Unverified Voracity Says Throw-God, No
Recruiting rankings matter, and also have a systemic bias. NFL players versus blue chip recruits, mapped:
Blue states have more NFL players than blue chip recruits; red states have fewer. That's part of a thorough Football Study Hall article on recruiting rankings and the draft, and is about as conclusive as possible that the recruiting industry is systematically underrating the Midwest and overrating the south. The south does have more players—only an idiot would dispute that—but the gap isn't as big as the rankings suggest.
UPDATE: Related event:
Stumbled across Saquon Barkley's high school highlights. This punt return is insane (and maybe give a few of his blockers a look as UDFAs!) pic.twitter.com/GRXFBQoHCX
— Dan Duggan (@DDuggan21) May 1, 2018
Barkley was not composite top 100.
"I'm in Paris, better justify my existence." Kyle Rowland of the Blade unearths a cool Michigan story:
PARIS — Less than 10 miles from the Michigan football team’s palatial hotel in the heart of Paris sits Stade Olympique de Colombes, the host of the 1924 Olympic Games.
The old stadium, now 111 years old, is rickety and considerably smaller than its heyday when it entertained the world’s best athletes. Inside the concrete walls, DeHart Hubbard, one of the University of Michigan’s greatest sportsmen, became the first African-American to win an Olympic gold medal in an individual event, with a leap of 24 feet, 5 inches in the long jump on his sixth and final jump with a bruised heel.
“When I was a student, I came in 1976, and I looked at the school records because I was a long jumper, and that’s when I found out the first notion of who he was,” said James Henry, now the co-head coach of the UM women’s track and field team. “Then I found out he was the first African-American Olympic gold medalist. I was enthralled by him. He was my role model.
“He was at the University of Michigan at a time in which blacks couldn't do very much anywhere. I just felt that if this man can make it, I can make it. Making a name for myself by beating his records meant everything to me. That was my drive as a student-athlete to participate at a high level.”
Much more at the link. Now Rowland can file that expense report with a clear conscience.
Paging Mitch Leidner to the Department of Inexplicably Overrated Big Ten Quarterbacks. One mock draft was a hilarious oversight by an overworked intern. Two was worrisome. But now that it appears the NFL draft people are unanimous in asserting this person is a first round pick…
The Pick: Clayton Thorson, QB, Northwestern
The New York Giants passed on the chance to draft a quarterback of the future with the No. 2 pick in the 2018 draft, but is that a decision they'll regret? Or will fourth-rounder Kyle Lauletta be the answer?
If after a season of watching Lauletta and 2017 third-rounder Davis Webb, the Giants feel like the long-term answer at starter isn't on the roster, the team could be in good shape to draft a quarterback in 2019. Northwestern's Clayton Thorson nearly declared for this year's draft before surveying the deep group of passers and deciding to return to school. He has the arm, accuracy and intangibles to be considered a first-rounder one year from now.
…it's time to lay very still and sweat profusely, hoping this is a crazy dream.
Clayton Thorson! Sir, I have seen an unstoppable throw-god in purple. You, sir, are no Trevor Siemian. Thorson averaged 6.6 YPA with a 15-12 TD-INT ratio last year. But he's 6'4" and superficially looks like an NFL quarterback, so on the list he goes.
Making this take even nuttier: Thorson tore his ACL in the bowl game and is questionable for the upcoming season.
Meanwhile, Michigan prospects for 2019. Only two Wolverines show up on Athlon's top 50: #2 Rashan Gary and #22 Shea Patterson. Zach Shaw rounded up all the Way Too Early Mock Drafts and those two are the only guys on any of them. This is odd to me since Michigan's cornerback duo was probably the best in the country, at least in terms of passer rating allowed. You'd think one of the two would be a consideration for the end of the first round.
A flip. A development in the slightly less important FBI investigation:
The director of an amateur Massachusetts basketball team affiliated with Adidas AG agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors investigating an NCAA bribery scandal, according to a copy of the agreement made public Friday.
Thomas "T.J." Gassnola entered the plea on March 30 to federal charges that he made payments to families of high school student-athletes in exchange for their commitment to play for certain universities, according to the filing.
NC State seems to be the main school linked with Gassnola, but, uh… Notre Dame(!) is an Adidas[correction: they switched to UA] school that just picked up two players from Gassnola's AAU team. I will give the FBI one dollar if they sweep the Irish into this. Think of the ND Nation takes.
