'20 TN ATH Darion Williamson (FSU Commit)

[chargervol]

Ok guys, I have no problem being wrong. If Jordan ends up riding the bench, I give my word to admit my bad.
BUT if he remains the #2 back and has the stats, will you guys do the same? No more D4H eye test stuff despite the actual numbers and coaches decision like the last 2 seasons?

 

[bigl3327]

Banks was on his way to getting a lot of carries before the fumbles. We had this issue before where the best RB on the team (Jabari Davis) didn't really see the field because of fumbles. Hopefully all that is behind Banks and he gets his chance to beast out the rest of his career.

 

[LA Vol]

IDT it's a zero sum game. IMO, we'll see improvement and production out of the whole position group and Gray will be a playmaker.

 

[jakez4ut]

IDT it's a zero sum game. IMO, we'll see improvement and production out of the whole position group and Gray will be a playmaker.

Agree.

 

[cHiZzLeVOL]

Didn’t Arian Foster use to have Fumble issues and they fixed them? He went on to be a very good RB in the pros lol.

 

[AaronUT]

Jordan needs to continue to work on his reads and hit the holes harder. The coaches were all over him about it last season, and they worked on it in the spring. YAC actually made a tape of all the holes Jordan missed last year and they went over it play by play.

Both Jordan and Banks owned their mistakes and were improved this spring. They should be even better this fall. Gray and CFA should be full-contact by camp, so Chandler will have help and Chaney will have options.

Love hearing them owning up and improving on it.

Didn’t Arian Foster use to have Fumble issues and they fixed them? He went on to be a very good RB in the pros lol.

Corrected when he went to the Texans. Pretty sure most Vol fans were wondering what happened between college to NFL transition.

 

[bigl3327]

Didn’t Arian Foster use to have Fumble issues and they fixed them? He went on to be a very good RB in the pros lol.

Foster didn't have fumbling issues overall during his career. His few fumbles came at very inopportune times, thus making them very memorable. Unfortunately, for many, that is what he is most remembered for as a Vol.

 

[Vol Main]

Hard to disagree with that....

I could see Banks being the number one if he puts it all together.

Can't be number one dropping the egg.

 

[Vol Main]

Seems like the last time I saw CFA running the ball was before Pruitt. I remember being surprised at the strength added to his quickness and speed. I thought of him as the legit number two rb and was bummed when Pruitt moved him to defense. I still think that, although Banks will be very good if he can temper his high energy with more self control. BTW, I really like Chandler, think Jordan is very capable with the needed improvement you'uns we're discussing. Can field vision be effectively coached? Llook forward to Grey.

 

[bigl3327]

CFA broke a long one last year when moved back to RB. The problem with CFA is he is a senior and is just now up to 185lbs. He is definitely a big play threat but a liability as a pass blocker.

 

[volboogie]

Banks was on his way to getting a lot of carries before the fumbles. We had this issue before where the best RB on the team (Jabari Davis) didn't really see the field because of fumbles. Hopefully all that is behind Banks and he gets his chance to beast out the rest of his career.

Jabari Davis was never the best RB while at UT. Good at plunging it in from the 1 though.

 

[Mccage]

So is Williamson going to be a RB?

 

[AngryButchJones]

So is Williamson going to be a RB?

Probably not, though this is now the Tim Jordan thread apparently.

 

[bigl3327]

Jabari Davis was never the best RB while at UT. Good at plunging it in from the 1 though.

That came from players on the team at the time, that Jabari was their best back.

 

[LouderVol]

Foster didn't have fumbling issues overall during his career. His few fumbles came at very inopportune times, thus making them very memorable. Unfortunately, for many, that is what he is most remembered for as a Vol.

Yeah I really just remember them his senior year and in the red zones.

 

[dyllisvol42]

I believe it was the ETSU game where Banks had two touchdowns, but there was one point during the game where he broke it up the middle and tried to run over the safety. The announcer even said that if he didn’t try to run over the safety he would have scored. Now I like the attitude but let’s get the touchdown. I do believe Banks will be better than Jordan unless Jordan realizes hey I’m slow I don’t need to break everything to the outside. Excited about the running back group this year. A lot of different skill sets there.

