Recruiting Rankings: Great For Defensive Backs, Not So Great For Offensive Linemen

College Football season is over. Signing Day is almost here. Coaches are traversing the country, social media-ing up a storm, and climbing trees. Fans, fueled by cottage industry fervor, are fretting about that one 17-year-old who will make or break their football program. Much will be made about “five stars” and “the recruiting rankings.” We felt the timing was optimal for a closer look.

We examined the last five classes who have gone through a complete cycle (2007-11) using the 247 Composite. As a rough gauge of “five-star” we looked at the Top 20 recruits in each class and how they worked out.

On aggregate, “the rankings” did well. From that top 20, an average of 13.4 recruits (67 percent) were drafted or made an NFL roster, 6.8 recruits (34 percent) were drafted in the first two rounds, 9.4 recruits (47 percent) made an All-Conference team, and 4.6 (23 percent) made an All-American team.

Projecting high school juniors is not exact. Those broad numbers impress, more so when one factors in nearly a ten percent attrition rate among those players due to legal, drugs, or injury issues.

Viewing position by position, it’s clear the rankings have some positions locked down far better than others.

Defensive rankings proved more accurate than offensive ones. Thirty-eight of 45 Top 20 defensive recruits (84 percent) made the NFL in some fashion. Twenty-six (58 percent) were drafted in the first four rounds. On offense, only 29 of 55 (53 percent) reached the NFL. Just 19 of 55 (35 percent) were drafted in the first four rounds. Twelve of 45 defensive players were first round picks (27 percent). Six of 55 offensive players (11 percent) were first round picks.

Recruiting rankings were dead on for the secondary. Six of the 11 defensive backs in the Top 20 (55 percent) were first round draft picks. Only one missed the NFL. They did quite well for linebackers and defensive linemen too. Eight of 12 linebackers (67 percent) were chosen in the first four rounds. Only two missed the league. Eleven of 22 defensive linemen (50 percent) were picked in the first four rounds. Only four missed the NFL.

Offense was another story. Wide receivers followed the defensive pattern. Nine of the 20 receivers were selected in the first two rounds. Fourteen (70 percent) made it to the NFL. Five of the six offensive first-round picks who were Top 20 overall recruits were wide receivers.

Quarterback predictions were way off from an NFL perspective. Two of the Top 20 quarterbacks ended up being chosen in the first three rounds, Jimmy Clausen and Terrelle Pryor. Tyrod Taylor, selected in the sixth round, has turned out to be the most successful of the former Top 20 ranked QBs at the NFL level, based off one solid season last year.

But, they were better from a college one. Six of 11 quarterback recruits developed into good college quarterbacks: Matt Barkley, Aaron Murray, and Ryan Mallett joining Taylor, Clausen and Pryor.

Running back projections were a major miss. Only one of the 13, Trent Richardson was chosen in the first two rounds (and he was a major bust). Only four (31 percent) were drafted. Seven (54 percent) never reached the NFL.

Offensive linemen fared the worst. There were nine who were Top 20 recruits. Six missed the NFL entirely. Only two were drafted. One of those was Seantrel Henderson, a throw away pick in the 7th round. Alabama’s Cyrus Kouandjio, a second round pick, was the only solid NFL Draft prospect. La’el Collins being question free would have been the second.

One hundred recruits is not a huge sample. But, those results concur with common sense. Recruiting analysts look at film and camp performances. Physical attributes – size, speed, and athleticism – are apparent. Mental attributes are less so. It should not surprise the rankings do better at positions where physical attributes are imperative, such as defensive back and wide receiver. Those are also positions where NFL teams will err on the side of athleticism.

Running back may be an exceptional case. Bad injuries (see: Lattimore, Marcus) and overuse can affect draft stock. The position changes from high school to college, and again from college to the NFL. Great college backs make a guy miss in space and take it to the house. The NFL values running backs less. Most are interchangeable and expendable. Runners that endure are powerful, shifty in tight spaces, and have great vision to get four or five yards when you need three. It’s hard to see that from a D-1 prospect overwhelming high school defenders.

Quarterback and offensive line can be complicated. For the quarterback, accuracy and arm strength show up in drills. Football intelligence, pocket awareness, and poise only show on the field. There’s a lot that needs to happen between college and the NFL, and the NFL has different standards.

Offensive linemen take two to three years to develop. Players must master schemes and intricate technique. Most players undergo radical body transformations (adding 30lbs, losing 30lbs, relocating 30lbs). Ranking them is a lot of body frames, scholarship offers, and guess work.

There are not many people who have a masterful understanding of quarterback play and offensive line technique. Those that do are employed by NFL teams and major college programs. Even they don’t have a high return rate. The finest football minds selected Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, and Christian Ponder in the first 12 picks in 2011.

So, what do we make of all this? Recruiting rankings are an interesting tool. On aggregate, they are helpful (very helpful for certain positions.) Don’t dismiss them out of hand. Don’t invest them with undue importance.

Maybe that one 17-year-old will make your program a contender. But, if someone is assuring you the kid will, he/she is probably hyping a recruiting service. Be triply skeptical if said 17-year-old an offensive tackle.