ESPN List of Top 50 College Football Players

Submitted by michgoblue on

ESPN has put together a list of the Top 50 college football players of 2016.  I know that these lists are entirely subjective and largely irrelevant, but it's something to pass the time on a relatively slow week as we all eagerly await Saturday's arrival:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/rank102516/cfbrank-20…

Some interesting notes:

Michigan only has 2 players on the list - Peppers at 2 and Lewis at 17.  I was initially a bit surprised by this, but at the same time, I did struggle to come up with another Michigan players who I felt undoubtedly should be there.  On offense, Butt and Chesson are top flight players, but THIS YEAR, neither has had huge production (although I do expect that to change as we get into the heart of our schedule).  On defense, several of our DL have a strong case, but they all suffer from the same problem, namely the strength of the line as a whole.  With such a strong line, including the nominal second unit, sacks, hurries, TFL, etc. are split amongst so many players that no one player has eye-popping stats. 

Alabama has 7(!!!) players listed, which is the most of any school.

Our main rival, non-Rutgers division, has 4 players on the list.

For those on this board who like to make the somewhat popular argument of "starzz don't matter - just give me kids with heart and great coaching any day," you might want to review the recruiting profiles of these kids.  Almost every one of them was a 4-5*.  Obviously, this does not mean that there are not plenty of diamonds in the rough that can be coached up (see the entire Glasgow family), and obviously even the best talent will not develop with poor coaching (see the Hoke years), but anyone who denies that there is a STRONG corrolation between recruiting rankings and ultimate college success is naive

Finally, because it is Sparty hate week, take a look at all of the Sparty players on this list. 

Go Blue and Beat State!

You'reMyBoyBlue

October 26th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

Our sandwich of choice unless we really wanted to get fancy and then it was a slice of bread with butter and strawberry jam and a second slice with peanut butter and fluff...slap them together and it is a child's version of the club sandwich...

hunterjoe

October 26th, 2016 at 10:51 AM ^

Also, about the DL, something that was brought up in one of the many excellent posts by our front page writers, we don't get many tackles in games due to the fact that we're forcing sooooo many 3 and outs.  The numbers just aren't there.  Split 40 tackes amongst our defensive rotation and it's not easy to rack up the numbers.  

LKLIII

October 26th, 2016 at 1:45 PM ^

And to add to your point, Don Browns defense is so chaotic and we have such a true rotation on the DL that any individual player might end up with less than amazing statistics because overall the team is splitting those stats among several top level guys. On a mediocre team you can get one star D lineman racking up gaudy individual statistics. On a stacked D that runs a true 2 deep line, you're likely to get many guys with "good" stats but no one single guy with "amazing" stats.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

the real hail_yes

October 26th, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^

I don't watch enough non-Michigan CFB to know if this list is legit, but is it also possible that it's full of 4 and 5* players because those are the ones who get the most hype coming in and are well known, and consequently facilitate the type of lazy journalizm we've all come to know from espn?

WestQuad

October 26th, 2016 at 11:11 AM ^

Your point is right on.  When I watch NFL games the guys we recruited stick out to me.   There are lots of guys I have never heard of who play well, and stick out, but I couldn't remember them to put them in a list.  Same thing with college.  A lot of these journalists are watching every game.  They are just looking at stats and hype.

Hard-Baughlls

October 26th, 2016 at 11:07 AM ^

We say that if Harbaugh takes a 3* over a 4 at a given position, it's because he sees something in that player.  FYI, Higdon looking pretty good right about now.

Harbaugh is considered one of the best talent evaluators in the game.  Obviously he will probably agree with most sites on 5* talent and pursue most of them and nobody is saying we want Harbaugh to build a Danrotillio style build them up 7th year senior model for a program.

Simply, we will get plenty of 4 and 5 stars, but because of Harbaugh's talent evaluation (and usage and recruiting of fullback types) we may see some 3 stars that are extremely productive that nobody outside the MAC recruited.  

