Stats on developing players, comparing recruiting rankings to NFL draft results
CollegeFootballData.com tweeted an analysis a couple of days ago of how teams recruit versus how they do in the NFL draft. Michigan was among those that punched way above its weight in the draft (and MSU, among others, for underachieving). Nice to have some hard data to show that we are doing something right, and that we are a good place for recruits to come.
Click through for more details and charts. Maybe the more stats/math-minded folks here can find fault with the numbers, but hopefully this is legit.
Note that this is completely separate from the question of whether we have underachieved on the field (if that's even a question; I don't think anyone here needs fancy charts to conclude that we have).
This would be a lot more meaningful if the y-axis was a composite of # of draft picks and where players are drafted. A 5-star player getting drafted in the 6th round doesn’t really translate to a successful job of developing that player.
While I agree with your premise, I still think the data point to a meaningful trend. I don't think Alabama has a ton of their 5-stars going in the 6th round. Similarly, we don't get many 5-stars for that to happen to, and other than our cursed RBs (which we don't need to rehash here), our 5-stars typically do go high in the draft. DPJ is the one recent exception to come to mind.
I don't think Alabama has a ton of their 5-stars going in the 6th round.
I think this happens to teams like OSU and Bama as well, they just have so many more 5-stars that you don't notice. But, guys like Shuan Wade (5th round) and Justin Hilliard (undrafted) were 5-stars that didn't go high for OSU. Bama also has 5-stars that tranfer like Eyabi Anoma and Ben Davis and 5-stars that don't get drafted high like Dylan Moses (undrafted) and Mack Wilson. (5th round).
Similarly, we don't get many 5-stars for that to happen to, and other than our cursed RBs (which we don't need to rehash here), our 5-stars typically do go high in the draft. DPJ is the one recent exception to come to mind.
I do think programs like Bama & OSU not only get more 5-stars but have a higher hit rate on them. UM does not have a good track record on them. UM has only recruited five 5-stars who have finished their careers at UM since 2010 and another 4 still on their roster. Those five are Gary, Peppers, DPJ, Solomon, and Green. Gary and Peppers were first rounders, Solomon is still at Tennessee, DPJ was a 6th round guy, and Green was undrafted. OSU on the other hand has thirteen 5-stars in the same span and another 13 still on the roster. I don't want to take the time to go through all of them. Some are top picks like Nick Bosa or Jeff Okaduh and others are undrafted or late round guys like Shaun Wade and Justin Hilliard. But, I think they not only have way more guys, but a little better hit rate. If we doubled the number of 5-stars we had it wouldn't be so worrisome when they don't pan out.
I thought the same thing. DPJ was a 5 star WR drafted in the 6th round and he counts the same as Waddle & Smith who went in the top 10 of the draft. I would hardly argue turning a 5 star recruit into a last day draft pick was "overachieving". And I'm sure DPJ and his agent would agree.
Without adjusting the data for which round the player was chosen this graph and the conclusions the author draws are meaningless.
Calling it meaningless is a bit harse in my opinion but I largely agree with your take.
I first impression of the chart was being reminded of the old phrase:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Michigan seems to be doing a decent job getting players drafted, but seems like it's weighted to the back half. I hope this basic analysis becomes group think that Michigan is a great choice to get you into NFL but in my opinion it's too simplistic.
Wonder how transfers in and out of Michigan count in this graph, maybe it's a wash for Michigan I can think of one transfer into program and one out of the program to get drafted.
Harse my arse.
Michigan seems to get a fair number of players drafted, but doesn't seem to get the production on the field / team results that one would think would correlate to having the amount of players drafted that they do.
How about we put less people in the draft but get more wins!
Alabama is #1 on the list.
Go for more wims.
Go for more players in the draft.
What we have been counting on, all this time, is more wims.
You need to put more players in the NFL to attract more players in the future. Why would you go to a college if they can't help you get a job?
So what Michigan doing is fine. Now translating some of those players into collegiate success would be great.
Your reasoning is fine, but that would hurt schools that consistently get 5 stars like Alabama and OSU. We do not get enough 5 stars or even top 100 guys to a point where them getting drafted in 5th or 6th round is a huge disappointment. If anything else, this is under-rating our effectiveness in identifying talent.
We do not get enough 5 stars or even top 100 guys to a point where them getting drafted in 5th or 6th round is a huge disappointment. If anything else, this is under-rating our effectiveness in identifying talent.
Can you explain that? I think it's a big problem when our 5-stars either go late or undrafted like DPJ or Patterson and also a problem when guys like Gary go in the 1st round, but with modest college production. That would seem to indicate DPJ and Patterson were not deserving of their 5-star recruiting status and we mis-IDed them and Gary was supremely talented, but we failed to develop him. That sounds like a bad deal for our effectiveness in IDing (and developing) talent, no?
