'22 LA RB Dylan Sampson (Tennessee signee)

[HoleInTheRoof]

Purdue hosted Sampson on his first official visit last weekend, and he was scheduled to take official visits to Louisville next weekend and Vanderbilt the weekend of June 25. But he said he no longer intends to take his remaining visits.

"I'm done," he said.

- 247

Well thats huge if he's already shutting it down.

Glover was my preferred back in this class but this kid looks like a quality player as well.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

- 247

Well thats huge if he's already shutting it down.

Glover was my preferred back in this class but this kid looks like a quality player as well.

I like Glover too but this kid could be a baller. Probably nice for Heupel to steal one from Brohm and Purdue since they seal clubbed Mizzou back when Heupel was there.

 

[vettefool]

Takin croots outta Louisiana??? Intriguing...

Just hope LSU doesn’t offer. Seen that movie before.

 

[bignewt]

Ok, ok sorry, late on this one, been out of town!

 

[Ace]

Sampson > Glover
This is a big get for this staff.

 

[sjt18]

Since the sky always seems to be falling for some...

I'll just post this again. The rankings are not completely accurate to start with. Using the NFL as a measuring stick, a high % of 5* will be drafted. A significantly less portion of 4* are drafted- less than half. I stole this from a Clemson site and am open to corrections but this looks consistent with data I've seen before.


2017 NFL Draftees (252 Total)

5*****-----23-----9.1%
4****------76----30,2%
3***-------90----35.7%
2**--------25-----9.9%
NR---------38----15.1%

2018 NFL Draftees (252 Total)

5*****-----19-----7.3%
4****------70----27.5%
3***------106----41.6%
2**--------19-----7.s%
NR---------42----16.5%

In those two drafts, something something over 50% of former 5* players were drafted. I believe there are usually about 30-40 per class. It looks like roughly 20% of 4* recruits will be drafted. Obviously there are a ton of 3* players and so a fairly low % of draftees. But looking at it another way.... The recruiting services miss a lot of guys with the talent to play in the NFL. For whatever reason, most justified, they don't find about 60% of the kids in any given class that will develop into the best of the best.

This is all in a NORMAL year. The past year and a half has not been normal. The recruiting sites depend on a handful of things to award stars. One is credit for which coaches are pursuing them.

However... game videos, games watched, and football camps are the primary things used to rate players. A lot of kids didn't have a season last fall. There were few if any camps last summer. Lots of kids get A LOT better as their HS careers progress and the star wizards have no way of seeing it.

Star ratings should always be taken in perspective... and far more as influenced by Covid restrictions.

 

[butchna]

I like Glover too but this kid could be a baller. Probably nice for Heupel to steal one from Brohm and Purdue since they seal clubbed Mizzou back when Heupel was there.

Still think we could land both.

 

[Tennessee Golfer]

Ok, ok sorry, late on this one, been out of town!

Better late than never.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Since the sky always seems to be falling for some...

I'll just post this again. The rankings are not completely accurate to start with. Using the NFL as a measuring stick, a high % of 5* will be drafted. A significantly less portion of 4* are drafted- less than half. I stole this from a Clemson site and am open to corrections but this looks consistent with data I've seen before.


2017 NFL Draftees (252 Total)

5*****-----23-----9.1%
4****------76----30,2%
3***-------90----35.7%
2**--------25-----9.9%
NR---------38----15.1%

2018 NFL Draftees (252 Total)

5*****-----19-----7.3%
4****------70----27.5%
3***------106----41.6%
2**--------19-----7.s%
NR---------42----16.5%

In those two drafts, something something over 50% of former 5* players were drafted. I believe there are usually about 30-40 per class. It looks like roughly 20% of 4* recruits will be drafted. Obviously there are a ton of 3* players and so a fairly low % of draftees. But looking at it another way.... The recruiting services miss a lot of guys with the talent to play in the NFL. For whatever reason, most justified, they don't find about 60% of the kids in any given class that will develop into the best of the best.

This is all in a NORMAL year. The past year and a half has not been normal. The recruiting sites depend on a handful of things to award stars. One is credit for which coaches are pursuing them.

