Your UCLA NFL draft briefing

This year: Three Bruins were drafted and another five will at least be going to training camp with an NFL team.

Go figure: An interesting forum post found that 10 first-rounders in this draft were given two stars or fewer coming out of high school (by at least one of the top recruiting services).

Drafted Bruins:

• Bruce Davis (OLB)  — Pittsburgh — 3rd round, 35th pick (88th overall)
  • Post-Gazette article
  • Conference call transcript
  • Davis would play end in a 4-3 defensive set, but projects to be an outside linebacker in the Steeler's 3-4
• Matthew Slater (WR/KR) — New England  — 5th round, 18th pick (153rd overall)
  • Globe article
  • Conference call transcript
  • Local blogs are impressed by his reputation, speed, and lineage.
• Christopher Horton (S) — Washington  — 7th round, 42nd pick (249th overall)
  • Post article (not much to read)

Free-agent Bruins:

• Dennis Keyes (S) — Arizona (deal)
• Brandon Breazell (WR) — Kansas City (2-year deal)
• Trey Brown (CB) — Chicago (deal)
• Chris Markey (RB) — Chicago (mini-camp invite)
• Kevin Brown (DT)  — Seattle (mini-camp invite)

 

Comments

[Michael in Vegas]

Adam - thank you for that very interesting note on the HS star ratings for this year's First Round NFL draftees. The first thing I noticed was most of the guys who had low ratings coming out of high school had to go to smaller colleges.

Overall, I think the list demonstrates several inherent flaws in rating the impact 15-, 16- and 17-year-old boys will have when they begin playing college football:

1. Some people mature earlier and have already peaked physically when they are sophomores or juniors in high school. Late bloomers often cannot earn more than two stars even after strong senior seasons.
2. Some kids look better than they are because they play on a great team. Great players on poor teams have trouble getting attention.
3. A player might be stuck behind a star who is the same age or one year older, and not get much playing time.
4. Each level up (HS to college, college to NFL) requires significantly more dedication, on and off the field. Guys who dominated their league in HS on pure athletic ability or size sometimes don't cope well with having to dig deeper to succeed as a D-I football player against guys as fast/big/athletic as them.
5. Finally, the scouting services often are influenced by the recruiting process, leading to skewed ratings. I've seen numerous articles over the years spotlighting the rankings of the four or five preceeding recruiting classes after a team unexpectedly wins a National Championship (e.g. Clemson in 1981, BYU in 1984, Georgia Tech in 1990). Usually, the classes prior to the NC are ranked low or not at all. After a championship, ratings go up significantly -- which could mean the school is attracting better talent, or it also could mean the services suddenly are paying more attention. There are numerous examples of kids who are consensus two or three stars, who then get an offer from Florida or Ohio State or another traditional power, and suddenly become elevated to four or five stars. If the big school is interested, the thinking goes, then the player must be better than we thought.

For all of these reasons, any enthusiasm over landing a highly rated recruit should be tempered. Every coach says it takes two to three years to evaluate a recruiting class, and they are correct. Winning a recruiting "championship" is fun, but it is only on paper.

Last thought: I was a little concerned about the hype surrounding UCLA's four basketball recruits (were their rankings bumped up because UCLA was recruiting them?), but I feel better having seen them play recently.

Go Bruins!

Michael in Vegas