pkatz

February 15th, 2015 at 8:59 AM ^

Why are you linking anything to do with the Freep? That is verboten in these parts... and the article sucks as well - sounds like it was written by an intern

BubbaT33

February 15th, 2015 at 9:02 AM ^

"If these recruiting gurus are so good at their jobs, why wasn't there a five-star recruit starting in the Super Bowl? Why were there only seven four-star recruit Super Bowl starters? According to 247Sports, 20 starters were two-star players or lower"  McCabe points to JJ Watt as a prime example.  His rant appears to be an opposition to all those working to profit off of young men and their families that hope to some day play a high level of college football (and dream of playing in the NFL).

cbuswolverine

February 15th, 2015 at 9:42 AM ^

Football players aren't all on the same development curve from age 16 onward.  JJ Watt is a great example of that, not faulty scouting.  It's not like JJ Watt was JJ FUCKING WATT coming out of high school.  He had something like eight or nine catches as a tight end at CMU as a freshman.  They asked him to move to offensive tackle as a sophomore.  He then transferred to Wisconsin and they redshirted him.

I understand the overall point regarding the scouting services, but there is plenty of better evidence available than the Super Bowl and "look at how good some of these guys are when they are five years removed from college."

michgoblue

February 15th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^

Because there are a ton more 3 stars out there than 5 stars. Like 10-15 times as many per year. So, even if 1/2 of 5* guys get drafted and only 1/8 of 3* guys get drafted, there will be a on more 3* guys in the nfl on a raw numbers basis.



Now, digging deeper, as a percentage basis, a 5* is significantly more likely to succeed and make it to the nfl than a 3*. It's not even close.

go16blue

February 15th, 2015 at 9:26 AM ^

I don't know guys, JJ Watt was a 2-star and he's great so I think stars are stupid and I don't understand them and I hate them and let's get rid of camps and recruiting services and coaches need to recruit based off intangibles alone since they're the most important and I want players who have the "it" factor and not someone who some stoopid "expert" says is good at "technique" or is "athletic"

Tater

February 15th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^

I won't click, but if an "objective journalist" is referring to events where kids get opportunities to better their lives as the "underwear olympics," he probably has an axe to grind and isn't contributing much to the field of journalism.

JTGoBlue

February 15th, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^

I still don't understand this logic: lower ranked players sometimes reach their true (higher) potential in college, therefore the whole rating system is faulty and 4/5 stars are no more likely to succeed.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Ryanonymous

February 15th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^

Comparing the two based on 11v11, high school stats in their last two years - Malzone seems like the better prospect as a pure QB.

Malzone has better accuracy with 66% passes completed and three less TDs, compared to Lewerke's 51% and 66 TDs. Both attempted a very similar number of passes as well.

Malzone had less picks thrown too.

It seems Lewerke is the better athlete when you consider his slightly faster 40 time, shuttle time, and vertical while factoring in his better rushing statistics than Malzone.

When evaluating a QB it would come down to the question, do you prefer a slightly less mobile but much more accurate QB over one who might be able to do a little more damage with his legs? Malzone does show serviceable athleticism in film so I wouldn't completely discredit his ability to move around just yet.



Based on game performance and film, I could make a pretty good argument that Malzone deserves the 4* over Lewerke - the previously mentioned numbers being a good portion of that argument.

alum96

February 15th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^

Your analysis would be very unkind to Shane Morris.

Not that I disagree with your overall point. 

A guy like Kellen Moore is the prototype for what you hope Malzone can be.  (some here will say Brees but lets be reasonable)  No idea what Moore was rated out of HS but I doubt very high and his arm strength is suspect at the NFl level but accuracy very high and all he did was win.

Don

February 15th, 2015 at 2:01 PM ^

According to Rivals, Moore was a three-star and ranked #31 in the country.

https://rivals.yahoo.com/Michigan/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-147…

Looking at the list, it's surprising how few of these guys even made any kind of mark in college, let alone in the NFL. I love the line about Mike Paulus: "Has future NFL star written all over him." I think he might be the younger brother of Greg Paulus, since they're both listed as having attended Christian Brothers Academy in Syracuse.

Looking at the Rivals rankings for the 2006 class alone—who would be in the prime of their NFL careers by 2014—there were 38 five-stars and 332 four-stars for a total of 370. If you assume that the two years immediately preceding and following 2006 would furnish roughly the same numbers, that means that approximately 1,850 five- and four-star college recruits would have been available for the NFL in the classes of 2004 through 2008. That such a tiny number of them showed up on the two Superbowl rosters this year is interesting.

JayMo4

February 15th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^

Honestly, if football coaches had any brains at all, they'd quit scouting all together and just offer scholarships to random high school kids.  It's all a crapshoot anyway.

not TOM BRADY

February 15th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

The whole Super Bowl thing was just based off odds. There are less 5 stars in the NFL than 4, 3, 2 stars. 5 stars get drafted to the NFL at a higher rate. Also services can't control what these kids are going to do with their lives when they go to college.

michiganfanforlife

February 15th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^

using ONLY the star rating system. I think it's a great source of info for coaches and scouts to begin looking through to figure out who they want to evaluate further. I also think people put way too much stock in it at times. I know of highschool players with more stars that don't start on their own teams over guys who are unranked because of their size. It's a good general guess, but the coaches make their living sifting through the film and meeting these kids one on one to get a better picture.

LSAClassOf2000

February 15th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

I believe that's precisely how you get the cinematography for the movie adaptation of Chayefsky's "Altered States". It is one of the few films which does not require drugs to make you believe you are on drugs (much like the main character) during certain visual sequences. That aside, it is not a bad film at all, in my estimation. 

Coldwater

February 15th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^

If he is against these combines and 7 on 7 competitions, then he has to be against the baseball and softball "showcases" that charge ungodly sums to time your 60 yard dash, measure your bat speed, and clock your fastball.



steve sharik

February 15th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^

If the NFL guys are so omniscient to look past recruiting rankings, how come JaMarcus Russell is the #1 pick in the draft?

Evaluating talent is simply hard; NFL scouts, D-1 colleges, and recruiting services are all equally good and bad at it.

A lot of research has shown that an evaluation says as much or more about the evaluator than the subject.

Mmmm Hmmm

February 15th, 2015 at 2:22 PM ^

Exactly. It cuts both ways in the NFL: many players outperform their draft slot (or lack thereof) often because they do not exactly match what evaluators are looking for. And NFL teams have lots more information than colleges...

[Now, for some snark:] If only the Free Press had any examples of the local team either missing on an early pick or having a late pick/UFA turn out well...

(As a Bears fan, my favorite team has much more of a penchant for early round busts than under-drafted diamonds...)




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

mgobleu

February 15th, 2015 at 2:02 PM ^

If the OP is such a sadist that he/she feels compelled to share what that rag has to say, just copy & paste so Mgoblog gets the clicks. Never under any circumstances post the link.

PrincetonBlue

February 15th, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^

Wow that was the worst article I've read about sports in a while.

"why aren't there any 5 stars in the Super Bowl"

The rankings are for how good kids are coming out of high school.  There are so many variables that impact skill as players mature during college and train in the NFL.  5 stars aren't guaranteed to be head-and-shoulders above the rest 5 years after their high school ratings.