Michigan Recruits: 4 vs. 3 stars
So after NOLA's interesting post, I asked in the comments to see comparison's from any and all teams he could do. One I (and most of us) could do and would like to see, presumably, is Michigan. Between me and wikipedia, I figured I could mostly get who got drafted correct. If I screwed up, let me know and I'll rework the charts. I took results through 2005 since much of the '06 class remains to be seen. Chart?
Those are the five stars. Fours:
And now the 3's:
For the record, that's
In the very least, under Lloyd, it's pretty clear that your star ranking mattered. My understanding is that the recruitniks who end up rating the recruits have plenty of contact with the best coaches, so I'm not surprised that the best programs have useful results. Past the top 25, it may well be a crap shoot. So it would seem the question is: do the recruitniks still give Michigan that kind of credence? I doubt they lost it in two seasons (not like Rich was an under the radar hire either), so I'm guessing we should probably care about recruiting rankings.
Name | Pos | Stars | Year | Draft | Count |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gabriel Watson | DT | 5 | 2002 | 1 | 1 |
Prescott Burgess | DB | 5 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
LaMarr Woodley | LB | 5 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
Chad Henne | QB | 5 | 2004 | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Grady | RB | 5 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Brandon Graham | LB | 5 | 2006 | 1 | 1 |
Stephen Schilling | OL | 5 | 2006 | 0 | 1 |
Those are the five stars. Fours:
Name | Pos | Stars | Year | Draft | Count |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Steve Breaston | ATH | 4 | 2002 | 1 | 1 |
Quinton McCoy | ATH | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Larry Harrison | DT | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Jeremy Van Alstyne | LB | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Mike Kolodziej | OL | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Matt Gutierrez | QB | 4 | 2002 | 1 | 1 |
Darnell Hood | RB | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Pierre Rembert | RB | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Jason Avant | WR | 4 | 2002 | 1 | 1 |
Carl Tabb | WR | 4 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Leon Hall | DB | 4 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
Quinton McCoy | DB | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Ryan Mundy | DB | 4 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
Shawn Crable | DE | 4 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
Jim Presley | LB | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Adam Kraus | OL | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Jake Long | OL | 4 | 2003 | 1 | 1 |
Jeff Zuttah | OL | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Clayton Richard | QB | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Jerome Jackson | RB | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Will Paul | TE | 4 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Tim Jamison | DE | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Michael Massey | DE | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Will Johnson | DT | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Chris Graham | LB | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Chris Rogers | LB | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Brett Gallimore | OL | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Alex Mitchell | OL | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Alan Branch | OL | 4 | 2004 | 1 | 1 |
Max Martin | RB | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Doug Dutch | WR | 4 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Adrian Arrington | WR | 4 | 2004 | 1 | 1 |
Morgan Trent | WR | 4 | 2004 | 1 | 1 |
Antonio Bass | ATH | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Brandon Harrison | DB | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Eugene Germany | DE | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
James McKinney | DT | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Terrance Taylor | DT | 4 | 2005 | 1 | 1 |
Marques Slocum | OL | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Cory Zirbel | OL | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
David Moosman | OL | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Justin Schifano | OL | 4 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Mario Manningham | WR | 4 | 2005 | 1 | 1 |
And now the 3's:
Name | Pos | Stars | Year | Draft | Count |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Willis Barringer | DB | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Rondell Biggs | DE | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
David Harris | LB | 3 | 2002 | 1 | 1 |
Brian Thompson | LB | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Obi Oluigbo | LB | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Tom Berishaj | OL | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Mark Bihl | OL | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Rueben Riley | OL | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Kevin Murphy | TE | 3 | 2002 | 0 | 1 |
Pat Sharrow | OL | 3 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Anton Campbell | RB | 3 | 2003 | 0 | 1 |
Jamar Adams | DB | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Charles Stewart | DB | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
