Staff changes coming?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

We are never going to out-recruit anyone so we have to have a low miss-rate and develop our talent.  You can turn a 3-star recruit out of HS into a 5-star player as a Jr/Sr with a top-notch developmental program.  What you cannot do is make kids magically start wanting to come here.

Or magically wanting to become 4-5 star talent when they are 3's, or to make existing 4's and 5's magically reach their original full potential in the absence of the self motivation to do so. Recruiting is a dicey business when you are dealing with 18 year old kids. It is as much about what is going on in their heads and how far that can take them, as it is about their physical talent and prowess as an athlete and one is much more difficult to evaluate in the absence of constant, day-in, day-out observation than the other.

[porkinsons disease]

Is Smith the problem? He may or may not be. What has changed since his initial big splash? Did he tweak or make bigger changes to the D? Personnel? Is CBB meddling with the D? Too conservative? Someone smarter than me, help me out. GO HOGS

[Hogs958]

If the staff remains intact then Beliema has to produce next year. If he truly thinks he has a winning staff then I respect him for sticking with them, but he has his career at stake. If improvements can be made I hope he makes them.

[grayhawg]

Or magically wanting to become 4-5 star talent when they are 3's, or to make existing 4's and 5's magically reach their original full potential in the absence of the self motivation to do so. Recruiting is a dicey business when you are dealing with 18 year old kids. It is as much about what is going on in their heads and how far that can take them, as it is about their physical talent and prowess as an athlete and one is much more difficult to evaluate in the absence of constant, day-in, day-out observation than the other.

Give me 25 Drew Morgans or maybe 40. 2star out of high school

[HoggusMaximus]

Give me 25 Drew Morgans or maybe 40. 2star out of high school

yep people get way to worked up about stars.

look at jake bequette and drew morgan for examples of why stars can be useless.

[pigture perfect]

Of course nobody but those most intimate with the program knows for sure, but I'm of the opinion that nothing will happen this year with Robb Smith or segrest. I've heard too much about us changing to the 3-4. That sounds like a decision made by a united coaching staff.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

yep people get way to worked up about stars.

look at jake bequette and drew morgan for examples of why stars can be useless.

The exception does not make the rule. Fact is a kid has a higher percentage rate of panning out in NCAA football if he's a 4 or 5 star than if he's a two star. Of course there are exceptions but it's just that, an exception.

Don't believe me, go look at the recruiting rankings over the last five years and how many top 10 teams have also had pretty consistent top 10 or top 25 rankings in recruiting.

Again though you can find exceptions here and there, but it doesn't change the fact that higher ranked classes produce more on the field more often than not.

[bennyl08]

Give me 25 Drew Morgans or maybe 40. 2star out of high school

Give me 85 5* players and you can have 85 2* players. 8 of my players will be first round draft picks. 43 total will be drafted by the NFL.

You will struggle to find 3 of those players even make it as an undrafted free agent for a summer before being cut. Sure, out of the literally thousands of 2*'s, it is almost inevitable that a few will be drafted and a handful of that few will be high talent and high draft picks. However, of the thousands of 2* players out there, the odds of you actually finding the Fisher, Watt, Morgan or Bequette are incredibly low.

Sure, some of my 5*'s will be complete busts. However, if you are writing all the names of the 5* players and having me blindly pick them from a bag vs you blindly picking out of a bag all of the 2*'s, I know which team the smart money is on. Considering that even the absolute best coach in the game, Saban, is lucky to actually hit on 50% of his players being good, blindly drawing names out of the hat isn't that far from the truth.

[bennyl08]

Is Smith the problem? He may or may not be. What has changed since his initial big splash? Did he tweak or make bigger changes to the D? Personnel? Is CBB meddling with the D? Too conservative? Someone smarter than me, help me out. GO HOGS

Personnel has changed as have assistant coaches as have some bad luck on injuries. Robb Smith has historically been an aggressive DC preferring to have his defenses attack rather than react. We saw that his first year here. We also had a lot success his first year here as well.

Yet, it is undeniable that our defense has been radically different the past 2 seasons from his first. Given the success he had originally, it is safe to rule out that he voluntarily changed his philosophy on defense. Further, it is safe to say that CBB did not force him to change it change out of the blue.

Personnel wise, we lost Flowers, Philon, Spaight, and Tevin from the defensive side of the football. In 2015, virtually none of our DL had any experience, and neither did our our LB'ers except for Ellis, who is a far cry from Spaight athletically. In the secondary, we still return most of the key players in the secondary from 2014. In 2016, Wise was pretty high on almost all the early draft boards despite limited playing time here. Coupled with a more experienced DL as well as some stud recruits and there is zero reason it should not have performed close to the 2014 level. Wise suffered from some injuries for much of the season and that hurt, but there was plenty of depth and talent behind him. At LB, losing GL hurt. Eugene came on strong at the end, but there was never a Spaight like presence back there. The secondary has continued to turn and look for the ball on jump ball deep balls which is a big improvement. However, without a pass rush, we could have the legion of boom and still get toasted.

What about coaching changes?