That is not the point I am addressing. What the op was saying was that because if a 5 star guy is considered a hit even if he underperforms and get drafted in 5th or 6th round in this analysis, it is not accurate because that really should be considered a miss.
What I was saying was that even if our 5 star guys are ending up with low draft positions, it really is not much of a problem for us since we do not have many 5 star guys to make it a significant part of our hits. Most of our hits are guys who were moderately recruited out of high school and have performed above their high school ratings (at least compared to other schools).
With such low number of 5 stars that we had, statistically there is really no arguments to be made either way. It is just probably the way dice rolled.
What this chart is showing is that our coaching staff has been better than rating entities like 24/7 or Scout in identifying talent and have done a decent job of developing them. The fact that our records are not quite as good based on that talent is another story.
What I was saying was that even if our 5 star guys are ending up with low draft positions, it really is not much of a problem for us since we do not have many 5 star guys to make it a significant part of our hits. Most of our hits are guys who were moderately recruited out of high school and have performed above their high school ratings (at least compared to other schools).
Agreed, we have lots of Bush, Winovich, Runyan Jr, Uche types that are lower 4-star or 3-star guys that overachieve.
With such low number of 5 stars that we had, statistically there is really no arguments to be made either way. It is just probably the way dice rolled.
Sure, small sample sizes make finding trends difficult.
What this chart is showing is that our coaching staff has been better than rating entities like 24/7 or Scout in identifying talent and have done a decent job of developing them. The fact that our records are not quite as good based on that talent is another story.
Yeah, that last part for me is the depressing part. It's great to see guys be successful in the NFL and get drafted, but I'm not really a big NFL fan. At the end of the day I want so see wins on Saturdays, not Sundays. I just want to enjoy watching UM again where we feel like we have a chance to beat everyone on the schedule and there are 8 games that are pretty much guaranteed victories every year. Granted, sometimes that means we're 8-4 and other times 12-0, with maybe more 8-4, 9-3, or 10-2 than 11-1 or 12-0, but with some signature wins and wins over OSU. That's my expectation of life with the Moellar and Carr teams I grew up with. I'd like that back.
Bama's 5 star LB didn't get drafted this year. Very good article about these things:
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/recruiting/five-star-recruits-and-the-nfl-draft
The draft success rate for five-stars ranked between No. 1-15 is much higher than those ranked 16th or lower. Almost half of the players ranked between No. 1-15 were drafted in the first two rounds while just 27.6% went in the seventh round or did not get drafted. Almost half (49.5%) of the five-stars ranked 16th or lower went in the seventh round or were not drafted, while just 29.5% were taken in the first two rounds.
The draft success rate for five-stars ranked between No. 1-15 is much higher than those ranked 16th or lower. Almost half of the players ranked between No. 1-15 were drafted in the first two rounds while just 27.6% went in the seventh round or did not get drafted. Almost half (49.5%) of the five-stars ranked 16th or lower went in the seventh round or were not drafted, while just 29.5% were taken in the first two rounds.
I do think we have a slightly worse hit rate on our 5-stars than programs like Bama & OSU, but I think the larger problem is they just get so much more of them. In reality we've given up on competing with those guys. We're just looking for our superior recruiting rankings to pan out into beating PSU, Wiscy, & MSU more consistently. I think we'd all settle for 2nd in the conference to OSU, 11-1 win regular seasons, and Rose Bowl births even if we don't make the playoffs nor beat OSU.
Ok but Kwity was barely a 3 star who went first round. There are still a lot of teams on there who have tons of 4 and 5 stars and aren't producing nearly as many draft picks in any rounds. It could definitely be improved but it's also definitely not meaningless. More draft picks than Georgia. And for a college program I'd take quantity of guys who can get drafted over top-heavy quality.
That's a fair point--a weighted average would be more meaningful. Or looking not at draft picks but instead at how many players made it onto a roster, or were starters. (Note that doing that would add back in guys like Ben Braden and Brandon Watson, who weren't drafted.)
That said, this chart does distinguish not getting drafted at all, which is important too.
I checked the numbers and even if you didn't count any of our guys who didn't go until the 5th or 6th round (while still counting everyone else's), we'd still be a bit above the line. And doing that would delete Mo Hurst, Khaleke Hudson, DPJ, Jon Runyan, Josh Metellus, and Jordan Glasgow...
More meaningful still: Specify a model where draft outcomes are predicted by high school recruiting profile, with an additional team-level predictor, the estimated coefficient for which would give you a direct estimate of which teams are better and worse at turning high school recruits into NFL prospects. An additional benefit of this sort of model is that it lends itself easily to breaking things down by position. (still an imperfect model, tho; a 3-star recruit with a commitable offer from Bama is probably going to have better NFL prospects than his mid-tier brethren, regardless of where he actually plays...)
