How do they turn out?
An informational post about the Rivals 100 players Michigan has recruited since 2002 got me thinking, and in this relatively quiet period, I decided I wanted to dig a bit deeper.
The question I set out to answer: How do these guys turn out? At what rate do top recruits become top players in our program? And how does that compare to other programs?
Given limited time, I compared us to only one other program: Ohio. I used Rivals 100 data for position, stars, and rank. The "Impact" data point is my subjective interpretation of a player's career impact; 3 is a high impact player (Solid starter to All-B1G type), 2 is a role player (contributor to starter), and 1 is a low impact player (did not produce for whatever reason). These ratings are NOT based on talent or careers at other schools--only the player's impact where they signed their LOI. Players who have not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate a rating are designated "n/a". Players with an asterix have not yet signed. And yes, some of you will argue with me, but my overall ratings are close enough to make some good starting points for conversation. Here is the data, followed by conclusions:
NAME | POSITION | STAR | NATL RANK | YEAR | STATE | IMPACT |
Chad Henne | QB | 5 | 13 | 2004 | PA | 3 |
LaMarr Woodley | LB | 5 | 14 | 2003 | MI | 3 |
Brandon Graham | LB | 5 | 15 | 2006 | MI | 3 |
Donovan Warren | DB | 5 | 25 | 2007 | CA | 3 |
Stephen Schilling | OL | 5 | 26 | 2006 | WA | 3 |
Gabe Watson | DT | 5 | 33 | 2002 | MI | 3 |
Shawn Crable | DE | 4 | 39 | 2003 | OH | 3 |
Jonas Mouton | DB | 4 | 45 | 2006 | CA | 3 |
Mario Manningham | WR | 4 | 45 | 2005 | OH | 3 |
Prescott Burgess | DB | 5 | 6 | 2003 | OH | 2 |
Will Campbell | DT | 5 | 26 | 2009 | MI | 2 |
Tim Jamison | DE | 4 | 40 | 2004 | IL | 2 |
Darryl Stonum | WR | 4 | 41 | 2008 | TX | 2 |
Greg Mathews | WR | 4 | 93 | 2006 | FL | 2 |
Ryan Mundy | DB | 4 | 96 | 2003 | PA | 2 |
Terrance Taylor | DT | 4 | 96 | 2005 | MI | 2 |
Ryan Mallett | QB | 5 | 4 | 2007 | TX | 1 |
Kevin Grady | RB | 5 | 22 | 2005 | MI | 1 |
Justin Turner | DB | 4 | 35 | 2009 | OH | 1 |
Marques Slocum | OL | 4 | 37 | 2005 | PA | 1 |
Carlos Brown | RB | 4 | 39 | 2006 | GA | 1 |
Boubacar Cissoko | DB | 4 | 44 | 2008 | MI | 1 |
Antonio Bass | ATH | 4 | 49 | 2005 | MI | 1 |
Dann O'Neill | OL | 4 | 49 | 2008 | MI | 1 |
Justin Boren | OL | 4 | 64 | 2006 | OH | 1 |
Clayton Richard | QB | 4 | 71 | 2003 | IN | 1 |
Alex Mitchell | OL | 4 | 80 | 2004 | MI | 1 |
Cory Zirbel | OL | 4 | 83 | 2005 | KY | 1 |
Jim Presley | LB | 4 | 89 | 2003 | MI | 1 |
Adam Patterson | DT | 4 | 91 | 2006 | SC | 1 |
Toney Clemons | WR | 4 | 91 | 2007 | PA | 1 |
Matt Gutierrez | QB | 4 | 96 | 2002 | CA | 1 |
Brett Gallimore | OL | 4 | 96 | 2004 | MO | 1 |
James McKinney | DT | 4 | 98 | 2005 | KY | 1 |
Doug Dutch | WR | 4 | 98 | 2004 | DC | 1 |
Cullen Christian | DB | 4 | 99 | 2010 | PA | 1 |
Derrick Green (*) | RB | 5 | 8 | 2013 | VA | n/a |
Ondre Pipkins | DT | 5 | 14 | 2012 | MO | n/a |
Kyle Kalis | OL | 5 | 22 | 2012 | OH | n/a |
Henry Poggi (*) | DT | 4 | 70 | 2013 | MD | n/a |
Erik Magnuson | OL | 4 | 78 | 2012 | CA | n/a |
Shane Morris (*) | QB | 4 | 81 | 2013 | MI | n/a |
Patrick Kugler | OL | 4 | 82 | 2013 | PA | n/a |
Justice Hayes | RB | 4 | 85 | 2011 | MI | n/a |
Let's start by looking at Michigan's "gets". There are some definite correlations. A higher national rank does indeed give a player a higher likelihood of making an impact. Of the 36 players who received a rating, nine were 3's (high impact), eight were 2's (role players), and 19 were...not so good. That gives Rivals 100 players during this period a 25% chance of being great, a 22% chance of being okay to good, and about a 53% chance of not being helpful at all. Basically, it's about 50/50 on whether or not these kids make a positive impact at Michigan.