2014                                     2015                              2016
Rob Smith: DC/secondary       same                              same
Randy Shannon: Asst HC/LB   Vernon Hargreaves: LB     same
Clay Jennings: DB's                same                              Paul Roades: DB's
Rory Segrest: DL                    same                              same

So, the biggest drop in production relative to the talent and scheme, IMO, has been the DL and it has had the same coach. However, that 2014 line was senior heavy. A lot of you guys got excited by the new DC with the KSU bowl victory in 2012 and didn't factor in what losing players like Bequette, Franklin, and Nelson would have on that defense.

I give Segrest a pass in 2015 given how much was lost, but he also gets an asterisk for 2014 given how much the players already knew and had shown before he came here. 2016 is a big red flag for him IMO. I think Hargreaves has done a good job relative to what he has had to work with. Ellis hit his developmental ceiling by about his sophomore year. CVH was basically given a blank slate at the position. He brought up Greenlaw from true freshmen to freshmen all american, GL improved from freshmen to his sophomore year, and he was able to get production out of Eugene who hadn't shown much his previous years here. This coming year will be his make or break year. He will have had 3 years to develop LB'ers. With two productive upperclassmen in Greenlaw and Eugene and a highly talented group of RS-Freshmen/Sophomores. Rhoads doesn't have a lot of time to have been evaluated. Evaluating the secondary is always hard to do. They can't cover for 5+ seconds which they were often asked to do the past 2 seasons and that comes down to the front 7 getting pressure. Further, while the secondary did improve this year statistically, how much of that is just because the opposing offenses didn't need to pass? Pulley did get a lot of PBU's which shows he is either being taught good technique or at least isn't being forced to downgrade.

Finally, what about Robb Smith? 2014 showed his potential. We know that at the very worst, under ideal circumstances, he has the capability to have a top 10 defense. And that puts him above most other possible coaches that we could hire. However, we have also seen that we are capable of having very bad defenses with him as well if things aren't just right. And to be honest, having a coach that can field a top 30 defense year in and year out is better than one who will either field a top 10 or bottom 100 and nothing in between so to speak. Now, as before, 2015 would have been a pass regardless. Very hard to lose that much talent given our recruiting on that side of the ball and still field a very good unit. That said, we were one of the absolute best teams at stopping the run that year. Problem was, we couldn't stop the passing game at all. That was also when we saw a marked departure from his entire defensive coaching career up to that point. To my knowledge, never before had he so consistently had the DB's playing that far off. The DL was tailor made to stop the run and as a direct result, was virtually incapable of rushing the passer. So, qb's had all day to throw, and the LB group was particularly bad in coverage (GL showed potential, but his claim to fame was being good enough to tackle the receiver after not being good enough to prevent the completion in the first place.) Further, the safeties were not SEC speed safeties either. We saw this in 2013 and returned the same players in 2014. The only difference was business was taken care of before the safeties were needed in 2014. The defense was not in a position to be aggressive in the secondary at all. Whether the selling out to stop the run was CBB's or CRS's idea, I can not say. It greatly impacted our ability to stop the pass, but it begs the question of whether it is better to be mediocre at both, or at least be really good at one.

That brings us to this year with CRS. The DL was tailor made this year to try and replicate the line from 2014. Ledbetter and Wise may not be Philon and Flowers, but they are a whole lot closer than the results on the field showed. Wise's nagging injury kept our best defensive player from being much of an impact from us. Losing our 2nd best guy in Greenlaw hurt things as well. In 2014, had we lost Spaight or had Flowers been largely incapacitated, we did not have the depth to overcome it. We were lucky then but not this year. However, that DL still had a lot more talent than they showed. Secondary had a lot more bright spots than some fans want to admit.

All in all, the most notable concern on our defense is the DL as far as coaching goes. That is where I make any changes to be made. IMO, CRS has one bad year here which was this year. However, there were some injuries that we couldn't overcome. Next year, we lose a lot on the DL with the lose of Wise Jr, Ledbetter, and Winston. However, I think we make some large strides at the LB position along with with 3 talented and proven players in the secondary in Toliver, Pulley, and Ramirez to go with some exciting young players. DL still has guys like Beanum and Jackson to lead them with Dean and Smith hopefully ready to put the use their talent which is as good as anybody we've recruited along with the young studs from the last class. The defense is absolutely primed for success next year. If we pull in a new DC, IMO theres a very good chance that the new guy will have good success with the old players regardless of the new coach's talents meaning they could crash and burn in year 2 and we are back in square one. Keeping the DC now helps us determine his or her overall usefulness.

[grayhawg]

Give me 85 5* players and you can have 85 2* players. 8 of my players will be first round draft picks. 43 total will be drafted by the NFL.

You will struggle to find 3 of those players even make it as an undrafted free agent for a summer before being cut. Sure, out of the literally thousands of 2*'s, it is almost inevitable that a few will be drafted and a handful of that few will be high talent and high draft picks. However, of the thousands of 2* players out there, the odds of you actually finding the Fisher, Watt, Morgan or Bequette are incredibly low.

Sure, some of my 5*'s will be complete busts. However, if you are writing all the names of the 5* players and having me blindly pick them from a bag vs you blindly picking out of a bag all of the 2*'s, I know which team the smart money is on. Considering that even the absolute best coach in the game, Saban, is lucky to actually hit on 50% of his players being good, blindly drawing names out of the hat isn't that far from the truth.

