Online Now 3590

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2524
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3641
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Staff question - How to rank potential

  • Nate Ebner never played a down of high school football and was still drafted in the 6th round by the New England Patriots. I'm sure there have been others, although I imagine the list for guys who never played high school football that also got drafted in the NFL is a short one.

    It got me thinking on how a player should be rated coming out of high school (or possibly another sport). I know the philosphy at 247 is to rank a player based on their potential to one day be drafted in the NFL. I'm not sure I agree with that philosphy. Wouldn't a better way to rank a player be on how much of an impact that player will have at the college level?

    One example would be Dontari Poe. He wasn't ranked very high coming out of high school and frankly he lived up to that low ranking. He wasn't much of an impact player against Conference USA competition. Yet he blows up at the combine and gets drafted pretty high. Does that mean scouts "missed" on his ranking coming out of high school. Personally, I don't think so. The guy is just a freak athlete who isn't very good at football. You can argue he didn't get good coaching but given the level of competition that shouldn't have mattered.

    Oh well. I'm getting verklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by devidee on 5/10/2012 at 10:19 AM

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • devidee said...

    Nate Ebner never played a down of high school football and was still drafted in the 6th round by the New England Patriots. I'm sure there have been others, although I imagine the list for guys who never played high school football that also got drafted in the NFL is a short one.

    It got me thinking on how a player should be rated coming out of high school (or possibly another sport). I know the philosphy at 247 is to rank a player based on their potential to one day be drafted in the NFL. I'm not sure I agree with that philosphy. Wouldn't a better way to rank a player be on how much of an impact that player will have at the college level?

    One example would be Donte Poe. He wasn't ranked very high coming out of high school and frankly he lived up to that low ranking. He wasn't much of an impact player against Conference USA competition. Yet he blows up at the combine and gets drafted pretty high. Does that mean scouts "missed" on his ranking coming out of high school. Personally, I don't think so. The guy is just a freak athlete who isn't very good at football. You can argue he didn't get good coaching but given the level of competition that shouldn't have matterd.

    Oh well. I'm getting verklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

    I think there are a lot of different ways to rank them. Colt Brennan put up monster numbers but that doesn't mean he was better than a lot of the other QBs in college. He was a product of the system. A lot of players are products of a college system.

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • I’ve always looked at the “star” rating as how soon will this guy have an impact at the college level. To me a five star kid should be able to come in and play right away. Will he be a star at the college level? I don’t know, but he should be able to play from day one. A three star recruit might blow up to be a 1st round draft pick, but I don’t expect him to come in as a freshman and get a lot of minutes. That’s just the way I look at the “star” value…….

    signature image

    #FreeDevidee

    elite44 ●

  • kitemac said...

    I think there are a lot of different ways to rank them. Colt Brennan put up monster numbers but that doesn't mean he was better than a lot of the other QBs in college. He was a product of the system. A lot of players are products of a college system.

    Agreed but he's more of an outlier.

    Wouldn't ranking a player's potential in college be more accurate than ranking their potential to one day play at the highest level? Especially when evaluating 16 and 17 year olds.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • Ranking HS kids based on their future NFL potential doesn't make much sense to me. There are countless great college football players who don't turn into NFL players. Their recruiting ranking should be based on their potential at the college level, not the pros.

    Big A

  • devidee said...

    Agreed but he's more of an outlier.

    Wouldn't ranking a player's potential in college be more accurate than ranking their potential to one day play at the highest level? Especially when evaluating 16 and 17 year olds.

    If you really want a good answer change your title to include "Staff" or "JC, Barton, and other national guys". I'm sure they could give you a pretty solid reason.

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • Now put some stars around it and really jazz it up...

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • devidee said...

    Nate Ebner never played a down of high school football and was still drafted in the 6th round by the New England Patriots. I'm sure there have been others, although I imagine the list for guys who never played high school football that also got drafted in the NFL is a short one.

    It got me thinking on how a player should be rated coming out of high school (or possibly another sport). I know the philosphy at 247 is to rank a player based on their potential to one day be drafted in the NFL. I'm not sure I agree with that philosphy. Wouldn't a better way to rank a player be on how much of an impact that player will have at the college level?

    One example would be Dontari Poe. He wasn't ranked very high coming out of high school and frankly he lived up to that low ranking. He wasn't much of an impact player against Conference USA competition. Yet he blows up at the combine and gets drafted pretty high. Does that mean scouts "missed" on his ranking coming out of high school. Personally, I don't think so. The guy is just a freak athlete who isn't very good at football. You can argue he didn't get good coaching but given the level of competition that shouldn't have matterd.

