Unverified Voracity Overrates Texas Linemen Comment Count

Brian

Justin Boren too pretty 
development: Boren does not haz it. brilliant photoshop via TTB

Development. A killer post on BHGP analyses schools' NFL draft performance relative to what you'd expect given their recruiting rankings. The conclusions:

  • Stars matter. No surprise. Guys with five stars are more than four times more likely to be drafted than those with three.
  • Michigan is average. They've had 21 draftees and expected 20.6. This places them 29th amongst 66 BCS teams. I'd bet Michigan would have done very well if this study focused on a time period five years earlier; in my imagination their "development ratio" starts off near OSU's, gradually drops as the OL degrades late in the Carr era, and implodes in the aftermath of massive attrition under Rodriguez.
  • USC, Ohio State, and Iowa outperform. Interesting diversity at the top, as the #1 school is also the #1 recruiting school—impressive—and three through five are Iowa, Cal, and Wake Forest. Clemson is sixth, further proving that the Tigers have been the worst-coached BCS team of the last decade.
  • Duke sucks. Duke sucks.
  • U-S-BIGTEN. I'm going to gank this chart:

    Rank Conference Recruits Drafted BCS Expectation Development Ratio
    1 Big Ten 172 150.4 114%
    2 Pac 12 166 152.0 109%
    3 Big East 94 87.8 107%
    4 ACC 183 177.2 103%
    5 SEC 216 223.8 96%
    6 Big 12 157 189.7 82%
    7 Non-BCS 121 295.4 40%

    If you're interested in going to the NFL, avoid the Big 12 and head north. Also, I'm guessing that non-BCS number suggest that Rivals' drilldown rankings (e.g., three stars being rated 5.5, 5.6, or 5.7) have some merit.
  • U-S-RICHROD. West Virginia has the highest "win ratio" amongst BCS teams despite not sending anyone to the league, and while that's an artifact of being the best team in the Big East over the period surveyed WHY DID YOU HIRE GERG AARGH

I have a slight beef: study author UpUpDownDown looks at these numbers strictly through the lens of player development. He breaks conference numbers down further into offense and defense, and then further breaks down offense into skill and offensive line, finding the Big Ten murders everyone on the OL and on D while the Big 12 struggles immensely in those two categories. This is attributed to playstyle, specifically the Big 12's addiction to passing spreads.

I think there may another element at work: scouting services overrating certain sections of the country and underrating others, particularly the Midwest. Rivals (the source of the rankings used) doesn't even have a Midwest analyst. Meanwhile, OL rankings are particularly inaccurate since many high school kids need to put on 50 pounds before they can play in college. The flipside—skill position players more easily projectable—sees a much, much lower spread amongst conferences. The worst-performing conference is the ACC at 94% of expectation; the best is the Big East at 108%. That's a much lower spread than you see in the D and OL numbers, one that looks like an even distribution distorted by a little randomness.

If there was a regional bias in recruiting rankings, hard-to-evaluate OL would be the place it would show up most prominently. I think there is. Your ratings are just wrong when Wisconsin has two four-star linemen in the last five years, as they do on Rivals. They are not evaluating linemen correctly. I'm not sure what Big 12's hole of suck on defense represents but I'd be more convinced it was a playstyle thing if they were running 3-3-5s or something. Going up against Blaine Gabbert and a bunch of other passing spreads doesn't make much difference to anyone but a few linebackers, it seems.

In any case, it's a really interesting post you should read all of.

We have done derped. We have lost our superiority when it comes to not erecting embarrassing billboards:

Liar-Liar-Vest-On-Fire

One: Paul Reiser probably came up with the text. Two: it's on I-94, which goes from Canada to Indiana without even brushing up against Ohio. Three: it's derp enough to put up a billboard after you win something. It's extra super derp to do so after not winning since 2003. Five derps out of five.

Recruiting digression. Brady Hoke : linebackers :: Rich Rodriguez : slot receivers. Michigan now has eight in two classes and speculation naturally turns to where these guys all fit. Specifically, can any of them play somewhere else?

The answer for all four in this class appears to be "no" unless Bolden or Jenkins-Stone pack on a lot of pounds and end up at WDE. Ringer's six-foot and Ross six-one and they'll both end up around 230. On a football field guys that size play LB, FB, or RB and nothing else. Even Bolden and RJS are stretches at DE. Those guys are linebackers one and all.

