Shouldn't the #1 player at a position be rated at least 4 stars ?

[CappyToCJF]

We get commit from the concensus #1 kicker and our average player rating goes down?

And a cocensus top 3 punter and the average class rating goes down.

If they were PSU fans and watched our team the last few years they would give more credit for the impact of kickers. And a kicker is more likely to contribute as a true frosh than players at some other positions....

 

[OldTiredLion]

I believe kickers are rated differently since they aren't considered position players.

 

[Ranger Dan]

No, stars are just a rating for how splashy a guy is (IMHO). For example, the best fullback ever may not be 5 star, but you could have multiple 5 star QBs or other skill position players in a given class. You still have numerical rankings per position that are meaningful (even though not perfect).

 

[LuvDaLions]

Stars don't really mean anything, the only thing that matters is if they can help the team.

 

[anon_is9z1n0h3zblb]

Rivals stopped giving out anything more than 3 stars for specialists a number of years ago. Reasoning something about not being in on every play. Don't necessarily agree with it, but they haven't asked my opinion on it yet.

 

[Lions8286]

Kickers never get the respect they deserve. IN MY OPINION, the kicker is an integral part of the game, more so now than ever before. A solid kicker can have a greater impact on the game than many position players.

 

[OldTiredLion]

Quinn Nordin now has a 4 star rating on TOS.

 

[zwick99]

We get commit from the concensus #1 kicker and our average player rating goes down?

And a cocensus top 3 punter and the average class rating goes down.

If they were PSU fans and watched our team the last few years they would give more credit for the impact of kickers. And a kicker is more likely to contribute as a true frosh than players at some other positions....

No. If you really want to go there then the #1 player should be 5 stars.

 

[eVizions]

A 5-star player is a guy who has the potential to lead or define your program. A punter or kicker won't do that.

 

[CappyToCJF]

Agreed, but a AA punter or kicker can significantly impact each game, with only a superior QB, RB, or sack master having a greater impact. I was trying to make the case for 4 star, not 5

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Rivals stopped giving out anything more than 3 stars for specialists a number of years ago. Reasoning something about not being in on every play. Don't necessarily agree with it, but they haven't asked my opinion on it yet.

Proving how stupid the people that devise these rating systems are.

Kickers and Punters win games at as great a frequency as any position on the field. By the reasoning of the toad stools at Rivals, Ray Guy would have deserved a 3 star ranking and they still think Kendra deserved a 5 star.... I ask, ignoring time, which guy contributed to more football game victories. Rivals is a club made up of con men.

 

[canuckhal]

We get commit from the concensus #1 kicker and our average player rating goes down?

And a cocensus top 3 punter and the average class rating goes down.

If they were PSU fans and watched our team the last few years they would give more credit for the impact of kickers. And a kicker is more likely to contribute as a true frosh than players at some other positions....

Maybe, but with his commitment we have moved up to number 7 (was 6 yesterday) and passed the two Michigans to No. 2 in the Big. We aren't going to catch OSU.

My understanding is that there are x number of 5*, x number of 4, etc.. regardless of position. With fewer 5s, a few more 4s, then lots of 3s. Hear what you are saying though. It is pretty funny that the number 1 kicker is only 3*.

 

[ellobo]

***what I'm about to write isn't about any specific kicker but rather kicking rankings***

1) how accurate (pun intended) do you think kicker rankings are? Well let's start with a different question...how much time do you think are put into them? The answer is very little. The kicker rankings are basically based off a few high level camps (with the 3 or so famous kicking gurus) and a quick evaluations on the few guys who end up with multiple offers. Maybe they should spend more time evaluating/ranking the specialists but they don't. Thus, the list is incomplete...thus the likelihood of the #1 rated kicker actually being that isn't high.

2) but what about the guys with multiple offers? Well that should tell you that they are very good and will likely be a big asset. But it still doesn't tell you where they should be ranked compared to the rest of the nation on a given year (just that they are probably in the top group). The majority of kickers basically have to market themselves to the schools. Sometimes it's as simple as sending out a ton of tape or attending a camp. However, consider that most schools only take a schollie kicker once every 4 years and know the kickers will come to them if they have an opening...so it's not like college coaches are scouring the nation for that rare kicking prospect and/or hidden gem...the recruiting site analysts aren't doing so either.

