UM vs. MSU: comparing recruiting and player development over time
Saturday, Chris Spielman compared player development at MSU and player development at UM, putting forth an argument we are all familiar with. MSU develops lower rated recruits into better players than UM, even though UM gets higher rated recruits. The upshot is supposed to be that UM's coaches fail to develop talent. I actually think the two claims are distinct, and both are overstated. UM and MSU both consistently develop ‘low-ranked recruits’ into all-conference caliber players within four, and sometimes three years of play. Neither UM nor MSU consistently develop any level of recruit into serviceable players within the first two years of play. Here are my reasons for that conclusion:
The ‘us’
1 - UM has players that were low-ranked (walk-on up through borderline 3/4 star) recruits and developed. Jake Ryan, Frank Clark, Devin Funchess, Ryan and Graham Glasgow, Willie Henry, and Desmond Morgan are all examples of this. Jake Ryan was a 3 star who became JMFR. Frank Clark was a three star 220 pound tweener who became a 280 pound all conference defensive end who will be drafted by the NFL. Devin Funchess was a borderline 3-4 star who will be a 1st round NFL pick. Ryan Glasgow was an unranked walk-on with very little football experience who became a serviceable B1G starter at NT by his RS sophmore year. His brother had similar background and is now a decent offensive lineman by his RS junior year. Willie Henry was a 3 star who is clearly developing at DT, and he is only a RS sophmore. Desmond Morgan was a 3 star who developed into a solid LB by his senior year. All of these players are at least in their third year with the program.
2 – It is arguable that our elite (5 or borderline 4/5 star, top 100) recruits have not met their potential. This is where I think the real criticism lies. Those recruits include Devin Gardner, Shane Morris, Kyle Kalis, Ty Isaac, Ondre Pipkins, Erik Magnuson, Derrick Green, Dymonte Thomas, Shane Morris, Patrick Kugler, Henri Poggi, Jake Butt, Kyle Bosch, Jourdan Lewis, Jabrill Peppers, Drake Harris, and Mason Cole.
Jake Butt, Jourdan Lewis, and Mason Cole are clearly not busts.
Other than Gardner and Morris, all of our five-stars are injured or cannot play - Kalis (lingering back injury), Green (broken collar bone), Harris (hamstring), Peppers (knee injury), and Pipkins (ACL) are injured. Bosch is on a temporary leave of absence. Ty Isaac has to sit out this year as a result of his transfer.
Gardner, Morris, and Green are all extremely hard to assess because of our offensive line. For the sake of argument, I will declare Gardner a bust, Morris as a serious danger to be a bust, Green as a less-but-still-significant risk to be a bust.
Its too early to tell (due to a combination of youth and position) for Magnuson, Poggi, and Harris.
I think the strongest argument for busts on this list are Devin Gardner, Dymonte Thomas and Kyle Kalis. The only player on this list who is beyond his third year is Devin Gardner and the only players in their third year are Kalis, Isaac, Pipkins, and Magnuson. Everyone else is in their first or second year in the program. 5 of the 16 are offensive linemen, a position that is notoriously difficult to assess in recruiting and usually takes a longer time to develop than other positions (e.g. running back).
The ‘them’
3 – MSU obviously develops 3 and 4 star talent. However, they usually do so over at least three years. Cook is a RS JR, Langford is a RS JR, Lippet is a RS SR; their offensive line consists of a RS SR, two RS JR, and two RS SO. On defense, all of their youth is concentrated in the secondary, where they start a RS JR, SO, FR, and RS SR. This is uncharacteristic for State, and they are uncharacteristically vulnerable in the secondary this year (surprise!). (Note: UM's entire offense has this problem except for the QB, a walk-on guard, a 3 star DE recruit who now plays center, and a 3/4-star WR.) Cook and Langford came into their own as RS SO, so it is unfair to claim it took them three years to develop. However, they played behind one of the best offensive lines in the B1G last year. Garder, Morris and Green played behind...