However... game videos, games watched, and football camps are the primary things used to rate players. A lot of kids didn't have a season last fall. There were few if any camps last summer. Lots of kids get A LOT better as their HS careers progress and the star wizards have no way of seeing it.

Star ratings should always be taken in perspective... and far more as influenced by Covid restrictions.

This is such a tiresome argument to the extent you are poo pooing the idea that the rankings are valid, it's been proven time and again. 5-stars have a much higher chance of being drafted (there are usually 30-32 per year) than 4-stars and on down the line. I do agree that recruiting rankings will be more in flux this year than in years past because of the lack of camps (which is currently being remedied) so expect ALOT of movement.

7 steps to proving recruiting rankings matter

 

[sjt18]

This is such a tiresome argument to the extent you are poo pooing the idea that the rankings are valid, it's been proven time and again. 5-stars have a much higher chance of being drafted (there are usually 30-32 per year) than 4-stars and on down the line. I do agree that recruiting rankings will be more in flux this year than in years past because of the lack of camps (which is currently being remedied) so expect ALOT of movement.

And NOTHING you said there comes close to addressing my point... or proves that I am "poo pooing" the validity of rankings. Around 50% in predicting that a HS senior will be drafted in the NFL is NOT bad. Even predicting 20% of 4* will play in the NFL is NOT bad.

The point is that they do not find and properly rank every kids with talent even under the best of circumstances. They find less than half of the players the NFL considers the best. They do pretty good with the players they focus on. They simply do not "see" a lot of great recruits or else do not rate them correctly.

I can remember when Denarius Moore was considered the 3* UT had to sign to get the 4* Lane. The 4* was nowhere near as talented as advertised. Moore was drafted and had some good years in the NFL.

On the whole, rankings tend to matter plus or minus about 5-10 team ranking spots. But when applied to specific players they aren't as reliable as you and others try to pretend.

 

[sjt18]

This is such a tiresome argument to the extent you are poo pooing the idea that the rankings are valid, it's been proven time and again. 5-stars have a much higher chance of being drafted (there are usually 30-32 per year) than 4-stars and on down the line. I do agree that recruiting rankings will be more in flux this year than in years past because of the lack of camps (which is currently being remedied) so expect ALOT of movement.

7 steps to proving recruiting rankings matter

To the point of the article, 60% of the draft being 3* or below does not constitute "exceptions".

Point number two is an interesting defense of the rankings matter. Using the top 20 leaves a TON of room for error in the rankings. In any given year, you are talking about teams competing not just for 4-5* players but also the "best" 3 star players. It is not surprising that top programs do that better and deploy more resources. We're talking however about something in the neighborhood of 500 to 1000 recruiting targets.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

To the point of the article, 60% of the draft being 3* or below does not constitute "exceptions".

Point number two is an interesting defense of the rankings matter. Using the top 20 leaves a TON of room for error in the rankings. In any given year, you are talking about teams competing not just for 4-5* players but also the "best" 3 star players. It is not surprising that top programs do that better and deploy more resources. We're talking however about something in the neighborhood of 500 to 1000 recruiting targets.

This is the article I was looking for previously but couldn't find. You are guaranteed to have a large raw number of 3 stars drafted every year because comparatively there are so many more of them. It's the greater percentage of 5 stars than 4 stars, 4 stars than 3 stars, etc. drafted that is significant, not the raw numbers.

How recruiting rankings fare projecting future NFL Draft picks

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

To the point of the article, 60% of the draft being 3* or below does not constitute "exceptions".

Point number two is an interesting defense of the rankings matter. Using the top 20 leaves a TON of room for error in the rankings. In any given year, you are talking about teams competing not just for 4-5* players but also the "best" 3 star players. It is not surprising that top programs do that better and deploy more resources. We're talking however about something in the neighborhood of 500 to 1000 recruiting targets.

I see Alabama and Clemson enough each season murdering everyone on their way to another championship to know the rankings do matter. With that being said this kid has elite speed and the lack of camps due to covid makes it hard to make judgement for recruiting sites.

 

[sjt18]

This is the article I was looking for previously but couldn't find. You are guaranteed to have a large raw number of 3 stars drafted every year because comparatively there are so many more of them. It's the greater percentage of 5 stars than 4 stars, 4 stars than 3 stars, etc. drafted that is significant, not the raw numbers.