3) what if there is that rare once in a decade prospect? Well by definition that is once in a decade so maybe that guy should be a 4* but it doesn't mean the top guy each year should be.

4) perhaps the bigger question, though, is how do we know if a guy is a rare prospect? The problem is that kicking, at the hs level, is often under utilized and under developed. Less so now than in the past (especially with the kicking schools/camps being more established) but somewhere in America there will probably be a future college aa kicker who is given fewer than half a dozen fg attempts the entire season, gets at least one of those blocked because his team isn't used to blocking for fgs, the kid is probably working out mostly on his own because they have no one to teach him kicking and there will be no film of him kicking off the ground and not a tee. But he will attend a couple camps, someone will offer him a full ride and the rest will be history.

5) how many times has an nfl team picked a kicker in the 1st round? I'm sure it's happened more than once but the only one I can think of is the kicker from fsu that the raiders picked. But that was an Al Davis pick and there was nothing normal about him. Yes, a good and clutch kicker is quite important but it's more about having minimum requirements for what you want instead of looking for a maximum. I mean how often does the fact a kicker can only hit from 55 and not 65 come into play? And do you really care if he can hit from 65 if he is money from 45? How are they evaluating these things? Is it from the half a dozen kicks a kid attempted in hs behind a weak line (maybe on a bad snap) off a tee? Or do they evaluate them based on camps while they are in shorts? Regardless of how they are evaluated the NFL believes there are more than enough around who can do that minimum or they would draft more of them higher. This is not unlike with college coaches...if they didn't think they could find one they would probably take something like one schollie kicker EACH year hoping one works out. But they don't which is why kickers aren't given the same weight.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

A 5-star player is a guy who has the potential to lead or define your program. A punter or kicker won't do that.

Yeah ... like a Posluzny .... or a Tom Brady or an Aaron Rodgers or a JJ Watt or an Antonio Brown ...... were picked defined their programs.... Brown was rated a nil...a nada...no rating. lol the insider info.

Fact is a program needs to win to attract talent and filling all spots on the roster with talent wins more games than not doing so. We have all watch great punters and kickers and punt and kick return specialists add 2 -3 even more wins to a teams W-L record. Franklin and the staff are smart and at Vandy they beat a lot of teams loaded with team defining 4 and 5 star players... and so it goes.

***what I'm about to write isn't about any specific kicker but rather kicking rankings***

1) how accurate (pun intended) do you think kicker rankings are? Well let's start with a different question...how much time do you think are put into them? The answer is very little. The kicker rankings are basically based off a few high level camps (with the 3 or so famous kicking gurus) and a quick evaluations on the few guys who end up with multiple offers. Maybe they should spend more time evaluating/ranking the specialists but they don't. Thus, the list is incomplete...thus the likelihood of the #1 rated kicker actually being that isn't high.

2) but what about the guys with multiple offers? Well that should tell you that they are very good and will likely be a big asset. But it still doesn't tell you where they should be ranked compared to the rest of the nation on a given year (just that they are probably in the top group). The majority of kickers basically have to market themselves to the schools. Sometimes it's as simple as sending out a ton of tape or attending a camp. However, consider that most schools only take a schollie kicker once every 4 years and know the kickers will come to them if they have an opening...so it's not like college coaches are scouring the nation for that rare kicking prospect and/or hidden gem...the recruiting site analysts aren't doing so either.

3) what if there is that rare once in a decade prospect? Well by definition that is once in a decade so maybe that guy should be a 4* but it doesn't mean the top guy each year should be.

4) perhaps the bigger question, though, is how do we know if a guy is a rare prospect? The problem is that kicking, at the hs level, is often under utilized and under developed. Less so now than in the past (especially with the kicking schools/camps being more established) but somewhere in America there will probably be a future college aa kicker who is given fewer than half a dozen fg attempts the entire season, gets at least one of those blocked because his team isn't used to blocking for fgs, the kid is probably working out mostly on his own because they have no one to teach him kicking and there will be no film of him kicking off the ground and not a tee. But he will attend a couple camps, someone will offer him a full ride and the rest will be history.