Wilde take. Quinn Hughes is #5 on this NHL mock draft. Bode Wilde is #17:
17. New Jersey Devils: Bode Wilde, D, U.S. U18 (NTDP)
There are few prospects in this draft who can provide GMs with a skill set as tantalizing as Wilde’s. The big, mobile defender was a minute muncher for a deep NTDP blue line and his explosive first step is drool inducing. You don’t find many 6-2 defensemen with dynamic speed and a blistering shot, which is why GM Ray Shero should add this thoroughbred to his already-dangerous Devils’ attack
He'll be an acid test for the new staff's ability to mold guys, because he's a boom or bust guy on the NHL level because of his tendency to get out of position and cede odd man rushes.
FWIW, Hughes is the only draft-eligible and only college player on this year's IIHF World Championship team.
Etc.: John Infante on the NCAA resurrecting the transfer waiver, which may have been relevant for Patterson. WCBN profiles Hughes. The era in which Orson launches entirely warranted bombs at a Michigan assistant coach is going to be brutal. Wagner and Matthews invited to the draft combine.
I thought maybe I was wrong so I did the Google thing. Notre Dame is an Under Armour school, no?
If I understand the map correctly it uses the top 400 for blue chips then uses every player the from states that make it to the NFL.
Well, there is a ton more opportunity for players in the North to play D1 football than there is for players in the South when adjusting for talent. That gives the option for players that show potential but are 17 years old to put it together over the next 4 years. My guess is a lot of the smaller schools up North recruit a ton more players from their local areas, giving them an opportunity to continue playing football.
I mean look at it this way:
Alabama has 7 division 1 football schools. The same amount as Connecticut.
Georgia has 7. Illinois has 12.
Louisiana has 12, same amount as Indiana.
New York has 22, Texas has 21.
Also along this same point-- the lower ranked players in georgia end up at South Georgia, Alabama A+M etc... The lower players in Michigan end up at Michigan State, Wisconsin etc... Those schools have wayyyyy more funding to develop players than Georgia Southern. And sure, it might not be the rule, but it definitely skews that way. At the end of the day, schools are way more exposed to local talent and more likely to get offer scholarships than kids way out of state.
think they are Under Armor in football and Adidas in basketball. I think the ND football team is sort of an entity unto itself without all that much affiliation with the rest of that athletic department.
EDIT - no, it looks like they are UA for both football and basketball.
Google showed basektball players in UA uniforms. Just to be sure I went to UND team shop. It's all Under Armour.
This is the kind of stuff that used to cause Brian to write 2000 word take downs of other writers.
Now?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"I'm in Paris, better justify my existence."
Now Rowland can file that expense report with a clear conscience.
If Rowland's boss/es didn't want him to follow and report on the team in Paris, they wouldn't have sent him.
It's not like he can just say "Hmm, Paris in Spring sounds awesome! I think I'll pack my bags and head that way on the company dime for the hell of it.".
Seems like Brian is jealous or being really petty.
Seems like Brian is making a joke to me, but what do I know. It appears that there are some writters/staffers/etc. who made the trip as a vacation, but will likely consider it "business" as far as the IRS is concerned. Brian is just pointing to that in jest, IMO.
I do know Brian has been very cranky lately and is getting much more difficult to get a read on.
Rowland has been writing/posting articles while over seas and I'm sure his conscience will be totally fine turning in his expense report when he returns home.
and Freddy Canteen. The Delaware helmets can't hurt either.
The little football magnet school over there used to be Red Lion Christian (Red Lion, DE) till they de-emphasized athletics and then everyone showed up at Eastern Christian just over the border in Elkton, MD which was all setup by David Sills dad.
Total number of NFL players is a bit of a crappy proxy to use for calculating how good recruiting rankings are...
1) Recruiting rankings are about how good a college player the dude is supposed to be - and being very different games means very good college players aren't necessarily NFL players.
2) They're looking at 12 years of recruits vs. active NFL players. Given the short length of NFL careers, and the skew in career lengths by position - this seems like it would add a lot of error.
A much better proxy would be something like total college All Americans vs. number of blue chip recruits.
But wouldn't that be suspect to a similar bias? I don't know this for sure, but I imagine that the SEC tends to get more all-americans than they probably deserve on a yearly basis. When the NFL has to pay guys who they draft, and therefore do plenty of scouting to assume they have the best guys, that would probably show the least amount of bias towards a specific region/conference/etc. IMO. I agree that the stat has it's flaws, but is probably the best indicator for valuing how good recruits actually end up being.
Almost any subjective measure you choose will be subject to some bias.
