ESPN+ Which college football teams do the least with the most in recruiting?

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
20,527
I actually am quite interested in that aspect, Ethnic. That's why I started the Recruiting Board. There are 1.1 million posts on it. Many are mine. We discuss precisely this topic and, believe it or not, there is significantly more detail than simply repeating the word, "evals."



Most college football players do not play professional football. Talent evaluators deem they are not good enough. That is why, when measuring talent, one helpful method is comparing Miami's professional football players to other programs. In this analysis, a "fringe NFL player" is more talented than a player who is not talented enough to continue his football career. Another useful metric is third-party star rankings.

You reject both as a measure of talent, focusing only on team performance. This, of course, ignores the possibility that the talent may be grossly misused. In 2016, we changed the defense and immediately went from 84th in scoring defense to 13th. Same players. This year, we changed the offense and went from 99th to 24th in scoring offense overnight.

Everybody knows there are holes on the roster. I've discussed them at length going back to spring. The question has always been, "Are we talented enough to make an immediate, substantial improvement with better coaching and the same roster?" And my answer has always been yes. The NFL numbers, the star rankings and now the improvement on the field all support this theory. This article--an independent analysis by ESPN--is just the latest example.
No offense, but what you wrote is false and obviously so and you know that. I have never 'rejected' the things you say. I have pointed out that they are flawed metrics, don't speak for themselves, are capable of misuse or misunderstanding, and don't prove what you claim they do. Also, I have never ignored the 'possibility that talent may be grossly misused.' That is absurd. To the CONTRARY, I've been more negative than you, sooner, on each of our last 5 staffs as far as I can tell.

Your problem is you seem to adopt a simplistic argumentative strategy where you can't resist trying to turn every issue and every disagreement into some binary scenario. Talking about evals mean I don't understand coaching sucks. Dumb. Just in this thread I've said the opposite and you already know the opposite is true. Ironic also that you talk about all your threads on the recruiting site and then mock the concept of evaluations. If you don't think evaluations matter, wow. It's the most insane thing I can imagine someone saying who understands football. But okay.

In any case, if you present flawed and simplistic data from sites like ESPN, I guess it's appropriate to expect you to understand what's potentially wrong with them. If you take your own posts seriously. If you are just trolling, good deal and carry on.
 

TheOriginalCane

All American
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
12,168
Who even is our best current player in the NFL? None of our recent players seem to have done anything in the NFL.


Calais and Olivier. Those guys are probably near the top. Frank is still churning out the yardage, he's the rushing leader for the worst team in the NFL.

Seahawks and Bears have 5 UM alums each. Browns and Chargers have 4 UM alums each.
 

Coach Macho

aka Beardy Ryan
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
11,076
I really don't care how many guys we have drafted if they're all going 4th round or lower. If the 4 and 5 star players you signed continue to go that low then chances are good that they're not being developed. Some kids are going to the NFL no matter what program they sign with. Their DEVELOPMENT determines WHERE in the draft they go.

EXAMPLE: I'm not giving our staff props for sending Chad Thomas to the NFL. Kid was a 6'5" 240lb 5-star coming out of high school. Same thing with Dallas Crawford.

So yeah, the high percentage "hit rate" sounds good on the surface but when you look at WHERE they're being drafted it's a lot less impressive. Even less impressive when you consider that most of them do sh!t in the NFL once they get there.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
No offense, but what you wrote is false and obviously so and you know that. I have never 'rejected' the things you say.

What metrics do you use to measure talent? The only one I've heard from you is W/L record, which does nothing to answer the question of whether (and to what degree) we're underachieving. If it's the old "eye test," I'd ask whether those eyes saw the same defensive talent in 2015 and 2016.

If you don't think evaluations matter, wow.

I write annual prospect rankings and watch lists. I've sent multiple players to the staff. Some did nothing. Several went to the NFL. I've made countless posts about our evaluation criteria, from Shannon's CB recruiting to Golden's love of coal shovelers. Evaluations-- discussing them, critiquing them, providing them-- are the lifeblood of the Recruiting Board. So yes, I think they matter.

What I'm mocking is the simplistic and repetitive use of the word "evals" as insight. Everyone on the planet knows our evals can improve. Some of us even offer specific critiques on how those evals can improve. Every aspect of our program needs to improve in order to reach the next level.

But the debate has always been, "Do we have enough talent on the roster right now to improve substantially?" Not marginally, but substantially. I've always argued yes, and the sudden improvements on defense (in '16) and offense (in '20) support that view. If you're making a different argument, let me know, because this is getting old.
 

SayWhat

Sophomore
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
4,608
He played in 17 games. Only two others played at all, and neither threw a TD.

If you looked only at NFL careers, you’d say our best QB of the past 30 years was Dorsey by a large margin. And you’d be right.

I know all of that.

Would anyone point to Dorsey as an NFL talent? He earned some paychecks, no shame in that.

