I watched the RBs and QBs do the 40 last night. CJ Spiller ran a 4.29 :eek2:, while Jahvid Best ran a 4.34. Sick, just sick. I don't recall Spiller having that speed, when we played Clemson. Is it just me??
He was pretty fast when he returned a second half KO against Bama in '07 . 95-96 yards :eek2: JMO but I do not view Spiller as being a durable , every down NFL back .
Below is a stance for public consumption ..........
For those who do not know what the star system is (And Gmart, not calling you out but this is the most recent post on the matter):
The star system is not a gauge of talent. It is a gauge of immediate impact to a team. A 5 star player can sign out of high school and make a direct impact on any team. A 1 star player is projected to need years of coaching to make an impact... potentially his junior or senior year.
The reason you see a lot of 2 and 1 star players in the combine is because these guys are just now coming into their own. A 5 star might max out in college and not get really better. A 1 and 2 star player is just now entering that point of development, plus he's already shown that he is very coachable (Big, big issue there).
A 1 star player can be just as talented as a 5 star player... it's just a matter of how long that talent will take to show.
...... which is not so .
First , there is no such thing as a 1* player . What this usually means
early on is that the recruiting outlets saw where a new name signed up for a camp or combine and this is all they know about the player . Many of these types are eventually deleted from the prospect databases . When it's
late in the process , it means the services have no idea as to who the prospect is but he has either recently received a couple of quality D1 offers or some visits from BCS level coaches . So , the player is given 1 star and added to the database instead of offering up an honest or lengthier answer .
Second , a 2* player is somewhat known and may have even been seen in person at a camp or combine but has few to no high-end offers and the recruiting outlets have no film available to even evaluate the prospect . Again , a # is assigned in place of an honest or lengthier answer .
That's the truth behind the lack of stars for some prospects and the real reasons why .
Also , sorry to burst the company line but , the star system is indeed intended to guage talent . Anyone who says differently probably has a rather lengthy record of misses with an even longer list of excuses . Guaging talent is the very reason the systems were created in the first place .
To say "It is a gauge of immediate impact to a team." is laughable because no 2 two teams are the same when it comes to how a prospect would fit in a particular system and would not be able , in any way , to account for the # of players ahead of a particular prospect at his position . Yet the #'s/stars given are "across the board" ratings . I guess when someone chooses this line of thought , if anyone actually believes it , they could always say every prospect who was a bust , by their own assigned rating , @ "school A" would've been a 5* @ "school B" and vice-versa . Makes for a nice "out" though
There is a lot of manure in the recruiting game and , as always , I'll be more than happy to answer any and all questions as to the meaning behind any of it .