    Oh well. I'm getting verklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

    This is a great discussion topic.

    Here's my take on it: Our job is to evaluate "talent". What your coach, your program, your administrators do to use that talent and develop that talent we have no control over. The ultimate metric or best available metric for us to judge talent is the NFL draft because talent is all the NFL cares about, talent and the likelihood that a player can be effective on the field.

    For that reason, I contend that Poe should have been rated a 5-star coming out of high school based on the metric we use. I understand what you're saying and yes, if we rate on college production he was rated correctly as a 2-star but what if Ohio State had signed Poe coming out of HS? Do you honestly think he would have had 5 sacks in 4 years or whatever it was if he had Ohio State or Alabama or Florida or anyone else coaching him? I bet he would have had a lot more production. And if he had similar production or less production, it would have been under a greater microscope and he never would have gotten drafted that high.

    My point is we can't predict how well or poorly a coach uses a player on the next level. Can't predict playing time, can't predict how he's going to fit into a system, can't predict what the system will be. WE can't even predict where he's going to go all we can do is rate "talent".

    So by your philosophy, Graham Harrell, a record-breaking passer or Case Keenum both would be 5-star players because of how they did in college but the NFL didn't want them. And frankly if they were in a pro-style offense they would have never had 5-star level college careers.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • Barton S said...

    This is a great discussion topic.

    You saying you didn't like my "Good morning" thread about Emilia Clarke? I could blacklist you like I did Aussie...

    BTW good explanation

    signature image signature image signature image

    kitemac

  • Barton S said...

    This is a great discussion topic.

    Here's my take on it: Our job is to evaluate "talent". What your coach, your program, your administrators do to use that talent and develop that talent we have no control over. The ultimate metric or best available metric for us to judge talent is the NFL draft because talent is all the NFL cares about, talent and the likelihood that a player can be effective on the field.

    For that reason, I contend that Poe should have been rated a 5-star coming out of high school based on the metric we use. I understand what you're saying and yes, if we rate on college production he was rated correctly as a 2-star but what if Ohio State had signed Poe coming out of HS? Do you honestly think he would have had 5 sacks in 4 years or whatever it was if he had Ohio State or Alabama or Florida or anyone else coaching him? I bet he would have had a lot more production. And if he had similar production or less production, it would have been under a greater microscope and he never would have gotten drafted that high.

    My point is we can't predict how well or poorly a coach uses a player on the next level. Can't predict playing time, can't predict how he's going to fit into a system, can't predict what the system will be. WE can't even predict where he's going to go all we can do is rate "talent".

    So by your philosophy, Graham Harrell, a record-breaking passer or Case Keenum both would be 5-star players because of how they did in college but the NFL didn't want them. And frankly if they were in a pro-style offense they would have never had 5-star level college careers.

    So what if Poe is a complete bust in the NFL?

    Does his rating drop back down to a 2 star?

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • Big A said...

    Ranking HS kids based on their future NFL potential doesn't make much sense to me. There are countless great college football players who don't turn into NFL players. Their recruiting ranking should be based on their potential at the college level, not the pros.

    I get that. A lot of people would rather take Danny Weurfell over Ryan Tannehill as a COLLEGE quarterback but if you're a fan of a program, wouldn't you rather take your chances with the most "talented" class you can find? Rather than have us try to predict which rag-arm HS quarterback has all the other perfect intangibles to become a phenomenal college quarterback?

    Also this is why stars ultimately aren't a necessity for wins. You can be excited about a class of 3-star prospects as a fan if you like the recruits. If we rate your class as full of 3-stars, we're not saying that they're not great players, we're just saying they're not future Pros. And you can win a lot of games with players that aren't future pros. It's just that most people would rather take their chances trying to win with future NFL guys than the other way around.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • devidee said...

    So what if Poe is a complete bust in the NFL?

    Does his rating drop back down to a 2 star?

    No because we have to draw the line somewhere.

    It's a subjective business by nature so there's not black and white on any of these guys but for us NFL draft is what we latch on to. We let NFL personnel essentially evaluate our evaluations. It's really the only black/white metric available.

    So in my opinion, Ryan Leaf should have been a 5-star recruit.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • Barton S said...

    No because we have to draw the line somewhere.

    It's a subjective business by nature so there's not black and white on any of these guys but for us NFL draft is what we latch on to. We let NFL personnel essentially evaluate our evaluations. It's really the only black/white metric available.

