[Husker] Fwd: More fuel for the recruiting fire

[Don Mares]

Personally, I think star rankings are more about size and potential than
raw talent.

If you are big and strong and fast and look the part of an NFL player you
are going to get more stars.  Plus when you are bigger and stronger and
faster than the other guys in high school you are naturally going to make
more eye opening plays.  Does that mean you are better or more talented
than the other guy?  I'm not sure.  If you define talent as bigger,
stronger, faster maybe so. If that's all it takes to be a good football
player sure.  But Bo has shown he will play a guy he can trust to make the
right decision before he will play a guy who is bigger or stronger or
faster.

On the other hand, you may be 5'9" with the heart of a lion ala Rudy and
4.4 speed but when you get hit you are still going to lose that battle
against a bigger slower guy more often than not so that guy may have loads
of "talent" but will never have a lot of stars by his name either.

Recruiting are kind of like nfl scouts but less scientific.  They don't get
to line everyone up next to each other and test you together under the same
circumstances and coach you and interview you.  So college scouting
services (in my opinion) are looking more for measurables so they can say a
6'7" 320 pound lineman is better than 6'2" 280 pound lineman.  They can
measure a guys speed in the 40 although its debatable how much that helps
on the football field.  Do they measure his footwork?  Do they measure his
hand technique?  Do they measure his pad level?  Do they measure where he
is looking and is he doing what he is supposed to be doing or just knocking
the dude in front of him over?  Do they measure his attitude and
coachability and ability to be a positive team / role member?  Do they
measure his desire to work hard and give 100% every play or does take a
play off here and there? All of those things could be contributors to a
talent index and if you actually play in college or not.  But they are
harder to score and rate and measure and any score you give them
is subjective.  So I'm not sure how much "talent" equates to the number of
stars by a player's name.  But the probability he has the potential to be a
high draft choice in the nfl?  That's probably a fair start.  It doesn't
necessarily mean he is a "better" player and will be a star in college
against guys much closer to his size, strength and speed.  After all, its
still a subjective projection.

Don


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Husker] More fuel for the recruiting fire
> To: Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
>
>
> Is there a position that recruiting rankings are more or less accurate when
> looking back on four years of college ball?
>
> I'm guessing that QB and RB rankings are probably pretty closely
> correlated...OL and DL probably less so.  To me, the more that the position
> requires technique and physical development as opposed to pure, raw
> ability, the lower the correlation between draft status and recruit
> rankings.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I saw a similar analysis after last year's NFL draft.  About half of the
> > first round draftees were former four or five star recruits.  Several
> were
> > either two-star or went unranked.
> >
> > I don't know that everybody realizes that stars do not guarantee
> > anything.  The rating services are wrong almost as often as they are
> > right.  Sometimes comically so.  It's really a glass half-empty/half-full
> > argument.
> >
> > Talent is important, no doubt about it.
> >
> >
> > Mike Jaixen
> > http://huskermike.blogspot.com
> > http://www.cornnation.com
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Andy Knipp <andy at knipp.com>
> > To: 'Husker List' <husker at tssi.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:03 AM
> > Subject: [Husker] More fuel for the recruiting fire
> >
> > I think we all realize that stars do not guarantee anything.  The higher
> > the
> > stars, the more likely success is.
> >
> > Post from ESPN looking at the All-SEC team and how they were rated out of
> > high school.  Just under half (10 of 22) were on the ESPN top 150. 2 were
> > unranked/slightly recruited.
> >
> >
> >
> http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/37864/how-2011-all-sec-team-ranked-as-
> > recruits
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> >
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>