4 - Assessing MSU's ability to develop 5 and 4/5 star recruits is problematic because the sample size is... William Gholston, Malik McDowell, and maybe Montae Nicholson. Notably, according to Rivals, Andrew Maxwell, Max Bullough, Isaiah Lewis, Aaron Burbridge, and 5-10 unnotables were 4 stars.
Pulling it all together
I think the clear theme in 1), 2), 3), and 4) is that the three year mark is the earliest reasonable time to assess player development. U of M has numerous walk-ons and 3/4 star recruits who are beyond that mark and serve as starters. Many of them are all-conference caliber players who will be drafted in the NFL. Other than Gardner, Kalis, Isaac (really? clearly not a bust), Pipkins (probably not a bust, but I’ll list him anyways), and Magnuson, all of UM’s ‘busts’ have two or fewer years. All of state’s 3-4 star recruits who developed into all-conference level players have at least three years of development. Furthermore, MSU struggles at positions where they are forced to play players with less than three years experience.
It is also clear that Michigan’s skill position players, especially Gardner, Morris and Green, are adversely affected by a young offensive line.
Finally, almost every five-star talent other than Gardner and Morris is unable to play this year due to injury, personal problems, or transfer. I don’t think this has to do with conditioning; it has to do with risks inherent in playing football, problems that crop up in life, and the NCAA rules.
The Rawls and Furman objection
Rawls and Furman are doing very well after they transferred, which is terrific. What does this tell us about our player development? Not much, in my opinion. Rawls did not play against CMU’s toughest opponents, Syracuse and Kentucky. He has run well against Chattanooga, Purdue, Toledo, Ohio, Northern Illinois, Ball State, and Buffalo. It is important to note that Derrick Green performed quite well against that level of competition, running for 137 yards and two TDs against Ohio and 170 yards and a TD against App. St. Furman is doing great at LB for OK St. I don’t think he would or should crack the depth chart at LB for Michigan. I certainly don’t think the coaches should put the level of time and effort that would be required to transition him to that position. A better argument is that we should have trained him to be Peppers backup at the nickel; we might have messed that one up.
The QB objection
QB development is arguably disproportionately important. MSU is VERY good at developing QBs. It is hard to assess UM, but they haven’t looked good over the last six years. I am willing to grant Nuss a pass on this though. He’s proven that if you give Nuss two years and a decent recruit, he will develop QB potential.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
You better go post somewhere STAT as you are on 666 posts....OMG I TYPED IT!
Sparty > > > > > > Us
It's frustrating to watch college football on Saturdays, morning (CST) into the night, and see many, many teams utilizing young players and getting solid play from them. I understand not all players are capable of this at a young age, lineman especially, but dammit there's a lot of them out there doing well and ours just...aren't (haven't) lately. Frustrating.
(Rawls did not look good when given PT. I'm sorry to his supporters and hell, I'm sure he'll go on to be an NFL RB, but while here he wasn't very good.)
October 29th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
The most frustrating position group is OL. We landed a ton of highly ranked OL recruits over the past few years. We keep hearing the youth excuse, but MSU took an unranked recruit and started him at LT as a RS frosh. He still hasn't given up a sack. Several teams around the country are playing young OL.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
But starting one exceptional young OL is a lot different than starting an entirely young OL. The exception proves the rule, especially in power football programs.
Alabama: 3 seniors, a junior, and a frosh
LSU: 3 seniors, a junior, a sophmore
Auburn (most youth on list): 2 seniors, a junior, 2 sophmores
Wiscy: 3 redshirt seniors, a redshirt junior, a redshirt sophmore
Nebraska: 3 redshirt seniors, 2 redshirt juniors
Minnesota: redshirt senior, senior, 2 redshirt juniors, redshirt sophmore
October 29th, 2014 at 10:38 PM ^
Jr, RS Frosh, Jr, RS Soph, RS Sr
That's not much different then UM's.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:34 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^
Post in here, OP. I'll upvote you.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:00 PM ^
I'm honored.