No. It is BOTH. They are accurate with the guys they see. But they miss a very large number.... and not all of them are "raw". Sometimes the recruiting sites just flat out miss. Sutton makes a great example of that. Going back a bit, Dan Williams was a 3*.

Other times kids don't market themselves or attend camps. Sometimes kids have football skills that defy their measurables. There are a lot of reasons but there is no denying the fact that if the draft is your measuring stick... they miss more than they find.... though they're accurate with the ones they find.

You are trying to ignore one side of the data. If you posted QB's numbers as: Completed 75% of his passes with a 4/1 TD to INT ratio and a 12 ypa average... what's missing? Those are pretty good numbers. But they have no context unless you include that he only threw for 1200 yds in 12 games.

 

[sjt18]

I see Alabama and Clemson enough each season murdering everyone on their way to another championship to know the rankings do matter. With that being said this kid has elite speed and the lack of camps due to covid makes it hard to make judgement for recruiting sites.

Nowhere have I said that the rankings don't matter. I am pointing out some things that really should be obvious.

One thing I haven't mentioned is that the recruiting sites hedge their bets too. They limit the number of 4/5* they hand out.... in spite of only predicting about 40% of players who will become the best. By doing that, they can claim to be more accurate than they really are. Another way to see that... if they doubled the number of 4/5* they awarded... would their accuracy go up or down.

It would be like laying a bell curve over those recruits and only giving 5* to 6 sigma (actually they award fewer than that) and 4* to 5.8 sigma... knowing that a bunch more guys are really good but are more risky to predict.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

Nowhere have I said that the rankings don't matter. I am pointing out some things that really should be obvious.

One thing I haven't mentioned is that the recruiting sites hedge their bets too. They limit the number of 4/5* they hand out.... in spite of only predicting about 40% of players who will become the best. By doing that, they can claim to be more accurate than they really are. Another way to see that... if they doubled the number of 4/5* they awarded... would their accuracy go up or down.

It would be like laying a bell curve over those recruits and only giving 5* to 6 sigma (actually they award fewer than that) and 4* to 5.8 sigma... knowing that a bunch more guys are really good but are more risky to predict.

I understand your point of view that’s a solid argument. I think the sites missed on this kid his speed is elite. I think our QB recruit is elite as well.

 

[volbeast33]

I see Alabama and Clemson enough each season murdering everyone on their way to another championship to know the rankings do matter. With that being said this kid has elite speed and the lack of camps due to covid makes it hard to make judgement for recruiting sites.

This will make you feel better….. Clemson four recruiting classes leading up to their first championship was 9,16,15, and 20…… to make you even more sick during those same four years: 4,7,25,and 19…… the only thing that matters is where they would be rated four years on campus….. nick saban and Dabo are two of the best evaluators, and developers….. that’s what I hope heup is.

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

This will make you feel better….. Clemson four recruiting classes leading up to their first championship was 9,16,15, and 20…… to make you even more sick during those same four years: 4,7,25,and 19…… the only thing that matters is where they would be rated four years on campus….. nick saban and Dabo are two of the best evaluators, and developers….. that’s what I hope heup is.

Yep gotta be able to evaluate and develop.
Pruitts problem was he could get talent here but couldn’t develop it to save his life. Gotta do both

 

[sjt18]

I understand your point of view that’s a solid argument. I think the sites missed on this kid his speed is elite. I think our QB recruit is elite as well.

Honestly. Mine is a generic argument. Even then I wouldn't make it if it weren't for Covid and what it likely did to the accuracy of the ratings.

I like that this kid runs a sub-10.5 100m. He appears to have good football skills. My concern would be whether he can put on some weight and power while maintaining his speed. If not, slot?

 

[Berry4Heisman14]

Honestly. Mine is a generic argument. Even then I wouldn't make it if it weren't for Covid and what it likely did to the accuracy of the ratings.

I like that this kid runs a sub-10.5 100m. He appears to have good football skills. My concern would be whether he can put on some weight and power while maintaining his speed. If not, slot?

