3* Stars Conversation

[Who'saWildManNow]

(**NOTE** This is based on Rivals.com ratings) In college football recruiting I do believe the scouts usually pick the 5* guys right on, with minimum exceptions. But when it comes to the 4 and 3 stars there is so much disparity in the career expectations and outcomes of these kids, that you never really know what to expect. In the wake of our own 3* commits such as Ferguson, Harrell, Prosise and even back to last year (to name a few) in Atkinson, Farley, Hounshell, Rabasa and McDaniel, I'd like to list some recent NFL draft picks that were previously rated 3 stars or lower. Because, even though I see a lot of people remarking positively about BKs 3* choices, I know there are plenty of you out there panicking and thinking we are wasting a valuable spot for a possible 4 or 5* kid, when we are not. Coaches know what they need and BK and co. have plans. Here we go.

2010 NFL DRAFT 3*

- Sam Bradford QB OU
- Russell Okung OT OKST
- Trent Williams OT OU
- Jason Pierre-Paul DE USF 2*
- Dan Williams OT TENN
- Kyle Wilson CB Boise
- Sean Weatherspoon LB Missouri
- Demaryius Thomas WR GT
- Mike Iupati OL Idaho
- Charles Brown OT USC
- Ryan Mathews RB Fresno State
- Devin McCourty CB Rutgers 2*
- Jerry Hughes DE TCU

That's 13 out of the first 32 players picked that were 3* or lower coming out of high school. Guys like Lynch, Tuitt and Ishaq have such amazing raw talent that we can't help but get thrilled when thinking of their futures at ND. But I'm as excited to see the development of kids like Hounshell, Harrell, Golson, Farley and Springmann.

BK did not have the recruiting platform at Cincy that he now has at Notre Dame. He did the best he could with what he had there and when it came to playing an SEC powerhouse they were clearly outmatched.

Some will argue that BK couldn't develop 3* players to a championship level there. Why would he be able to do it now at ND? Take a look at the Bearcats past few recruiting classes and you will notice that it was mostly 2* players with some 3* players sprinkled in. BK was dealing with a seriously low level of talent and brought them to heights THEY never even knew they could reach.

Take a look at ND's 3* recruits profiles and you will be hard-pressed to find one without an impressive offer list. Why? Because coaches see the potential, stars aside. There are 3* gems out there and BK is getting them because of the ND name.

Look out for these kids because there are gonna be some nasty 3* players on ND's roster. It still bothers me that we lost out on Bennett Okotcha, I think he's gonna be real good. Damn this is a long post. Gnite.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

(**NOTE** This is based on Rivals.com ratings) In college football recruiting I do believe the scouts usually pick the 5* guys right on, with minimum exceptions. But when it comes to the 4 and 3 stars there is so much disparity in the career expectations and outcomes of these kids, that you never really know what to expect. In the wake of our own 3* commits such as Ferguson, Harrell, Prosise and even back to last year (to name a few) in Atkinson, Farley, Hounshell, Rabasa and McDaniel, I'd like to list some recent NFL draft picks that were previously rated 3 stars or lower. Because, even though I see a lot of people remarking positively about BKs 3* choices, I know there are plenty of you out there panicking and thinking we are wasting a valuable spot for a possible 4 or 5* kid, when we are not. Coaches know what they need and BK and co. have plans. Here we go.

2010 NFL DRAFT 3*

- Sam Bradford QB OU
- Russell Okung OT OKST
- Trent Williams OT OU
- Jason Pierre-Paul DE USF 2*
- Dan Williams OT TENN
- Kyle Wilson CB Boise
- Sean Weatherspoon LB Missouri
- Demaryius Thomas WR GT
- Mike Iupati OL Idaho
- Charles Brown OT USC
- Ryan Mathews RB Fresno State
- Devin McCourty CB Rutgers 2*
- Jerry Hughes DE TCU

That's 13 out of the first 32 players picked that were 3* or lower coming out of high school. Guys like Lynch, Tuitt and Ishaq have such amazing raw talent that we can't help but get thrilled when thinking of their futures at ND. But I'm as excited to see the development of kids like Hounshell, Harrell, Golson, Farley and Springmann.