I am just tired of what seems to me to be a baseless accusation leveled against our program.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:26 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^
I think you are arguing against yourself. The fact they can build the #3 team in the nation with only one NFL ready senior is a testament to the system and development of younger players. Which as best as I can tell is the rationalization we are hearing in the OP. So are we saying unless we have 8 NFL seniors annually we should not expect success? Because outside of LSU and Bama that is not going to happen ever anywhere. We are in a crap confererence, we should have success with less NFL players than someone trying to deal with competition in the SEC or Pac 12.
October 29th, 2014 at 8:26 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
The semantics end this year - Calhoun, Waynes and Cook are all RS JRs who if they decide to leave early will be anywhere from #15 to #45 drafted. Drummond is a 2nd to 3rd rounder. Lippett will be a 3rd or 4th rounder. Taiwan Jones will be a 4th rounder. So this thesis about a team that does it as a collective rather than as individuals ends. 2013 was a year that they mixed guys who excelled at the college level (who were seniors) with younger NFL type guys.
Remember MSU usually gets guys who dont have NFL type size/speed out of HS or at least that is what their 2010-2011 classes were. So if you come out of HS without elite athleticism it is difficult to "build that" - generally you either have it or you do not. Now their recruiting is improving so they are getting more of the guys who if developed will go to the NFL.
October 30th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
He would have been a playmaker at LB or RB, and at one point may have been the best option at RB on the roster. I'm glad he is succeeding elswhere, but kind of sad he couldn't find that success here.
October 29th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
I tend to think the problems resolve around the OL. Nothing against Cole, but true freshmen should never start on the OL. Plus we've gotten man-handled upfront since 2012. I do think the defense is serviceable to good, certainly solid. However, we look like weak boys upfront, and when you combine it with a QB with happy feet that isn't a great thrower, it is a recipie for diaster, and you end up with 2014 Michigan Football.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^
I think both recruiting rankings and coaches matters with coaching a little more. i feel like we'd be better off with Harbaugh and all 3 star recruits than Hoke and 5 star recruits but the best result would be Harbaugh and 5 star recruits. I think that Kalis is doing ok. The interior is way ahead of the tackles and I feel that our run game is doing much better however I feel that we need new coaches at this point because the OL should be better. The other frustrating thing is that all of our 4/5 star guys keep getting injured so we on't know how good they really are.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:17 PM ^
I don't have the file on me at the moment, but I can say that in the times myself and others have poured through the rankings here, it's always very interesting to see Michigan essentially trailing Ohio State in terms of average rankings (I use Rivals just because of the ease of getting their data), usually by a few tenths at the most but generally even closer than that. Michigan State, on the other hand, oftern sits near or even slightly below the conference average on a year-over-year basis, and yet if you look at recent success...well....the directions of both Michigan and MSU are pretty distinct.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:42 PM ^
But the first recruiting class Hoke is fully responsible for (2012) just hit its third year. Making diamonds in the rough work out is about recruiting and development. It is unfair to compare Hoke's recruiting and player development to Dantonio. How many players is MSU starting from the 2012, 2013, and 2014 classes?. Answer = 5. And 2 of those are in the secondary, which is arguably their biggest weakness this year. Michigan is starting 13. 8 of those are on offense! The three on offense from 2011 and 2010 are Gardner (4/5 star), Miller (3 star DE recruit), and Glasgow (walk-on).
October 29th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
In my opinion, Green and Smith would be getting 1000 yard years if we had a good OL. I don't think that they are bad.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
When MSU has youth at a position, they are "susceptible". When we have youth at a position, we are incompetant. You expect some more mistakes from 2nd year guys, but you hope to see those ironed out as season goes on, and you still don't expect them to get completely obliderated by any team with a pulse.
