I read an interesting article in The Athletic today, which provides an analysis of how this year's members of the NFL All-Pro team were star-rated in HS. (Because it is a pay site, I unable to post a link.) There is quite a discrepancy between offense and defense:
"On this year’s NFLPA All-Pro Team, none of the 11 offensive players selected had been a five-star recruit; only one of them, guard Zack Martin, was even ranked as a four-star prospect. The average star ranking of the 11 players was 2.0. It’s on the opposite side of the ball where stars apparently really matter. Of the 11 defensive players on the All-Pro team, seven had been five-star recruits and two more were four-stars prospects. The other two were three-star players, making the average 4.5."
One explanation offered for the disparity between offensive and defensive players was that you can disguise a good player on offense and also overrate him if his supporting cast is really good. In other words, offensive players are dependent on scheme and each other. A good WR has to depend on the QB and OL. The QB has to depend on the OL. And you can be a really good RB but still not excel if the OL is unable to spread defenders in space so that the RB has some room to run.
With defensive players, on the other hand, it usually comes down to this simple question: can you beat the man in front of you? That is easier to rate with D-lineman. Likewise, with the CB position you have to able to run. A 4.6 guy can become a really good WR; he is less likely to be a lockdown CB.
So the challenge with offensive players is projecting the fit based upon offensive schemes. The article concludes that QB and OL are the biggest crapshoots. Defensive lineman are the easiest to evaluate because they are typically the best athletes. “Those are your biggest freak athletes, and the best place to put them is near the ball and tell them just to wreck the play.” “Playing defense you have to be more athletic than offense, maybe other than the running back [position] because defense is so reactive,” an NFL defensive line coach said.
I thought the article had some interesting points to make about the dangers of overreacting to star ratings.
"On this year’s NFLPA All-Pro Team, none of the 11 offensive players selected had been a five-star recruit; only one of them, guard Zack Martin, was even ranked as a four-star prospect. The average star ranking of the 11 players was 2.0. It’s on the opposite side of the ball where stars apparently really matter. Of the 11 defensive players on the All-Pro team, seven had been five-star recruits and two more were four-stars prospects. The other two were three-star players, making the average 4.5."
One explanation offered for the disparity between offensive and defensive players was that you can disguise a good player on offense and also overrate him if his supporting cast is really good. In other words, offensive players are dependent on scheme and each other. A good WR has to depend on the QB and OL. The QB has to depend on the OL. And you can be a really good RB but still not excel if the OL is unable to spread defenders in space so that the RB has some room to run.
With defensive players, on the other hand, it usually comes down to this simple question: can you beat the man in front of you? That is easier to rate with D-lineman. Likewise, with the CB position you have to able to run. A 4.6 guy can become a really good WR; he is less likely to be a lockdown CB.
So the challenge with offensive players is projecting the fit based upon offensive schemes. The article concludes that QB and OL are the biggest crapshoots. Defensive lineman are the easiest to evaluate because they are typically the best athletes. “Those are your biggest freak athletes, and the best place to put them is near the ball and tell them just to wreck the play.” “Playing defense you have to be more athletic than offense, maybe other than the running back [position] because defense is so reactive,” an NFL defensive line coach said.
I thought the article had some interesting points to make about the dangers of overreacting to star ratings.
Last edited: