Recruiting Super Classes and Draft Evals

[ronjon1990]

Has the rise of the recruiting super classes made anyones else alter their evaluations of players? 

For me, it's made me highly skeptical of players from certain programs, many of whom I feel look far better due to the absurd amount of talent around them in comparison to the vast majority of opponents they'll play. 

An example I've used recently was the Raiders drafting Clelin Ferrell a couple of years ago. Personally, I wanted Josh Allen (LB) Ed Oliver (DT), Devin White (LB) that year with the 4th pick and to nab Montez Sweat (DE) with one of our later 1sts. 

My rationale was simple: with the possible exception of Devin White, the other 3 guys were head and shoulders the best players on their respective units, or close to (Sweat and Abram). Ferrell was joined on Clemson's D-line alone with 2 other first round picks. Their D had another 2nd rounder (Mullen), a 4th D-lineman taken within the top 120 picks (Bryant), 2 2020 first rounders (Simmons and Terrell), a 3rd rounder (Muse), and a 4th (Wallace). You get the picture. 

I often say I'd rather have the best player on a mediocre team than the best on a stacked unit. My theory is that often times, teams stacking 4 and 5 star recruits are just better (obviously), but that the players themselves are often a bit hamstrung in reaching their full potential because there's a plethora of talent around them to mask areas in need of improvement. 

Anyone else doing similar evals? Thoughts? Opinions?

Edited December 2, 2020 by ronjon1990

[NoDakViking]

9 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Has the rise of the recruiting super classes made anyones else alter their evaluations of players? 

For me, it's made me highly skeptical of players from certain programs, many of whom I feel look far better due to the absurd amount of talent around them in comparison to the vast majority of opponents they'll play. 

An example I've used recently was the Raiders drafting Clelin Ferrell a couple of years ago. Personally, I wanted Josh Allen (LB) Ed Oliver (DT), Devin White (LB) that year with the 4th pick and to nab Montez Sweat (DE) with one of our later 1sts. 

My rationale was simple: with the possible exception of Devin White, the other 3 guys were head and shoulders the best players on their respective units, or close to (Sweat and Abram). Ferrell was joined on Clemson's D-line alone with 2 other first round picks. Their D had another 2nd rounder (Mullen), a 4th D-lineman taken within the top 120 picks (Bryant), 2 2020 first rounders (Simmons and Terrell), a 3rd rounder (Muse), and a 4th (Wallace). You get the picture. 

I often say I'd rather have the best player on a mediocre team than the best on a stacked unit. My theory is that often times, teams stacking 4 and 5 star recruits are just better (obviously), but that the players themselves are often a bit hamstrung in reaching their full potential because there's a plethora of talent around them to mask areas in need of improvement. 

Anyone else doing similar evals? Thoughts? Opinions?

If a whole O or D is loaded, how would you parse out who the real difference makers are?

[SaveOurSonics]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're depicting. Obviously you're not going to take a guy like Charlotte's Alex Highsmith over someone like Penn State's Yetur Gross Matos (random example, but first that came to mind), just because one has elite production at his level of competition. 

The real test is when you catch those prospects without the elite supporting cast still performing at an elite level against top competition. A notable example that comes to mind is Khalil Mack's performance against Ohio State's Taylor Lewan. 

As far as parsing out lesser prospects from their talented teammates, that's definitely a tricky practice. A great example is Alabama's OLine masking Trent Richardson's horrid vision. Half the battle is being aware that the potential for a rising tide raising the ships of certain prospects exists, so you're on the right track. From there it's understanding what advantages a certain scheme or a certain surrounding cast might have for a prospect. At a simple level, it's the same thing we do with QBs coming from Air Raid schemes. 

I could go into further detail by different positions, but that's my generic response. 

[ScoDucks823]

On 12/1/2020 at 7:33 PM, SaveOurSonics said:

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're depicting. Obviously you're not going to take a guy like Charlotte's Alex Highsmith over someone like Penn State's Yetur Gross Matos (random example, but first that came to mind), just because one has elite production at his level of competition. 

The real test is when you catch those prospects without the elite supporting cast still performing at an elite level against top competition. A notable example that comes to mind is Khalil Mack's performance against Ohio State's Taylor Lewan. 

As far as parsing out lesser prospects from their talented teammates, that's definitely a tricky practice. A great example is Alabama's OLine masking Trent Richardson's horrid vision. Half the battle is being aware that the potential for a rising tide raising the ships of certain prospects exists, so you're on the right track. From there it's understanding what advantages a certain scheme or a certain surrounding cast might have for a prospect. At a simple level, it's the same thing we do with QBs coming from Air Raid schemes. 

I could go into further detail by different positions, but that's my generic response. 

Well said. I think it can definitely be a tie-breaker in some situations. With the Ferrell pick though, I don't think that should have been anywhere near a tie. Ferrell always looked like a guy that would be a very solid pro (for some reason Kyle vanden bosch just came to mind) but not a true game breaker based on athletic limitations. Allen looked like a physical freak (and I believe the combine confirmed that if I'm not mistaken) that could single handedly take over games from multiple spots. Seems like this was the raiders valuing intangibles too highly, despite Allen supposedly having great character himself. 

I would say this is a piece of the greater puzzle that you have to consider, but the eye test should help parse things out. An example that comes to mind is Matt Leinart compared to Joe Burrow. Leinart had an all-world supporting cast and was a fantastic game manager, but the tape showed an average arm and little creativity to make plays when things broke down. Burrow didn't have otherworldly arm talent, but his ability to create from within and outside the pocket made it clear that it wasn't just his surrounding talent making him look good. For me, I think QB is actually one that you can decipher fairly well (based on talent, so much more comes into play when they actually get to the league that may make some kids flop) because they have so much control over the game. Running back can be a harder one unless their vision is absolutely atrocious on tape. 

Overall, definitely something that's tough to decipher but I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule with this, or anything with the draft really. all case by base