Sparty player development (or talent scouting, or luck)
Sparty player development (or talent scouting, or luck)
This morning the Rivals player countdown features a Sparty (Joel Foreman) wholly unfamiliar to me at #76:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/photofeature.asp?fid=36888
Where was he in 2007?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michiganstate/football/recruiting/player-Joel-F…
That's right, two stars. Not that I'm counting or anything, but that's at least the third such instance for Sparty from that era. The other two on my mind?
* Kirk Cousins: http://rivals.yahoo.com/michiganstate/football/recruiting/player-Kirk-C…
* Jerel Worthy: http://rivals.yahoo.com/michiganstate/football/recruiting/player-Jerel-… (2008 class)
They were both three-star recruits, but they've been mentioned as future high NFL draft picks, for what that's worth. Note that Worthy had an offer from Nebraska, so he's wasn't as obscure as the other two.
Other three-star guys from the '07 class that prospered include Greg Jones (a recent NFL draftee) and Arizona transfer Nick Foles.
I realize that plenty of "threes" (e.g., David Harris and Mike Hart) at Michigan end up doing well, but it seems that Dantonio has been doing a good job with player development, talent scouting, or just being lucky. Thoughts?
I honestly don't really care about what Sparty does..
Thank you for your insight. You have contributed marvelously to this discussion.
This discussion is a waste of time. It's getting really annoying how much some U-M fans care about sparty. They don't matter; we shouldn't care.
When UM fans get huffy and say that they don't care about Sparty. Almost every Sparty thread has people saying that they don't care about Sparty. I propose a new rule...if the thread title is adequately descriptive and therefore you can get an idea of what the thread is about by reading the title, then do us all a favor and don't click on it to comment that you don't care at all about what the thread is about. Your lack of posting any comments on any thread about which you care nothing can be inferred. There have been a lot of posts on MGoBoard about the M softball team recently. I don't particularly care about softball, so I don't click on the threads. Would MGoBlog be a better place if I clicked on every softball thread and said "I don't care about this. Why are you posting this?".
I think not
I don't read softball threads but don't care if they exist. This is a U-M sports blog; more power to you if you like U-M softball.
I don't like to see Sparty threads on the board, though. It just looks pathetic to have two Sparty threads showing all of the time on the front page.
Not just relating to Sparty threads, but threads in general. I have never understood the logic of going into a clearly titled thread in order to whine about it and neg it. If I don't want to read another article dedicated to figuring out the size of our recruiting class or the severity of the OSU sanctions, I just don't click on it. I really don't feel the need to go in, neg the poster, and then post that "this thread is pointless, it should be locked right now". If other boarders are enjoying the discussion, the more power to them.
PS - No need to for all the neg votes on the OP here, either. The fact that he is examining some success that MSU has had recently does not mean that he is disloyal, and it will not in some way harm the success of our team. It only means that he is trying to figure out how a rival is managing to do something well, so that maybe we can do that also, or counteract it or whatever. I don't think it means that the guy is anti-UM or pro Sparty.
If I see a thread that doesn't interest me, I just don't click. Besides, there is really only one person here who has the right to be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't allowed, and it's the guy who is "paying the freight."
As for this thread, it appears to me that the legal system has done more "developing" of Sparty players than Sparty has.
Says the man who can't go a post without mentioning MSU or OSU.
but they matter to me because we play them every year. Which causes me to be kinda interested in the goings on at all the Big 10 schools plus Notre Dame.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with a little reconnoitering.
join the discussion. Those of us in the reality-based community may care to honestly assess the work of our rivals.
every year alot of players drated are 2 or 3 stars this is nothing new and its not a damnsparty board, take this bs to rcmb.
You should. They've beaten us 3 years in a row now. I think they are at least slightly worthy of our attention. It's rather arrogant otherwise.
<br>Greg friggin Mattison now. Game over.
<br>
<br>Ps Kirk Cousins numbers were middle of the pack with a weak B1G schedule. He plays because he makes fewer mistakes than their more talented other QBs. I'm not impressed by CK
I love Denard, but passing isn't his strong suit. The rankings also having Pryor as the 10th best QB and Robert Griffin III as the 29th because of his sacks. Statistics aren't always reliable.
I totally agree stats don't tell the whole truth but saying Cousins isn't impressive or good sounds more like sour grapes to me since all the evidence is to the contrary.
The poster didn't say Cousins was not good. He said he was middle of the pack and he wasn't impressed by him (as compared to the draft hype) with a weak B10 schedule and more talented QBs on their roster. He throws off his back foot way too often in my opinion. Plus, if we are comparing him to Denard in passing numbers, there is something wrong as Denard wasn't that great of a passer.
