Stop with the complaining over 3* recruits

[PEPPERJAX]

I know recruiting rankings matter when you look at who finishes in the top ten and how that equates to championships ie Bama, OSU, FSU etc. But a ranking below a four or five star depending on which recruiting service you use does not decide whether or not a player will be bad. For example, look at some of the 3 stars on UT's roster who is either a good player or at least solid: Dylan Wiesman, Jashon Robertson, Josh Dobbs, Josh Smith, Cam Sutton, Corey Vereen, Kendal Vickers, Coleman Thomas, & Chance Hall. You obviously need more hits than misses though despite the star ranking next to the player's name.

 

[terrypedigo]

You need half the class to be 4 stars, if you won't to compete for Championship now our class is a long way from being complete we will lose 4 or 5 that we got now but will gain 4 or 5 that we don't even know about look at last year on NSD nobody had heard of Johnson or Byrd this class still has a chance to be a top 10 class if we go 10 and 2 or 11 and 1 the elite will come. we got some top rate recruit's just watching on how our team will play in 16 because this is the year no more excuses team, not team 120 this will be the team that will show how good our coach is coaching in big games if we do good the recruits will come, if we go 8 and 4 the elite will stay away it that simple, this is a big year for Tennessee football we will be at the top or be on a downward dive again, it put up or shut up in TENNESSEE, its time to take that next step.GO VOLS BUCK BAMA

 

[bignewt]

longest sentence in history?

 

[Catbone]

There's a reason why there's more 3*s in the NFL than 4 & 5*s.

Because there are WAY more 3* players than there are 4* and 5*.

 

[bignewt]

Because there are WAY more 3* players than there are 4* and 5*.

 

[KBVol]

Not saying I don't want the best players but I trust the coaches in their evaluations of players that fit there scheme regardless of star rankings.

I trust em as well, to a certain extent. They've earned a big benefit of the doubt at their ability to bring in talent, including some who have proven to be "diamonds in the rough".

However, I also trust proven, historical data. I also trust what I've witnessed in recent history, which is that teams like Alabama, Auburn, Florida, USC, LSU, Florida State and Ohio State, all of which are on balance among the most talented teams in the country based on their annual recruiting service(s) rankings.

Perhaps our 2017 recruiting class, as currently constituted, is just chock full of "diamonds in the rough" since about 85% of it is comprised of 3* players. But that's a risky way to go about....based on who wins national titles and the talent on those teans, we'd be much better served to accumulate more 4 and 5 star players than 3 star players.

 

[BigOrangeD]

There will always be a hidden gem or diamond in the rough here and there. Digging through years of NFL players who signed with any one of 100+ schools and listing them doesn't really make sense, especially when you consider we have more 3* guys in ONE CLASS than you listed digging through all those years at all those schools. History tells us if you sign more 3* guys than 4-5* guys you will not be playing for championships. Just the way it is.

Pretty Much. Just basic Statistics. Many on Volnation may have been sleeping through that class though.

 

[LittleVol]

I trust em as well, to a certain extent. They've earned a big benefit of the doubt at their ability to bring in talent, including some who have proven to be "diamonds in the rough".

However, I also trust proven, historical data. I also trust what I've witnessed in recent history, which is that teams like Alabama, Auburn, Florida, USC, LSU, Florida State and Ohio State, all of which are on balance among the most talented teams in the country based on their annual recruiting service(s) rankings.

Perhaps our 2017 recruiting class, as currently constituted, is just chock full of "diamonds in the rough" since about 85% of it is comprised of 3* players. But that's a risky way to go about....based on who wins national titles and the talent on those teans, we'd be much better served to accumulate more 4 and 5 star players than 3 star players.

Some will be 4 stars...

 

[1974Vol]

Keep in mind that these guys for the 17 class are just now starting their senior HS season. So many currently rated 3 stars will be 4's or may fall back to 2's by the end of their senior year. Also there is a numeric rating inside the star rating so some 3's are barely 3's and some are only fractions of a point from being 4's. Also as many others have stated some of our commits may be recruited over as we draw close to NSD. Moreover as many have pointed out many top recrunits will wait until late to commit and will consider how well the Vols play in their decision. My point being I would wait until February before declaring the 17 class a boom or bust.

