Super Bowl Player Ratings

H

Huskers93-97

All-American
I thought it would be interesting to look at the player ratings for the 2 super bowl teams. I only did the top player at the 4 offensive skill positions. QB, RB, WR, TE. I think if anything it shows that a lot of ELITE talent gets overlooked. Only 1- 4 star in the bunch.

49ers

QB- Garoppolo- .78

RB- Coleman- .86

WR- Sanders- .70

TE- Kittle- .81

Chiefs

QB- Mahomes- .88

RB- Williams- .86

WR- Hill- .93

TE- Kelce- .76

 
Huskers93-97 said:
I thought it would be interesting to look at the player ratings for the 2 super bowl teams. I only did the top player at the 4 offensive skill positions. QB, RB, WR, TE. I think if anything it shows that a lot of ELITE talent gets overlooked. Only 1- 4 star in the bunch.

49ers

QB- Garoppolo- .78

RB- Coleman- .86

WR- Sanders- .70

TE- Kittle- .81

Chiefs

QB- Mahomes- .88

RB- Williams- .86

WR- Hill- .93

TE- Kelce- .76
Click to expand...
So many 4 and 5 star guys on these rosters too. Off the top of my head for the chiefs Watkins, Hardman, Fuller, Ragland. You’re much better off recruiting the top 200 guys than hoping you find the very rare 2 star/low 3 star that ends up being a stud. Remember there are like 1000 low 3 - 2 stars in every class - a few might be studs but it’s almost impossible to predict.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huskers93-97 said:
I thought it would be interesting to look at the player ratings for the 2 super bowl teams. I only did the top player at the 4 offensive skill positions. QB, RB, WR, TE. I think if anything it shows that a lot of ELITE talent gets overlooked. Only 1- 4 star in the bunch.

49ers

QB- Garoppolo- .78

RB- Coleman- .86

WR- Sanders- .70

TE- Kittle- .81

Chiefs

QB- Mahomes- .88

RB- Williams- .86

WR- Hill- .93

TE- Kelce- .76
Click to expand...
I don't think they were overlooked, they simply weren't elite at the time of those HS ratings.  I think they became elite through years of coaching and hard work.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
49ers

QB- Garoppolo- .78

RB- Coleman- .86

WR- Sanders- .70

TE- Kittle- .81

Chiefs

QB- Mahomes- .88

RB- Williams- .86

WR- Hill- .93

TE- Kelce- .76
Click to expand...


It is an interesting thing. Probably bolsters the idea that the recruiting sites maybe don't matter quite as much as I tend to think. Here's another interesting one - The 49ers' starting left tackle (Joe Staley):
image.png
 

 
Huskers93-97 said:
I thought it would be interesting to look at the player ratings for the 2 super bowl teams. I only did the top player at the 4 offensive skill positions. QB, RB, WR, TE. I think if anything it shows that a lot of ELITE talent gets overlooked. Only 1- 4 star in the bunch.

49ers

QB- Garoppolo- .78

RB- Coleman- .86

WR- Sanders- .70

TE- Kittle- .81

Chiefs

QB- Mahomes- .88

RB- Williams- .86

WR- Hill- .93

TE- Kelce- .76
Click to expand...
You did 4% of the team. I realize that it takes a lot of effort to do the 90man roster, but your sample size is not statistically significant at all. 

 
It’s actually staggering how well the star ratings predict NFL players. In the 2014 draft there were 93 4/5 stars drafted and there were 163 2/3 star players drafted. Out of the draft pool (RS Soph, JR and SR classes) there are roughly 1200 4/5 stars (400 per class) and 10,500 (3500 per class) 2/3 star players. 7.8% chance a 4/5 star gets drafted. 1.6% chance a 2/3 star gets drafted. 4x more likely that the 4/5 star you recruit gets drafted then the 2/3 star you recruit.

 
Waldo said:
We’ve won 13 games the past 3 years with .87 talent... how does any of that correlate to professionals in the SB? 
Click to expand...


A couple of things might explain this:

1. We lost a ton of players, so our rankings for those years are very inflated if you count people who stayed.

2. Star ranking doesn't take into consideration how well a player will fit the needs of a team, just how good the player is.  Switching offensives and defense every other year makes the players recruited less helpful relative to established schools like Iowa and Wisconsin who use their players exactly as anticipated.  

3. And I hate this one. There might be a tendency of players with higher star rankings who pick lesser schools because they don't want to work as hard to get playing time.  So the 5* who chooses not to go to bama and instead goes to crappy other school might be because he doesn't take football as seriously, but still wants a basically guaranteed starting position. How hard they try/ how seriously they take the game obviously can't be accounted for in the star rankings.

Just some thoughts

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
It’s actually staggering how well the star ratings predict NFL players. In the 2014 draft there were 93 4/5 stars drafted and there were 163 2/3 star players drafted. Out of the draft pool (RS Soph, JR and SR classes) there are roughly 1200 4/5 stars (400 per class) and 10,500 (3500 per class) 2/3 star players. 7.8% chance a 4/5 star gets drafted. 1.6% chance a 2/3 star gets drafted. 4x more likely that the 4/5 star you recruit gets drafted then the 2/3 star you recruit.
Click to expand...


This is true.  But I don't think that tells the whole story either.

And I'm a believer in ratings.  They don't get every single prospect right.  But over a large sample size, they do really well.

However, your analysis leaves out one very important factor: what should the "expected" value be.  Simply saying certain percentages being drafted as proof assumes that every single player has the same odds of being drafted.  That a five-star player is no more likely to be drafted than a three-star player.  That's obviously not the case.  You would "expect" that significantly more five-star guys would be drafted because they are supposed to be the best of the best.

I don't know what the expected value should be.  I believe it is something like 50% of five-stars actually get drafted.  Your numbers say closer to 33% of 4/5 stars (I think there are closer to 300 4/5 stars than 400).  Those numbers seem pretty low to me.  You'd think a five-star would have more than a coin flip chance to be drafted.

I'm not saying that makes the system wrong.  It just shows that even the "sure things" are a long ways from a sure thing.

 
Undone said:
It is an interesting thing. Probably bolsters the idea that the recruiting sites maybe don't matter quite as much as I tend to think. Here's another interesting one - The 49ers' starting left tackle (Joe Staley):
View attachment 16470
 
Click to expand...
Ehh I wouldn't say that. First off, this is a 2003 ranking which obviously recruiting services are much more advanced in the scouting stages than in 2003. Most of the highly rated recruits only don't pan out because of disciplinary reasons or academics, not always because of skill (maybe QB's more so then any other position). There are still hidden gems that fly under the radar but that's because there are players in states not heavily scouted that also don't attend camps to get evaluated leading to these types of players

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