[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blaxican8504

I would say that recruiting rankings are more accurate than people want to give them credit for. However, what isn't taken into account is the mental state of the player being recruited and the program he is going to. Additionally, there are some instances where a player's ranking has been a bit inflated because of the school that he commits to. What also needs to be taken in consideration when looking at these rankings is that players are often given a rating based on how they project to the NFL. Therefore, measurables have more of an impact. But then again, looking forward, an impressive size/speed combination bodes well for a player's NFL career. I want to take a look at the examples given already in this thread. Montee Ball was the 33rd rated running back in his class, but still rated as a 4*. Darrell Scott was the top rated running back in the same class and a top ten player nationally, but we need to take a closer look. Ball played his HS football in Missouri, which many would consider a step down compared to the talent that Scott faced in California. Additionally, Ball is probably closer to 5'9 than his listed 5'11, while Scott is probably a legit 6'. Ball committed to play his football at Wisconsin, a well-run program that has a history of putting lineman in the NFL and running the ball effectively. Scott committed to the disaster known as Colorado before transferring to South Florida, not playing, and entering the draft early. There are so many other factors that come into play that determine whether a player fulfills his potential or not. Just like there are those guys with an insane desire to become as good as possible. The first round of the 2011 NFL Draft featured the following: 5* (8), 4* (11), 3* (10), 2* (2), and NR (1). And to the earlier poster that cited Kalil's and Smith's rating from ESPN, they were both 5* and rated as the 11th (Kalil) and 15th (Smith) best players in the country by Rivals.

Very solid post right there.