That said, of the nine players who were 3's, 6 were five-star players. Two more five-star players made a 2 rating (Burgess & Campbell), and many would argue Burgess was a 3 (erroneously, but they would argue). That means roughly 80% of your five-star players end-up solidly contributing, and of the two that didn't--Mallet and Grady--only Grady was a complete bust, as Mallet went on to SEC stardom.
Of the 20 players who were 1's, 10 were ranked 80th or lower nationally, and only six were ranked higher than 40th.
I think it's important to consider that this time period includes two tumultuous coaching changes and a year of "lame-duck" coaching from Carr. I do not believe it will be representative of our success going forward, but it's the data we have.
NAME | POSITION | STAR | NATL RANK | YEAR | STATE | IMPACT |
Terrelle Pryor | QB | 5 | 1 | 2008 | OH | 3 |
Theodore Ginn, Jr | DB | 5 | 2 | 2004 | OH | 3 |
Chris Wells | RB | 5 | 3 | 2006 | OH | 3 |
Mike Adams | OL | 5 | 3 | 2008 | OH | 3 |
Michael Brewster | OL | 5 | 12 | 2008 | FL | 3 |
Alex Boone | OL | 5 | 20 | 2005 | OH | 3 |
DeVier Posey | WR | 5 | 21 | 2008 | OH | 3 |
Donte Whitner | DB | 4 | 27 | 2003 | OH | 3 |
Marcus Freeman | LB | 4 | 31 | 2004 | OH | 3 |
Corey Brown | DB | 5 | 31 | 2009 | PA | 3 |
Braxton Miller | QB | 4 | 34 | 2011 | OH | 3 |
Maurice Clarett | RB | 5 | 37 | 2002 | OH | 3 |
Brandon Saine | RB | 4 | 50 | 2007 | OH | 3 |
Andrew Norwell | OL | 4 | 59 | 2010 | OH | 3 |
Doug Datish | OT | 4 | 68 | 2002 | OH | 3 |
Quinn Pitcock | DT | 4 | 72 | 2002 | OH | 3 |
Doug Worthington | DE | 4 | 80 | 2005 | NY | 3 |
Robert Rose | DE | 5 | 17 | 2006 | OH | 2 |
Etienne Sabino | LB | 4 | 46 | 2008 | FL | 2 |
Garrett Goebel | DT | 4 | 64 | 2008 | IL | 2 |
J.B. Shugarts | OL | 4 | 87 | 2008 | TX | 2 |
Mike D'Andrea | LB | 5 | 29 | 2002 | OH | 1 |
Lamaar Thomas | ATH | 4 | 33 | 2008 | MD | 1 |
Louis Irizarry | TE | 4 | 38 | 2003 | OH | 1 |
Justin Zwick | QB | 4 | 40 | 2002 | OH | 1 |
Connor Smith | OL | 4 | 55 | 2006 | OH | 1 |
Kyle Mitchum | OL | 4 | 56 | 2004 | PA | 1 |
Jaamal Berry | RB | 4 | 56 | 2009 | FL | 1 |
Eugene Clifford | DB | 4 | 60 | 2007 | OH | 1 |
Kenny Hayes | DE | 4 | 68 | 2011 | OH | 1 |
Raymond Small | WR | 4 | 88 | 2006 | OH | 1 |
Duron Carter | WR | 4 | 90 | 2009 | FL | 1 |
Dorian Bell | LB | 5 | 33 | 2009 | PA | 1 |
Jamie Wood | DB | 4 | 74 | 2009 | OH | 1 |
Curtis Grant | LB | 5 | 2 | 2011 | VA | n/a |
Noah Spence | DE | 5 | 9 | 2012 | PA | n/a |
Adolphus Washington | DE | 5 | 25 | 2012 | OH | n/a |
Mike Mitchell* | LB | 5 | 26 | 2013 | TX | n/a |
Jalin Marshall* | ATH | 4 | 35 | 2013 | OH | n/a |
Cameron Burrows | DB | 4 | 39 | 2013 | OH | n/a |
Michael Bennett | DT | 4 | 41 | 2011 | OH | n/a |
Joey Bosa* | DE | 4 | 47 | 2013 | FL | n/a |
Marcus Hall | OL | 4 | 52 | 2009 | OH | n/a |
Tommy Schutt | DT | 4 | 64 | 2012 | IL | n/a |
Roderick Smith | RB | 4 | 65 | 2010 | IN | n/a |
Ezekiel Elliott* | RB | 4 | 84 | 2013 | MO | n/a |
Eli Apple | DB | 4 | 89 | 2013 | NJ | n/a |
Evan Lisle* | OL | 4 | 90 | 2013 | OH | n/a |
Se'von Pittman | DE | 4 | 95 | 2012 | OH | n/a |
Ohio's data gives us 35 rateable recruits to our 36. They show a similar correlation, with higher rankings and five-star players much more likely to be 3's. Of their 35 rated players, 17 were 3's, 4 were 2's, and 13 were 1's. That means roughly half (49%) of their rated players were 3's, and about 37% were 1's. Interestingly, many of their 1's were players who had trouble with the law--an issue that was much less prevalent with Wolverines.