 

[Bring_Back_Dooley]

The math is simply against you here. By last count I saw, only about 7% of 3-stars make the NFL, significantly less than 4s/5s.

What is the basis for your 7% claim? And there's many more 3*/2*/unranked players than 4*/5*, so the percentages of the former group making the NFL will always be less.

However, I did find it interesting that, according to CBS sports, 15 of the 32 first-round picks (46%) in the 2019 NFL draft were either 3*, 2* or unranked coming out of HS, per the 24/7 Sports composite. Yes, it's one year of data, and limited to the first round of the draft. But, to your point, shouldn't a vast majority of the first-round draft selections be 5*/4*?

2019 NFL Draft picks: High school recruiting star rankings for first-round selections

 

[Devo182]

What is the basis for your 7% claim? The number of 3* or other lower-ranked players making the NFL will always be less than the number of 5*/4* players, simply because there's more of the latter.

However, I did find it interesting that, according to CBS sports, 15 of the 32 first-round picks (46%) in the 2019 NFL draft were either 3*, 2* or unranked coming out of HS, per the 24/7 Sports composite. Yes, it's one year of data, and limited to the first round of the draft. But, to your point, shouldn't a vast majority of the first-round draft selections be 5*/4*?

2019 NFL Draft picks: High school recruiting star rankings for first-round selections

Saw an analysis article awhile back. It was like 7% of 3*s, 22% of 4s, and around 50% of 5s.

Yes half of the 1st round may be 3*s, because there's literally thousands each year. On the flipside, there are merely 32 5*s.

The important factor here is rate of success.

 

[Vols410]

What is the basis for your 7% claim? And there's many more 3*/2*/unranked players than 4*/5*, so the percentages of the former group making the NFL will always be less.

However, I did find it interesting that, according to CBS sports, 15 of the 32 first-round picks (46%) in the 2019 NFL draft were either 3*, 2* or unranked coming out of HS, per the 24/7 Sports composite. Yes, it's one year of data, and limited to the first round of the draft. But, to your point, shouldn't a vast majority of the first-round draft selections be 5*/4*?

2019 NFL Draft picks: High school recruiting star rankings for first-round selections

Devo’s right here.

You should be talking about making a player-to-player comparison here, not the entire crop of 3-stars to all the 4s and 5s, unless you expect us to sign 1,000+ guys.

For any given player, a 5-star has a much higher chance of being an NFL player, followed by 4-stars, then 3-stars.

 

[Sleegro]

Devo’s right here.

You should be talking about making a player-to-player comparison here, not the entire crop of 3-stars to all the 4s and 5s, unless you expect us to sign 1,000+ guys.

For any given player, a 5-star has a much higher chance of being an NFL player, followed by 4-stars, then 3-stars.

I would guess as far as percentage of players in the NFL, 3 stars make up a fairly large percentage. Recruiting service rankings are more like confidence points. They are more confident 5 stars will be successful. 3 stars receive less confidence for a number of reasons including just not getting as much exposure or having questions about their game translating up levels. Doesn't mean 3 stars don't make it. In fact large numbers of them do.

 

[Sleegro]

Saw an analysis article awhile back. It was like 7% of 3*s, 22% of 4s, and around 50% of 5s.

Yes half of the 1st round may be 3*s, because there's literally thousands each year. On the flipside, there are merely 32 5*s.

The important factor here is rate of success.

How recruiting rankings fare projecting future NFL Draft picks

I'm guessing this is the article you saw. And yeah as they concluded in their self analysis is that they do a good job evaluating 4 and 5 star easier to spot talent. What they minimize though in their eagerness to pat themselves on the back is that in the 2 draft classes they analyzed is that over 60% of players drafted were 3 star or lower. Which tells me that they are not very good at evaluating players that aren't obvious can't miss guys. Which is like 90-95% of prospects. 3 star basically just means they have no clue. It would be a much more useful system if they tried harder to evaluate that group so it wasn't just a catch all guess for them. When 60% of a draft is made up of a group that they are only about 6% accurate in predicting, then I don't know why they're bragging about it.