Last year's class, if you don't remember:

  • MI QB(!)/LB Desmond Morgan.
  • TX LB Kellen Jones
  • OH LB Antonio Poole
  • OH LB/TE Frank Clark

According to Rivals, none of these guys is more than 6'2" and Morgan is the heaviest at 225—the others are all at 210. No one's mentioned safety for any. So… these are all linebackers too unless Clark swaps to TE, which is going to be at least as crowded as LB if Ron Thompson signs up to be the fourth tight end in the last two classes.

Someone's going to lose out and get flipped to fullback; other than that, all these guys are linebackers for life. That gives Michigan 13 next year, which is a bit excessive for three starting spots. Or at least it would be if we weren't currently enduring a wasteland at the position. I'd guess the 2013 class is homeruns or one random three star picked up late.

Further recruiting digression. The top ten kids in the state are probably Ross, RJS, Devin Funchess, Mario Ojemudia, Aaron Burbridge, Dennis Norfleet, Terry Richardson, Ron Thompson, Dan O'Brien, and Matt Godin. (Ben Braden might be in there somewhere, too.) Michigan has three, is presumed to be the heavy leader for two more (Godin and Thompson) and is in a short group of leaders for Ojemudia, Richardson, and O'Brien. If the chips fall the right way Michigan could get 7 or 8 of the Michigan top ten, which is not only far better than Rodriguez ever did but would be better than Carr's best instate efforts by some distance.

Part of that is it seems like Michigan is producing better football players these days—everyone in that top ten save Norfleet has a Michigan offer, or would have one if his grades were better (Burbridge). That never happened under Carr. A big chunk appears to be Hoke doing work.

Too good to be true. Red might have believed he'd get his whole team back after exit interviews but Mark Burns of the Daily has responded to/fueled/confirmed rumors that Brandon Burlon is gonzo. Some speculation is that he's seriously pisssed off you guys that he was passed over in favor of Clare for the Frozen Four games.

Losing Burlon hurts, but at least Michigan seems well-covered on the back end. Clare will draw into the lineup regularly and the spot opened up by Langlais's graduation will be filled by incoming freshman Brennan Serville, a guy rising up NHL draft boards. He should go in the middle rounds.

Meanwhile in hockey news of a bizarre and speculative nature, Mike Babcock's son is winding his way from the USHL and crazy rumors that Michigan will take him and Babcock will coach him after Red leaves have duly cropped up. Yost Built collects those.

Etc.: Woodson at Mott. ESPN finds out that people are betting huge sums of money on Pop Warner. Ufer as bespectacled track athlete. Holdin' the Rope graduates:

The Appalachian State debacle was my third day on campus. My freshman tickets sat me in Section 16, far away from my fellow students. I sat next to a white-haired old man--whose natural hair color might've been blue--and his son each week. My enduring memories of that first game are conveniently sparse; my first memory is of Chad Henne zipping a passing to Mike Massey in the opening drive. I saw it all from my bird's eye seat in Row 96 of Section 16; it was perfect and logical, a rational manifestation of our pre-season top 5 ranking. Then, the defense took the field.

BON on firing Jim Tressel not once but twice. Linebacker fundamentals: man coverage.

Comments

Magnus

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^

I would love to take credit for that Boren photoshop, but that picture was e-mailed to me.  I'm not sure who originally did it.

But thanks for the nod.  Kudos to whoever came up with it in the first place.

Hannibal.

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

I think that the signs point to us not taking Ron Thompson.  We've got a logjam at TE now, and we have two guys slated for defense that are "/TE" types.  We've got a logjam at linebacker and some big time pressing needs to fill. 

Pibby Scott

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

but I'm of the mindset we take the best guys we can get, and hope that those guys can fill positions of need.

 

And I think I'd like to add that I'd much rather have a glut of linebackers than a bunch of mediocre slot ninjas, as i for one, generally prefer, gluts to bunches, and linebackers to slot ninjas.

 

 

 

GoBlueInNYC

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

I don't think the "take the best guys" approach really works in college. I know people were discussing that strategy in the draft when the Lions took Fairely, but the argument doesn't really hold for college. If Michigan takes a glut of linebackers when it really needs a swarm of defensive tackles, just because the LBs are better LBs than the DTs are DTs, that still leaves the team with a logjam at one position and scary thin depth at another. (And I'm willing to bet those good LBs would make for terrible DTs.)