Having said that, I really do hope that this may be a sign that whoever comes to this job next will have the ability to do what Hoke did, and perform a quick turn around. The question will remain weather he can sustain at least 7/8 wins the season when the inevitable recruiting hole comes in from the depleted 2015 class grows up
October 29th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
It's a shame when all these guys hit the 3 year mark Hoke's replacement will get the credit, I'm confident ESPN will make sure of that
October 29th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
Not encourage us.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
Given the fact that MSU is so far ahead of UM on the field, and given the fact that UM has outrecruited MSU for the past 10 years, you have to pick one of two options:
(1) MSU develops talent a lot better than UM
(2) Recruiting rankings are a complete sham
Maybe it's a combination of the two but, looking at the state of the two programs, it's tough to say that UM outrecruits MSU and develops talent at the same level.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
I think MSU is a couple of years ahead in the player development category. If you compare the two teams, the physical differences are obvious, especially in the offensive and defensive line positions. They seem like they are better at “developing” talent because they have older dudes.
Now, I’m not going to say that this team’s problems are because of youth. That was last season’s excuse and I firmly believe that there should have been some sort of progression from last season to this one.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:49 PM ^
Ty Issac, but, then again I have a theory about that.
October 29th, 2014 at 6:51 PM ^
Big Will Campbell.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:00 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 29th, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^
State has really good coaches. I actually think we might (too early to tell), but I am uncertain about for obvous reasons.
My main point is that even if our coaches were evenly matched, State would kick our ass. The argument that is normally advanced is that State's coaches must be light year's better than ours because they develop lower-rated recruits that beat our higher-rated recruits. I am merely casting doubt on that particular argument because our higher rated recruits aren't on the field or have not had adequate time to develop.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 30th, 2014 at 5:53 AM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 10:06 PM ^
yeah it blows my mind that people think funchess will be a first round pick. when i think of first round pick receivers I think of michael floyd, dez bryant, AJ green, justin blackmon, julio jones, percy harvin, michael crabtree, larry fitz, megatron
those players were unstoppable for opposing defenses. funchess just isnt on that level.. i think funchess would be making a big mistake if he went to the pro's after this season. he has the potential - dont get me wrong - he just isnt there yet. he needs DEVELOPED.
he needs jeremy gallon talent in funchess' body to be on the level of those WRs mentioned above. also the OLine and QB is no excuse cause gallon shredded peolpe last year. i almost crapped my pants when funchess got number 1 but jeremy gallon didnt the year prior. jeremy gallon was a gamer.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:17 PM ^
Counterpoints (down vote away):
- Whatever the ages, right now only Jake Ryan, Frank Clark, J. Lewis, and Henry would get a shot at starting on MSU's D. I think Ryan would be an OLB and Lewis would be their 2nd CB. Clark would not start over Calhoun or Rush but is just a step behind (Rush has been their best player this year IMO). Henry would be in the mix at DT.
- On offense... lol. Funchess and Butt. That's it.
- So that is 6 out of 22 players on both sides of the ball that would start or compete for a starting position. Please dont throw out Bolden; they have quick twitch guys like Ed Davis performing better than Bolden. Wilson might have a chance at S because of their issues there but Wilson is in and out of the lineup with injuries so often it is hard to assess him. So if you put the team together we have about 1/3rd of the players and they have 2/3rds. We recruit 15-20 spots better then them annually.
- Youth excuse? Waynes and Calhoun - their 2 projected 1st rounders started...last year. As RS SOs. And were impact players. They both can leave early this year and be drafted in the 1st - as RS JRs. We only have Funchess as a comparable. Oh by the way they were a 2/3 star (Waynes) and a 3 star (Calhoun).
- Where is our progession through the year? Young teams (our favorite excuse) should get better as the year goes by. In fact they have a distinct advantage of getting better through a year as they gain experience. We don't. MSU's offense was horrid to start last year and by end of year was a B+ offense. Our offense has gone nowhere for 2 years.