BK did not have the recruiting platform at Cincy that he now has at Notre Dame. He did the best he could with what he had there and when it came to playing an SEC powerhouse they were clearly outmatched.

Some will argue that BK couldn't develop 3* players to a championship level there. Why would he be able to do it now at ND? Take a look at the Bearcats past few recruiting classes and you will notice that it was mostly 2* players with some 3* players sprinkled in. BK was dealing with a seriously low level of talent and brought them to heights THEY never even knew they could reach.

Take a look at ND's 3* recruits profiles and you will be hard-pressed to find one without an impressive offer list. Why? Because coaches see the potential, stars aside. There are 3* gems out there and BK is getting them because of the ND name.

Look out for these kids because there are gonna be some nasty 3* players on ND's roster. It still bothers me that we lost out on Bennett Okotcha, I think he's gonna be real good. Damn this is a long post. Gnite.

Completely agree. Mark Harrell IMO has all the makings of a future All-American center. He would be solid as a T or G, but I see Jeff Faine volume 2 written all over this kid. His profile pictures look more like a choir boy then a football player, but his video shows a guy who plays with a nasty streak and uses great leverage and explosion off the ball the punish his man until the whistle sounds. His film has some AWESOME pancakes throughout.

Golson, Rabasa, Nichols, Kona Schwenke, Grace, and Carlo are some other former 3 star guys who I think are going to leave ND as complete bad a55es. Farley is another one who I thought would have been an outstanding DB, but I'm kind of undecided on the current move to WR. I'll defer to the staff on that one.

 

[bpoluka]

WildMan,
This is one of the best posts on IE. If you believe in the coach and you see progress and development as the year progresses, than you got to believe in the 3* guys BK and staff are offering.

 

[Zibby32]

It is all about "fit"

I dont check stars, I check offer list...That is the easiest way to gauge how talented a player is. If he has offers from the best coaching staff's in the country then he is a good player...very simple

 

[Rhode Irish]

. . . I know there are plenty of you out there panicking and thinking we are wasting a valuable spot for a possible 4 or 5* kid, when we are not. Coaches know what they need and BK and co. have plans . . .

Bingo. Thanks for saying this (and putting this whole post together). Reps to you.

 

[rtrn2glory]

it is flat out all about player development from the staff and so far we've seen our position coaches and coach longo start to get the most out of the kids they bring in. gotta have confidence that this trend continues.

 

[OCIrish]

Some of the kids thar BK was getting at Cincy didn't have 3*, they were 2* or lower rated. He knows what he's doing and I trust his judgement on the kids he wants for his system.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I will be the first to admit my panicked state of mind when it comes to recruiting. I appreciate your thread and completely agree. I guess my doubt doesn't come from the thought that BK is recruiting the wrong type of athletes, rather than why not hold out for kids with more raw talent. Using that logic you'd be ok with spurning Lynch to add Springmann. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hate on Tony). My point is if highly recruited prospects who possess that raw talent you mention are strongly considering ND, why would you allow a lesser talent to fill their spot?

 

[Domina Nostra]

The retort is always going to be based on pool size: its almost inevitable that a lot of 3 stars go high because there are just so many of them.

IMO, the best argument for caring about getting 4/5 star recruits is that history shows they are a relatively safe bet and, hence, a good barameter of the overall talent you are pulling in. However, when you have a school that has excellent evaluators (like TCU/Boise/ND), it may be more useful to use their judgment as a separate data point rather than simply condemning Kelly for not always seeing things the same way as the services. Otherwise you really do sound kind of dumb, "doesn't Kelly want the best?" He's not dumb. He could turn on Rivals if he really thought their insight was so valuable. MOst times their evaluations overlap and often the services, and other schools, take Kelly's word for it and the kid becomes a comodity (see Councell).

Remember that a kid's stars are really assigned after their senior year, so there are some kids that start off 3 or 4 stars that get a bump- and consequently help the evaluators statistics. It may not be worth while calling all of these kids three star talent just yet.

