Just for fun, I looked at the 2007 AP All-Americans and went back and pulled their Rivals Star rankings. I think it's interesting. And yes, I know, it's only one year, it's only one source, it's highly dependent on team success and TV exposure... It's still interesting. QB Tim Tebow (5 Stars, #22 overall, Rivals 100) RB Darren McFadden (5 Stars, #23 overall, Rivals 100) RB Kevin Smith (2 Stars, unrated) WR Michael Crabtree (4 Stars, #16 WR, Rivals 250) WR Jordy Nelson (2 Stars, unrated) OL Jake Long (4 Stars, #21 OT) OL Anthony Collins (2 Stars, unrated) OL Duke Robinson (4 Stars, #15 OT) OL Martin O'Donnell (5 Stars, #11 overall, Rivals 100) OL Steve Justice (3 Stars, unrated) TE Martin Rucker (3 Stars, #28 TE) AP Jeremy Macklin (4 Stars, #24 WR) K Thomas Weber (2 Stars, #17 K) DE Chris Long (4 Stars, #6 DE) DE George Selvie (2 Stars, unrated) DT Glenn Dorsey (4 Stars, Rivals 100) DT Sedrick Ellis (4 Stars, Rivals 100) LB Dan Connor (5 Stars, Rivals 100) LB James Laurinaitis (3 Stars, #28 LB) LB Jordan Dizon (3 Stars, #8 Fullback) CB Aqib Talib (2 Stars, unrated) CB Antoine Cason (3 Stars, #37 CB) S Craig Steltz (4 Stars, #11 S) S Jamie Silva (2 Stars, unrated) P Kevin Huber (unrated) If you put the kickers aside, 18% are 5 Stars, 50% are 4/5 Stars, and 27% are 2 Stars. That last stat is the one that floors me. Higher % of 2 Stars than 5 Stars. Of course, there are more 2 Stars to choose from, but still. Speaks at some level to the value of "coaching them up" and the limitations of the internet sites rating systems.
Well its the same thing when going from college to the NFL, talent evaluation can only get you so far, the environment that the players develop in when they get to that next level is just as important if not more important, but in both cases you look for the best athletes that you think you can mold into better players. You will always have 5 star and first round busts and the 7th round and 2 star gems
The 2 star players stand out the most for me. I would expect most to be 3 and 4 star. But to totally miss on the 2 stars like this means the evaluation services are not the point where they should be in thoroughly covering as many players as possible. It's a lot better than it was say 10 years ago, but still a long way to go to being as effective as possible.
:geaux::crystal::helmet: Jacob Hester was a 2-star and look how he turned out!!! Great heart and great coaching makes a difference. :geauxtige:champs::LSU231:
What you have to remember to look at, and people frequently fail to do, when doing this kind of analysis, is not just the % of 5*, 4* etc. on the AA team but the % of the total number of those rankings that made the team. There are a LOT more 3* and 2* guys out there, and a LOT less 5* and 4* guys. It varies from Rivals to Scout and year to year (and sometimes they change the rules on how many 5* ratings are given), but there are still very few 5* players. So those 4 of 22 5* players are a vastly higher percentage of all the 5* players, than the 6 of 22 2* players. There might be 30-40 5* players each year and maybe (just guessing) 2000 2* players.
He mentioned it as if it was no big deal. It makes an enormous statistical difference, and to discount it is ignorant.