A top 5 class with a few 3 stars that Harbaugh and Brown specifically identify should be the expectatation. 

turd ferguson

October 26th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^

I agree.  And this conversation is getting so old.  I'm not even sure what here is debatable:

1.  Recruit rankings are correlated with college and NFL success.  If you know nothing about two classes except for their star ratings, pick the higher-rated one, because it is a predictor of success.

2.  Those correlations are strong but far from perfect, and there are a lot of reasons to question them in specific cases.  Some position groups (e.g., OL) are harder to project and have weaker correlations between recruit rankings and college performance.  Some groups of prospects are systematically underrated because they don't get much attention from recruiting services (e.g., kids who physically mature late, live in overlooked states, or commit early to low-profile programs).  Some prospects fits better in certain coaches' systems and their ratings don't necessarily reflect that.  And some coaches are better than others at talent evaluation.

There's a crowd here that acts like recruiting rankings are almost infallible and anyone who doesn't defer to them is naive and doesn't understand statistics, using point 1 as the argument.  That's stupid.  And then there's a crowd that says "Mike Hart, bitches" whenever anyone raises point 1.  That's also stupid.  The reality is obviously somewhere in between.

Stringer Bell

October 26th, 2016 at 11:11 AM ^

There's no reason Alabama should have 7 players on it while we only have 2.  If you're gonna penalize Michigan's defensive players for the overall strength of the unit, you have to do the same to Alabama.  Just shows ESPN's inherent SEC bias.

Everyone Murders

October 26th, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^

 

Our main rival, non-Rutgers division, has 4 players on the list.

It's surprising that Illinois has that many players on the list.  I'm just not seeing the talent, based on last weekend.

SAMgO

October 26th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^

It's truly unbelievable that he's still getting Heisman talk (along with Jalen Hurts lol), and that Elfein is even on this list. Barrett has just further proven that he has no idea where the ball is going when he pushes it more than 10 yards downfield, and Elfein has been downright bad against the two competent teams he's played. There's just no thought that goes into this stuff, and unfortunately it's los tthe Heisman a lot of credibility.

Goblue228

October 26th, 2016 at 11:46 AM ^

Guys he's absolutely right there is a corrolation between 4-5 stars and the best CFB players.  Argue about lazy journalism all you want, don't trust them, or me, go look at an NFL draft of 1st-2nd rounders.  Then even go one step further and look who turn out to be NFL stars.  By and large these players are 4-5 stars coming out of HS.

 

2016 First Round...

The final tally: 17 four-star recruits, five five-star recruits, four three-star recruits, four unranked recruits and one two-star recruit.

Guy Fawkes

October 26th, 2016 at 2:37 PM ^

Weird isn't it? Recruiting rankings today are more accurate than they've ever been. Its a huge business, most of these guys have access to the coaches and their recruiting board. Some highly rated guys flame out and some lowly rated ones excel but the data is there and it favors 4-5 stars.

Ihatebux

October 26th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^

Even though all of our DL is incredible, I think Wormley could be considered the leader and deserves to be on this list.

Maybe a stretch, but Stribling should be too.   I kinda laugh when annoucers talk about how good OSU's DBs are and think I will keep what we have.

JoeFink

October 26th, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^

Harbaugh is looking for guys who are not only talented, but are also willing to work hard to grow as a player.  My sense is that recruiting "experts" view players in the present, and may not be as good at projecting where that player will be in 3-4 years.  If our coaches want a guy, I'm happy when that guy commits.

bronxblue

October 26th, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^

It's sort of a nothing article beyond naming players you've heard of on winning teams.  But yeah, basically if you are a highly-regarded player coming into college, there's a good chance you'll be pretty good in college and get acknowledged.  But also remember, especially with ESPN, there is a bit of a bias toward SEC teams in these lists.  I'm not saying Alabama doesn't have a multitude of stars, but when I see a guy (Eddie Jackson) who is out for the season with a broken leg being a top-20 player (even though he was very good when he did play), I always squint a bit.  It's also a list based largely on countable stats; some corner has 4 picks so he's great, while another has 1 so he's rated worse.