Also, some of labeling a kid with lower star is simply an admission that you don't know. It is not a guess at the kid's ceiling. So Aaron Lynch, for example, supposedly did not have enough experience run stopping to earn that 5th star, even though everyone agreed he had that kind of talent.

 

[IrishLax]

It's about probability, player development and fit. A 5* always has a better chance of being a stud than a 4*, and a 4* does than a 3*. But with so many more 4*s than 5*s and 3*s then both 4*s and 5*s combined... it just makes sense that some 3*s will turn into studs and that some 5*s will be duds. Especially in the trenches, it's very hard to project at the next level and player development is exceedingly important.

Moral of the story? Aiming for higher rated athletes, on a macro scale, increases your probability of getting studs. But landing the right 3* players at need positions is crucial to sustaining a winning team.

 

[IrishLax]

The retort is always going to be based on pool size: its almost inevitable that a lot of 3 stars go high because there are just so many of them.

IMO, the best argument for caring about getting 4/5 star recruits is that history shows they are a relatively safe bet and, hence, a good barameter of the overall talent you are pulling in. However, when you have a school that has excellent evaluators (like TCU/Boise/ND), it may be more useful to use their judgment as a separate data point rather than simply condemning Kelly for not always seeing things the same way as the services. Otherwise you really do sound kind of dumb, "doesn't Kelly want the best?" He's not dumb. He could turn on Rivals if he really thought their insight was so valuable. MOst times their evaluations overlap and often the services, and other schools, take Kelly's word for it and the kid becomes a comodity (see Councell).

Remember that a kid's stars are really assigned after their senior year, so there are some kids that start off 3 or 4 stars that get a bump- and consequently help the evaluators statistics. It may not be worth while calling all of these kids three star talent just yet.

Also, some of labeling a kid with lower star is simply an admission that you don't know. It is not a guess at the kid's ceiling. So Aaron Lynch, for example, supposedly did not have enough experience run stopping to earn that 5th star, even though everyone agreed he had that kind of talent.

Beat me to it while I was typing lol

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think the point, at least for me, is that the stars assigned by the scouting services are not the be-all end-all. Just because the scouting service tells you that this guy or that guy is a better player than a kid like CJ doesn't mean that is actually the case. I would defer to coaches' ability to assess talent and evaluate recruits in relation to one another.

Another alternative to the "pool size" argument is that getting a 5-star right is not that difficult. Everyone thinks the same guys are 5-stars. They usually don't miss those. They are far more likely to underrate a good player as a 3-star than to overrate a player as a 5-star.

I think it is giving too much credence to the scouting services to assume that taking a "3-star" when you are still involved with a couple "4-stars" is settling. Maybe they just like the guy they got better and they know something that the scouting services don't. I wouldn't doubt that.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

I will be the first to admit my panicked state of mind when it comes to recruiting. I appreciate your thread and completely agree. I guess my doubt doesn't come from the thought that BK is recruiting the wrong type of athletes, rather than why not hold out for kids with more raw talent. Using that logic you'd be ok with spurning Lynch to add Springmann. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hate on Tony). My point is if highly recruited prospects who possess that raw talent you mention are strongly considering ND, why would you allow a lesser talent to fill their spot?

Think about it like this. How many times did Charlie chase the big fish while not keeping options 2, 3, and 4 engaged only to have said big fish choose another school and leave us way too thin at a position

The thinking is if you hold out for only the highly ranked kids, you leave yourself vulnerable to getting left at the alter and scambling the week before signing day just to try and convince some kid who isn't nearly half as talented as a CJ Prosise to sign with you because you need a safety. Its also not like we turned away 5* kids beating down the door for a barely qualified D-1 prospect. This kid could turn into a high 3, low 4 star before its all said and done, and you have to also consider that while we are still "in it" with some of the higher rated DB's in this class, it would be a stretch to say we are a clear cut favorite for any of them.

I have no problem taking a commit from a talented youngster who fits your system, and who you believe you can develope. A guy who you know is going to come in and work hard and compete.