I see him as good but overrated. Thats all i meant. QB ratings are also overrated. Q
Grading prospects with stars is semi pointless.. While it might give you a rough idea.. Players will, determination, and work ethic are unmeasureable. If they say most players take their biggest leap in abilities between freshman and sophmore years how can you possibly know what an 18 year old will do 3 to 4 years down the road
Every report examining the positive correlation between *rankings and collegiate/NFL success has shown overwhelming significance. While the graph below is based on NFL draft success, this board (and Brian) has examined "star-power" on a collegiate level and shown that this type of grading system is not only useful but accurate. Soooo its very possible to know what an 18 year old will do 3 to 4 years down the road.
I think we can admit Dantonio is pretty good at player development. He seems to go after more under-the-radar types with the measurables, and coaches them up pretty well. However, I'm still not completely sold mostly because of our abberant behavior regarding recruiting the past few years. I'm hoping we can finally start developing our players, and soon.
Dantonio is fine at player development, but not any better than others. I mean, he's had some late bloomers and some low-rated players turn into contributors, but outside of Jones and Worthy I'm not sold that his guys have out-performed their billing. Cousins is a good QB who played behind a solid line and had some of the best WRs in the conference around him. When pressured by teams like Iowa or Alabama, though, he fell apart and made horrible throws. He's a good college QB but will struggle to make it in the pros, probably the same way Hoyer and Navarre struggled. It will be interesting to see how he plays this year with more of a bulls-eye on his back (with a weaker O-line and a tough schedule).
You work hard and work smart you will see improvement. A little bit better coaching certainly helps. MD deserves some respect on that.
Honestly I am very impressed with our 12' class recruits, Joe Bolden and Tom Strobel as examples. I see them becoming 5 stars on field when all is said and done, trust me. I hope Hoke and co. keep these players hungry and motivated.
off their homer glasses for a moment then it is obvious that Dantonio is excellent at player development. I'm sure if we look at the past few years classes between us and MSU we may not like the results. Luckily for us, this is a problem of the past and the Gods' once again have begun to favor us. Personally, I'm glad MSU has developed well. The better the teams in the B1G become, the more respect we will gain if we can win the conference.
I couldn't give two shits. why the hell are we discussing this on mgoblog. I would rather discuss Man v. Food episodes.
Where that guy a
Ate All that food?
The episode from Ann Arbor was on a couple nights ago.
It made me happy.
1) Who cares?
2) It could be interesting if you are able to correlate that MSU has more "success" developing 3*s than other teams. My guess is simply that MSU has more 3* guys in their class, so therefore they are more likely to have one or two of those 3* guys do really well as opposed to teams that take fewer 3* guys.
To answer your first question, apparently you cared, given your legitimate answer after you were done posturing like an ass.
Nobody gets into the NFL without playing time in college. These players got playing time because they don't have to compete with 4 and 5 stars. Or, occasionally, they beat them out in camp. That's no knock on them, it's just the facts. I would bet that your chances to get into the NFL increase with every year you start in college (and I do think playing time determines NFL chances more than vice versa--see Brown, Stevie).
Caveat: this doesn't mean you are destined for the 1st round just because your team couldn't recruit anybody better than you for 4 years. But occasionally, you will pan out superlatively like Cousins. Most of the time, you'll be closer to Drew Stanton. And rarely, you'll be Reggie Ball and never be NFL worthy. Actually scratch that--I just looked it up and Reggie effin' Ball, who managed to make Calvin Johnson look bad 5 times a game, was once signed by the Lions and is still playing professionally in the IFL. Case in point.
tl;dr, there's no substitute for experience, unless you're Matt Cassell.
Actually there are a number of guys that made it to nfl without significant playing time: Gutierrez, Dreisbach, Ritchie, can't remember the backup to Leihnert that's in, Trevor Pryce, there's a bunch, really.
Matt Cassell was Leinerts backup.
Of course there will be exceptions, but I don't think that invalidates the argument. I will say that there's a multivariable equation to one's pro career potential. I'm not trying to deny that.
What Gutierrez, Dreisbach, and Cassell have in common is they had hype and probably good measurables. But if you think that Kirk Cousins would be a favorite to rise to the first round after one year at Idaho or backing up two different QBs at USC, I disagree. If you're a two or three star, I think you have to have playing time. If you're a 4 or 5 star, experience still helps more than your Scout rating.
1) Yes, I think that MSU has done well with lower rated players. If you ever go on RCMB, that's all they talk about and why most of them don't care how well we're recruiting.