Your's is an interesting and good suggestion. Surprised it has not been done.
I actually think the big simple chart up top is a good stab at the question that's being asked: for a given class of recruits, how many go to the NFL? Using class rankings as dependent variable allows for over performing 3 Stars (Kwity!) and under achieving 5 stars (can't think of any!).
May 5 stars flame out completely in college. Harbaugh hasn't gotten a lot of 5-stars, but they tend to make the League. Gary, Peppers, and DPJ. Dax Hill is on the path to being drafted. Ambry had one very solid second season and still made it as a third rounder sitting out a year.
What you don't see is how many OSU and Alabama 5s and high 4s are processed/transfer/flop. If you want to change the premise of the chart so that it makes it easier to rail at Harbaugh, at least consider changing the direction of the argument in the right direction for those who must belabor their ire.
You imply DPJ was not developed, but Kwity's first round status cancels that out. How many LS get drafted?
I'm a DPJ fan, but how can people blame the coaches for his inability to break long runs more consistently on screens or on returns? They would force feed him the ball and he rarely had moments. Shea's inaccuracy was only part of that, because they tried short routes with him but he wasn't explosive out of his cuts like Smith and Waddle.
The players better not have the mentality of the fans--Nico sure didn't in an interview on Jim, where he credits the coach for getting him to the NFL. No player who blames their coach is going far in their sport. Fans aren't going far, either.
You imply DPJ was not developed, but Kwity's first round status cancels that out.
Still too many variables to look at this properly.
Without the maize and blue blinders on, Kwity got drafted on potential. Not that Michigan developed him. Scouts have specifically said he needs to be coached up to make it at the next level and that he was not utilized correctly at Michigan.
More meaningful how? I think this analysis is confusing to a lot of readers because it contradicts the results on the field. But if the conclusion is already decided - that Michigan doesn't do a good job developing players and tallying enough wins - I don't think we need a chart to show that.
I think we take this analysis at face value, very simply that Harbaugh's program is objectively strong at putting players in the NFL.
So only LSU, OSU, and Bama have had more draft picks than us? This does not make me feel good.
Good point, but this chart doesn’t distinguish between 1st and 2nd rounders vs 5th and 6th round guys. If it did, I’m guessing we’d be light years behind those teams, and probably quite a few others as well.
A fair measure, then, would be looking at roster spots rather than draft picks. We fare pretty well there too, as of the start of last season:
Alabama 56
Ohio State 50
LSU 41
Florida 39
Michigan 33
Georgia 32
Penn State 32
Miami (Fla.) 30
Clemson 29
Notre Dame 29
Oklahoma 29
This list plus on the field success makes me sad.
Alabama had 6 players drafted in the 1st round. So yes.
Mac Jones was a too skinny 3 star.
He was a 4 star on 247 composite.
4 star by Rivals
Jones is rated as a four-star prospect, the No. 14 pocket passer in the nation and the No. 284 overall prospect in the nation by 247Sports Composite Ratings
We’ve had a lot of non-impact positions drafted (guys like Ben Mason) and have severely lacked the high end draft picks with skill positions. which is probably where you see the biggest gap between Michigan and the upper tier teams.
Look at positions like QB, RB, WR, or DB. Those top tier teams have guys at those positions getting drafted high pretty much every season. You can count on one hand how many Michigan has had from those positions go in the first three rounds.
In today’s college game where it’s all about the high octane offenses and out scoring your opponent in shootouts, that’s a huge reason Michigan hasn’t been super successful.
I wouldn't put DB in the same category as the rest of these.
We've put plenty of guys in the NFL at DB - Ambry (3rd), Jourdan Lewis (3rd), David Long (3rd), plus several later round guys who have stuck in the league like Lavert Hill, Josh Mettelus, Jarrod Wilson, Brandon Watson, etc.
DB is probably the most important position in terms of slowing down those high octane offenses. Look at our last couple games against OSU. Look at our bowl game against Bama. Look at the WRs Bama has sent to the NFL the past two years. Look at the last couple OSU recruiting classes. Now tell me with a straight face that a third round pick every other year and a couple UDFAs is enough.
Now look at all the DBs being in the first three rounds (hell, you could save yourself some time and just look at the first round) by teams like Bama and OSU. They’re head and shoulders ahead of Michigan.
I’m not saying we’ve had bad corners or we haven’t been sending any to the NFL. But you’re kidding yourself if you think we’re in the same conversation with Bama and OSU in that regard, and with its importance in modern football, that’s a huge part of us being behind those programs. We simply aren’t getting/producing the quantity or quality of players at the high impact positions to compete with the big boys, so we’re left behind in that 2nd tier with teams we’re roughly .500 against.