College isn't like the pros, where you take the best talent you can get, cut the dead weight, and pick up players via free agency where you need them. College requires a lot more long-term planning, since you're more or less recruiting players to play a role for 4-5 years, and don't really have the wiggle room to get rid of them and pick up someone else when the depth chart gets nasty.

Pibby Scott

May 2nd, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^

I figured the position I was taking was somewhat idiotic, and was perhaps more rhetorical than practical.

 

Or, perhaps, I'm just wowed right now at the quality of the committs, so much so, that the first thing I'm thinking isn't Dang, We Have Too Many Linebackers and Not Enough X, but is Dang, We Have Sweet Linebackers "Lined Up"  up for Years to Come.

 

 

Either way, you're a right man.

GoBlueInNYC

May 2nd, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^

I wouldn't call it idiotic. There are definitely times that teams will take excellent players at positions that they don't necessarily need filled just because that player is so good. Just that I don't think it would work as an overriding philosophy.

Also, I really like the idea of each position having its own collective noun (e.g., a glut of linebackers, a bunch of slot ninjas, a placenta of centers, etc).

AAB

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^

Dee Hart was both a 5 star and something like the 11th best player in Florida to Rivals.  I know Florida really does have tons of football talent, but the ratio of southern 5 stars to northern 5 stars seems skewed every single year in a way that only makes sense if you're an SEC slappy.

I think the services absolutely tilt their rankings heavily toward southern players, which probably makes sense given their subscriber base.  

JudgementDay

May 2nd, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

I really hope Burlon stays.  I still think Red made the right decision not playing Burlon for the frozen four with everything that happened with his illness and weight loss leading up to the frozen four. 

If he is leaving he will be missed and I wish him the best of luck.

 

Edit:  Also, I cannot start a thread here yet but the Hockey World Championship is currently going on and USA beat Norway with four goals in the third

mi93

May 2nd, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^

Is it known that a group of Mich alums put up the sign?  I hadn't heard that and am skeptical since that stretch had a Sparty sign all winter with the score of the Wisconsin game and a rose on it.

MH20

May 2nd, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^

That same sign was also on southbound 131 in Grand Rapids, near the Wealthy exit.  I think there was at least one other one.  I remember it being in someone's memory (or at least that's what the sign said).

I Blue Myself

May 2nd, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

"I'm guessing that non-BCS number suggest that Rivals' drilldown rankings (e.g., three stars being rated 5.5, 5.6, or 5.7) have some merit."

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.  It seems to me that the poor performance of non-BCS conferences shows the weaknesses of the star system.  You have a certain number of players that Rivals ranks reasonably highly, but they end up in non-BCS conferences.  There will be some players who go to a smaller school because of genuine preference, but I bet most of them end up there because better schools didn't want them.  According to this table, these players end up going to the draft much less than similar players who go to BCS schools.

I see three potential causes of this:

1. The non-BCS players don't get as good coaching or experience against better players, so they don't develop as well.

2. The non-BCS players don't get exposure and end up underrated by pro scouts.

3. The non-BCS players just weren't as good.

There's probably some combination of factors at work, and there's no way to know for sure, but I would guess that factor #3 accounts for a lot of it.  

I'm not trying to deny that star ratings matter, but coaches are probably in general better evaluators of talent than Scout or Rivals.  A three-star that gets recruited by Iowa or Arizona St. is probably better than a similar three-star that ends up playing at Northern Illinois or New Mexico St.

micheal honcho

May 2nd, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^

Great article!! very informative and in some cases surprising. I gleaned a couple of glaring facts from it that pertain to Michigan. The big east is/was a dumpster fire of a conference where an innovative coach with little to no NFL talent can win the conference consistantly. The big ten is the home of NFL lineman and when the aforementioned coach tried to use the same formula against them, he did not fare well.

UM Indy

May 2nd, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

We are building depth at a position of need for years to come.  In addition, Sparty is getting shut out on players that could've otherwise gone there.  No offense, but you don't win Big Ten championships with slot receivers, you win them with great defense, and you can't have a great defense without great LBs.  It's a little unusual to bulk up on a position that much in two consecutive classes, but Hoke and Mattison probably saw the LB play from the last few years on film and their shit turned white.  I for one can't blame them a bit for grabbing all these guys.  The four in this class especially could all be stars.

pdgoblue25

May 2nd, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^

RJS, Ross, Kellen Jones, Cam Gordon, Carvin, and M Rob flying around and laying the wood for the next 4-5 years is starting to get exciting... 