John Thompson | LB | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Jeremy Ciulla | OL | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Grant DeBenedictis | OL | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Mike Hart | RB | 3 | 2004 | 1 | 1 |
Roger Allison | RB | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Keston Cheathem | WR | 3 | 2004 | 0 | 1 |
Chris Richards | ATH | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Johnny Sears | DB | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Carson Butler | DE | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Chris McLaurin | DE | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Brandon Logan | LB | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Tim McAvoy | OL | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Mark Ortmann | OL | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Jason Forcier | QB | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
Mister Simpson | RB | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
LaTerryal Savoy | WR | 3 | 2005 | 0 | 1 |
For the record, that's
Stars | Total | Drafted | Pct |
---|---|---|---|
5 | 7 | 5 | 71.43% |
4 | 43 | 12 | 27.91% |
3 | 29 | 2 | 6.90% |
In the very least, under Lloyd, it's pretty clear that your star ranking mattered. My understanding is that the recruitniks who end up rating the recruits have plenty of contact with the best coaches, so I'm not surprised that the best programs have useful results. Past the top 25, it may well be a crap shoot. So it would seem the question is: do the recruitniks still give Michigan that kind of credence? I doubt they lost it in two seasons (not like Rich was an under the radar hire either), so I'm guessing we should probably care about recruiting rankings.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 AM ^
It seems you included only the 5 star data from 2006.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
and obviously i guessed on schilling. i think i'll leave them, just because there's so few 5s in the first place. which is what i was probably thinking when i left them on there.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 AM ^
You've got Quinton McCoy listed twice.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^
This also tells me that talented players tended to play well while players that needed developed languished. Can you imagine the records we would have had in the last 15 years if we would have had the players RR had in WV and had to develop nearly all of them from midling 3stars and under. We would have stunk for a very long time. Everyone would love a prepackaged MNC contender every year, but RR built a BCS program the old fashioned way...I dont see anything wrong with that.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
is call into question the scouting net actually cast by Rivals. star rankings are useful for Michigan, but not for Iowa? that's a scouting problem.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^
But I wonder if something other than the NFL draft would be better for these kinds of analyses -- like making an NFL roster (more stringent?), making an NFL practice squad (less stringent), or attending an NFL training camp (even less stringent).
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
Anyone else see the '1' in the "Drafted" column next to Ryan Mundy? That was all Rich Rod's staff.
/LOCK THE THREAD
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
Rivals has come out and said that they rank players on NFL potential, not on college potential. Since there are so many different offensive schemes in college this is a good way of attacking it. It also should tell people not to be hooked up on with stars for the Richrod spread offense, 3-3-5 defense. Michigan has positions now that require different types of players than the pro-style offenses of the Carr era.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
They've said NFL potential is a factor they didn't say it was the only factor or that it supercedes college potential.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
I was curious as to what Michigan's draft performance looked like... from the surface it looks like Lloyd was closer to Joe Pa than to Mark Richt...
However, I would be careful casting a final judgment on that, as our 2008 implosion really destroyed the chances of 5th year seniors from 2002 and seniors from 2003 from being given a serious look from the NFL... this would disproportionately affect people who need a year or two of extra physical development (3-stars more likely?) while the 2008 record was irrespective of those seniors' talent as they were a part of a turbulent coaching change at the twilight of their careers.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
Clayton Richard was drafted, just not in football. He probably made the right choice, seeing as he's in the bigs.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
i did consider making the baseball draft good enough
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
The thing is that Rivals for the most part rate guys that fit in traditional offenses and defenses highly. Since we don't have traditional schemes our players aren't rated as highly because according to Rivals they aren't "NFL" matieral.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
but not as the best pros still get 4 stars.
This may have already been stated, but could the lack of 4 or even 3 star athletes being drafted have anything to do with the lack of development players received under Carr? Maybe Carr did a good job with the top rated athletes he had but he wasn't able to develop the lower rated athletes?
Comments