...but using "current NFL players" vs. a 12 year sample of blue chip recruits skews towards:
1) Positions with longer careers
2) Positions valued by the NFL
If Texas churns out a ton of really good college QBs of the JT Barrett type, and really good high volume RBs - this is exactly the sort of result you'd expect, even though the rankings could be very good at evaluating the transition from HS to college.
State football output is never position-specific though.
When we're only looking at top 400 recruits, and then comparing them to total population in the NFL (not only counting NFL players who were in that those "top 400" groups") - I'm not sure that would necessarily hold true.
I doubt state football output is particularly position specific - but I'd bet the "top 400" list is, and I'd bet the percentage currently active in the NFL from the earlier years of the 12 years of blue chips they're considering is.
QB 284
RB 329
WR 815
OL 677
DL 708
LB 479
DB 734
ST 74
ATH 230
The syllabus for a recruit's ranking varies by recruiting service, position, scout, and even recruit. Some players and positions are evaulated by their NFL potential, while others are only measured against their college potential.
Despite that variance, I suspect that higher ranked recruits have higher professional potential. The notable exception would be quarterback, since that position can differ so substantially between college and the NFL. But in general, highly rated players should have substantial NFL potential. If you have the right skills and measurables, you will get a high recruiting ranking. Those skills and measurables usually correlate with NFL potential.
Don't they all essentially use the same star system though? Where the number of 5 stars correspond to first rd picks, and 4 stars correspond to total draft picks.
This might be true at a couple of positions (I'm thinking QB depending on your scheme), but most positions are in sync in terms of expectations of success between college and the pros. For example, a highly-rated offensive lineman coming out of HS is expected to block, identify plays, and otherwise function as an impediment to the defender to the same degree in the pros and college.
It has been shown that higher-rated guys are more likely to be drafted than those lower down the spectrum, and while sample size matters quite a bit here (there are usually 30-ish 5*'s a year, while there are hundreds of 4*'s), a fair argument can be made that the recruiting services are likely under-ranking guys in the north more than the south, resulting in recruits who might be on the fringe of blue chip territory being treated differently depending on location; in other words, recruiting services seem to value a 4* kid in Florida higher than a 4* kid from Illinois, even though they might otherwise be indistinguishable.
Yes, there are flaws with the proxy (as you noted, guys have short careers), but for most positions what qualifies as "good" in college equals that in the pros. And what anecdotally you hear about certain recruiting services perhaps chasing the offer sheet a bit more than they should in terms of objective analysis, you see in the fact that there is a concentration of highly-regarded kids in the southeast who don't quite get out of college as highly-regarded. It's not dispositive, but there does seem to be something there. In particular, that chart takes the sting out of the black hole in Mississippi always keeping theirs guys close.
You left out a big one: a team with less blue chip recruits is much more likely to give those recruits more developement resources (coaching attention) and on-field play time, making it more likely that they a) get better and b) get noticed, both of which are requirements to become NFL players regardless of how good they are in highschool.
They MIGHT end up getting more coaching and development attention, but that clearly does NOT automatically translate to more NFL drafts. If this were the case, then we'd be seeing teams like Iowa, Illinois, Eastern, Western, Central, and every other small school / "lesser" team you can think of sending large swaths of players to the NFL every year. But this just flat out doesn't happen. These sorts of teams send players to the NFL sure, but no where near the rate that the top schools with all the blue chip recruits do.
This holds true in basketball too. The whole "1 and done" thing is proof of that. The top rated talent plays 1-2 years in CBB and then it's off to the NBA. Everyone else has to slog through 4 years of college and then HOPE to be good enough to get called.
I think this is primarily due to the simple fact that recruiting ranking aren't that far off the mark. The kids with a higher ceiling / more talent are rated higher. And the NFL teams want to draft the best players possible, which usually tends to coincide with the college kids who had the highest ceiling coming out of high school. It doesn't ALWAYS work this way as there are obviously plenty of examples of 5* kids going bust either in college or after being drafter. But the trend line holds this belief.
I think for the most part they are close enough to not bother with. But I wonder if you look at kids 300-400 who are 4 stars, vs kids 500-750 who are 3 stars...if you give 75% of those remaining 4 star spots to southern schools, where the kids are more likely to play in state, then you create this idea that "random SEC School" recrutis better than random Big 10/ACC school. So you prop up SEC schools (8 ranked in the top 20 in recruiting rankings!) becuase of kids in that fringe range. That pushes the narrative further that "better kids play in the SEC"
You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. My argument is that a blue chip recruit on a team with less blue chips is more likely to make the NFL than the same recruit on a team with more blue chips, because even if you have the potential for the NFL you'll never make it there unless you get reps and snaps. A 4-star who starts at Iowa is more likley to be drafted than the *same player* that never sees the field except during garbage time at Alabama.