A proper S/C program will get him
To gain healthy weight through muscle. He will probably get quicker honestly

 

[volbeast33]

Yep gotta be able to evaluate and develop.
Pruitts problem was he could get talent here but couldn’t develop it to save his life. Gotta do both

He was too worried about too much stuff….. as a defensive coach…. His pretty good at getting the most of his players.

 

[miket4god]

And NOTHING you said there comes close to addressing my point... or proves that I am "poo pooing" the validity of rankings. Around 50% in predicting that a HS senior will be drafted in the NFL is NOT bad. Even predicting 20% of 4* will play in the NFL is NOT bad.

The point is that they do not find and properly rank every kids with talent even under the best of circumstances. They find less than half of the players the NFL considers the best. They do pretty good with the players they focus on. They simply do not "see" a lot of great recruits or else do not rate them correctly.

I can remember when Denarius Moore was considered the 3* UT had to sign to get the 4* Lane. The 4* was nowhere near as talented as advertised. Moore was drafted and had some good years in the NFL.

On the whole, rankings tend to matter plus or minus about 5-10 team ranking spots. But when applied to specific players they aren't as reliable as you and others try to pretend.

This right here. As a general rule, the rankings are accurate. Better classes typically perform better on the field. But regarding specific players, there are lots of misses both good and bad.

 

[miket4god]

No. It is BOTH. They are accurate with the guys they see. But they miss a very large number.... and not all of them are "raw". Sometimes the recruiting sites just flat out miss. Sutton makes a great example of that. Going back a bit, Dan Williams was a 3*.

Other times kids don't market themselves or attend camps. Sometimes kids have football skills that defy their measurables. There are a lot of reasons but there is no denying the fact that if the draft is your measuring stick... they miss more than they find.... though they're accurate with the ones they find.

You are trying to ignore one side of the data. If you posted QB's numbers as: Completed 75% of his passes with a 4/1 TD to INT ratio and a 12 ypa average... what's missing? Those are pretty good numbers. But they have no context unless you include that he only threw for 1200 yds in 12 games.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I know it's a different sport, but my daughter is playing college softball on scholarship right now that is a testament to that fact. She is not the biggest or the fastest or have the strongest arm. If all you saw was a tryout, she wouldn't stand out that much. But she has softball IQ that is off the charts, incredibly aggressive as a base runner. Gets great jumps on a fly ball as an outfielder. Can watch a third base coach for a couple of innings and knows what their signs are. Just more that physical talent.

 

[FïreBall]

This will make you feel better….. Clemson four recruiting classes leading up to their first championship was 9,16,15, and 20…… to make you even more sick during those same four years: 4,7,25,and 19…… the only thing that matters is where they would be rated four years on campus….. nick saban and Dabo are two of the best evaluators, and developers….. that’s what I hope heup is.

To add to the conversation.. It's also being consistent. A program can't afford to have turnover in HC and players constantly. Bama and Clemson have stayed consistent with recruiting and development. I know Saban had assistant coach turnovers.. But his model doesn't change as far as what he wants and expects.

I would honestly hate to see The Vols roster needs over the next few years related to who was lost from the program to who will be graduating compared to what the previous HC brought in (that are still here) and also what players are needed for the new coaches scheme fit etc.. What will next season look like with who will be graduating?

It would certainly be nice to have had a good coach years ago to get the ship righted and still be here.. Recruited and developed consistently.. But yet here we are again..

We can get all the high ranked players we want.. But if they don't fit the new HC scheme or wasn't developed by the previous HC regime... Idk.. It's frustrating. Plugging a sinking ship constantly vs adding new paint to the main deck..

 

[sjt18]

Yep gotta be able to evaluate and develop.
Pruitts problem was he could get talent here but couldn’t develop it to save his life. Gotta do both

I think they actually taught football skills pretty well and had a good S&C. Pruitt wasn't a good enough leader to lead the team and manage the staff. His apparently pervasive negativity didn't get anyone to perform.

But mostly his decision making and stubbornness did him in. He believed so blindly that his perception of a player's performance in practice indicated who would be the best to play on Saturday... that he refused to see abject failures of performance on Saturdays.

I actually think the new staff inherited guys with talent who know how to tackle, run routes, block, etc. They just never really learned how to do it as a unit.