First, I didn't say give me 2 stars I said give me Drew Morgans. A kid who was a 2 star but in is junior and senior years played better than a lot of 4 and 5 star players and yes I would take 25 of his kind.

[Pork Twain]

Nice post Benny.  I do think we need to stop talking about what Smith has done traditionally as a DC though, as he has very little experience in that area outside of AR.

[Pork Twain]

Or magically wanting to become 4-5 star talent when they are 3's, or to make existing 4's and 5's magically reach their original full potential in the absence of the self motivation to do so. Recruiting is a dicey business when you are dealing with 18 year old kids. It is as much about what is going on in their heads and how far that can take them, as it is about their physical talent and prowess as an athlete and one is much more difficult to evaluate in the absence of constant, day-in, day-out observation than the other.

Exactly, people have been complaining about recruiting since we left the SWC and guess what it has never gotten better and it never will.  Therefore, we have to have a coach that is consistent and reliable in recruiting, to ever hope to build something here.  We have been in the SEC for over two decades and people continue to act like the class that was produced in-state in 2008 was the norm, all the while ignoring the other 24 years that says exactly the opposite.  Those people are the exact definition of those with their heads in the sand.

[Pork Twain]

Give me 85 5* players and you can have 85 2* players. 8 of my players will be first round draft picks. 43 total will be drafted by the NFL.

You will struggle to find 3 of those players even make it as an undrafted free agent for a summer before being cut. Sure, out of the literally thousands of 2*'s, it is almost inevitable that a few will be drafted and a handful of that few will be high talent and high draft picks. However, of the thousands of 2* players out there, the odds of you actually finding the Fisher, Watt, Morgan or Bequette are incredibly low.

Sure, some of my 5*'s will be complete busts. However, if you are writing all the names of the 5* players and having me blindly pick them from a bag vs you blindly picking out of a bag all of the 2*'s, I know which team the smart money is on. Considering that even the absolute best coach in the game, Saban, is lucky to actually hit on 50% of his players being good, blindly drawing names out of the hat isn't that far from the truth.

I believe what he was illustrating and what you missed, is that with a low miss-rate and a good developmental/red shirt program, a 2-3* like Drew Morgan can grow into a 5* player.  I am not sure why any Arkansas fan would ever bring up a team of 4/5* players because nothing like that will ever happen.

[ricepig]

Give me 85 5* players and you can have 85 2* players. 8 of my players will be first round draft picks. 43 total will be drafted by the NFL.

You will struggle to find 3 of those players even make it as an undrafted free agent for a summer before being cut. Sure, out of the literally thousands of 2*'s, it is almost inevitable that a few will be drafted and a handful of that few will be high talent and high draft picks. However, of the thousands of 2* players out there, the odds of you actually finding the Fisher, Watt, Morgan or Bequette are incredibly low.

Sure, some of my 5*'s will be complete busts. However, if you are writing all the names of the 5* players and having me blindly pick them from a bag vs you blindly picking out of a bag all of the 2*'s, I know which team the smart money is on. Considering that even the absolute best coach in the game, Saban, is lucky to actually hit on 50% of his players being good, blindly drawing names out of the hat isn't that far from the truth.

You might take a look at how many zero star and 2* made All-Pro this year, wouldn't that be the highest standard to achieve?


https://twitter.com/scoutrecruiting/status/811615707855081472

[Pork Twain]

You might take a look at how many zero star and 2* made All-Pro this year, wouldn't that be the highest standard to achieve?

Again, this does not matter in the least without further analysis of the data.  Of course there will be far more 0-3* because there are far more players at that level than there are 4/5* players.  This is basic statistics, not rocket surgery guys.  Based on the dramatic difference in numbers, the % of 4/5* players that make it to the NFL vs 3* and lower completely kills this argument every single time.

Depending on the service, there are:
5* - 30-50 players a year
4* - 250-270 players a year
3* - 450 players a year
2* - 1600-1800 players a year (make up the bulk college football rosters and their number is however many recruits remain in the nation outside of the top 750)

If I filled a box with 50 black marbles, 250 red marbles and 2250 yellow marbles, which would logically expect to pull out in at a great frequency?

According to the NCAA, there 16,175 draft eligible football players in 2015, with 256 draft positions, and the probability of playing in the NFL at all was 1.6%

247 Sports

This is basically the same as Rivals, which should come as no surprise - 247 was founded by the guys who sold Rivals to Yahoo! for a presumably large sum of cash.


110-101 = A player ranked in this range is a "franchise player." He is one of the best to come along in years - if not decades (LeBron James, Adrian Peterson). Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can't miss" talent.

100-98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 25 or so prospects in the nation. Player has excellent pro potential, and should emerge as one of the best players in the country before his college career ends.

97-90 = Four-star prospect. Prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. All-America candidate who displays pro potential. Typically one of the top 300 players in the nation.

89-80 = Three-star prospect. These are the players who will develop into reliable starters for the college teams. They are among the best players in their region of the country, and are generally among the top 750 players in the nation.

