Re-rating recruits based on performance

this is a fun experiment but at the end of the day just reinforces that recruiting sites don't know shit about how these kids develop and are merely in it for $$$. There is a massive hole in how to project talent, drive, and development(either physical or by coaches). It's why i laugh when people get soooooo caught up in the recruiting. most people who are gung ho can't name 25% of a class from 2 years ago.
 
As two esteemed members of this bored and I discussed last night ... if you assume that you send 5 guys to the NFL each year, then you're looking at 20% of a full class that is going to play in the NFL. Even if you take the LSU's and Alabama's of the world that may send 10 to the NFL every year, that's only 40% of a full class.

What does that mean?

1) Regardless of how good of a class you sign, most of the guys aren't going to go pro

2) The ultimate success of a team isn't often driven by the minority of guys that go pro, but driven by the majority that don't go pro. A popular name in this thread that drives the point home is Andrew Hudson. He's surely not going to go pro. But he's also a very valuable player on this team. The more Andrew Hudson's that you have on a roster (older, experienced player who has no illusions about playing professionally, love the game, and recognize that they are getting a great deal in a free education, contacts, etc. for the rest of their life as a trade off for playing football), the more likely you are to have a successful team.
 
As two esteemed members of this bored and I discussed last night ... if you assume that you send 5 guys to the NFL each year, then you're looking at 20% of a full class that is going to play in the NFL. Even if you take the LSU's and Alabama's of the world that may send 10 to the NFL every year, that's only 40% of a full class.

What does that mean?

1) Regardless of how good of a class you sign, most of the guys aren't going to go pro

2) The ultimate success of a team isn't often driven by the minority of guys that go pro, but driven by the majority that don't go pro. A popular name in this thread that drives the point home is Andrew Hudson. He's surely not going to go pro. But he's also a very valuable player on this team. The more Andrew Hudson's that you have on a roster (older, experienced player who has no illusions about playing professionally, love the game, and recognize that they are getting a great deal in a free education, contacts, etc. for the rest of their life as a trade off for playing football), the more likely you are to have a successful team.
Click to expand...

So in short, a team is only as strong as it's weakest link?

That may be a bit of an oversimplification, but I think there is some truth in that. If you have 4-5 future NFL players and then a bunch of CC mouth-breathers, I think you are at a disadvantage to a team that has no superstars but solid talent all the way around.
 
this is a fun experiment but at the end of the day just reinforces that recruiting sites don't know shit about how these kids develop and are merely in it for $$$. There is a massive hole in how to project talent, drive, and development(either physical or by coaches). It's why i laugh when people get soooooo caught up in the recruiting. most people who are gung ho can't name 25% of a class from 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

Good point. I always love how recruits are talked up so much right up to, and including, signing day as the the shining future of the program. Then if they redshirt, there is the tendency to completely forget about them and move onto the next hyped recruit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top