Which teams developed top-end talent the best from 2010-2014? (247Sports)
247Sports takes a look at which schools were best at developing top-end (by the measure of 247Sports) talent from 2010-2014.
Leaders/best don't finish 23rd right?
So 247 is saying the guys who didn’t get drafted were poorly developed and not poorly ranked?
Must be nice to be right even when you’re wrong.
That's a good point. Still, if true it may mean something else: Some schools evaluate talent better than others. In other words, they have a better sense of which players will develop into NFL prospects. (Of course 247 would never raise that suggestion. They can't risk messing with the absolute faith of people like Maizen.)
Tater made a reasonable point about ranking within the 247. If you look at Alabama's classes, though, it's not like all twenty+ of their players are 5-stars. They're distributed pretty well through the top 247.
April 24th, 2019 at 10:44 AM ^
Some schools are putting a priority on guys who will help them win college games rather than go on to illustrious careers in the NFL. Think Mike Hart
I also took this to mean, “at 247, even when we are wrong, it’s the coaches fault.”
Spoiler: Not us
April 24th, 2019 at 10:52 AM ^
THANKS FOR RUINING IT FOR ME!
I love articles evaluating Michigan during the absolute nadir of our program. Please tell me how bad we were when we had a losing record.
April 24th, 2019 at 11:15 AM ^
Well it's not like the article was targeted at Michigan. It is interesting to me how poorly we developed our guys in that time even though we still recruited relatively well.
The schools who recruit the most players near the top of the top 247 have the highest development percentage. Go figure.
For this to be accurate, it needs to take into account the original position of the players who were recruited. #1 is a lot more likely to "develop" than #247.
April 24th, 2019 at 10:24 AM ^
This was exactly my take as well. I would actually think a school who takes a 2* and turns him into a drafted player would be harder to do, and should be higher ranked on this, than Bama taking 10 of the top 30 and getting them drafted. They were going to be drafter and developed no matter what school they went to. Nothing to see here.
April 24th, 2019 at 10:45 AM ^
Draft stock can be built upon recruiting rankings. It's baked in.
Being a 5 star and not flaming out can get you to the combine. Just look at Byron Cowart. The kid was the #1 overall recruit (which the NFL draft profile mentions), went to Auburn, left after some coaching changes, and ended up at Maryland where he was... fine? 5 TLF and 3 Sacks. But he's still most likely going to be drafted because as an 18 year old people thought he was the next great DE/DT.
If you're a 5 star you start with an advantage because people can always point to that and say "he has potential."
That’s not how I read it. If a school got 1 4 star and he got drafted, they have the advantage. The more 4 and 5 star players that a school recruited, the more of those they had to turn pro. Sure a low 4 star is harder to develop than a high 5 star but this is still an interesting read. Florida sure hasn’t been killing it yet they were #1. There are flaws in any analysis and data can always be cherry picked but I like the concept.
Clemson's team is on PED's.
Hopefully most of that is from Rich Rod & Hoke, but I kinda doubt it as JH's tenure has had a number of highly ranked recruits leave or transfer like Hudson, Solomon, Singleton, Sameuls, Evans, Asiasi, Walker, Crawford, McDoom, Mbem-Bosse, Davis, Irving-Gey, Malone-Hatcher, Hall, St. Juste, etc. That's a lot of dudes.
"2010 - 2014"
The above is the best and most-informative comment on the article.
I think you don't understand the metric being used here. Samuels, Evans, McDoom, Mbem-Bosse, Irving-Bey, Malone-Hatcher, Hall, and St-Juste don't count because they were ranked outside of the top 247 as recruits. Hudson, Solomon, Singleton, Asiasi, Walker, Crawford don't count because they transferred out before their third season. Malone-Hatcher (again) and St-Juste (again) don't count because they medically retired.
Literally not a single player you named will affect 247's rankings here at all. Players that would fit the category that you are proposing:
Brandon Peters (assuming he transfers), Drake Harris, and that's it.
If your point has nothing to do with the article, then you're right.
April 24th, 2019 at 12:45 PM ^
If your point has nothing to do with the article, then you're right.
Ouch. There are better ways to correct an honest mistake. That being said, thank you for providing the explanation.
My bad, didn't mean to come across so harshly. I was honestly just preempting a response about presenting information and not trying to make a point about the 247 rankings themselves with that last statement (with maybe the tiniest bit of snark, admittedly). Text remains bad at conveying tone.
I gotcha...all good :)
April 24th, 2019 at 10:00 AM ^
You joined in January as a highly-touted troll but haven't shown any development.
Can we blame coach D'Antoni?
April 24th, 2019 at 12:44 PM ^
Why do you think I'm a troll? I'm a UM fan. I've been posting here for 8 years. They banned my old screen name because I posted a link from James Yoder, not realizing he was not a reliable source. Obviously my new screen name describes how I felt about that. It was an honest mistake. FWIW the information was true. But, I'm not new, and not a troll. I'm a long time member and UM fan under a new name.