79-below = Two-star prospect. These players make up the bulk of Division I rosters. They may have little pro potential, are likely to become role players for their respective schools or not enough is known about the prospect to rank them accurately.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000320664/article/yearbyyear-look-at-fivestar-college-football-recruits

http://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-football-recruiting/2013/2/5/3956800/rivals-scout-espn-247-star-rating-system-national-signing-day

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1938590-whats-the-success-rate-for-5-star-recruits-reaching-the-nfl

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics

[Pork Twain]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/5/12/5696710/nfl-draft-recruits-five-stars-two-stars

Each year, roughly 4,500 football players sign Division I scholarships. In 2010, the year from which most of the prospects in the 2014 draft came, 27 were rated as five-stars by Rivals.com. Five-stars are considered no-doubt, superstar-type players. There were 395 four-stars, a designation for very good players, and 1,644 three-stars, or good players. And 2,434 were rated as two-stars or not rated at all, meaning they are at the lowest levels of FBS (85-scholarship level) or FCS players (63-scholarship level).

If, as many columnists maintain, the chances of a two-/three-star being drafted in the first round are "just about as good as those guys who receive all the attention," we would expect the following results in the first round, based on the distribution of players:
•Five-stars: Zero or one
•Four-stars: Three
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars/unranked: 17

But nobody, not even writers, would expect that result.
The actual breakdown:
•Five-stars: Four
•Four-stars: 13
•Three-stars: 12
•Two-stars: Three

That's not close to the same.

Four- and five-star recruits were 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than their lesser-ranked counterparts.

The chance of a lesser-rated recruit being drafted in the first round is nowhere close to what it is for a blue-chipper.

Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be a top pick, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.

For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:
•A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
•A four-star had a one-in-five chance (77 of 395).
•A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (92 of 1,644).
•A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (71 of 2,434).

[ricepig]

Who said anything about being drafted? The fact of the matter, it just proves that "ratings" in high school is a crap shoot. And we aren't drawing marbles, as the marbles have no way of distinguishing themselves apart from others, do they?

[Pork Twain]

Who said anything about being drafted? The fact of the matter, it just proves that "ratings" in high school is a crap shoot. And we aren't drawing marbles, as the marbles have no way of distinguishing themselves apart from others, do they?

We are talking about probabilities, you can use whatever you want to, some even utilize things as arbitrary as numbers.  Ratings in HS seem to be pretty accurate since there is a far higher % of 4/5* kids in the NFL, even though 3* and below numbers dwarf them in comparison. 

All of this makes any success we have at Arkansas all the more impressive.  We consistently go against loaded teams with guys we have had to grow and groom from the 2-3* level.

[Hugo Bezdek]

Give me 85 5* players and you can have 85 2* players. 8 of my players will be first round draft picks. 43 total will be drafted by the NFL.

You will struggle to find 3 of those players even make it as an undrafted free agent for a summer before being cut. Sure, out of the literally thousands of 2*'s, it is almost inevitable that a few will be drafted and a handful of that few will be high talent and high draft picks. However, of the thousands of 2* players out there, the odds of you actually finding the Fisher, Watt, Morgan or Bequette are incredibly low.

Sure, some of my 5*'s will be complete busts. However, if you are writing all the names of the 5* players and having me blindly pick them from a bag vs you blindly picking out of a bag all of the 2*'s, I know which team the smart money is on. Considering that even the absolute best coach in the game, Saban, is lucky to actually hit on 50% of his players being good, blindly drawing names out of the hat isn't that far from the truth.

I think the key here is the idea of "blindly drawing names out of the hat". Yeah everyone would love the luxury of filling their roster with 5* and 4* players. That's easier to do if you have a dynasty like Bama on your hands or if you live in the midst of a wealth of talent like Florida, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc. We don't have either. The key for Arkansas is and always has been to identify and develop the real talent in that 3* pool of players rather than just drawing blindly from the hat of 3*.

The question for Arkansas is can our fifth year 3* guys (with a sampling of 4* and 5* guys) play as well or better as a team than their 5* guys who are jumping to the NFL after year three in the program. Bielema is a coach who has put guys in the NFL at a high rate despite having never filled a roster with 5* recruits. His ability to continue that success and build our program around those types of players is critical to any future success we'll have in the SEC.

[ricepig]

We are talking about probabilities, you can use whatever you want to, some even utilize things as arbitrary as numbers.  Ratings in HS seem to be pretty accurate since there is a far higher % of 4/5* kids in the NFL, even though 3* and below numbers dwarf them in comparison. 

All of this makes any success we have at Arkansas all the more impressive.  We consistently go against loaded teams with guys we have had to grow and groom from the 2-3* level.

Then there should be a proportionate number on the All-Pro teams, correct.

[Pork Twain]

Then there should be a proportionate number on the All-Pro teams, correct.

Incorrect, that is not the case, as is shown by your table above.  Even though a majority of players are 3* and less, based on sheer numbers alone, 4/5* players still make up half the All-Pro roster.  If it were proportionate, 3* and below would dominate the roster and there would be a 4/5* players here and there.  That is not the case at all, not even close.

