Rivals' Rankings of Draft Picks Through the First 3 Rounds

Submitted by hart20 on

Rivals went ahead and put together 2 articles showing how they ranked each player drafted through the first 3 rounds.

 

Here are the links:

 

1st Round: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1359762

2nd and 3rd Round: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1360073

 

Breakdown of the 1st round by stars:

5-stars: 4

4-stars: 13

3-stars: 10

2-stars: 4

NR: 0

 

Breakdown of the 1st round by conference:

Among the conferences, the SEC again had the most first-round selections, with nine. Four of the top 10 picks were SEC players. Five Big 12 players were picked, followed by four from the Big Ten (all after pick 22) and Pac-12, three from the ACC, two each from the Big East, Mountain West and independent ranks and one from Conference USA.

 

Breakdown of 1st round by High School state:

In terms of high school ball, there were five former Texas prep stars selected. Second-most among the states was Tennessee with three; there were two players each from Alabama, California, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma and Virginia, and one each from Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin.

Maizenblueball

April 29th, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^

Thanks for posting, Hart.  I can't wait to see the draft in about 4 or 5 years, to see how many stud Wolverines will be at the top of the draft boards.  Brady Hoke is recruiting some serious talent, and it'll be fun to see how many of them develop into NFL players.

samsoccer7

April 29th, 2012 at 4:36 PM ^

Seems like Rivals has somewhere around 26-32 5* each year.  Given that 4 of them were drafted in the first round, that's pretty f'in impressive.  Such a small percentage of players in any given year are a 5*, yet they take up 12.5% of the first round.  There is definitely some positive correlation there.

Also, I'm not at all surprised by the states these kids come from.  We probably could have named those top 5 schools, and it's probably pretty close to the same over a few years.  Alabama is somewhat surprising, but it's a small sample set in any given single year.

mgoDave

April 29th, 2012 at 6:53 PM ^

I wouldn't really call not being a first round draft pick a failure by any means.  The vast majority of atheletes do not even get drafted and there are huge numbers of players that contribute hevily in the NFL after being drafted after the first round.  I would say that instead that is a pretty high rate of astonishing success.

MrVociferous

April 29th, 2012 at 11:19 PM ^

Yes, but this thread is about NFL draft picks.  And in this context of "ohh...look at all the five star first rounders", being a five-star and not being in the first round -- or even drafted as I said -- is definitely a failure.  Life is harsh.  If you came into college with lots of hype and enough tools to make people think you could be something, and you didn't live up to that, then that is definitely a failure.  

And its probably a safe bet to say that most of those failures didn't quite make the best use of their time in college and study so they could go off and get an MBA.

And I'm sure if you ask those former 5-stars, if they feel like a failure for not making to the NFL, I'm pretty sure the majority would say yes (after they blamed it on 20 different things).

Plus, I've already read plenty of people in this thread saying the equivalent of ZOMG Hoke Recruits NFL Draft FTW!!!!  The truth is, the math tells you that of all of these "surefire studs" only a few from this 2013 class will likely make the NFL.

 

M-Wolverine

April 30th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^

Just not drafted in the first round. You do know there are 7 rounds, and the majority of players aren't first round picks in the league? Lots of guys make it after the first round. You're not considered to be good at drafting if guys you get after the first round don't make it in the League. So there's a huge difference between "not being a first round pick..........not making it to the NFL." 

Lac55

April 29th, 2012 at 5:17 PM ^

We definitely brought in some pro prospects on the o line these past two years. It's gonna be fun to watch these guys grow and develop. Sending players to the league is very important in the eyes of recruits. They wanna know can you get them to the next level.

Farnn

April 29th, 2012 at 5:20 PM ^

I was surprised to see that a player from Michigan was taken in the first round and went to check out who it was.  Then I got sad when I saw it was Perry.

GoBlogSparty

April 29th, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^

Player development is far more important than initial star ranking. Notre Dame had the # 2 class in 2008. Florida had the #3.

MSU's #48 class for that year produced 6 draft picks, none of which were over 3 stars, while Notre Dame and Florida produced a combined total of 6.

dth

April 29th, 2012 at 7:45 PM ^

That five stars are demonstrably more entitled than 2 and 3 star kids? Wondering seriously. An analogy--I remember there was an FA Cup game in England where some commentator contrasted the "hard working players of the underdogs" versus the flashy players of the favorites. One of the favorites informed the commentator, after the game, that he'd played in the same academy with a lot of the players who turned out to be underdogs, and the reason they were underdogs on that game was because they hadn't worked in the first place. 