2) Any talk of UM on RCMB is met with the same type of derision that MSU chatter receives here and I have to agree with that. I don't know why UM fans feel the need to go on to RCMB and get completely bashed and I don't know why people feel the need to discuss Sparty player development here. If you want to discuss UM stuff come here, if you want to discuss how great Dantonio is as a player development coach go there.
I disagree with the premise of your second point. As one of our rivals I think this is an appropriate forum to discuss the merits of their coach. If you go over to RCMB you are going to get nothing but a love fest on the guy and any differing opinions will be strangled. Here we can try to take a step back and take a slightly more unbiased look at the situation in Lansing. Only slightly though, because where they will kiss his ass we will look for any hole and exploit it.
It is important to know your enemy both inside and out.
I have no problem discussing each one of our upcoming opponents. I want to know our own team most thoroughly, of course, but I also want to know how we will match up to everyone on our schedule, what our prospects are, and how we can strategize to beat them. In the case of MSU, who has dinged us three times running, I want to know what they have figured out in order that we can reverse this unpleasant trend of theirs.
Here Sparty fans are tolerated as long as they can construct a reasonable argument and know their role. At no point do I find any of the MGoBlogosphere obsessing about Sparty or making up ridiculous names etc. That sort of thing just isn't tolerated around here.
On the other hand, Sparty at RCMB are just blindly loyal; I imagine if you only get to a Rose Bowl every second decade you cling to whatever you can. The constant sc before UM or the most ridiculous accusations are met with nothing but positives over there.
As a result, I don't go over there.
We are recruiting a top ten class while they are recruiting a top 60 class...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Blind squirrel, nut.
It's also fair to ask how he has developed higher rated players. e.g. keith nichol was a very highly regarded qb and dantonio completely "failed" to develop him. he is now at wr. Fred Smith was also a 4 star that has basically failed to see the field. while Dantonio has either been good or lucky with 2 and 3 stars, his results have not been that impressive with more highly rated players which makes me think it's more due to luck and being good at identifying players that can suceed in his system.
Jesus, people, if the OP posted this question about Bielma, Ferentz, Petrino, or Fitzgerald, he would have gotten legit answers and not this horseshit litany of "Who Cares?".
<br>
<br>1. We play them annually, and are a divisional rival, what they do DOES matter.
<br>
<br>2. If you don't care, why bother logging a comment? Do you do so in every thread that doesn't interest you? No, you have get your beyond stupid Michigan-Man-Magic-Posturing in for the day.
What does everyone think about the Hoosiers this year? Do we feel like their coaches are going to be able to pick out superb talent and develop that talent or are we going to see the all too familiar path of Indiana football?
Who knows man. They don't have Zook, so I don't think they get elite talents, but he could develop his players to be successful. Hoeppner (spelled wrong) seemed to be doing a pretty good job at Indiana, so I think it can be done.
I agree with the above posters that MSU's team, being made up of more three-stars than anything else, will natrually experience "unexpected" levels of success from some of their three stars. This should not surprise anyone. There are far more three star players than there are four or five stars. Some of them are bound to pan out. We have had our share of good three-stars (Hart, etc). In most cases though, we play four- and five- stars. I don't think success after a star ranking necessarily has anything to do with player development. Is Mack Brown any good at player development, or is Texas' success all founded on the fact that they get entirely four- and five- star recruits? No matter where you coach, it's going to take a lot of work to turn high school athletes into college athletes. I think correlation of star rankings with player development is stupid.
I guess what I'm saying is that no matter what, you'll have three-stars excel beyond expectations and you'll have four- and five-stars fail to meet them. However, your odds of failure are less with four-star recruits than with three-star recruits. This has been mathematically demonstrated before. So it's not surprising that MSU will have some "unexpectedly good" three-star recruits that they can point to as evidence of Dantonio's unparallelled ability to develop talent. I'm sure there are also a whole bunch of three-stars that are mediocre, at best, but look better for being surrounded by a bunch of other mediocre guys.
Historically, they must be at least somewhat good at it....MSU has produced some significant players in the NFL. As for the Dantonio era, I would say that he's done fairly well with it also, and found some diamonds in the rough. Even in our "down years" (can I call them this safely?), Michigan had more brand equity than MSU, so they still have to typically take B-list names and make them able to compete with A-list talent.
hating on posts with which they don't agree. This post is relevant to Big Ten football and is therefore ON TOPIC. You don't like to see Sparty topics? What about all the OSU topics lately hmmmm? Feel free to comment but don't be hypocritical.
Thank you, Guy Who Has Been Here for Three Weeks, for enlightening us on the ways of the board.
...endeth the lesson.