[ricepig]

Incorrect, that is not the case, as is shown by your table above.  Even though a majority of players are 3* and less, 4/5* players still make up half the All-Pro roster.  If it were proportionate, 3* and below would dominate the roster and there would be a 4/5* players here and there.  That is not the case at all, not even close.

But .......I thought 4*/5* were can't miss draft picks, shouldn't they dominate the All-Pro team?

[bennyl08]

First, I didn't say give me 2 stars I said give me Drew Morgans. A kid who was a 2 star but in is junior and senior years played better than a lot of 4 and 5 star players and yes I would take 25 of his kind.

I would just assume have 25 Calvin Johnsons or Patrick Petersons and so on.

I mean sure, yes, you can find players like Morgan who outplay 4 and 5* guys. However, We are talking about probabilities here. Finding 25 of his kind in a 4 year time period is literally as realistic as ONLY having 5* players on your team.

Sure, I'd much rather have a Morgan than some 5* who never panned out. However, the absolute best coach at developing 2 and 3* guys in the world is going to be absolutely ecstatic to have 25% of those players go on to be major contributors to the team.

[a0ashle]

You might take a look at how many zero star and 2* made All-Pro this year, wouldn't that be the highest standard to achieve?


https://twitter.com/scoutrecruiting/status/811615707855081472

I want to add that Aaron Rodgers went to JUCO because he wasn't rated in high school. They have him as a 4-star I'm guessing that's out of JUCO

[bennyl08]

I believe what he was illustrating and what you missed, is that with a low miss-rate and a good developmental/red shirt program, a 2-3* like Drew Morgan can grow into a 5* player.  I am not sure why any Arkansas fan would ever bring up a team of 4/5* players because nothing like that will ever happen.

A team of 4/5* players is at least as realistic as a low-miss rate on 2-3* players. That is the issue. Difference being, I can point to teams that are at least 50% 4/5* talent teams. There does not exist a single program with a 50% or better hit rate on 2-3* talent.

[Pork Twain]

But .......I thought 4*/5* were can't miss draft picks, shouldn't they dominate the All-Pro team?

Not sure if you actually don't get this or if you just want to argue about nothing.

Nobody ever said that.  And based on the fact that are many more 3* or less in the NFL, the fact that there are so many 4/5* players still on the All-Pro roster is very significant.

There are very few 4/5* coming out of high school and that equals very few coming out of college and entering the draft.
There are many more 3* and below coming out of high school and that equals a lot more entering the draft and/or being free agents.

Yet over half of the All-pro roster is made up of the minority in the league.  A very similar argument is made about the percentage of our prison system that is made up of minorities.

[Pork Twain]

A team of 4/5* players is at least as realistic as a low-miss rate on 2-3* players. That is the issue. Difference being, I can point to teams that are at least 50% 4/5* talent teams. There does not exist a single program with a 50% or better hit rate on 2-3* talent.

That was not the point.  The point is we will never be signing teams made up of 4/5* players, but we can sign a majority of our classes filled with 3* or lower and develop them.  At least that is a possibility for us.  Again it appears that he was saying that there are plenty of players like Drew Morgan, that can come to a program and be developed, but there are not plenty of 4/5* players that can be signed, especially here.

[Pork Twain]

I would just assume have 25 Calvin Johnsons or Patrick Petersons and so on.

I mean sure, yes, you can find players like Morgan who outplay 4 and 5* guys. However, We are talking about probabilities here. Finding 25 of his kind in a 4 year time period is literally as realistic as ONLY having 5* players on your team.

Sure, I'd much rather have a Morgan than some 5* who never panned out. However, the absolute best coach at developing 2 and 3* guys in the world is going to be absolutely ecstatic to have 25% of those players go on to be major contributors to the team.

I would disagree because literally no team in all of college football has ever had all 5* players and there have been plenty that were very successful with a majority of their players being 3* and lower, with a 4/5 star here and there.  Of course any coach would take only 4/5* if he could but that is not realistic and nobody is saying we would rather have 2/3# players than 4/5* players.  Just being realistic.  Boise St, TCU, VT, Arkansas, and Houston are such schools. 

[bennyl08]

You might take a look at how many zero star and 2* made All-Pro this year, wouldn't that be the highest standard to achieve?


https://twitter.com/scoutrecruiting/status/811615707855081472

Indeed it is, but you are making my point for me.

So there are 18 5* players on the all pro roster in a given year with about 25-50 players getting a 5* ranking any given year.

There are 19 4* players out of about 250-300 players getting that ranking any given year.

There are 16 3 * players out of about 1200-1500 players.

There are 26 2* and NR players out of out tens to hundreds of thousands of players with those rankings.

If stars didn't matter, for every 1 5* players on that list, there should be at least 5 4*'s. For every 4/5* prospect, there should be 4-5 times as many 3* players. For every 3/4/5* player on that list there should be 10 to 100 more 2* and unranked players. Sure, this is just one year of all pro results. However, take a 10 year average and the ratios aren't going to change much.

Again, star rankings in HS again show to be an extremely good indicator of NFL success. I dare you to show me a single value with greater predictive capability. Again, no argument that if you look at more variables you can become more accurate. However, considering the vast number of variables in play, HS star rankings are extremely accurate.