I make no statement about lesser recruits. The reason Eastern, Central, et al, don't send players to the NFL every year is because they never get the blue chip recruits in the first place.
That was going to be my point as well. There's also the fact that there are a bunch of northern schools that have difficulty pulling guys out of the South and so it may be that Northern Players have an advantage in that it's Paradoxically easier for them to gain exposure once they're in college.
The B1G does a good/better job of preparing it's members to be more likely to be drafted due to the type of football they play? Maybe some of both?
This is odd to me since Michigan's cornerback duo was probably the best in the country, at least in terms of passer rating allowed. You'd think one of the two would be a consideration for the end of the first round.
Nope. Mistake is looking at passer rating. Far too often I've seen NFL CB scouting comes down to one thing -- interceptions. You could shut down every receiver you've covered, collectively hold them to zero receptions, but if you finish your career with two picks you must be doing something wrong.
Michigan prefers their CBs shut down receivers first than play the bait-and-pick game that some guys like Blake Countess are so good at, to the point of nearly destroying Blake Countess. It's not a career killer but it hurts their draft stock somewhat because people are stupid.
Athlon's top CB pick is Andraez Williams, who led the SEC with six pics last year as a freshman. I strongly suspect the logic here begins and ends with "led the SEC in interceptions".
I remember when Nick Nelson of Wisconsin was drafted in the 4th round this weekend, there was much discussion of how he led the nation in PBUs but had almost no INTs. My thought was, hey, if they are throwing it at him enough for him to lead the nation in PBUs, maybe you should draft their OTHER cornerback.
My other thought was, Brian Cook's going to be upset that someone drafted one of Wisconsin's hoodie wearing CBs. He hates those guys and their hoodies.
He also disliked them because they were extremely grabby and incredulous when called for holding and PI.
Jourdan Lewis was 2nd in the nation in passes defended in 2015 (before teams finally figured out "maybe stop throwing it at the guy he's defending" the following year) so sometimes it takes teams a while to figure it out and sometimes teams are just dumb.
To be fair, Denzel Ward got picked #4 overall and has 2 picks for his entire career. So the NFL is fickle in what they look at.
if using the Cleveland Browns and who they draft is the best example to use.
matter what.
Early mock drafts are typically awful. They are some combination of high school rating (especially if it isn't at a position that generates a ton of stats) and large stats more than actual production. Not that Gary and Patterson can't be good or won't be early picks, but their 5 stars are helping them get first round hype as much as anything.
sucess comes down to the pass rush. UM had one of the top DL's in college football and the pressure they put on QB's helps out our secondary significantly. I'm guessing scouts want to see a lot larger sample size of their coverage ability, before they would consider either one a first round draft choice.
do like CBs who can make plays when the ball is in the air, but they strongly prefer CBs who can stay in WRs hip pockets. Denzel Ward is a great example of it. Same with Jaire Alexander, Mike Hughes.
Josh Jackson was among the top in the country in INTs but he went 2nd round due to his coverage inconsistencies and there's question of him, is he better off as a CB in Cover 3 scheme heavy or FS.
If you look at 2017 NFL Draft, Marshon Lattimore got 4 INTs but he was the first CB drafted due to his cover skills. Same with Marlon Humphrey. Lattimore is considered to be among the best CB in the league and Humphrey had a strong rookie year.
Hell look at Jalen Ramsey. He was a FS/CB at FSU and had 3 career INTs. He was the first CB taken in the draft. Now, he's one of the best CB in the league.
Being able to catch the ball is a bonus but NFL value CBs who can stay in WRs hip pocket and can trail more than just pure playmaker. If they can get both, it's a huge bonus and they would be taken at top 5.
lots of kids eat, sleep and pray football --- 12 months a year --- from a very early age. That dynamic doesn't exist quite as much in the North.
So, is the recruiting disparity simply a result of that dynamic? That Southern kids are more likely to "get on the scout's radar" at an earlier age vs. Northern kids?
From what I can tell, there are way more recrutiing reporters covering prospects in the South, California, and Texas than anywhere else. That not only means more exposure for those prospects, it means more analysts lobbying for them when it's time to put together the rankings. I think if you caught Midwest recruiting analysts off the record they'd say this region is both undercovered and underrated, and those are related.
If you think one area has better recruits, you're more likely to accidentally see other kids while you're there and then rank them.
Comments