[Husker] Fwd: More fuel for the recruiting fire

[Andy Knipp]

Yea I expect you would see the biggest difference in the OL (and kickers).
OL for a couple reasons, in HS there can be such a huge difference in size
that players get by on power with simple blocking schemes.  College not so
much, the blocking schemes are much more complex and difficult to learn.
There is a reason that the Academic AA teams always have plenty of QB and OL
candidates, you need to be smart.  


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