- Progression on defense? Is this defense better today than it was 6 weeks ago? No. it's the same. Same system, mostly same coaches, lots of experienced players - where is the jump as they "put it all together"? PSU defense with a brand new coordinator and new system is better.
- Regression argument. On their entire team I see one player who has truly regressed and that was RJ Williamson - and he had a great game vs UM. Meanwhile we have past starters who look lost or semi benched - Countess, James Ross III, you could argue Ryan to a degree, Devin, hell Funchess is starting to regress. A bunch of other guys if not regressing are flat lining.
- Glasgow argument - they have a guy just like Glasgow named Jack Conklin who is in the class of 2012 with Kalis and Magnuson. He started EVERY game LAST year for them, and all this year. He has yet to give up a sack in 1.5+ years.
We've done a solid job with our 3 stars - Ryan, Henry, Clark. The Glasgow brothers have been solid. But we've pissed away so many 4 stars. Forget the 5 stars - Kalis, Pipkins, Green. The 4 stars have been just bad to mediocre to average - almost our entire OL, our secondary WRs, our safeties, our any corner not named Lewis.
Some have disappeared from earth - Poggi (we beat Bama for him, where is he?), Strobel (solid 4 star we beat guys like Nebraska for, where is he?), Richardson (too small but a high 4 star Bama recruit), Ross Douglas (that's a 4 star recruit), Mike McCray (yes 4 star too), Blake Bars (4 star) - most people dont know he is a Wolverine.
Others sort of play but just looking like busts or non impactful- Shane, Jenkins Stone (had a recruiting profile as good as Ross III), D. Thomas (top 100 national recruit).
And this doesnt even touch the 2012/2013 OL guys. Out of a random group of mostly 4 stars some of these guys should be excelling late in 2014.
The youth excuse does not fly with me. Top end players flash early - you saw that from Countess and Ryan and Ross III early (2 of those who have now regressed). You see it from Henry and Lewis now. You saw it from Funchess and Butt. They dont need to be superstars early but you should be seeing flashes now from those classes - so few players truly flash on our team.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^
My point is that the comparison should be made in one or two years. Its unfair to compare a bunch of redshirt sophmores (at best) on UM to a bunch of redshirt juniors (at worst) on MSU. I expect that if we keep all of our players on the team, then in two years more than half of our team would be starters on State.
I suspect that a healthy Pipkins and Peppers would start on State now too, but who knows.
October 29th, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^
Excuses. MSU had underclassmen playing and starring for them last year on their defense. UM has Wilson, Countess, Taylor, Ryan, Beyer, Clark as upperclassmen for a mediocre defense (10th best per defensive FEI and 6th best per defensive S&P+) in a conference lacking good offenses. That is 6 starters out of 11, and Lewis and Henry are doing a good job as underclassmen at 2 other positions.
How about comparing us to OSU/ND rather than MSU? OSU and ND have youngish teams. We get the same or similar recruits as OSU and ND. OSU rebuilt its entire OL and lost its stud RB and lost its 5th year senior QB on offense. It lost its best 2 players on defense in Shazier and Roby. I dont hear this rationalization. ND's defense lost its 2 best line players, is starting a walk on at MLB and aside from Jaylon Smith does not have a stud in its back 7. And had a suspension to its best corner and its best safety got hurt.
Arizona State - going out west- lost 9 starters off its defense last year. It is starting 3 true freshman and not Jabrill peppers type - they never get those type of players. Chase Winovich and Brandon Watson types. Their 2 deep has 7 seniors on it, on offense AND defense combined. They are 7-1 in a better conference.
Tell me again what the excuses are for this team?
October 30th, 2014 at 6:14 AM ^
Hoke has had 4 recruiting classes. If Hoke is relying on freshmen and sophomore, it's because he didn't develop his juniors and seniors.