[Pork Twain]

Indeed it is, but you are making my point for me.

So there are 18 5* players on the all pro roster in a given year with about 25-50 players getting a 5* ranking any given year.

There are 19 4* players out of about 250-300 players getting that ranking any given year.

There are 16 3 * players out of about 1200-1500 players.

There are 26 2* and NR players out of out tens to hundreds of thousands of players with those rankings.

If stars didn't matter, for every 1 5* players on that list, there should be at least 5 4*'s. For every 4/5* prospect, there should be 4-5 times as many 3* players. For every 3/4/5* player on that list there should be 10 to 100 more 2* and unranked players. Sure, this is just one year of all pro results. However, take a 10 year average and the ratios aren't going to change much.

Again, star rankings in HS again show to be an extremely good indicator of NFL success. I dare you to show me a single value with greater predictive capability. Again, no argument that if you look at more variables you can become more accurate. However, considering the vast number of variables in play, HS star rankings are extremely accurate.

I think you and I slightly disagree on semantics, but I think we can both agree that Rice is way off the mark and that his own table proves it.

[colbs]

I would say recruiting rankings are a rough indicator.  First off there is no way the recruiting services can equally evaluate each player.  It doesn't always take in account a players work ethic, if a player has almost reached his max potential, the school they are going to needs, etc.  5* players have a higher probability of being drafted but it's around 50%.   It is only around a 17% they are drafted in the first round.  Usually when you think 5 star you think first round pick.  They still have a higher % of being drafted than 2,3, and 4 star players.  Usually there are a handful of teams that get the majority of these players. 

Another thing is some recruiting services will bump a players ranking up if a certain team offers.  Heck I seen Otis do it for an instate player.  He bumped him up to a 4* and his best offer was Wake Forest.  From his offer list was he really a 4*?  Probably not, but if Arkansas had offered and signed their ranking would have been better.  Two years ago Arkansas was on one the top OL in the country.  Arkansas was said to be in the lead but backed off and so did other schools.  Apparently his production fell off some his SR year.  If Arkansas signed him their class would have been ranked higher, but they & other schools felt they had better options elsewhere.

Arkansas is never going to start pulling in top 10 classes without paying players.  So at Arkansas you have to be able to evaluate and develop.

[bennyl08]

I think the key here is the idea of "blindly drawing names out of the hat". Yeah everyone would love the luxury of filling their roster with 5* and 4* players. That's easier to do if you have a dynasty like Bama on your hands or if you live in the midst of a wealth of talent like Florida, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc. We don't have either. The key for Arkansas is and always has been to identify and develop the real talent in that 3* pool of players rather than just drawing blindly from the hat of 3*.

The question for Arkansas is can our fifth year 3* guys (with a sampling of 4* and 5* guys) play as well or better as a team than their 5* guys who are jumping to the NFL after year three in the program. Bielema is a coach who has put guys in the NFL at a high rate despite having never filled a roster with 5* recruits. His ability to continue that success and build our program around those types of players is critical to any future success we'll have in the SEC.

That's what every coach hopes for. Heck, even Bama signs at least a few 3* players. The point is, most coaches don't have high hit rates. Well, the original point I made was simply that a players star ranking coming out of HS was actually the best single indicator of success in the NFL contrary to what another poster said. That bares itself out in the draft, in the pro bowl, and even in the all pro selections.

Undoubtably, we've had 2 coaches in Petrino and Bielema who have done well at finding good 3* and lower players. However, our best players have proportionally been the higher rated guys. To a high degree of accuracy, star rankings have been predictive of our player's success. It is key that we continue to be above average relative to the rest of college football and finding the lower star guys who are better than their ranking suggests and developing them. However, striving for the more athletic players is always the ultimate goal.

[bennyl08]

Then there should be a proportionate number on the All-Pro teams, correct.

If stars didn't matter, that would be correct. That that the odds are orders or magnitude higher to be selected to the all pro list as you go up the star ranking and the vastly disproportionately high number of 4 and 5* players on that list suggest the opposite, that stars are good predictors of future success.

[bennyl08]

But .......I thought 4*/5* were can't miss draft picks, shouldn't they dominate the All-Pro team?

They absolutely do. Did you look at your list? Lets assume that 3* players are proportionately represented. There are then 5* too many 4* players on that list. There should only be half of a 5* player on the list, thus there are 36* too many 5*'s. The number of 2* players or less should have at least 50 more players on that list. Again, relative to the 3*'s.

Nothing in the world is absolute. You act like a single players not ranked 4 or 5*'s means that all of probability is a lie. 5* players are like getting pocket aces in poker. Probability speaking, that is the best possible hand you can get in poker. Sure, it is possible for somebody with the worst starting hand to beat them and it happens from time to time. Or, if you aren't into poker, being a 5* player is like being up 21-0 at the end of the first quarter. Sure, plenty of teams manage to lose after building such a strong early lead. Being up 21-0 starting the 2nd quarter is no guarantee that you will win. However, there isn't a sane football fan in the world that wouldn't love for every game to start that way for their team.