    So in my opinion, Ryan Leaf should have been a 5-star recruit.

    I get it. just don't agree.

    Looking back after the NFL draft makes little sense to me. So much can change for a guy from age 16 to the time he's 22 or older (welcome to the Browns Granpda Weeden!). I'd rather get an evaluation on whether or not a kid will be able come into a college program and contribute immediately than know if the kid has the "potential" to get drafted.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • Barton S said...

    For that reason, I contend that Poe should have been rated a 5-star coming out of high school based on the metric we use. I understand what you're saying and yes, if we rate on college production he was rated correctly as a 2-star but what if Ohio State had signed Poe coming out of HS? Do you honestly think he would have had 5 sacks in 4 years or whatever it was if he had Ohio State or Alabama or Florida or anyone else coaching him? I bet he would have had a lot more production. And if he had similar production or less production, it would have been under a greater microscope and he never would have gotten drafted that high.

    I don't necessarily buy that argument. I think you guys give too much credit to certain colleges/coaches. The top 2 picks in this past draft were from Baylor and Stanford. If they had gone to Florida or OSU, it wouldn't have helped them at all. Did it help Terrelle Pryor? The NFL doesn't care where a kid played in college, they care if he can play. And these days you don't have to be on CBS every week because games are on all channels every day.

    Big A

  • devidee said...

    I get it. just don't agree.

    Looking back after the NFL draft makes little sense to me. So much can change for a guy from age 16 to the time he's 22 or older (welcome to the Browns Granpda Weeden!). I'd rather get an evaluation on whether or not a kid will be able come into a college program and contribute immediately than know if the kid has the "potential" to get drafted.

    I think it goes without saying that if we think a kid is a future NFL first rounder (5-star) then we think he can contribute right away. If we think a kid is a future NFL draft pick (4-star) we think he can contribute pretty quick too.

    Essentially it boils down to this: we're not in the business of predicting wins. That's up to a coaching staff. What we're doing is saying "we think you've got this many future NFL guys coming into your program, lets see what you can do with them"

    If I'm a fan or a coach, I want as many NFL-type guys as I can get.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • Barton S said...

    I think it goes without saying that if we think a kid is a future NFL first rounder (5-star) then we think he can contribute right away. If we think a kid is a future NFL draft pick (4-star) we think he can contribute pretty quick too.

    Essentially it boils down to this: we're not in the business of predicting wins. That's up to a coaching staff. What we're doing is saying "we think you've got this many future NFL guys coming into your program, lets see what you can do with them"

    If I'm a fan or a coach, I want as many NFL-type guys as I can get.

    So you're saying Nate Ebner was extremely under-utilized at Ohio State.

    Also, were JB Shugarts and Mike Brewster (both 5 stars) complete misses by scouts at the time as they both went undrafted.

    This post was edited by devidee on 5/10/2012 at 10:52 AM

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • its a huge differance to go from CFB to NFL and from High School to CFB. potential rankings is about as far as one could guess, CFB is a decent look at what a guy could potentialy be. but you could wind up with a 5 star flop like Ryan Leaf. or a walk on like Vinny Testaverde who was instrumental in the game but came with no background.

    "I’m gonna show you how great I am! Last night I cut the light off in the bedroom, hit the switch, was in the bed before the room was dark"!

    AxeManblue

  • Big A said...

    I don't necessarily buy that argument. I think you guys give too much credit to certain colleges/coaches. The top 2 picks in this past draft were from Baylor and Stanford. If they had gone to Florida or OSU, it wouldn't have helped them at all. Did it help Terrelle Pryor? The NFL doesn't care where a kid played in college, they care if he can play. And these days you don't have to be on CBS every week because games are on all channels every day.

    That wasn't really my point. You actually made my point.

    My point was specific to Poe who had a decidedly 2-star career in college. I'm saying if he had gone to a major program even a program like Baylor or Stanford, would he have still had such a mediocre career? I don't know the answer to that but I'm guessing that in retrospect, Stanford, Baylor, Alabama or whoever would have loved to have taken him to see if they could pull more than 5 C-USA-level sacks out of him. Just like NFL took him despite his pedestrian career. They took him because of his "talent". As you say, the NFL doesn't care where he went to school. So ideally, that's what we are measuring: "talent".

