2013 NFL Draft Recap: B1G Team Comparisons

Submitted by UMgradMSUdad on April 28th, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I thought it would be interesting to see how the B1G teams fared against each other with number of players drafted and what rounds they went in.  Overall,  it was not a good year for the B1G with only 22 players selected and just one making into the first round. I created a table that shows the number of players drafted from each team, then assigned points based on the round drafted to come up with a point total for each B1G team. I used the following numbers: first rounders were given  7 points, second rounders 6 points, and so on.  Obviously the point totals are open to debate.  Is a first rounder really worth the same as as 7 seventh rounders?  Who's to know?  Anyway, with this metric I devised, Michigan ended up with a total of 5 points based on Denard's fifth round selection (3 points) and Will's sixth round selection (2 points).  Obviously, had Taylor Lewan entered the draft, Michigan's score would have been much higher.  As Lewan would have almost surely gone in the first round, that would have made Michigan's point total 12, good enough for fourth place, just ahead of Ohio. 

I went ahead and threw in Rutgers and Maryland at the end of the chart just out of curiosity.  If Rutgers were in the B1G this year, they would have topped the conference both with number of players drafted as well as point total. 

2013 NFL Draft: B1G Edition

 

Team No. Taken     Points
1. Wisc 3 16
2. MSU 3 14
3. Illini 4 13
4. OSU 3 11
5. PSU 3 10
6. Purdue 1 6
7. UM 2 5
t8. Neb 2 3
t8. Iowa 1 3
IU 0 0
Minn 0 0
NW 0 0
RU 7 18
MD 1 1

Edit: Corrected based on FlintB16's post

Comments

borninAnnArbor

April 28th, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^

I was checking on the draft occasionally to see when and who would get Denard so I could become a greater fan of that team. I noticed Michogan was not well represented, though one could lay yet another issue at the feet of richrod.

I was wondering, with top recruits considering Michigan, if that is taken into consideration. I could see S E C schools selling 25% of the draft.

Or is the general consensus that when Hoke's guys get there, there will be lots of M players taken?

UMgradMSUdad

April 28th, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^

I think Michigan not having many players drafted is due to a combination of factors, some due to changing coaches, but I would expect more players to be drafted from Michigan moving forward. I don't claim to be any expert on this, but many of the players RR recruited fit his system well but weren't always what the NFL looks for. Just as an example, look at the size of  WRs and CBs drafted.  Most were several inches taller than RR's recruits, but again, that just goes to the style of play. It's not a knock against RR.

 

M-Dog

April 28th, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^

The RR era was only 3 years, not 30 years.  Fortunately our shelf life on pre-RR players in the NFL has not yet expired.  So, we can point to a lot of former Michigan players in the NFL as well as the potential of Hoke putting more in.  I don't think recruiting has suffered.

One Inch Woody…

April 28th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

The Big 10 is an extremely young conference with players maturing over every single team. The Big 10 draft classes in the upcoming years are going to improve significantly...

I can even see players from Minnesota and NW getting a lot of draft attention - Rashede Hageman from Minn. and Colter, Mark, Prater, and Christian Jones (potentially). 

Double Wolverine

April 28th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^

Interesting to see that the team with the most players taken and the highest point total was future member Rutgers. I haven't followed them too closely other than knowing they had Ray Rice and Savage, the QB, was highly recruited. Is their coaching staff good at developing players, do they recruit well or did all the talent they have just jump ship?

elm

April 30th, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^

They run a pro-style offense and defense, so that helps.  They tend to have solid recruiting classes, but nothing spectacular, and they seem to have decent coaching.  As a result of these three things, they've done better in the draft over the past few years, but this year was an aberration in terms of number drafted.  Part of that seems to be that Belichick loves him some Rutgers players and took a couple of players way higher than anyone expected.

In terms of the future, you have to think their recruiting improves now that they're in the B10, so they'll probably continue to have a few players drafted each year, but Michigan and OSU will dwarf them in a couple of years.

As to how good they'll be on the field, I think Brian nailed it: Rutgers will be the tallest midget amongst the also rans in the East, regularly going to bowls, playing spoiler in the conference race, but rarely if ever competing for the title themselves.  They'd probably be pretty competitive if they were in the West, though.

bronxblue

April 28th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^

Looks good.  It's a young conference as others have noted, but it really falls on teams in the second tier - Illinois, Iowa, MSU, etc. - to start recruiting at a higher level.  UM/OSU/PSU will always draw in a certain level of talent, but in years past Iowa and Purdue would have 4-5 players drafted, inclduding a first rounder or two.  This might be a one-year aberration, but given the amount of money the conference is making and (hopefully) putting toward player development, they should be able to recruit better and produce far more draft picks.

trueblueintexas

April 28th, 2013 at 10:00 PM ^

Thanks for collecting this info, I was wondering about this and this sums it up nicely. There has been so much turnover of coaches in the past 3-5 years in the B1G, if the current crop of coaches can get settled in, the quantity and quality of players drafted from the B1G will improve.
On a separate note, all you heard throughout this past season was the lack of quality skill players in the B1G. Well, based on the draft, it turns out there was a lack of skill players in general this year.

Zone Left

April 28th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^

Regardless, it's clear things are going to be better for Michigan in next year's draft. We've got three likely picks between numbers 75-77 with Schofield, Washington, and Lewan. Throw in Gordon and Gallon and Michigan should be able to get up to four picks, which would have tied for top in the Big 10 this year.

Moving forward, Michigan has a lot of line depth and is recruiting NFL body types at every position. We're going to have lots of picks in years to come.

Finance-PhD

April 30th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^

The comparison is always interesting. The SEC numbers were unreal (SEC East took more than any conference and SEC West tied with the ACC at 31 total pics) but that was driven by the usual suspects. UA, LSU, UGA, and UF combined for more than any conference.

That is naturally driven mostly by demographics.

I am curious where the numbers will be 3 years from now.

Bo_Knows

May 1st, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

who was projected to go in the 1st round didn't declare, but anytime your conference has as many 1st round NFL draft picks as the MAC...then it wasn't a good year for top end talent in your conference.  Here's to hoping that changes starting for next year.

At least we have NFL powerhouse, Rutgers joining the fray /s /butreall

JayMo4

May 5th, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^

The thing that always jumps out at me is the handful of programs we see every year that are putting a bunch of guys into the draft without much in the way of results on the field.  It seems like Illinois has been outproducing us for a while, for all the good it's done them.  Rutgers couldn't even win the Big East (and neither could UConn, who also had several players picked.)  Florida State, USC and a couple others have been pumping out all sorts of pros for a long time while still repeatedly losing games they shouldn't have.

 

So maybe whatever success we've been able to get without a lot of top-end talent is revealing about this staff, and perhaps indicative of future success once the (apparently) higher ceiling guys they've recruited grow into upperclassmen.  That's my optimistic take on the situation, anyway.