2022 tOSU Recruiting Discussion

[Oh8ch]

Far from a deep dive, but here are OL drafted in the first two rounds this year. Column 1 is draft position, column 2 is 247 ranking.

7-57
13-653
14-114
17-4*
23-1848
37-31*
39-1011
42-80
45-9
46-17
48-116
51-1123
53-3828
62-53
63-294

The two * above are Bama recruits, which is a stat they are probably showing their targets.

62-53 is Josh Meyer

 

[buchtelgrad04]

Far from a deep dive, but here are OL drafted in the first two rounds this year. Column 1 is draft position, column 2 is 247 ranking.

7-57
13-653
14-114
17-4*
23-1848
37-31*
39-1011
42-80
45-9
46-17
48-116
51-1123
53-3828
62-53
63-294

The two * above are Bama recruits, which is a stat they are probably showing their targets.

62-53 is Josh Meyer

I posted this in a thread over the summer when we were having our semi-annual royal rumble over Stud’s recruiting chops. I didn’t go much deeper, but it seems like it’ll be fun to do a deep dive when I get some time.

The NFL draft shows you every year that OL recruiting is a crapshoot. Look at recruiting rankings. Just pick a year since 2013 or 14 and see how many of the top 5 OT’s were drafted in the first round. At a premium position, by the way. Heck, in the class of 2015 none of the top 5 guys were even drafted at all and there were 12 OT’s taken in the three 1st rounds that they would’ve been eligible. 2018, ‘19, and ‘20.

 

[HotMic]

I think saying “see how low these guys were ranked” in terms of the draft is a bit of a straw man argument. The odds of a lower-ranked guy achieving individual success is going to be exponentially higher based on sheer numbers alone. Of course there’s going to be some lower ranked guys who make the NFL, but you’re also pulling from a pool of 3000 players compared to the 350 or so 5-4 stars.

It’s been proven time and time again that success in recruiting leads to success on the field.

 

[buchtelgrad04]

I think saying “see how low these guys were ranked” in terms of the draft is a bit of a straw man argument. The odds of a lower-ranked guy achieving individual success is going to be exponentially higher based on sheer numbers alone. Of course there’s going to be some lower ranked guys who make the NFL, but you’re also pulling from a pool of 3000 players compared to the 350 or so 5-4 stars.

It’s been proven time and time again that success in recruiting leads to success on the field.

As a whole, yes. But OL recruiting is a different animal. Again, I haven’t looked but I’m willing to bet that the higher ranked OL’s don’t find success at the same rate as highly ranked players at other positions.

 

[Buckeye86]

I think saying “see how low these guys were ranked” in terms of the draft is a bit of a straw man argument. The odds of a lower-ranked guy achieving individual success is going to be exponentially higher based on sheer numbers alone. Of course there’s going to be some lower ranked guys who make the NFL, but you’re also pulling from a pool of 3000 players compared to the 350 or so 5-4 stars.

It’s been proven time and time again that success in recruiting leads to success on the field.

And the point being made here is that probably doesn’t apply as much for OL as it does for every other position because it’s much harder to project OL from HS to college.

 

[HotMic]

And the point being made here is that probably doesn’t apply as much for OL as it does for every other position because it’s much harder to project OL from HS to college.

In this year’s draft 10 of the 15 OL drafted in rounds 1-2 ranked in the top 300.

 

[jwinslow]

I think saying “see how low these guys were ranked” in terms of the draft is a bit of a straw man argument. The odds of a lower-ranked guy achieving individual success is going to be exponentially higher based on sheer numbers alone. Of course there’s going to be some lower ranked guys who make the NFL, but you’re also pulling from a pool of 3000 players compared to the 350 or so 5-4 stars.

It’s been proven time and time again that success in recruiting leads to success on the field.

It certainly does, and most responses to start rankings are going to be semi anecdotal unless you're looking at thousands of kids in a more useful analysis.

It's a question if there's a lot more variance at the o-line position like it feels like there is. Not that anybody wants to bet on the odds of bowling Green let alone southwestern Jose State over the rivals 100 guys. But it seems like the floor is a lot lower at that position compared to some others.

 

[HotMic]

In 2020 six of the nine OL drafted in the first two rounds ranked as a 4 star or higher, with a 7th knocking on the door:

4 - 45
10 - 34
11 - 405
13 - 331
18 - 35
24 - 47
29 - 16
39 - 3212
58 - 1812

 

[HotMic]

QB in the 2021 draft was an eye opener:

1 - 1
2 - 958
3 - 2004
11 - 2
64 - 2123

 

[Jaxbuck]

I agree that the "stars don't matter?" thing can become a straw man. The challenges to Stud's recruiting chops come from the fact he is clearly identifying certain guys, putting them higher on the board/recruiting them harder than others...then missing. Sure he's had some develop well and saved us from any problems so far but that isn't the point.

"Why are you missing on the guys you identified as the guys you wanted and then prioritized?" is the question I'd be asking him if he worked for me. It's great that your fall back guys have panned out but that doesn't seem like an optimal strategy at a place like OSU. In fact it just isn't. There is no "really" about it.

 

[RB07OSU]

Well, this probably makes @HotMic point, but only 1 of our 5 starters on our OL was a fallback option. NPF and PJ Sr were highly ranked 5 stars. Miller was a 5 star and Wypler was a highly ranked 4 star at center. M Jones was a top 100 overall player at guard. Munford was a 4 star but was definitely not option A. Dawand was like option E and is the prototypical diamond in the rough. However, our best OL were mostly highly rated, while a lot of our lower ranked guys that weren't the first option have transferred or got buried in the depth chart.

 

[shetuck]

Maybe with OL recruits there's much more drop-off (post development) going from 5* to a 4* and an even wider drop off from 4 to 3 compared to the same ranking-to-skill differentials is in other positions.

Maybe the skill positions are easier to grade while OL guys are more difficult to judge and rate. Maybe the skills for OL recruits are much more nuanced than what's much more obvious in a QB or a WR or an RB.

So maybe the issue isn't the ranking system, but the objectively "assessable" skills for OL recruits.

 

[HotMic]

 

[ScriptOhio]

 

[LordJeffBuck]