 

[livefaith]

This list would be obliterated by the 4 and 5* recruits in the NFL.

Yes. Of which there were faaaaar fewer numbers of when the rankings were released. Two and 3* players are way more numerous, thus the % indicate that the 4-5* players have > odds at attaining success.

 

[livefaith]

I think the idea of statistics, and the raw materials used to make them up, is a challenge for a lot of people.

 

[BaldBiker]

The whole because there are way more 3*s than 4 and 5 star players argument doesn't hold as much water as some may think.

32 NFL teams
53 man roster
=1696 NFL players

On average it appears there are roughly 340 - 345 4 and 5* players going into college football each year.

340 multiplied by say a 4 year period = 1360/80% of every teams roster. Multiplied by 5 years would be 1700/100% of every teams roster.

Now given that teams start camp off with roughly 80 players? There is room for a lot of 3*s to be drafted to try and make a team, and some of them shine and become NFL stars. It would seem though, that based off of a lot of you guys arguments about the star ratings and the NFL, that a fair percentage to put on the amount of 4 and 5*s on each and every NFL team should be roughly 75 - 80%.

Can anyone name an NFL team that is made up of 75 - 80% former 4 and 5* recruits? You may be able to, I haven't looked.

OP listed names of stars in the NFL. The list of 3* or lower players in the NFL is a whole lot larger. The fact is that within any 5 year period of time there should be enough 4 and 5* players coming out of college to actually fill every NFL roster...without 3*'s.



I threw this together rather quickly and to be honest am not even sure I would argue these point too much, if any, but it is a good discussion point.

 

[KBVol]

Some will be 4 stars...

How many? 2?...3?

Fwiw, I think we're gonna replace 4-5 currently listed commits with higher rated players and I think we pull Trey Smith and one of Chandler or Akers so that the class finishes in the top 15 rather than just the top 25.

 

[VolsFan-TX]

Amen brother! I remember in Super Bowl 49 they said that their wasn't one player from both the Seahawks and patriots that were 5 stars and 4 stars coming out of high. school.

Per this link (How each Super Bowl 2015 starter was rated as a high school recruit - SBNation.com), there were four 4-stars in the starters for each team:

Seahawks
James Carpenter
Marshawn Lynch
Bruce Irvin
Byron Maxwell

Patriots
Rob Gronkowski
LeGarrette Blount
Vince Wilfork
Dont'a Hightower

Additionally, there were some older players pre-dating the modern rating as well as some foreign players.

 

[Ethan Hooper]

There are good points made by each side of this argument. As for the class, I'm not worried. We have a class full of players who have the measurables, who fit our system, who want to be here and have good attitudes, and for the most part they have good offer lists and are being recruited by top teams. Every fall camp, we hear about lower rated guys (Cam Sutton, John Kelly, Chance Hall, Brandon Johnson) who show up and perform well despite their ranking. We'll be alright.

 

[BloodRunsR&B]

The whole because there are way more 3*s than 4 and 5 star players argument doesn't hold as much water as some may think.

32 NFL teams
53 man roster
=1696 NFL players

On average it appears there are roughly 340 - 345 4 and 5* players going into college football each year.

340 multiplied by say a 4 year period = 1360/80% of every teams roster. Multiplied by 5 years would be 1700/100% of every teams roster.

Now given that teams start camp off with roughly 80 players? There is room for a lot of 3*s to be drafted to try and make a team, and some of them shine and become NFL stars. It would seem though, that based off of a lot of you guys arguments about the star ratings and the NFL, that a fair percentage to put on the amount of 4 and 5*s on each and every NFL team should be roughly 75 - 80%.

Can anyone name an NFL team that is made up of 75 - 80% former 4 and 5* recruits? You may be able to, I haven't looked.