[Pork Twain]

If stars didn't matter, that would be correct. That that the odds are orders or magnitude higher to be selected to the all pro list as you go up the star ranking and the vastly disproportionately high number of 4 and 5* players on that list suggest the opposite, that stars are good predictors of future success.

I used to be an anti-star guy back in the day but several years ago, Razorfox beat me down with his data and forced me to cross over.  Since then, I have seen nothing that would even remotely convince me that stars are anything less than a highly reliable predictor of future success.

[bennyl08]

That was not the point.  The point is we will never be signing teams made up of 4/5* players, but we can sign a majority of our classes filled with 3* or lower and develop them.  At least that is a possibility for us.  Again it appears that he was saying that there are plenty of players like Drew Morgan, that can come to a program and be developed, but there are not plenty of 4/5* players that can be signed, especially here.

That isn't true though. Well, let me clarify. That isn't probable. It has never been done before in the history of college football, much less our program. Yes, it is possible. However, the scenario of a team made entirely of 4/5*'s has much more basis in reality than a team full of Morgan's and Bequettes. I wouldn't complain if we were somehow able to do that, but I'd prefer we play probability a bit more. Try and ~5 4/5* players each class. With the other 20 players, hope that 1/4th of them pan out giving up ~ 10 players who can contribute each year and have a solid NFL draft presence like we have been doing but with a few more early round picks ideally.

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

New DL coach please

[Pork Twain]

That isn't true though. Well, let me clarify. That isn't probable. It has never been done before in the history of college football, much less our program. Yes, it is possible. However, the scenario of a team made entirely of 4/5*'s has much more basis in reality than a team full of Morgan's and Bequettes. I wouldn't complain if we were somehow able to do that, but I'd prefer we play probability a bit more. Try and ~5 4/5* players each class. With the other 20 players, hope that 1/4th of them pan out giving up ~ 10 players who can contribute each year and have a solid NFL draft presence like we have been doing but with a few more early round picks ideally.

Isn't that what we are already doing?

[bennyl08]

I would disagree because literally no team in all of college football has ever had all 5* players and there have been plenty that were very successful with a majority of their players being 3* and lower, with a 4/5 star here and there.  Of course any coach would take only 4/5* if he could but that is not realistic and nobody is saying we would rather have 2/3# players than 4/5* players.  Just being realistic.  Boise St, TCU, VT, Arkansas, and Houston are such schools.

How do you define "very successful"? Arkansas and VT have built their success on the backs of highly rated players. Dmac, Felix, Mallett, Joe Adams, Wright, Knile, both the Allens, and so on. You take away the 4+ star players and we don't have near the success we have. Boise had 2010 where they had a legitimately good team built by a perfect wave with a team full of senior starters. Take a 10 year trend for them though and tell me how many of their 3*'s get drafted or have strong success in the NFL? Otherwise, I can point to very successful HS teams with only 2* players. Sure, they are playing a weak division and it's in HS, but Boise has played in a weak college conference as well. Point is, you have to compare apples to apples. Similarly to TCU whose best players as they are playing in the Big 12 are 4+ stare guys. What has Houston been very successful in? They had a good coach who just went to Texas, but did they go to a big bowl game and win? Put a team with some Bequettes and Morgans in Houston's conference and they'll do very well. But how do you compare winning in a weak conference to winning or putting up good numbers in a strong conference?

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

You don't expect any "movement?"

Chief Bowel have to move... Tee Pee full of $h!#..!

[bennyl08]

Isn't that what we are already doing?

For the most part. Biggest issue is that our NFL pipeline has been primarily rounds 4 or later. If we can just bump it up to some more 1-3rd round talent that would help a lot.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

I used to be an anti-star guy back in the day but several years ago, Razorfox beat me down with his data and forced me to cross over.  Since then, I have seen nothing that would even remotely convince me that stars are anything less than a highly reliable predictor of future success.

Certainly Arkansas' History with 5*'s must be the anomaly that causes the predictions to be less than 100% accurate. Our success rate with 5* recruits (top of my head/or bottom of my arse) has to be between 15 to 30%

[Pork Twain]

How do you define "very successful"? Arkansas and VT have built their success on the backs of highly rated players. Dmac, Felix, Mallett, Joe Adams, Wright, Knile, both the Allens, and so on. You take away the 4+ star players and we don't have near the success we have. Boise had 2010 where they had a legitimately good team built by a perfect wave with a team full of senior starters. Take a 10 year trend for them though and tell me how many of their 3*'s get drafted or have strong success in the NFL? Otherwise, I can point to very successful HS teams with only 2* players. Sure, they are playing a weak division and it's in HS, but Boise has played in a weak college conference as well. Point is, you have to compare apples to apples. Similarly to TCU whose best players as they are playing in the Big 12 are 4+ stare guys. What has Houston been very successful in? They had a good coach who just went to Texas, but did they go to a big bowl game and win? Put a team with some Bequettes and Morgans in Houston's conference and they'll do very well. But how do you compare winning in a weak conference to winning or putting up good numbers in a strong conference?

I never said the teams had to be made up solely of 3* or less players.  What you have just laid out is why it has been difficult for a team like Arkansas and now Mizzou to win in the SEC.