5) how many times has an nfl team picked a kicker in the 1st round? I'm sure it's happened more than once but the only one I can think of is the kicker from fsu that the raiders picked. But that was an Al Davis pick and there was nothing normal about him. Yes, a good and clutch kicker is quite important but it's more about having minimum requirements for what you want instead of looking for a maximum. I mean how often does the fact a kicker can only hit from 55 and not 65 come into play? And do you really care if he can hit from 65 if he is money from 45? How are they evaluating these things? Is it from the half a dozen kicks a kid attempted in hs behind a weak line (maybe on a bad snap) off a tee? Or do they evaluate them based on camps while they are in shorts? Regardless of how they are evaluated the NFL believes there are more than enough around who can do that minimum or they would draft more of them higher. This is not unlike with college coaches...if they didn't think they could find one they would probably take something like one schollie kicker EACH year hoping one works out. But they don't which is why kickers aren't given the same weight.

Way too much analysis of something that is simply put a crap shoot, regardless of position. The game changes (speed alone) in a manner from high school to college and then again from college to the NFL and measuring how a guy jumps or runs a shuttle or performs without pads or refs or kicks without 100,000 fans under pressure is well not what needs to be measured.

Ever been to a 7 on 7 camp? What a crock. For the most part, you can have all the mechanical physical tools at any position and not have the perception and internal wiring to preform at the next level. This is why a guy that runs a 4.7 and has a 16 inch vertical leap outperforms a guy that runs a 4.5 and has a 19 inch vertical leap...all other measurable held the same... at Linebacker. Guy number 1 perceives, reads, reacts at a rate the more than compensates for his rudimentary gross physical measurable-s.

I don;t argue that the kicker should get 4 or 5 stars. The star system is simply put BS. about 50% of the 3 stars make a significant impact at the college level...about 55% of the 4 stars do the same. There are many less 4 stars than three stars. Many outstanding athletes do not attend these Rivals puppy mills. Guess what these guys get..... no stars and many end up defining their college teams success.... and/or getting all pro status in the NFL. Who cares. If Nordin seems to have the right stuff....and the kid from Ga.... They will win games...if not they wont, same as any other position players.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

These "services" have been junk for years. Remember they told us that Mitch Mustain and Brock Berlin were all-world QBs. Remember the ultra-high ratings for Anthony Morelli and Tyler Palko. All these guys were fine players, but never lived up to the massive hype. Meanwhile they totally missed on Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Tom Brady. That's a pretty pathetic track record. They have absolutely zero credibility in talent projection.

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[ellobo]

These "services" have been junk for years. Remember they told us that Mitch Mustain and Brock Berlin were all-world QBs. Remember the ultra-high ratings for Anthony Morelli and Tyler Palko. All these guys were fine players, but never lived up to the massive hype. Meanwhile they totally missed on Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Tom Brady. That's a pretty pathetic track record. They have absolutely zero credibility in talent projection.

I'm not sure your list of QBs says exactly what you think it should:


1) Big Ben is possible the most overused false example of how the recruiting sites get things wrong. When he was in HS he had a QB a year ahead of him who also happened to be the coach's son. Because of nepotism he didn't play QB until he was a senior. In fact he was recruited by schools as a TE because he was playing WR/TE in HS until his senior year. I guess you could argue the recruiting services could have noticed him at this point but none of the major conference coaches did either as he ended up in the MAC.


2) Rodgers might be just as bad an example. Do you know how many D1 offers he had coming out of HS? The answer is ZERO. Do you know why? Well he is 3 inches taller today than he was as a recruit. Starting in his senior year and through his time at a JUCO he had a (late) growth spurt that also gave him the frame to put on a ton of weight.


3) It seems the myth of Tom Brady being a nobody before the Pats continues to grow. First of all, Rivals, Scout, etc. didn't exist when he was being recruited back in 1994 (he was in the 95 signing class). What did exist was Super Prep which rated him as the #63 player in the West and a top 5 QB in that region. Today that would probably be the equivalent of low 4* or high 3* at worst. To be fair being a low 4* doesn't sound like a guy who projects to be one of the best QBs in NFL history but it's not exactly like he was some 2* under the radar guy who no one ever heard of.