You though are using the NFL draft and players in the league as a barometer for how talented a team is. I say that logic is flawed as most players even on the best teams don't make it there. Talent at the college level isn't equal to to talent at the NFL level and there's been many good college players that never had a shot at the NFL. There's a lot of four year if players who are damn good, but too slow, undersized, etc to not reach the NFL
 

SayWhat

Sophomore
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
4,608
I really don't care how many guys we have drafted if they're all going 4th round or lower. If the 4 and 5 star players you signed continue to go that low then chances are good that they're not being developed. Some kids are going to the NFL no matter what program they sign with. Their DEVELOPMENT determines WHERE in the draft they go.

EXAMPLE: I'm not giving our staff props for sending Chad Thomas to the NFL. Kid was a 6'5" 240lb 5-star coming out of high school. Same thing with Dallas Crawford.

So yeah, the high percentage "hit rate" sounds good on the surface but when you look at WHERE they're being drafted it's a lot less impressive. Even less impressive when you consider that most of them do sh!t in the NFL once they get there.

That's in part what I'm getting at. A lot of NFL players are drafted on potential or freakish numbers while more productive good college players don't get their shot due to not having desirable measurables.
 

TheOriginalCane

All American
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
12,168
Nobody has ever denied our roster deficiencies compared to the elite teams. However, people like myself have focused on our roster supremacy compared to the rest of the ACC. And every single time an objective third party like ESPN performs a talent analysis, it supports our view.

This year is a perfect example. We're 5-1, and many are focusing on the poor quality of our opponents. But that's always been the case. Miami has a better roster than nearly every team in the conference. The roster has clear flaws. Other teams have much deeper flaws. The difference now is that we have systems that fit the players on both sides of the ball.

Your rallying cry has always been "evaluations." Well, a third party looked at the issue, and found that Miami had the greatest percentage of NFL players from its blue-chip prospects. Number one in hit rate. And the five teams behind it are the best programs in football. As is always the case, Miami is the outlier.

The response is usually, "where are the first rounders?" And it's a fair question. But it has very little to do with evaluations. During ESPN's sample period, Miami missed on Calvin Ridley, Jerry Jeudy and Chris Henderson. That had nothing to do with evaluations. We found them early, offered them early and recruited them like crazy. Unfortunately, we were a bad program that misused our talent. So they went elsewhere.

Which brings us back to the blueprint of success that we've laid out for years. First step is utilizing our current NFL talent in a way that consistently beats inferior conference opponents. Think early Clemson. Second step is building our depth with local talent similar to Charlie Strong-era Louisville. The next step, once we've had some success, is landing the local first rounders that have been going to Alabama and Georgia. The final step is recruiting nationally from a position of power.

It's never just one thing. But talent has always been last on the list of the problems.


This is the answer right here.
 

Ethnicsands

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
20,527
@DMoney
What metrics do you use to measure talent? The only one I've heard from you is W/L record, which does nothing to answer the question of whether (and to what degree) we're underachieving. If it's the old "eye test," I'd ask whether those eyes saw the same defensive talent in 2015 and 2016.
I'm at a loss to keep this up. You and I have had many exchanges in many threads on this topic. If you don't recall any of them, it's probably not worth going into. I have never said the only metric, or even a good metric, of talent is wins. That's absurd. I don't even know where you get that. You are either trolling or we're speaking different languages to each other. Your thing is you apparently reflexively try to twist the arguments you think someone else presents into some disfigured strawman you can attack, rather than just acknowledge the flaws in some of what you post and engage in an actual debate.

What I'm mocking is the simplistic and repetitive use of the word "evals" as insight. Everyone on the planet knows our evals can improve. Some of us even offer specific critiques on how those evals can improve. Every aspect of our program needs to improve in order to reach the next level.
That's ridiculous. I don't use it as 'insight.' I have used it as a reminder because you have been so opposed to actually engaging in discussions on the topic, and so dismissive of it in too many threads. It's ironic that you here say 'everyone knows our evals can improve' considering how much energy you put into threads claiming our evals are amazing and pointing to nfl stats to show it.

In any case, I have started threads on the topic of recruiting, process and evals and discussed it over years. I've tried to address what you wrote. I don't know everything the staff does, and I've never claimed to know more than I do, but it's pretty obvious they've been disorganized, lack process and data and discipline, are nowhere near best in class compared to other major programs, and are behind the curve on too many kids. Happy to try again sometime but to suggest it's not a topic I've explored with you yourself is just not right.