Also, Cook was starting as a RS Freshman and he was better as a freshman than DG is now as a RS senior.
October 29th, 2014 at 7:15 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^
Excellent post. I can't muster any optimism from it unfortunately.
The only net positive from this data that I can see is "Maybe Hoke and co. aren't as horrible as they're made out to be."
I kinda want to keep making them out to be horrible...
October 29th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
I'll touch on a few of them later, but for starters, if you were seeking to run something a little closer to an 'apples to apples' comparison, you should have run with MSU's 2010 team.
Secondly, you've cited MSU's secondary as "vulnerable" and "struggling" on multiple occasions in this thread. From the counting #'s dept:
Opp Comp % - 9th nationally (51%)
YPA against - 16th nationally (6)
TD's allowed - 19th (8)
Int's - 20th (10)
Opp QB rating - 10th...
D FEI - 17th
D S&P+ - 5th
Passing S&P+ - 7th
Passing downs S&P+ - 1st
Must be nice to be 'vulnerable' and 'struggling' like that?
October 29th, 2014 at 10:11 PM ^
State had a ton of experienced players that year.
My point is that the acknowledged weak point in Msu's strong defense is their players with 1-2 years experienceOctober 29th, 2014 at 11:19 PM ^
MAybe MSU players appear better because they play as a team while UM players play like primadona's. Maybe MSU players compete for there positions every day in practice and UM players play like they are entitled to their positions. Maybe it is a program problem and not a coaching problem, like Dantonio said in his presser, Maybe being a good football team is something they work for and are not entitled too. Now, look over this thread and you will see many who act like they are entitled. Just a thought.
October 30th, 2014 at 7:29 AM ^
And MAYBE you are a trolling State fan. Just a thought.
October 29th, 2014 at 11:49 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
been consistently "statistically" better in the aggregate than MSU throughout the entire collective RRod / Hoke period? The injury bug for Michigan certainly has been significant, so that is certainly a factor. I guess one could attempt to do a "Net Survivors Analysis" to see how much the talent gap closes with MSU given our high 4/5 star injury rate. But say that brings us to parity, should we not expect to at least win 3 out of the last 7 if our coaching was equal? By any reasonable comparison, we have enjoyed a sustained period of good inputs (recruiting), but have taken 2 swings and misses with coaching while MSU clearly has had consistently solid coaching that makes more with less compelling recruits. And to really not be even competitive in all of the losses?
This one is easier to overthink.
October 30th, 2014 at 12:27 AM ^
Thanks to the OP for doing this. Obviously there are multiple ways of analyzing player development. Just a few points to add, some that have already been made, and some that I have picked up from other posters through the years.
1) I have heard it said that the O-line is the most difficult to rate out of high school and high school stars are not very reliable in predicting how these players will perform in college. When several of the highly rated players are O-linemen, this has the potential to make it seem like there's a lack of development.
2) Injuries can make even the best developed players non factors.
3)Changing schemes and coaches can have a negative effect on player development.
4)Having the luxury of red-shirting a majority of players helps in their development. It's one thing to start a freshman because he's better than the players who've been around for 3 or 4 years; it's something altogether different when they're starting because there are no or few 3rd, 4th, or 5th year players at their position.
5)I do think that coaches who get the most credit for player development (like Dantonio in FB and Beilein in BB) tend to do a better job of finding players that fit their system and / or have positive attributes that don't always translate into high ratings in high school. That is, their scouting ability is superior to other coaches. That's not to say they don't also do a good job of development,
October 30th, 2014 at 7:39 AM ^
I think the biggest advantange that MSU has had over Michigan is stability in their systems. They have basically ran the same offense and defense for 4-5 years, and have had minimal coaching turnover.
DG has had 3 different offensive coordinators, it doesn't help with his development.
Under DB and somewhat BH, the coaching staff of the Michigan football team has been on a moving platform. Its hard to develop players in a system, when the system keeps changing.