Falcons players talk "stars"

Good read about how many Falcons were 3 or fewer stars coming out of highschool. Heck, even Lemming calls his life's work "an inexact science." (I think calling it any kind of 'science' is blasphemous.)

a word of caution from Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan (and former 3 star recruit) regarding recruiting rankings.
“Can’t trust those,” he said with a smile.

Of the 24 pro-style quarterbacks ahead of Ryan in the 2003 class, four eventually were drafted and only three have played in the NFL – JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn and Matt Flynn. The other gem in the top 50 besides Ryan was 14 spots below him at No. 39 – a quarterback from Audubon, N.J., named Joe Flacco, who only found collegiate success after transferring from Pitt to Delaware.

“When I (Falcon TE Micheal Palmer and former 2* recruit) got to Clemson, I’d ask, How many stars did this guy have, guys on my team and guys on other teams in the ACC and at other schools,” he said. “I’d be like, You’re telling me that guy got a five-star?”
If the Falcons are any evidence, the question will likely never stop getting asked.

As recruits, several Falcons looked over | www.ajc.com

I don't think anyone would deny it's an inexact science. But the fact remains, if you're a 4 or 5-star, your odds are much better of you panning out, so to speak.

Originally Posted by pckl300

I don't think that's a fact. I believe it's exactly what the article is disputing.

A couple of years ago someone on the board posted an analysis of this very thing, and the odds were overwhelmingly in the recruiting ranking system's favor. I'm not sure it's able to be dredged up now, a new analysis will probably have to be done.

Originally Posted by HelluvaMGTmjr

Ah yes, the annual signing day thread on why we should not be disappointed in a poorly ranked class...this one being the worst in a long time.

The record of the past 3 seasons that didn't have much ranked talent? Just barely above .500. The prior 2 years with 4 stars galore(by GT standards) from the infamous 2007 class? 0.741.

The Kool-Aid drinkers just got served.

Originally Posted by HelluvaMGTmjr

Ah yes, the annual signing day thread on why we should not be disappointed in a poorly ranked class...this one being the worst in a long time.

The record of the past 3 seasons that didn't have much ranked talent? Just barely above .500. The prior 2 years with 4 stars galore(by GT standards) from the infamous 2007 class? 0.741.

I don't totally disagree with you. If what you're saying is we need to recruit better, then I completely agree. But all that means is getting more of our recruits to pan out. We could achieve that end by improving our success rate on our "diamonds in the rough."

I think part of the problem is that on defense we recruit for all the same players. Iow, to be really good on D, you need the top players everybody's after. We've been much better on offense w/o this level of talent than we've been on defense.

Part of the reason CPJ was hired was because of the advantages his offense created both on the field and in recruiting offensive players. We can get great production from less heralded players and we've shown that to be the case. That doesn't work on defense. There's only so many schemes you can run on D and players are less "specialized" to one particular kind over another like they are on offense.