low levels of the draft or undrafted? Quite a few. However, when you look at the hall of famers since the inception of the draft, most were first round draft picks. Doesn't mean every first rounder will be a hall of famer or that if you're drafted in the 7th round you can't be. But your odds are much better as a first round pick to make hall of fame.

There is much more to star ratings than how many schools offer. I've seen three star players with offers from everyone under the sun and five star players that committed early and haven't entertained any other offers. Offers can nudge a player a little but speed, strength, size and other characteristics are much bigger parts.

 

[BisonGopher]

I'm not sold, by any means. You can claim this or that, but I don't know you so I can't take your word.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I'm not sold, by any means. You can claim this or that, but I don't know you so I can't take your word.

Someone could probably break it down even better mathematically, but this is just something that is really quick thrown together.

I just googled 2011 NFL Mock drafts and I looked at the top 15 players who were picked....
Gabbert - 5 star
Newton - 5 star
AJ Green - 5 Star
Julio Jones - 5 Star
Patrick Petersen - 5 Star
Tyron Smith - 5 Star
Mallet - 5 Star
Bowers - 5 star
---
Von Miller - 4 Star
Robert Quinn - 4 Star
Jake Locker - 4 Star
---
Darius - 3 star
Fairley - 3 star
Jimmy Smith - 3 star
Cameron Jordan - 3 star

Now keep in mind that they only give out about 25 5 stars every season, and they literally give out several hundred 3 stars,

I think it's safe to say that it is statistically WAY more likely that 5 Star goes on to become a very good college football player / NFL player than it would be for a 3 star kid. It really isn't even close.

 

[BisonGopher]

Someone could probably break it down even better mathematically, but this is just something that is really quick thrown together.

I just googled 2011 NFL Mock drafts and I looked at the top 15 players who were picked....
Gabbert - 5 star
Newton - 5 star
AJ Green - 5 Star
Julio Jones - 5 Star
Patrick Petersen - 5 Star
Tyron Smith - 5 Star
Mallet - 5 Star
Bowers - 5 star
---
Von Miller - 4 Star
Robert Quinn - 4 Star
Jake Locker - 4 Star
---
Darius - 3 star
Fairley - 3 star
Jimmy Smith - 3 star
Cameron Jordan - 3 star

Now keep in mind that they only give out about 25 5 stars every season, and they literally give out several hundred 3 stars,

I think it's safe to say that it is statistically WAY more likely that 5 Star goes on to become a very good college football player / NFL player than it would be for a 3 star kid. It really isn't even close.

Thanks for taking the time to research that, even if it was just a quickie. I appreciate that you were willing - I figured you would tell me to get bent!

I don't think your point is invalid in the overall context of the discussion, but the stars are supposed to indicate how good a high school player could be in college, not how much he will develop into an NFL prospect. So I don't understand how noting that several top NFL prospects had 5 stars legitimizes how the services do choose players to be 5 star or not.

Here's what I envision could happen: Kill brings in a bunch of midwest, 3 star guys who he thinks fit his system and he likes. Of course, this means his recruiting rankings are down the tubes - and fans who really just don't know any better start jumping down his throat. "Why aren't we going after 4 and 5 star players?! Why aren't we getting players from Texas and Florida?! We're in the Big Ten! We have to recruit nationally! Blah!!!" The number of stars per player in your recruiting class doesn't amount to jack squat. I'd much rather see Kill get all 2 star players, but because he saw what he wanted he got them. I do not want him thinking he has to recruit 4 and 5 star players just to keep up with the Joneses.

And to me Kill is the type of guy who would say "I don't give a crap if he's got zero stars, I like the way he does this and this - I want him". So I just worry that if it doesn't pay off quickly (first 2 years) he's going to unfairly experience an unrightful reverse-Brewster criticism (whereas Brewster brought in higher rated prospects and then didn't win) such that he would be criticized for not bringing enough enough "elite" prospects.

So that's about it. Perhaps we can let this thread die? But certainly feel free to post more if you have more to say - by all means.

 

[Go4]

I'm excited to see the secondary on saturday. with royston back, troy s. more experienced and a stronger lb corp, we could be turning this into a strength.