Palmetto Proving Grounds

I noticed a minute ago, I had some of the numbers of all americans wrong, and I did not have the total # of 3*'s listed.

In case you were looking at the % and scratching your head, I fixed it. Now, it makes sense.

Steve Miller is a machine...

Angelo Whatley?

Idiots come in all shapes, sizes, and stars. Doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

Who would have thought that Steve Miller said he didnt have THE TIME to do the research with 247 rankings on his own?

Definition of exception to the rule.

His point is that sites such as 247 do a fairly accurate job of projecting success at the collegiate level.

The 2004 NFL Draft had plenty of 1st Round busts. That doesn't mean you trade your 1st Round picks because they might be busts.

The system works when you're talking large numbers, like all the graduating high school players in a particular year.

And it works when you're an Alabama, whose coaching staff knows how to separate the true 5-stars from the overrated mama's boys, and how to coach them once they're in school.

What doesn't work is the messageboard posters who diss the coaching staff for taking the commitment of a 3-star kid. He might just turn out to be one of the 1 in 172.

I disagree, there is a place for Seth Stricklands and Marty Marketts and Rock Watkins and so on. Nobody is going to have 4 and 5* guys at every position.

Hell, Connor Shaw fits that category, Buster Anderson, etc. We will have superstars and role players every year.

I do think that the more 4 and 5* guys we sign, the more successful we will be. Sometimes those guys will get beat out by a more unheralded player, and so be it. Alabama had a walk-on safety last year starting. The white kid, I forget his name.

Morris Claiborne was a 3* guy. We will have spots for 3* guys in every class for the distant future, as will almost everyone else.

I don't understand why this is so difficult: you want the best players you can get. Generally, that's what the star rankings coincide with. Has anyone ever really suggested that you should target 2-3 star guys because they just might pan out OK? Many of those guys who do pan out are 4-5 star talent guys who have other issues. The reality is that we are not on the level yet to get all the 4-5 star guys we want, but we have a staff that does good work in evaluating prospects and them coaching them to achieve their potential. But, believe me, if we could get all the 4-5stars we wanted, we'd take them.

Will people please stfu up about Connor shaw being a three star. He was a 5.7 three star and all the insiders her pretty high on him.

There aren't huge debates about star rankings when high threes with multiple bcs offers commit.

The arguments are when we take unranked or 5.5, 5.6 three stars with not a lot of good offers 7,8 months before signing day with limited schollies.

Shaw is a bad ass, and I think he is the best QB in the SEC, AND, I am happy to admit that I just looked it up, and he was rated as a 4* by 247. So, that further credits the stats.

Are you talking Rival's rankings? Also, a three star does not qualify as an unranked player.

There are going to be guys that do not live up to some fans expectations as far as their rankings also. We have to accept that. Our coaches may see something they like in a guy who is off the radar, and, yes, sometimes those guys do not work out. Whether or not getting all worked up about it is worth it or not is debatable, because its not gonna un-offer the guy.

I think we can all agree that the more higher ranked players we sign, the more successful we will be. We can also all agree that there will be exceptions to that rule.

We also all accept that there are going to be quite a few 3* guys in our classes, and that is not a bad thing. We would like for them all to be 5*'s, or at least 4*'s. We are not located in a geographic area that makes that very possible, however.

I hear you, and totally agree about attitude and work ethic. I am pretty sure most smart coaches would take Kenny Miles over a gamble like Bellamy any day. There are coaches who will put up with anything if you can produce on the field, though.

Also, we have to remember that just because a player is not an All-American or 1st round draft pick does not mean he is not a very good player and a difference-maker. I would imagine MOST 5* players end up being very good/great college players, probably 70% end up starting by their second year, and the percentage probably goes down with each successive star rating.

This data is informative, no doubt, but also leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I would like to see data using All-Conference selections and the 1st 3 rounds of the draft as criteria. That would tell us a lot more.