I wouldn't be shocked if a big part of the reason that the five stars are ranked as such is because most five stars have five star work ethic to go along with their other superlatives. 

DGDestroys

April 29th, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^

To generalize all five stars as lazy is completely false..and short-sighted, sure. But I don't think he was necassarily doing that.

Most five stars, though, are just that gifted. They may or may not work hard in high school, and that work ethic may separate them from four star status, etc. But most of these guys just grow up that talented. It's at the college and pro level that they really need to put in the extra effort to be elite, not in high school. 

dth

April 29th, 2012 at 8:41 PM ^

If I was reading something in there that wasn't, my apologies. 

My hunch is that your given five star is the hardest worker of anyone in high school, but of course that isn't enough for college, just as your college work ethic won't be enough for the pros. So naturally there's a filtering process as those who are only up to a high school work ethic will get filtered out. 

Bodogblog

April 29th, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^

were in the first round. Floyd will be elite, while Worthy could be good and the rest of the Sparties career back-ups. Look, these arguments are silly. All mid-level schools get 3 stars, and all have fanbases who insist their coaches are better at developing them. It's all bunk. All teams are better off with more talented players. Development is fine, and important, but it's very difficult to measure. It's just as likely that Sparty got lucky on Worthy and Cousins, rather than developed them. Same with Boise.

Farnn

April 29th, 2012 at 10:04 PM ^

Retention is pretty important as well, look at what Florida has done with all the great recruits under Meyer.  And at this point, I don't think you can say that MSU has just gotten lucky for a couple of years.  3 consecutive 9+ win seasons implies that Dantonio can in fact coach, as much as it pains me to say it.  And I'd say Boise is also considerably more than luck too.

Bodogblog

April 29th, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^

You can win (for a period of time) without elite players in CFB. I'm referring to player development. No one is perfect in evaluating player performance, and there are probably many players the MSU coaches would have preferred to Worthy or Cousins. I'm saying that the fact those 2 outplayed their rankings is just as likely attributable to luck as player development. Didn't they have a 4 star QB quit football and lose another 4 star lineman to injury? That's failed player development, according to some of these simplistic arguments. In reality it's bad luck (or truly horrible player development). Sparty will revert to the mean of their recruiting rankings. Like all 3 stars, some will be better, some will be worse, on average they will be average. Player development may or may not play a small role. Again it's hard to judge, and everyone thinks their guy is Knute Rockne. They're not, at least not all of them are. They're all good talent evaluators who look for character and skill. Those who get the top players increase their chances of success very significantly over time.

UMgradMSUdad

April 29th, 2012 at 11:14 PM ^

Wasn't Nichol a 4 star QB? I realize he went to Oklahoma first, but then Cousins beat him out for the position. As for Worthy, he looked overweight and out of shape in high school.  Once he worked off the baby fat and hit the weights, he was a different player.  Also, I'm not quite sure why head coaches are so often credited with developing players.  If players are being developed, wouldn't that reflect on the position coaches more than the head coach (with some exceptions, of course)?

ThadMattasagoblin

April 29th, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^

You still have a lower ceiling of what your players can do with 3 star recruits.  Developing 5 stars can get you to a national championship while with developing 3 stars the ceiling is the Big Ten championship. 

bubblelevel

April 30th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^

If you Bell curve it about 50% of 3 stars will develop into 4 star talent with good coaching.  A few to 5 star potential.  If your recruiting average for a team is low 3's and below I think you really do have that ceiling scenario for their potential with the occaissional outlyer.  The ratings are going to mean less going forward in years because of the competition of the services - I believe you are getting many more higher ratings than before.

allezbleu

April 29th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

22. QB BRANDON WEEDEN, CLEVELAND

School: Oklahoma State 
High school: Edmond (Okla.) Santa Fe 
Recruiting ranking: Was in high school before Rivals.com recruiting rankings existed

ThadMattasagoblin

April 29th, 2012 at 11:06 PM ^

To be fair the big ten has been pretty weak the last few years.  I'd like to see how Dantonio holds up once the bar is raised with Michigan, Ohio, and Penn State in the next few years.

SHEAR WIZARDRY

April 30th, 2012 at 9:55 AM ^

Why would you want to glorify a running back who has never beat ohio? I love M. Hart but come on. You are judged at Michigan by how you perform against Ohio. If I remember correctly, he is 0-4. Along with J. Long, Manningham, Henne etc. Find a new name loser.