Recruiting guys with positional flexibility also allows coach kelly to do this a little more than others. Maybe Darby ends up as a RB or slot receiver.. I personally would like to see him stay at DB, but just saying we don't really know what the coaching staff has in mind when these kids step on campus.

There is also always a way to make room for the big fish later if the truly elite want to hop on board. It may come at the expense of a 5th year guy who is a borderline contributor next year, but once the cupboard is stocked with depth and talent you can afford to cut ties with those guys. In previous regimes we did not have the depth of talent to let an experienced college ready "backup" walk out the door. Things they are a changin in South Bend.

 

[CarrollVermin]

At UC, Kelly was recruiting to an average of 2.22 average stars per player per class. When you stop to think about it, that was in the company of UAB, Marshall, Indiana. Heck, Duke was higher at 2.35 (that was a 5 year average).

Some perspective, Boise St., during the same period, had average recruiting classes at 2.36 and they had some BCS bowl wins.

I think it goes back to the "right kind of guy" attitude that Kelly has. Time will tell if he can develop and catch up to the "big boys" of the SEC.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Thanks for your response, Te'o4Heisman. You definitely answered my question. I guess I've just been under the assumption that we sit pretty well with Bush, Wright, Shumate, and even Thompson.

Regardless, I'm thrilled to have another commit at a position of need and I have no doubt the staff sees potential and will develop him accordingly.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

Thanks for your response, Te'o4Heisman. You definitely answered my question. I guess I've just been under the assumption that we sit pretty well with Bush, Wright, Shumate, and even Thompson.

Regardless, I'm thrilled to have another commit at a position of need and I have no doubt the staff sees potential and will develop him accordingly.

you're welcome.
From everything I have gathered Bush is a Miami lean, although the staff is still working him hard. Wright the staff seems to have cooled on for some unknown reason, even though information out there would lead you believe he could be ours if they went hard for him. Shumate recently put us in his top 3, but that was kind of out of left field. Not sure what to make of it. Thompson there will be room for regardless of who we take. There is also the possibility that Tee could end up at safety if we hit big with Geno Smith or ishmael adams. Tee has the size, speed and instincts to become a top notch corner or free safety.

 

[jason_h537]

The problem with this argument is that, using Rivals, each year they have over 1000 3 Star players. On a generous year they will have 30 5 Star. That means if just 4% of 3 Stars "make it" there will be more success stories for 3 Stars.

I don't have an issue with Prosise but I think the feeling is there are sexier targets out there. For example using CB. We have Tee Shepard who I am willing to bet will be a starter next year and Darby who can make an impact as well. If we took a 3rd corner who was a project, most wouldn't bat an eye.

At safety we have Baratti and Prosise who are 3 Star developmental guys. You would like to think we could land an "elite" player but who? Bush and Shoemate are not coming to ND. As much as we would like to take Shaq Thompson, I don't think he is coming either. Regardless with a guy llike Shaq, you take him regardless.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Think about it like this. How many times did Charlie chase the big fish while not keeping options 2, 3, and 4 engaged only to have said big fish choose another school and leave us way too thin at a position

The thinking is if you hold out for only the highly ranked kids, you leave yourself vulnerable to getting left at the alter and scambling the week before signing day just to try and convince some kid who isn't nearly half as talented as a CJ Prosise to sign with you because you need a safety. Its also not like we turned away 5* kids beating down the door for a barely qualified D-1 prospect. This kid could turn into a high 3, low 4 star before its all said and done, and you have to also consider that while we are still "in it" with some of the higher rated DB's in this class, it would be a stretch to say we are a clear cut favorite for any of them.

I have no problem taking a commit from a talented youngster who fits your system, and who you believe you can develope. A guy who you know is going to come in and work hard and compete.

Recruiting guys with positional flexibility also allows coach kelly to do this a little more than others. Maybe Darby ends up as a RB or slot receiver.. I personally would like to see him stay at DB, but just saying we don't really know what the coaching staff has in mind when these kids step on campus.