[Pork Twain]

Certainly Arkansas' History with 5*'s must be the anomaly that causes the predictions to be less than 100% accurate. Our success rate with 5* recruits (top of my head/or bottom of my arse) has to be between 15 to 30%

I think it would be a mistake to limit your focus to just one school or state when attempting to assess 5-star players overall.  You have totally killed your sample size.  Hell since we joined the SEC, I can count the number of 5-star players to even come out of this state on my hands.

Update:  Do yourself a favor don't go back and look at past in-state talent and get reminded of how little talent we have had to work with.

This is a quick pull from Rivals because that is what is easiest for me to use at work.

[Hugo Bezdek]

That's what every coach hopes for. Heck, even Bama signs at least a few 3* players. The point is, most coaches don't have high hit rates. Well, the original point I made was simply that a players star ranking coming out of HS was actually the best single indicator of success in the NFL contrary to what another poster said. That bares itself out in the draft, in the pro bowl, and even in the all pro selections.

Undoubtably, we've had 2 coaches in Petrino and Bielema who have done well at finding good 3* and lower players. However, our best players have proportionally been the higher rated guys. To a high degree of accuracy, star rankings have been predictive of our player's success. It is key that we continue to be above average relative to the rest of college football and finding the lower star guys who are better than their ranking suggests and developing them. However, striving for the more athletic players is always the ultimate goal.

We will always have an uphill battle landing the 5* and 4* recruits because not enough of them live here. So the question for Arkansas is, since we're talking about Staff Changes, whether it's better to find coaches who are better at closing on the 5*/4* recruits, knowing the majority will stay close to home anyway, or is it better to have guys who can split hairs evaluating the lower rated recruits and build them up over time?

My own view has been that we need the latter. Find a coach who can win consistently, build up to where you have a couple of years where everything clicks, and hope that it snowballs into several years of playing at a high level and drawing in more of those elite level recruits.

[bennyl08]

Let's look at Arkansas' hit rate. I'll give 3 points for major contributors to the team. 2 points for somebody who started games or was an important rotational players, 1 point if they stuck with us for their whole career or made a big impact in their short time here, 0 points if they weren't able to stick around, and null if they transferred due to the coaching change or had to quit for medical reasons.

Going back to 2008

5*: 75* are 3 points, 25% are 2 points.
4*: 49% are 3 points, 0% are 2 points, 4% are 1 points, 18% are 0 points, and 11% are null, 18% is still too soon to tell.
3*: 27% are 3 points, 11% are 2 points, 14% are 1 point, 23% are 0 points, 6% are null, and 18% is still too soon to tell.
2*/NR: 13% are 3 points, 13% are 2 points, 23% are 1 points, 33% are 0 points.

247 stopped showing walkons over the past couple of years it seems, hence the lack of still too soon to tells in that category.

[bennyl08]

Certainly Arkansas' History with 5*'s must be the anomaly that causes the predictions to be less than 100% accurate. Our success rate with 5* recruits (top of my head/or bottom of my arse) has to be between 15 to 30%

Winston was a solid starter for us, just not elite, similarly for Cook. Mallett was elite and Agim looks to be that way too.

[bennyl08]

We will always have an uphill battle landing the 5* and 4* recruits because not enough of them live here. So the question for Arkansas is, since we're talking about Staff Changes, whether it's better to find coaches who are better at closing on the 5*/4* recruits, knowing the majority will stay close to home anyway, or is it better to have guys who can split hairs evaluating the lower rated recruits and build them up over time?

My own view has been that we need the latter. Find a coach who can win consistently, build up to where you have a couple of years where everything clicks, and hope that it snowballs into several years of playing at a high level and drawing in more of those elite level recruits.

Thats a good question and ideally you do both. If I had to choose, I'd want a coach who was 70% development and 30% recruitment on average. At the DC/OC levels, a bit more football and less recruiting and at the position levels, a bit more on the recruiting side.

A coach who can recruit but not develop leads to situations like you see at Ole Miss. If you can develop but not recruit, you get situations like Miss St. So ideally, you would have the recruitment of Freeze and the development of Mullen. However, I'd take slightly less development to have a few more big time players. High caliber guys want to play with other high caliber players. However, they also don't want to lose. If you can get a team that plays above expectations along with a core grouping of blue chippers, the recruitment will begin to take care of itself.

[Deep Shoat]

The reason stars don't matter is this: Every swinging Tom, Dick, and Harry knows who the 5 stars, and most of the 4 stars, are before the end of their sophomore years.  The services are basically running a shell game, selling you common knowledge.  Couple that with the fact that they absolutely suck at evaluating the vast sea of 3 stars, and you have a bunch of people paying for NOTHING. 

The coaches don't need it, and anyone who wants to know can get it for free, with a minimum of effort.

Anyone with eyes can tell you that kids with more natural talent are more likely to "hit" than those who have to work at it a little more.  But the number of people who can project players 3-4 seasons down the road with accuracy, those are almost impossible to find.  CBB has a history of doing so.  We are about to find out if his ability transfers to the SEC.

[sowmonella]

Jason Peters was a 2 star??   I believe he was a 4 star DE.