OP listed names of stars in the NFL. The list of 3* or lower players in the NFL is a whole lot larger. The fact is that within any 5 year period of time there should be enough 4 and 5* players coming out of college to actually fill every NFL roster...without 3*'s.



I threw this together rather quickly and to be honest am not even sure I would argue these point too much, if any, but it is a good discussion point.

It does hold water. Here's why.

Roughly a third of draftees are 4 and 5 star, roughly a third are 3 star, roughly a third are 2 star or unrated. There are around 350 4 and five star recruits each year, 1000 3 star recruits, and 2500+ 2 star and unrated recruits

224 draftees a year. Rough numbers, 75 will be 4 and 5 stars, 75 will be 3 stars, 75 will be 2 stars or unrated.

That means that a 4 or 5 star player on your roster has about a 1 in 5 chance of being an NFL talent. A 3 star has a 1 in 13 chance of being NFL talent. Others have around a 1 in 33 chance.

Here's the rub. Butch can obviously evaluate and develop talent, I don't think there is much arguing that. But given the general odds, out of 15 3 stars, he probably has 1 NFL guy, maybe as many as 3 if you consider that he has evaluated well. But imagine if he had 15 4 stars...given the same considerations towards Butch's ability to evaluate talent as with the group of 3 stars, he would be working with and developing perhaps as many as 5 or 6 NFL talent guys in a class.

The point is never that you cannot win with three stars. Shoot, the Miracle on Ice is a thing because David does defeat Goliath sometimes. But your odds are far longer.

And lastly, recruiting rankings 10 years ago were not what they are now. There is more money and focus on it now than ever before and I think we will see the ranking accuracy reflect that (more recruiting analysts to cover more recruits, less guys missed, more experience, more historical data readily available at the HS level, etc.).

 

[BaldBiker]

It does hold water. Here's why.

Roughly a third of draftees are 4 and 5 star, roughly a third are 3 star, roughly a third are 2 star or unrated. There are around 350 4 and five star recruits each year, 1000 3 star recruits, and 2500+ 2 star and unrated recruits

224 draftees a year. Rough numbers, 75 will be 4 and 5 stars, 75 will be 3 stars, 75 will be 2 stars or unrated.

That means that a 4 or 5 star player on your roster has about a 1 in 5 chance of being an NFL talent. A 3 star has a 1 in 13 chance of being NFL talent. Others have around a 1 in 33 chance.

Here's the rub. Butch can obviously evaluate and develop talent, I don't think there is much arguing that. But given the general odds, out of 15 3 stars, he probably has 1 NFL guy, maybe as many as 3 if you consider that he has evaluated well. But imagine if he had 15 4 stars...given the same considerations towards Butch's ability to evaluate talent as with the group of 3 stars, he would be working with and developing perhaps as many as 5 or 6 NFL talent guys in a class.

The point is never that you cannot win with three stars. Shoot, the Miracle on Ice is a thing because David does defeat Goliath sometimes. But your odds are far longer.

And lastly, recruiting rankings 10 years ago were not what they are now. There is more money and focus on it now than ever before and I think we will see the ranking accuracy reflect that (more recruiting analysts to cover more recruits, less guys missed, more experience, more historical data readily available at the HS level, etc.).

Good points, which is why I made my post.

First though. I didn't say it don't hold water, I said as much as some think.

Second. It then brings to question why only roughly 75 out of 350 4 and 5 star players get drafted each year? What happened to the other 275? If they were really that good, Why isn't the NFL draft made up of only 4 and 5* players. Hell, you'd still have roughly 125 left over each year. I don't believe the NFL is doing it to try and be fair to everyone. Their drafting who they believe the best players are.

Lastly....Why would our 15 only produce 1 NFL player statistically? Why can't it be 5 or 6 or more? Nothing says it has to be even among teams. Maybe Butch and Bob got the best of the best of the 3* players and other schools don't have those potential NFLers because of it.

Like I said, not really arguing the point necessarily, just playing devils advocate, but if we're going to call Butch a great recruiter, why are we then turning around and questioning every move he makes recruiting?