There is also always a way to make room for the big fish later if the truly elite want to hop on board. It may come at the expense of a 5th year guy who is a borderline contributor next year, but once the cupboard is stocked with depth and talent you can afford to cut ties with those guys. In previous regimes we did not have the depth of talent to let an experienced college ready "backup" walk out the door. Things they are a changin in South Bend.

Well done sir.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

The problem with this argument is that, using Rivals, each year they have over 1000 3 Star players. On a generous year they will have 30 5 Star. That means if just 4% of 3 Stars "make it" there will be more success stories for 3 Stars.

I don't have an issue with Prosise but I think the feeling is there are sexier targets out there. For example using CB. We have Tee Shepard who I am willing to bet will be a starter next year and Darby who can make an impact as well. If we took a 3rd corner who was a project, most wouldn't bat an eye.

At safety we have Baratti and Prosise who are 3 Star developmental guys. You would like to think we could land an "elite" player but who? Bush and Shoemate are not coming to ND. As much as we would like to take Shaq Thompson, I don't think he is coming either. Regardless with a guy llike Shaq, you take him regardless.

It's either the coaching staff knows they won't be in it in the long run for the sexier pick or they just flat out see what they want. Most likely the former. I agree with you in saying that mixing the diamond in the rough3* with the sexier picks always feels better. Its also having elite competition around these kids that develops them even more.

 

[IrishLax]

First question in the Rivals maibag today touches on this very issue:

Rivals.com College Football - Mailbag: Who lives up to the hype?

 

[ToledoGoIrish]

Good thread.


I think for the most part as long as the kid has the tools they are looking for and he is a RKG that luongo will whip these kids into the top physical shape. 3-4 is a sketchy subject, i like to watch their film/games before i pass judgment because of what Rivals (who seems to be off quite a bit, took counsell forever to even get a 4th *) or some other site tells me. Even sites like this help because im sure you're all spread out over the map with these kids being local to somebody.

 

[IrishLax]

What I think is funny is how people (coaches included) often miss so badly on even local prospects. Case and point is Javier Arenas who came from Tampa and still got no pub and no stars because he was "too small." The only offer he got besides Alabama was Florida Atlantic.

Now, this kind of success for a 3* certainly isn't the norm, and it also illustrates why oversigning is such a big deal. If Saban can take an extra 20 3* kids over a four year period you're much more likely to have a couple of them turn into stars. And it allows you to take risks on a 3* you might like without having to worry about running out of slots for 5* guys you are waiting on.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

What I think is funny is how people (coaches included) often miss so badly on even local prospects. Case and point is Javier Arenas who came from Tampa and still got no pub and no stars because he was "too small." The only offer he got besides Alabama was Florida Atlantic.

Now, this kind of success for a 3* certainly isn't the norm, and it also illustrates why oversigning is such a big deal. If Saban can take an extra 20 3* kids over a four year period you're much more likely to have a couple of them turn into stars. And it allows you to take risks on a 3* you might like without having to worry about running out of slots for 5* guys you are waiting on.

I'm hoping John Turner is one of those local, under the radar, stars. I agree that Saban is going to get a solid starter from all the 3*s due to the law of averages. Oversigning and "grey-shirting" or whatever pisses me off.

 

[koonja]

I think you guys'll find this interesting

I think you guys'll find this interesting

Record (Grand Valley State, improved every year BK was coach)
1999: 5-5
2000: 7-4
2001: 13-0
2002: 14-1 (D2 National Champs)
2003: 14-0 (D2 National Champs)
Record (Central Michigan, improved every year BK was coach)
2004: 4-7
2005: 6-5
2006: 9-4 (Conference Champs)
Record (Cincinnati’s record improved every year BK was coach)
2006: 8-5
2007: 10-3
2008: 11-3
2009: 12-0
Class rankings while BK was coach (Cincinnati)
2005: 70th (Zero 4/5 stars)
2006: 70th (One 4-star)
2007: 80th (Zero 4/5 stars)
2008: 51st (Zero 4/5 stars)

I wonder how he'll do with a top-ten class every year?