It’s not an issue of just getting guys to the league. Michigan simply isn’t getting, and isn’t producing, the quality of NFL bound prospects. You can toot your horn all day long about Michigan having 8 guys drafted and that being right up there with the big boys. But we all just saw Bama have that many players go in the first two rounds. We can’t sit here and pretend it’s the same thing.
The Quarterback production and or injuries, shows us comparatively being dwarfed in offensive production by the competition. This is, in part the reason, for late draft of our receivers IMO.
So we are very good at finding and recruiting talent but obviously there is a gap in scheming it. I also wonder how much of michigan's draft success is due to staff NFL connections that get guys drafted in the later rounds
Is Iowa State between Northwestern and Syracuse? Asking for a friend.
They’re actually down by Illinois and Rutgers. Which makes the job Matt Campbell has done with that program even more impressive.
FWIW, this data would be from when Campbell was first taking over, and before he really started turning them around. So the fruits of his labor havent been realized yet (their offense alone features three likely draft picks over the next couple seasons)
One thing that really bugged me about the Draft was the analysts, mostly Kiper, kept harping on how Kwity Paye needed to be "coached up".
The guy was a 3 star recruit, ranked ~500 in the country IIRC. By all intents and purposes, he wasn't even supposed to be in the position he's in. He was "coached up" into a 1st Round NFL Draft Pick. On top of his work ethic and athletic gifts, obviously.
Just something that bugged me.
Michigan gets guys to the NFL. That much is clear. Now let's get some big wins while those guys are in Ann Arbor. It's possible.
It seems like Harbaugh’s tenure has been riddled with heartbreaking losses in relation to glorious victories.
Sometimes the ball doesn’t bounce your way and sometimes you need to make your own breaks. I feel the truth is somewhere in between.
Momentum is a real thing.
It would be pretty interesting to have this as a pivot chart and be able to look at it separately by draft round and by recruiting stars.
I think it would show M does a good job making 3s and 4s draftable, but the 5* talent gap at the top is what's really driving a 6-team universe of playoff participants with 3 committed slots out of 4 every year.
Something very nice to show recruits. Jim Harbaughs W-L record here isnt what I wished for. But he's doing great picking coaches that get players into the NFL.
Stats on developing players, comparing recruiting rankings to NFL draft results.
I think this is implying that developing players means good NFL drafts. I disagree. NFL drafting is closer to player development than recruiting rankings are, but both are more about potential rather than production. Development at some point has to turn into production and wins. I'm concerned about college production, wins, or final rankings in the polls compared to recruiting rankings, not draft picks. I'd way rather have a highly productive college player who's skills don't translate to the NFL like JT Barrett than guys with great potential that produce in college below their ability like DPJ. So, when I see JH's teams averaging at top 11 recruiting class over his tenure, but only one year that matched that ranking in the post season polls (2016) while having two years with top 20 talent and going unranked I'm thinking guys are underachieving at UM and not being developed enough.
At the end of the day it's nice to hear about Tom Brady's success in the NFL, but what we really want are some wins at UM. The NFL draft is still more about potential rather than production as guys with potential will still get taken high and the coaches at the next level will be responsible for developing them ala Gary. I want to see our coaches develop them and turn them into productive players at UM, which will turn into wins and eventually championships.
If you don't care about it that's fine but also keep in mind that recruits may very much care how successful a program is getting players drafted. So it is relevant.
If you don't care about it that's fine but also keep in mind that recruits may very much care how successful a program is getting players drafted. So it is relevant.
That's only relevant in getting them here. We're already doing that quite well. That's not the problem. The problem is turning that into college production and wins. They also care about going to the playoffs and winning championships.
Now compare win and loss record vs draft picks.
I'm surprised we are so far above the curve considering we normally recruit in the top 10 anyway. We've definitely gotten some guys into the league who IIRC were under the radar recruiting-wise. I think most of these guys were 3* range or lower coming out:
Ryan Glasgow, Jehu Chesson, Jeremy Clark, Mo Hurst, Devin Bush, Zach Gentry, Josh Uche, Khaleke, Jon Runyan Jr, Metellus. Jordan Glasgow, Kwity, and probably some others.
Scouting and development has been pretty good. Results on the field have obviously been somewhat disappointing
Where's Alaba..... ohhhh.
Another interesting angle to this would be how long those drafted stay in the NFL. That's a whole other can of worms as some positions have shorter NFL tenures than others. Also, injuries, which can happen to the very best.
Woof. Tennessee's gonna need much bigger McDonald's bags once recruits see this. They're recruiting at the level of Oklahoma, ND, and (almost) Clemson, but getting players drafted at about the same rate as Temple.