    So throw out the fact that he was constantly losing in the fourth quarter, probably had sub-par development staff at Memphis, didn't have much reason to stay motivated in games, probably wasn't as competitive an atmosphere in the offseason and what do you get? An immensely talented kid that didn't translate to much on-field production (a 2-star).

    Now take all that other stuff that we have no control over out of the equation and what do you get? A five-star level talent that was drafted in the first round of the NFL draft because NFL scouts recognize that he has 5-star "talent".

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • devidee said...

    So you're saying Nate Ebner was extremely under-utilized at Ohio State.

    Also, were JB Shugarts and Mike Brewster (both 5 stars) complete misses by scouts at the time as they both went undrafted.

    Yes, if a five-star goes undrafted, I'd say we were way off on him.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • Barton S said...

    Yes, if a five-star goes undrafted, I'd say we were way off on him.

    That's what I don't necessarily understand.

    I'm not sure Shugarts or Brewster were 5 stars but both were very solid college players / contributors. I'd say both were high 4 stars without question based on their college careers.

    What about Ebner?

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • Barton S said...

    That wasn't really my point. You actually made my point.

    My point was specific to Poe who had a decidedly 2-star career in college. I'm saying if he had gone to a major program even a program like Baylor or Stanford, would he have still had such a mediocre career? I don't know the answer to that but I'm guessing that in retrospect, Stanford, Baylor, Alabama or whoever would have loved to have taken him to see if they could pull more than 5 C-USA-level sacks out of him. Just like NFL took him despite his pedestrian career. They took him because of his "talent". As you say, the NFL doesn't care where he went to school. So ideally, that's what we are measuring: "talent".

    So throw out the fact that he was constantly losing in the fourth quarter, probably had sub-par development staff at Memphis, didn't have much reason to stay motivated in games, probably wasn't as competitive an atmosphere in the offseason and what do you get? An immensely talented kid that didn't translate to much on-field production (a 2-star).

    Now take all that other stuff that we have no control over out of the equation and what do you get? A five-star level talent that was drafted in the first round of the NFL draft because NFL scouts recognize that he has 5-star "talent".

    What do you mean by talent?

    Do you mean talent as a football player or talent as in a guy who just happens to be an athletic freak?

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • I'm on the side of the discussion that agrees that the star rankings should deal with the impact a player can have on his college team. I have to agree with whoever said that a 5* should be able to come in and contribute Day 1 and a 3* will more likely than not redshirt or play a lot less his Freshman year.

    I see what you're saying about the NFL only caring about talent, so that's how you measure, but being a good football player isn't all about talent. The rankings should rate how good of a football player that person is, including size, speed, smarts, intangibles and talent.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Huddles are for rookies.

    mizAU

  • devidee said...

    That's what I don't necessarily understand.

    I'm not sure Shugarts or Brewster were 5 stars but both were very solid college players / contributors. I'd say both were high 4 stars without question based on their college careers.

    What about Ebner?

    If Shugarts and Brewser were rating correctly as high 3-stars or low 4-stars, they would be great illustrations of how 3-stars can be great college football players.

    One of the real misconceptions in this industry is that somehow a 3-star is a scrub. That isn't the case at all. 3-stars, particularly high 3-stars can be outstanding college players but we think they have more limited pro potential. There is no reason to be disappointed in landing a 3-star prospects. 3-stars can be accurately rated as such and be all-americans.

    What is your question about Ebner?

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • devidee said...

    What do you mean by talent?

    Do you mean talent as a football player or talent as in a guy who just happens to be an athletic freak?

    Talent as a football player. If the NFL thought Dontari Poe was just a sideshow freak he would've never been drafted as high as he was.

    Barton Simmons | 247Sports | National Recruiting Analyst | Twitter: @bartonsimmons

    Barton S ●

  • Barton S said...

    If Shugarts and Brewser were rating correctly as high 3-stars or low 4-stars, they would be great illustrations of how 3-stars can be great college football players.

    One of the real misconceptions in this industry is that somehow a 3-star is a scrub. That isn't the case at all. 3-stars, particularly high 3-stars can be outstanding college players but we think they have more limited pro potential. There is no reason to be disappointed in landing a 3-star prospects. 3-stars can be accurately rated as such and be all-americans.

    What is your question about Ebner?

    What if both Shugarts and Brewster were just horribly coached at Ohio State? That is, they were 5 star talents coming out of high school but were coached so poorly that NFL talent evaluators didn't think they were draft worthy.

    Do you think Ebner was under-utilized at Ohio State? Based on your philosophy Ebner was a 4 start talent.

    signature image

    devidee ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports