ADVERTISEMENT

How Much Do Stars Really Matter?

Dec 7, 2007
1,558
1,793
113
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.
 
Last edited:
For the individual almost not at all, for the collective of the team, one of the most important factors.
 
The explanation does sound logical as regards the difference in offensive and defensive stars importance.

As was mentioned Zach Martin was a 4 star and is on his way to the Pro Football HOF. Which the vast majority of 5 STARS NEVER SNIFF.

How many stars was Jerry Rice? On the offensive side of things the list goes on and on

Iowa has made a program out of taking 3 star O linemen and less and making Pro Starters out of them.

But on D the sheer physical ability is quite often the key.
 
Nothing to do with stars per se, but I remember Ara Parseghian said he put his best athletes on defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irishjohn68
There have been several analysis over the years, Strong correlation between ratings and individual college performance. College success and NFL success are two very different things.

All that being said, new transfer rules make high school recruiting less important when you can evaluate a kids actual college performance and recruit him as a 20 year old after the busts and slow developers have been weeded out.
 
Nothing to do with stars per se, but I remember Ara Parseghian said he put his best athletes on defense.
So did Jimmy Johnson (and Dave Wannstadt) at Miami. A lot of smaller faster LBs and DLinemen and a few very large and athletic underrecruited studs on the DLine as well.

Chris Zorich as a LB recruit.
 
The explanation does sound logical as regards the difference in offensive and defensive stars importance.

As was mentioned Zach Martin was a 4 star and is on his way to the Pro Football HOF. Which the vast majority of 5 STARS NEVER SNIFF.

How many stars was Jerry Rice? On the offensive side of things the list goes on and on

Iowa has made a program out of taking 3 star O linemen and less and making Pro Starters out of them.

But on D the sheer physical ability is quite often the key.
5 stars hit at the highest rate

4 stars hit at the next highest rate

3 stars next and so one

There's about 30 five stars a year. About 400 four stars. And over 800 3 stars

It's not that complicated as to why the numbers would be the way they are.
 
If stars mattered as much as some claim, then Alabama would be the champion every year.
 
5 stars hit at the highest rate

4 stars hit at the next highest rate

3 stars next and so one

There's about 30 five stars a year. About 400 four stars. And over 800 3 stars

It's not that complicated as to why the numbers would be the way they are.
I don't know how many more ways this can be said over the years before it's common knowledge. This alone is the response to about 95% of the arguments that are made from the "stars dont matter" crowd.

Notre Dame message boards are the only one still debating this in the year 2023

Accept it: Recruiting is super F'ing important, and accept and admit that Notre Dame needs to do a much better job at it and that NDs likely expected range of outcomes is limited severely because of it and just leave it at that.
 
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.
Thanks for posting. Insightful.
 
I don't know how many more ways this can be said over the years before it's common knowledge. This alone is the response to about 95% of the arguments that are made about the recruiting rankings "don't matter" crowd.

Notre Dame message boards are the only one still debating this in the year 2023

Accept it: Recruiting is super F'ing important, and accept and admit that Notre Dame needs to do a much better job at it and just leave it at that.
Yes - please leave it at that and spare us the same drivel you’ve been posting for 2 decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDSMC78
If stars mattered as much as some claim, then Alabama would be the champion every year.
Stars do matter

Anyone who thinks they dont is an idiot

Georgia and Alabama dominate in recruiting. And it translates to the field

Alabama 6 NCs in the Saban era
Georgia 2 NCs

OSU, LSU are 2 other great recruiting school also NC winners.

If you dont recruit well, you cannot win a NC. It's impossible
 
  • Like
Reactions: notredamerises23
Stars do matter

Anyone who thinks they dont is an idiot

Georgia and Alabama dominate in recruiting. And it translates to the field

Alabama 6 NCs in the Saban era
Georgia 2 NCs

OSU, LSU are 2 other great recruiting school also NC winners.

If you dont recruit well, you cannot win a NC. It's impossible

Nobody can reasonably disagree with the proposition that recruiting matters. And there is certainly a correlation between how well you recruit and success on the field of play. That is also unassailable. What is interesting to me from The Athletic article is that star ratings aren't always a good predictor of how good a player will become, at least on the offensive side of the ball. You have to admit that an average HS star rating of 2.0 for the guys on the NFL All Pro offensive team is an intriguing fact. Maybe this year is an outlier with the NFL All Pro; I haven't looked at other years. But the numbers certainly corroborate what I have intuitively thought for many years: the best athletes play on defense. I don't think it is a coincidence that three of the best recruiting schools--Bama, UGA and LSU--have historically had very strong defenses. While Clemson has had a couple of down years recently, it has also had some strong defensive teams. (Though of course, it has helped Clemson to have QBs like Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence.)

I do not suggest that stars do not matter, I simply thought the article presented some fascinating data on the correlation between star ratings in HS and success in the NFL.
 
There have been several analysis over the years, Strong correlation between ratings and individual college performance. College success and NFL success are two very different things.

All that being said, new transfer rules make high school recruiting less important when you can evaluate a kids actual college performance and recruit him as a 20 year old after the busts and slow developers have been weeded out.

Good points.
 