I think this is a much better discussion than people popping in and saying we're doomed and others following it up by calling them stupid. If people would put some meat behind what their saying maybe we can keep another thread from going into the shi**er.



Edit: Did give you a like for your response. Good points made and keeps room for discussion open.

 

[White Bread]

Crazy thing is....Butch recruited Watt and Brown to CMU.

 

[LibertyVol]

I understand the concern about the number of 3 star players committed. However, there is a difference between a Dooley three star player and Jones three star player.

Looking at the offer lists of most of these guys and they are almost all highly sought after players.

I believe Tennessee is doing fine in its recruiting.

 

[Vols2DaWall]

Good points, which is why I made my post.

First though. I didn't say it don't hold water, I said as much as some think.

Second. It then brings to question why only roughly 75 out of 350 4 and 5 star players get drafted each year? What happened to the other 275? If they were really that good, Why isn't the NFL draft made up of only 4 and 5* players. Hell, you'd still have roughly 125 left over each year. I don't believe the NFL is doing it to try and be fair to everyone. Their drafting who they believe the best players are.

Lastly....Why would our 15 only produce 1 NFL player statistically? Why can't it be 5 or 6 or more? Nothing says it has to be even among teams. Maybe Butch and Bob got the best of the best of the 3* players and other schools don't have those potential NFLers because of it.

Like I said, not really arguing the point necessarily, just playing devils advocate, but if we're going to call Butch a great recruiter, why are we then turning around and questioning every move he makes recruiting?

I think this is a much better discussion than people popping in and saying we're doomed and others following it up by calling them stupid. If people would put some meat behind what their saying maybe we can keep another thread from going into the shi**er.



Edit: Did give you a like for your response. Good points made and keeps room for discussion open.

It's just basic statistics. There is no causal relationship between stars and getting drafted. It's all about probabilities. Generally, 4 and 5 stars have better odds of making it to the NFL than 3 stars.


Just because you are a 3 star does not mean you cannot make the league. Just because you are a 4/5 does not guarantee that you will make it to the NFL. It is just more likely (higher probability) that a 4/5 star rated player will make it to the NFL compared to a 2/3 star player.

 

[orangemadam]

I would still prefer to have 15 players that are 4* than 3. More quality athletes as a whole and a BETTER chance at making them all-americans.

 

[Vols2DaWall]

No. NO.

That goes against your argument entirely. The premise - your premise - is that 4 stars or higher have a better chance at winning footbal games and playing in the NFL eventually.

So even if there are much more 3 stars... they are still 3 stars.

Plus with the limited roster spots in the NFL... that SHOULD mean more 4 stars or higher than anything else.

Put it this way, bigger blocks of ice will last longer than smaller ice cubes in the sun. So even if you have one big block ice versus 1 million cubes... the one blocj will last. While all million cubes will melt.

Numbers mean nothing in this argument...

Trust the coaches!!!!!!!!!!

4/5 stars have better odds of making it to the league, yes.


If there were 100 5 stars, and 25% made it to the league, that would be 25 players.


If there are 2000 3 stars and 10% made it to the league, that would be 200 players.


So, 25 of 225 players are 5 stars and 200 of the 225 are 3 stars, but the odds are much better for a 5 star player.


EDIT- I do agree with you about our coaches. I think they have proven they have a good eye for talent and can develop them appropriately.

 

[BloodRunsR&B]

Good points, which is why I made my post.

First though. I didn't say it don't hold water, I said as much as some think.

Second. It then brings to question why only roughly 75 out of 350 4 and 5 star players get drafted each year? What happened to the other 275? If they were really that good, Why isn't the NFL draft made up of only 4 and 5* players. Hell, you'd still have roughly 125 left over each year. I don't believe the NFL is doing it to try and be fair to everyone. Their drafting who they believe the best players are.

Lastly....Why would our 15 only produce 1 NFL player statistically? Why can't it be 5 or 6 or more? Nothing says it has to be even among teams. Maybe Butch and Bob got the best of the best of the 3* players and other schools don't have those potential NFLers because of it.

Like I said, not really arguing the point necessarily, just playing devils advocate, but if we're going to call Butch a great recruiter, why are we then turning around and questioning every move he makes recruiting?

I think this is a much better discussion than people popping in and saying we're doomed and others following it up by calling them stupid. If people would put some meat behind what their saying maybe we can keep another thread from going into the shi**er.



Edit: Did give you a like for your response. Good points made and keeps room for discussion open.

Thanks! Love a good discussion!

On your first point, fair enough, I figured you were talking to the "stars matter" crowd an just answered accordingly

On your second, what happens to the other 4 and 5 stars? I assume those 275 players become upstanding members of society. Same as the 925 3 stars that dont get drafted, and that's the point. There is no way around the fact that if you have a 4/5 star player and a 3 star player, the odds are MORE than twice as good that the 4/5 star will go to the league than the three star.

That leads to my answer to your third and last question, why would 15 3 stars only produce 1 NFL talent? Well, because those are the statistics. It IS possible that Butch beats the statistics and has found 5 or 6 of the 3 stars that will go to the league. If fact, I agree that he probably beats the statistics, as would most Top 30 schools. That's why I said he might have 3, and tripling the statiscal yield is very generous. My point was that if your argument is such, the why wouldn't he beat the statistical yield on 4/5 stars as well? (Thus rendering 4/5 stars more desirable, even under your model)

Basically, it is inescapable that ratings do matter (EDIT: when predicting future acheivement). The fact that stars matter does NOT mean that Butch has a poor class, but it DOES mean that his margin for error with the development of these players has narrowed considerably if the goal is championships; he must have between 4-6 of these 3 stars grow and develop into NFL caliber players and the chances of that are lower than if they were rated higher. Not impossible, just lower.

 

[volfan102455]

The NFL draft proves that recruiting rankings matter. | Sports on Earth

It is hard to tell from this whether the sample was ALL players that were part of the comparable high school recruiting classes or just those drafted. But I think it is just those that were drafted otherwise the sample would have had to be a lot higher than 1,300 over 5 years.

14 SEC schools sign say 20 each year for 5 years = 1,400 which is more than 1,300. And if you look at a few years for reference - there is always at least 500 players in the 3 star or above lot which make the population have to be at least 2500.

To really understand a comparison between ranking and success in college or NFL you have to look at the entire population - keeping in those top stars that were not successful in college and/or were not drafted.

You can't draw a general conclusion around the entire population by looking only at part of the population.

 

[Dragon18]

I have not posted on here in some time now, but I am seeing all over social media the bashing on our coaching staff because we have a total of 15 3* recruits for 2017. This post is not directed at any single person, it's just please stop and trust what our coaches are doing. It's easy for all of the armchair coaches to talk negatively about our coaching staff, and the talent they are bringing in.

So I thought I would do some research on some of the top NFL names, and where they were coming out of High School. This is just some of the names I found, and there were plenty more I could have added:

J.J. Watt- 2*

LeVeon Bell- 2*

Marcus Mariota- 3*

Antonio Brown- 2*

Aaron Rodgers- 3*

Cameron Sutton ( still in college) but was a 2*

Victor Cruz- 2*

Jordy Nelson- 2*

Chris Johnson- 2*

Julius Thomas- 2*

Demarcus Ware- Unrated

Ed Reed- Unrated

Eric Fisher- 2*

Tyler Eifert- 3*

Dontari Poe- 2*

Demarius Thomas- 3*

Malcolm Jenkins- 3*

Clay Matthews- Unrated


Trust our coaches!!! Go Vols!

I gave you a like and I appreciate the point you are trying to make. However, the analytics of championship teams is not aligned with your post. I think individuals can certainly succeed with lower star ratings but classes that lead to championship certainly seem to need higher ratings as a collection of talent. I think Butch and this staff hsve a remarkable ability to find the proverbial diamond in the rough but I am mildly concerned with bringing in such a large group of 3 star talent. If Butch can succeed like this he will be the exception rather than the norm. That being said I'm certainly not out on a ledge ready to jump over this class. I think we will be fine on NSD.