Chance to Make NFL Roster by Star Rating

Good numbers, thanks for sharing. This is also illustrates the huge difference in 3-star players. Which makes sense considering some of the higher 3-stars can still be in the top 350 of all players in the nation, while the lower end of 3-stars are in the 1000-1500 range.

 
RedDenver said:
Interesting that unranked players had a better chance of reaching the NFL than those ranked <85
Click to expand...


Yeah, I noticed that as well.  I don't think that number is probably accurate - or at least misleading.  I'm sure it has to be "unranked but have a profile created on 247" which would obviously only be a small percentage of the players that are actually unranked.

 
Mavric said:
Yeah, I noticed that as well.  I don't think that number is probably accurate - or at least misleading.  I'm sure it has to be "unranked but have a profile created on 247" which would obviously only be a small percentage of the players that are actually unranked.
Click to expand...
Looks like it's unranked but got a schollie in college based on this further down in the twitter thread:


 
Red Five said:
In pie chart form
Click to expand...


My constant complaint about this type of graph:

Yes, it's true.  But all that is saying is "Look at how great our recruiting services are!!!  We can tell that Trevor Lawrence is going to be a better prospect than some benchwarmer from Arthur, Nebraska!!!! Aren't we great?!?!??!?!?!"

Yes, obviously the five- and four-star guys are going to be the better players.  But it doesn't take a genius to be able to tell that an all-state guy from California, Georgia, Texas or Florida has a much better chance to be a college/NFL player than 99% of other players out there.

The real question is how well they did compared to some expected value.  The trick is figuring out what that expected value should be.  For example, "60% of five-star recruits should be NFL draft picks."  Even that seems low to me but I think that's even a bit higher than actual over the last several years.  Then you work down the list: "30% of four-star players should be drafted in the NFL", "1% of three-star players should be drafted in the NFL", "0.001% of other players will be NFL draft picks" or whatever those numbers are.  That's what you should look at to determine if the scouting services are doing a good job or not.  But of course they like to point out the gross numbers because it's basically impossible to be wrong when looking at it that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There were 98 four- and five-star players selected, outnumbering three-stars (81). Because of the sheer volume of three-stars, it’s not out of the ordinary for more three-stars to be selected on a yearly basis. That wasn’t the case this year, as elite talent continues to pan out at an impressive rate. All told, 60 percent of draft eligible five-stars were drafted, 23 percent of four-stars were drafted, seven percent of three-stars were drafted, two percent of two-stars were drafted and less than one percent of unranked players were drafted.
Click to expand...


Rivals

 
Super Bowl 2023: How Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles players ranked as recruits

Philadelphia Eagles

5-star: 5
4-star: 13
3-star: 15
2-star: 8
NR: 12

Kansas City Chiefs

5-star: 7
4-star: 12
3-star: 21
2-star: 3
NR: 10
Click to expand...


The article had two lines for 3-stars for each team.  I assume the second line should be 2-star so I changed it.

Recruiting gurus will say the reason 5-stars are fewer is a numbers game.  And there's something to that.  But that completely ignores any expected-value calculation.

Having nearly 1/3 of the Super Bowl rosters being guys Husker fans would mock offering as recruits is pretty interesting.

 
Yes. 35 were mediocre or not even rated types. Just 18 of 53 were 4 or 5 stars. 
 

3 star players are practically dismissed as depth builders and projects.  2 star guys area waste of scholarships and unrated walkons are practically trash to some. 
 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top