The comparisons are pretty obvious: Ohio has gotten much more production out of their top recruits. This is, no doubt, partially attributable to mostly consistent coaching through the period by one of the best in the game (even if was a lying cheater). Ohio also had higher-ranked recruits--their average national ranking is 45.9 to Michigan's 55.2--and were much more geographically concentrated in Ohio and the midwest than Michigan's players.
Another interesting bit of data is that position does not seem to make much of a difference. LBs are probably the most successful recruits, but it matters very little. National ranking seems to correlate with impact regardless of position.
Going forward, my expectation is that roughly two-thirds (60-66% would be good) of Rivals 100 recruits end-up as solid contributors or better for Michigan, with about half becoming impact players. Unfortunately, the lower rankings of this year's four Top 100 recruits (Morris is 81 and Kugler 82) would suggest they have a smaller chance of being successful, while Poggi is most likely to be at least a contributor and Green has a 50/50 chance of being great. If Green finishes his career as a 3, and we get two 2's out of the other three, it will have been a very good year. If there are two 3's, it's a great year, and if there are two or three 1's, things didn't go so well.
I do believe our success with top talent will say a lot about or staff and look forward to revisiting this in 2016, when Hoke has had a full five-year cycle to demonstrate how well he can maximize talent.
GO BLUE.
EDIT: After some honest thought and good criticism, I bumped Will Campbell up to a "2". It's a "meh" difference statistically, but he probably earned it this year.
January 29th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^
Nice work!
I've been pretty blown away with staff and fellow bloggers work with data about recruting this cycle!!!
January 29th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
You clearly forgot about the Will Heininger Principle of Certainty. With this coaching staff we have right now, those kids will ALL be awesome!
January 29th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^
I agree with the overall conclusion and found it quite interesting. I have one concern and its in your ranking system. I think a 4 point system provides a more accurate comparison 4 being all conference, 3 solid starter, 2 starter, 1 low impact. On your list I see carlos brown and campbell being rated as 1's even though they provided quality depth and started their senior years, (campbell all year brown sporadically) and provided an impact on the team. even boren and cissoko were starters for a year and did well before they transfered and were kicked off the team respectively. I get that you are trying to encompass all 4 years and evaluate the overall impact but i feel in doing so you fail to take into account the development of players as even the highly rated may need time/coaching to get college ready (campbell) or be blocked by others at their position (brown).
January 29th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
I don't disagree with any of your criticisms about the structure of the data. In fact, I looked at a four-tiered rating, but found that there were very few "middle" players (2's and 3's), and the ratings got even more muddled.
I also agree that I may have been a bit harsh on Campbell. He may very well be a 2. But remember that he only had 14 tackels in 2011, and wasn't on the field much. As for Brown, Cissoko, and Borern--none of those guys made enough of an impact to earn a 2, IMO. Cissoko played a lot but was terrible; Brown was inconsistent at best, and Boren left before he was really good. You really earn a 2 by postiviely contributing to our win-loss record; I'm not sure any of those guys achieved that.
And Campbell's problem wasn't development or coaching, he was fat and lazy. And Brown just wasn't good enough. I see your argument, I just agree to disagree.
EDIT: Bumped Campbell to a "2".
January 29th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^
it just seemed that the rest of the 1's on the list were transfers or guys who got injured.
January 29th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^
it just seemed that the rest of the 1's on the list were transfers or guys who got injured.
January 29th, 2013 at 10:29 PM ^
Great stuff. I also wonder if certain positions seem to be harder to predict. There seem to be a lot of O-linemen who didn't pan out.
January 30th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
which is very...nitpicky, is that I think you could control some for percentages of success by counting people who became good contributors elsewhere, as that speaks to their performance/upside in general. I understand it's the upside for us we want to consider mainly, but it would be a more accurate representation of the actual quality of the recruit to assess how they did as football players. I would imagine finding the data for the ones who left might make it harder for you.
January 30th, 2013 at 9:59 AM ^
I appreciate the idea. Actually, it's not hard to find the data for the guys who leave. But I'm not trying to measure our ability to evaluate talent, I'm trying to examine our ability to maximize the talent we bring in. Part of that process is keeping your talent.
Michigan does not bring in many JUCOs or transfers, so when we see a guy leave, he's not often replaced by a similarly-talented player. So guys we lose that become contributors elsewhere are still busts for us, even if they end-up being good elsewhere.
The Ryan Mallets and Justin Borens of the world are great players, but that doesn't help us win games.
January 30th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
Seeing Bass with a "1" next to his name makes me so sad.
Comments