WestSider

May 2nd, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^

this is a healthy stock of linebackers for a linebacker-thin team. That is a very important position to have well stocked for attrition, possible moves to different positions (ie,fullback) injury, and keeping guys fresh and active on D. I am sure that Mattison and Hoke understand their needs very well, and will now focus on other areas. Sorry, but I was routinely disappointed with Mouton and Ezeh, and the rest of the nothing-there linebacking personnel. Demens was coming on though...

Rasmus

May 2nd, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^

The thing about linebackers is they translate well not only to fullback, but also to special teams. So the coaches figure one or two go to fullback and the other who don't become starting linebackers end up stabilizing special teams, which, like the defense, was a disaster under Rodriguez.

MGlobules

May 2nd, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^

have to respect the high quality of recent recruits. Generating positive momentum BEFORE the season is really important, I think, because there will be bumps next year. And if I'm reading Hoke right, he's telling listeners, "Stick with us. It'll pay off." 

peterfumo

May 2nd, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^

Don't understand the point about Clemson.If they are doing better at player development than average, how are they a poorly coached team?

imdeng

May 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^

I was quite disappointed with Hoke hire and really wanted RR to have another year and succeed. However, stars seem well aligned for Hoke and I am sure he is working very hard to get things that way. However much we dislike the idea, but the first step out of our self-dug-ditch is to beat MSU consistently - and taking in-state kids helps that cause for weaking MSU's talent pool. The next step is ND and then OSU. Lets hope all this momentum carries us that far. For this year - I will be happy with step 1 - beat MSU convincingly. I would be veru happy with MSU and ND - and will absolutely name by first born Hoke if we get MSU, ND and OSU.

3rdGenerationBlue

May 2nd, 2011 at 9:35 PM ^

Whiney McWhiner will be happy Hoke loaded up on LBs when the second and third level of the depth chart  is populated by guys that can make a tackle.....hey maybe some of those guys will play special teams too. Which would you rather have, guys built to make tackles or pint size guys that can't break a tackle?  

Victor70

May 3rd, 2011 at 7:33 AM ^

There is no history of any Michigan fan purchasing billboard for taunting purposes.  MSU does have such a history.  It was MSU that was kept from a BCS game and they bought billboards to demonatrate thier frustration that Wisconson was in the Rose Bowl when MSU had beaten Wisconsin.  I think this was an MSU fan that thinks they got jipped out of the Rose bowl by Tressel's use of ineligible players.  I don't suppose there is any way to find out, but I really want to know or certain who did this.  1) if it is a UM fan, to admonish that person, 2) to clear our fandom reputation if it is not.

maizenbluenc

May 3rd, 2011 at 8:47 AM ^

FWIW, I watched the segment on ESPN. The gambling was occuring around South Florida Youth Football League, and Pop Warner was mentioned as the non-gambling alternative where academic standards had to be met as well. It was a well done segment.

johnvand

May 3rd, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^

As petty as that Billboard is, if we had matching shirts on the MGoStore, I can guarantee I'd buy at least three for myself and family.

Swallow thy pride and make it so Brian.  For there be money to make.

bronxblue

May 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^

Proud of the job the staff has done so far recruiting, and hope that it moves to non-LBs soon. 

As for overrating certain regions, that has seemingly been going on for years now, especially in Florida and others parts of the Southeast.  I saw some graphic during one of the all-star HS games and according to ESPN, like 2/3rds of their top-100 were from the Southeast and Texas.  Now, I'm not a statistics major, but I have a hard time believing that any concentration of talent could to such a degree for a sport with national appeal.  Seems a little fishy to me.

WestSider

May 5th, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^

but constructive, biting criticism is an art, and billboards are exhibitionistic. Usually, classy actors don't require billboards, shouting matches, inappropriate adjectives, or public escalations...However, I hate ohiostate, their fans have acted extremely inappropriately in the presence of my children, and the general state of that program is pathetic, including Gee's mambypamby approach to administration of the college. So, I can throw down some vitriol, but I would never be so classless to put it on a billboard. Billboards are really meant for other uses. I suppose one could argue any media is fair game, I just don't agree. It's like dogging someone on facebook without giving them a fair opportunity to give counter points.