4) I'm not sure what ratings you are using on Palko but I looked up his Rivals ranking and they had him as the #8 Dual-Threat QB and outside the Rivals 250. He was a multi-year D1 starter and spent a few years in the NFL. That sounds about right for a guy with his ranking. BTW, Vince Young was the #1 dual threat that year...think they nailed that one.


5) Berlin is an interesting one because UF also signed another top 100 overall player and top 5 QB in that class. So something had to give and it did. The “other” highly hyped QB won out, became a 1st team AA, Heisman finalist, 1st round pick and NFL starter. Berlin eventually transferred, became a multi-year starter at another school and after going through multiple OCs in college still found his way onto a NFL roster. Maybe he didn’t live up to all the hype but he wasn’t a total bust and the other highly ranked kid he went up against at UF surely lived up to ranking.


6) Mustain is another matter of circumstances guy. He started his true freshman year and then made one of the strangest transfer decisions ever by going to USC where they had a stable of other highly ranked young QBs already there. If he had just stayed put then he likely ends up a 4 year starter and with a legacy closer to the hype.


7) Ok, I’ll give you Morelli but even that has a story behind it. He and Henne attended a camp/combine together (I think it was a Nike camp) in which the QBs were allowed to bring their own ball(s). Henne did not know this and ended up using one of the new and slick balls provided by the camp while Morelli used his worn in one fit to his hand. Henne came in with all the hype (not that Morelli was an unknown but was not considered in his league) but because of the circumstances Morelli out performed Henne. So what were the analysts going to do…drop Henne, ignore the performance or elevate Morelli? They went with the last option and were wrong. Now there were rumblings that Morelli’s FB IQ was…well to be nice…not high…but I think the analysts wanted to avoid what might come off as calling a kid stupid so I think they ignored it. Since, I’ve seen them make more references to things like that so maybe they learned their lesson?


So I guess my point is that sometimes anecdotal examples don’t tell the whole story. I personally don’t think the rankings are an end all or even close to perfect. I think on a macro level they do a pretty good job of predicting…5 stars (overall) work out significantly more than 4 stars, 4 stars significantly more than 3, etc…and teams that tend to recruit more higher ranked classes tend to win more than those that don’t. But on a micro level one shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking it is gospel because it isn’t. However, it is not always because of a misevaluation (though it can be) and sometimes there is more behind the story.

 

[Option Bob]

OK, I can't take this any longer. El lobo is starting to make to much sense for me. When I start agreeing with a Michigan man, I know something's wrong in the world. Tell me you're not really a wolverine, ellobo ... please. I feel as if I need to channel some inner Woody Hayes or something. Attach a pic of you and Dick Honig in his all-Michigan office ... or tell us for the 409,000th time that Brandon Short really did interfere with that receiver 5 yards away from him. Something!

 

[ellobo]

OK, I can't take this any longer. El lobo is starting to make to much sense for me. When I start agreeing with a Michigan man, I know something's wrong in the world. Tell me you're not really a wolverine, ellobo ... please. I feel as if I need to channel some inner Woody Hayes or something. Attach a pic of you and Dick Honig in his all-Michigan office ... or tell us for the 409,000th time that Brandon Short really did interfere with that receiver 5 yards away from him. Something!

Don't worry...once we get closer to game week I'm sure I'll do a better job of living up to your expectations of being the enemy

 

[Option Bob]

I couldn't do it ... my cursor drifted towards the "like" button, paused for a few seconds, and then visions of Witvoet and Lemonier started flashing like a bad trip ... Manningham and Brady and Henne and Hart ... can't do it. What would my sons say? What would N&B and Fairgambit and Tom, etc. think?

No, ellobo, your devious plan of pretending to be a reasonable, courdial poster on this board won't fool me ...

 

[joedirt47]

If they were PSU fans....

See... there's your problem. They AREN'T PSU fans and they DON'T want to give us any good publicity.

 

[snider]

The original issue (as it developed in the body of the note) was the ratings of kickers. Sam Ficken was a 2-star, 5.3. Obviously, one needs to take the ratings with a grain of salt when evaluating kickers.