Post Reply to Rock's House

This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

Do you have numbers on that? by pmcdnd96

I'm not questioning the veracity of what you wrote; I think it stands to reason that if we recruit 10 3-star WRs, 1 will get drafted, but if we recruit 10 4-star WRs, 4 will get drafted (or something like that; those numbers are probably wrong, but that would be the essence of the trend)... but that we will have a tendency to remember the one 3-star because he was such a pleasant surprise, which will make people think that we do better with 3-star players than we actually do.

But I'm wondering what the numbers are, and if there is an easy way to look them up. First, because it would provide a definitive, quantifiable answer to how we're doing; if the statistics say 10% of 3-star players get drafted, and 10% of our 3-star players are getting drafted, end of story. Second, because I'm convinced that it's possible to do a significantly above-average job of identifying which 3-star rated players are underrated and therefore easier for us to recruit and still be highly likely to excel. Put another way, I cannot imagine for the life of me that good/skilled scouts watched Luke Keuchly play football during his senior year in high school and thought "eh, this kid will be average." (Yes, I realize recruiting is pretty much finished by then...but if there are, say, ten late-bloomer near-elite to elite kids in the country every year and a team could develop a way to reliably find one of them every year, that would offer a significant on-field advantage.) Please note, I think this potential system would work well when in addition to, not in place of, an approach to recruiting that emphasizes landing as many 5 and 4-star players as we can land.