[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting... lots of recruits there who were not as well regarded who did great things (for example, Justin Reid and David DeCastro are 107 and 109 over the last 18 years).

So, is this phenomenon most reflective of:
- the quality of 247Sports evaluations?
- the ability of our staff to find under-appreciated players?
- the development process in the program?
- the overall level of randomness of the whole process?


[Note, those middle two items don't necessarily imply that the program is necessarily good at those things, but rather that the number of less well regarded players who do great things is a function of those abilities. To determine whether Stanford is relatively good or bad at the process would require a comparative analysis to other teams.]

Yes.  All of the above, though I would probably de-emphasize 2 and 3.  A lot of schools have examples of players with more modest recruiting profiles who went on to star.

Recruiting rankings are an imperfect guide.  Higher rated recruits are more likely to do well, but it is hardly guaranteed.  Of the top-10 recruits who have already graduated, only Craven is a clear bust.  Kwame Harris, Kyle Murphy, Trent Edwards, Solomon Thomas, Julian Jenkins, and Andrus Peat were all multi-year starters; most were all-Pac-12, and most were drafted into the NFL.

The bottom 10 include Denzel Franklin, JB Salem, and Tyler Mabry, but also Richard Sherman(!), Jarek Lancaster, Johny Caspers, and Josh Mauro.  Sherman I think is the only one to make it to the NFL (but probably has had the most impressive career of a Stanford alum since 2000).  Lancaster was a multi-year starter and at least Pac-12 honorable mention, Caspers and Mauro were starters or significant contributors.  Overall, the bottom 10 is not as accomplished as the top-10, but the difference is probably not as great as you might have thought it would be, and any given player has a shot at being a star.

BC