You have to remember that anyone who joined after 2010 is a troll
No, just anyone who joined after November 2010.
:-)
BTW, a few weeks ago one of your posts caused me to wonder if you're a Grand Rapids WC Polish Falcon (as I am, having grown up in GR on the Polish west side.) I think I might have even asked you at the time.
My bad for not having looked at your recent posting history before my post. I'llI neg myself now for what I posted this morning on my first coffee break while at work.
FWIW, though, your post I reacted to was a too bit similar to what Maizen/Mfrank/Old98/Hei2man/etc had/have posted in criticism of recruiting and retention by Harbaugh and his staff. I don't see that in your other posts now that I've taken a look.
My bad for not having looked at your recent posting history before my post.
No worries, apology accepted :)
FWIW, though, your post I reacted to was a too bit similar to what Maizen/Mfrank/Old98/Hei2man/etc had/have posted in criticism of recruiting and retention by Harbaugh and his staff. I don't see that in your other posts now that I've taken a look.
There has to be some criticism for retention IMO. Numbers don't lie, right? But, I'm guessing there's some bad luck too. I don't think recruiting is a problem, unless being behind OSU most of the time is a problem, which for some is. I am hopeful that OSU will revert back to their previous historical norms and UM continues to remain a top 10ish recruiting team. If that happens and we improve our retention we can compete with them, but I don't think we can afford to lose so many highly ranked guys each year and still keep pace. But, I don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops ad nauseam as the others do.
BTW not a GR guy. Was born in AA, but haven't lived in MI for quite some time. I've been in the Northeast most of my life at this point. My old screenname was MGoStrength.
Ahhhhhh....now that I know your former MGoUsername, I was/am aware but not fully aware of your disappearance and your reappearance as MGoEffOff.
Or something like that.
Anyway, welcome back, sorry for your sake that you didn't know Yoder was a banned substance on the board.
Oh, and that GR question of mine---that was intended for "PolishFalcon".
April 24th, 2019 at 10:28 PM ^
Anyway, welcome back, sorry for your sake that you didn't know Yoder was a banned substance on the board.
Thanks, I was a little surprised by it. It seemed like an honest mistake. I emailed the powers that be, but got crickets. Oh well
Maybe one or two Don Brown definition of dudes, a couple disgruntled players, a couple policy violators and a few just looking for more playing time at a smaller school....but all post 2014, and few “highly ranked.”
Two major flaws that jump out at me: (1) No differentiating between players within the Top247. So #1 Rashan Gary as 1st rounder will count the same as #91 Dwayne Haskins as a first rounder. (2) Players outside the Top247 do not count. So #312 Devin Bush being a 1st rounder would mean nothing. Feel free to correct me if I am making any mistakes.
Also means we get no credit for developing guys like Maurice Hurst, Chase Winovich, Ryan Glasgow, and Karan Higdon. Nor likely future drafted players Khaleke Hudson and Josh Uche.
Bit of a nit-pick here, OP, but it would be helpful to mention which sport in the title.
Just did a quick Google Search:
2013 NFL Draft
#1 pick: Eric Fisher from CMU - 2-star
#2 pick: Luke Joekel from Texas A&M - 4-star (top 40 overall)
#3 pick: Dion Jordan from Oregon - 4-star
#4 pick: Lane Johnson from Oklahoma - 2 star
#5 pick: Ziggy Ansah - no HS football so 0-stars - started as track scholarship at BYU
Who get's credit for development in the 247 model? A&M and Oregon.
4roses' earlier comment is dead on. 247 is trying to show that 247 matters.
No differentiation between "developing" the #1-10 overall players or the #237-247 overall players either.
April 24th, 2019 at 12:13 PM ^
This is like saying Calipari at Kentucky is the best coach at developing basketball players. Every year he's having 2-3 players drafted in the first round and all he does is offer them an 8 months college paid vacation until they're draft eligible.
This analysis is only looking at what schools do with their 4-5 stars, it would be interesting to see a separate analysis on 3 stars. Again, having more 4-5 stars doesn’t help you in this as it’s the % of those, not the gross number, that go to the league. No analysis will be perfect but it’s interesting. Bama could argue that their 4 stars didn’t go pro because they sat behind a 5 star for example, but to me it doesn’t make it any less interesting. Still trying to understand FLA at #1.
Edit - Also somewhat surprised Clemson only had 18 players qualify for the ranking as compared to 60 for Alabama. I knew Clemson didn’t light the recruiting world on fire during the time but still thought it would be higher than 18.
Not us
The big surprise here is Florida at no. 1. The next 3 are obvious as they're in the playoff/NC mix every year. The gap between no. 4 & 5 is huge which somewhat explains why those 3 teams have dominated the playoff talk somewhat. Guess we could add Georgia (the last couple of years) to the list as their recruiting has been off the charts.