Q
Nobody can reasonably disagree with the proposition that recruiting matters. And there is certainly a correlation between how well you recruit and success on the field of play. That is also unassailable. What is interesting to me from The Athletic article is that star ratings aren't always a good predictor of how good a player will become, at least on the offensive side of the ball. You have to admit that an average HS star rating of 2.0 for the guys on the NFL All Pro offensive team is an intriguing fact. Maybe this year is an outlier with the NFL All Pro; I haven't looked at other years. But the numbers certainly corroborate what I have intuitively thought for many years: the best athletes play on defense. I don't think it is a coincidence that three of the best recruiting schools--Bama, UGA and LSU--have historically had very strong defenses. While Clemson has had a couple of down years recently, it has also had some strong defensive teams. (Though of course, it has helped Clemson to have QBs like Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence.)

I do not suggest that stars do not matter, I simply thought the article presented some fascinating data on the correlation between star ratings in HS and success in the NFL.
You'd have to do that over more than 1 year for an accurate gauge on that. Did they do an anaylsis on the 2nd team?
 
Q

You'd have to do that over more than 1 year for an accurate gauge on that. Did they do an anaylsis on the 2nd team?

There wasn't analysis any in the article on the second team. And I don't know if anyone has attempted a similar analysis for other years. I'd have to dig around and see if anyone has.
 
Q

You'd have to do that over more than 1 year for an accurate gauge on that. Did they do an anaylsis on the 2nd team?
Yeah, the 2nd team kind of blows up the narrative. Only 3 of 11 offensive players had less than 4-stars. The remaining 8 consisted of 6 4-stars and 2 5-stars (Chubb, S. Diggs). So almost 75% of the 2nd team consisted of 4 and 5 stars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: notredamerises23
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.
That would seem to indicate that coaching and development in college plays a significant role.

Did the article indicate how many of the players had a change of position in college.

Thanks
 
That would seem to indicate that coaching and development in college plays a significant role.

Did the article indicate how many of the players had a change of position in college.

Thanks

The article didn't really get into change of positions, except that one of the main guys featured in the story is the recruitment of Josh Jacobs, who was a lightly recruited 3* wildcat QB from a very small HS in Oklahoma. Alabama offered him at the last minute, when Jacobs only had offers from Tulsa and New Mexico State. (Think about that for a minute.) Bama's DC got put onto some tape of Jacobs, and eventually convinced Saban to offer him. Bama only offered Jacobs at the last minute, after 5* recruit DL recruit Jeffrey SImmons spurned Bama and committed to Mississippi State. Jacobs committed to Bama despite knowing that Bama had recruited the #1 rated HS RB in his class and the year prior. So Jacobs apparently was not afraid of competition. (Maybe the fact that Jacobs lived homeless for a few years while he was in middle school steeled him just a bit.) Jacobs didn't do a whole lot his first two years at Bama, but after a decent junior year he became a late NFL 1st round pick by the Raiders. This year he led the NFL in rushing and was selected to the NFL 1st team NFL All Pro. Interestingly, the Raiders announced before this season that they would not pick up the 5th year option on Jacobs' contract, making him a free agent for 2023. I guess he played himself into a good free agent contract? We will see, as RBs just don't command the big money in today's NFL game.

There was another article (about 3 years old) in The Athletic that did a deep dive on the difficulties with recruiting offensive linemen, and what a crapshoot that can be. One of the upshots from that article was that some of the very best OL were recruited to play different positions, and it was athleticism, good bend and footwork that ultimately made them elite offensive linemen. Kirk Ferentz of Iowa was quoted a lot in the article, explaining how Iowa has developed so many good OL. That seems to hold true to form with Joe Alt, who was playing TE in HS but has developed into maybe the best LT in college football.
 
The article didn't really get into change of positions, except that one of the main guys featured in the story is the recruitment of Josh Jacobs, who was a lightly recruited 3* wildcat QB from a very small HS in Oklahoma. Alabama offered him at the last minute, when Jacobs only had offers from Tulsa and New Mexico State. (Think about that for a minute.) Bama's DC got put onto some tape of Jacobs, and eventually convinced Saban to offer him. Bama only offered Jacobs at the last minute, after 5* recruit DL recruit Jeffrey SImmons spurned Bama and committed to Mississippi State. Jacobs committed to Bama despite knowing that Bama had recruited the #1 rated HS RB in his class and the year prior. So Jacobs apparently was not afraid of competition. (Maybe the fact that Jacobs lived homeless for a few years while he was in middle school steeled him just a bit.) Jacobs didn't do a whole lot his first two years at Bama, but after a decent junior year he became a late NFL 1st round pick by the Raiders. This year he led the NFL in rushing and was selected to the NFL 1st team NFL All Pro. Interestingly, the Raiders announced before this season that they would not pick up the 5th year option on Jacobs' contract, making him a free agent for 2023. I guess he played himself into a good free agent contract? We will see, as RBs just don't command the big money in today's NFL game.

There was another article (about 3 years old) in The Athletic that did a deep dive on the difficulties with recruiting offensive linemen, and what a crapshoot that can be. One of the upshots from that article was that some of the very best OL were recruited to play different positions, and it was athleticism, good bend and footwork that ultimately made them elite offensive linemen. Kirk Ferentz of Iowa was quoted a lot in the article, explaining how Iowa has developed so many good OL. That seems to hold true to form with Joe Alt, who was playing TE in HS but has developed into maybe the best LT in college football.
Paul Costa, Jim Snowden and Pete Duranko were all recruited as and played running backs at Notre Dame. All were turned into linemen in the NFL
 
ADVERTISEMENT