 

[Vols410]

I would guess as far as percentage of players in the NFL, 3 stars make up a fairly large percentage. Recruiting service rankings are more like confidence points. They are more confident 5 stars will be successful. 3 stars receive less confidence for a number of reasons including just not getting as much exposure or having questions about their game translating up levels. Doesn't mean 3 stars don't make it. In fact large numbers of them do.

Oh I agree there are plenty great 3-star players, and if there’s a 3-star Pruitt wants I’ll take him over a 4-star he doesn’t want.

Just saying, the probability of a 4/5 star being a great player is far better than a 3 star in a vacuum.

 

[chargervol]

How recruiting rankings fare projecting future NFL Draft picks

I'm guessing this is the article you saw. And yeah as they concluded in their self analysis is that they do a good job evaluating 4 and 5 star easier to spot talent. What they minimize though in their eagerness to pat themselves on the back is that in the 2 draft classes they analyzed is that over 60% of players drafted were 3 star or lower. Which tells me that they are not very good at evaluating players that aren't obvious can't miss guys. Which is like 90-95% of prospects. 3 star basically just means they have no clue. It would be a much more useful system if they tried harder to evaluate that group so it wasn't just a catch all guess for them. When 60% of a draft is made up of a group that they are only about 6% accurate in predicting, then I don't know why they're bragging about it.

This.
I've seen the response a million times "of course there's more 3 stars in the NFL because there's way more 3 stars than 4&5 coming out of high school" (FF lives by it)

But what they should be asking is "why did they have so many NFL talents ranked as 3 stars?"
Because they're not as good at this as they think they are.

 

[Devo182]

How recruiting rankings fare projecting future NFL Draft picks

I'm guessing this is the article you saw. And yeah as they concluded in their self analysis is that they do a good job evaluating 4 and 5 star easier to spot talent. What they minimize though in their eagerness to pat themselves on the back is that in the 2 draft classes they analyzed is that over 60% of players drafted were 3 star or lower. Which tells me that they are not very good at evaluating players that aren't obvious can't miss guys. Which is like 90-95% of prospects. 3 star basically just means they have no clue. It would be a much more useful system if they tried harder to evaluate that group so it wasn't just a catch all guess for them. When 60% of a draft is made up of a group that they are only about 6% accurate in predicting, then I don't know why they're bragging about it.

It's probably like the NFL draft itself, no matter how many experts predict and millions of dollars teams pour into draft analysis (and they apparently have the best of the best scouts), they're still struggling to figure it out. Probably because we're dealing with humans and not machines. It's an art and there's probably only so good we'll ever be at predicting human outcomes. It's hard to even say what an acceptable rate at predicting this stuff should be, when even the best fail so often at it, and they're only evaluating a few hundred or so.

I think you're right about 3/2 stars. Simmons has even said himself, "hey if a coach likes a kid way off the radar, better to go with the coaching staff's opinion". And it makes sense. The services have their limitations. No service is going to go bankrupt pouring over thousands of low 3 and 2*-expected kids out in the middle of nowhere. They have to be smart with their resource allocation as a business. But staffs can see them in person at their own camps. Services can't camp 5,000 kids.

There's no doubt plenty fall through. Many simply beat the odds though. We have to remember a 3* isn't the low rating some think it is. It means a kid has definite NFL potential, so it's not really a knock on anyone when they make it. Their odds are just lower as you mentioned.

 

[benholt06]

Strong move...coming back with the outlier.

Stars matter on the macro. But you can't just say because a guy is a lower 3 star he can't play. Does the NFL never get players from FCS or non-Power 5 schools? Even some of the guys CJP filled the class out with like Tillman look like they could be players in a year or two.

I think the 2 headed attack of Chandler and Jordan this year can be dangerous. Jordan doesn't have the breakaway speed, but he's a damn bowling ball. Solid kid and Banks has done NOTHING to justify taking his carries yet. Gray might but he's obviously a talented kid.