But the debate has always been, "Do we have enough talent on the roster right now to improve substantially?" Not marginally, but substantially. I've always argued yes, and the sudden improvements on defense (in '16) and offense (in '20) support that view. If you're making a different argument, let me know, because this is getting old.
You're highlighting the problem in your comment. "The debate"? There are lots of debates to be had on this and other programs. You try too hard to claim the discussion has to be about only one thing, and your thing. I have never once said we don't have enough talent on the roster to improve. Yet you keep repeating this like it's the only thing that can be said. Moreover, you know for sure that I'm not making a different argument, because you can read, and I've pointed it out to you over and over. I don't even know what to say on this topic. I've been more critical earlier than you on all the past failed staffs we've both suffered through. My criticism wasn't so much or just recruiting. It was that they sucked top to bottom. Culture, Scheme, game planning, play calling, S&C, development, evaluation, recruiting, retention, discipline, execution, leadership, staff, all of it.
 

streetja

Please fire me
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
4,044
Yes. Here is a list of the talent that makes us the most talented team in the ACC after Clemson:

D'Eriq King
Three Top 10 RBs out of HS
Two NFL TEs
Two NFL DEs
One of the better DTs in the conference who was #2 in the nation out of HS
NFL safety
Another 4* safety, two 4* strikers and three 4* CBs in the rotation
NFL K
NFL P

What other ACC team has those advantages, besides Clemson? And if you respond by pointing out our holes, please provide an example of an ACC team that does not have even worse issues. Note I'm not counting Notre Dame, but they are probably the second best roster if they're included.
I think it's a bit telling that in about half of that list you feel the need to tell us their star ratings. If we were instead going solely based off performances this season you'd reduce that list by about half.

So what difference does it make in the game of football when you've got around 8 non-special team players that are the most talented guys on the field in a game decided between 55+ players? Especially when you consider that our other guys range from average to complete liability. This isn't basketball, you can't get away with being top heavy. And our top isn't even that heavy.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
I think it's a bit telling that in about half of that list you feel the need to tell us their star ratings.

I can give you stats if you prefer. Those four stars are allowing 6.2 yards per pass. That would've been a Top 10 number in the nation last year.
 

streetja

Please fire me
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
4,044
We had the same OL and an NFL WR when we hit rock bottom last year. The obvious difference is King and a new system.
This is so disingenuous. Last year we were relying on three first time starters in the OL, including 2 true freshman, plus a guy that pulled himself from this season.

No one can win that way. IDC how many 5th round picks you have.
 

DMoney

D-Moni
Staff member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,266
Last year we were relying on three first time starters in the OL, including 2 true freshman, plus a guy that pulled himself from this season.

And we left our tackles on an island, with no help, while we called long-developing pass plays. Watch how they played UF's two NFL DEs in the opener. Enos must've had a death wish.
 

Number1CanesFan

Sophomore
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
4,896
This goes to a long-running debate I've had with @Ethnicsands.

Yes, evaluations can always improve. But the biggest problem by far is the deployment of these players at the college level.

47.3% of our blue chips got drafted. That is the highest rate on the list. For perspective, the next five schools are Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, LSU and Georgia. Everyone would agree those are the five best programs in the nation.

But we got very little out of those guys in college, largely due to scheme issues. We produced zero All-Americans and two All-Conference guys. The other teams in that category are underachievers like Texas, Tennessee, FSU and USC. Tellingly, the top producers of All-Americans are the schools behind us on the NFL list: Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Ohio State and Georgia. They turn players into production.

The most surprising stat for me was the transfers. Miami had the lowest percentage of transfers of the 14 schools.
I agree with what you're saying, but there's some dynamics that are missing from the categorizations. Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, and Ohio State are getting the cream of the crop in 4 and 5 star recruits. To say they get the most production out of their players is not an equal comparison when there's a significant talent level difference between these schools and the majority of college football. Making comparisons of 4 and 5 star recruits together is flawed because the star rating is a label that doesn't quantify the skill level in measuring talent. It's just a number, but we know those schools have a majority of the best recruits at any position, so they should be highly productive and would be at any other school.

What is more impressive is how a program like Wisconsin turns out draft picks at offensive line when getting a majority of 3 star recruits. They are 2nd in NFL draft picks from 1998 to the present at offensive linemen only to Alabama. That shows a proven evaluation, development, and production. You could argue that Wisconsin has better production at OL than Alabama because the talent level of recruits is nearly 2 levels less than Alabama.

With all our struggles at offensive line, I can't understand why we don't get with the Wisconsin staff and study what they do.
 

not an al golden fan

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
301
What metrics do you use to measure talent? The only one I've heard from you is W/L record, which does nothing to answer the question of whether (and to what degree) we're underachieving. If it's the old "eye test," I'd ask whether those eyes saw the same defensive talent in 2015 and 2016.



I write annual prospect rankings and watch lists. I've sent multiple players to the staff. Some did nothing. Several went to the NFL. I've made countless posts about our evaluation criteria, from Shannon's CB recruiting to Golden's love of coal shovelers. Evaluations-- discussing them, critiquing them, providing them-- are the lifeblood of the Recruiting Board. So yes, I think they matter.

What I'm mocking is the simplistic and repetitive use of the word "evals" as insight. Everyone on the planet knows our evals can improve. Some of us even offer specific critiques on how those evals can improve. Every aspect of our program needs to improve in order to reach the next level.

But the debate has always been, "Do we have enough talent on the roster right now to improve substantially?" Not marginally, but substantially. I've always argued yes, and the sudden improvements on defense (in '16) and offense (in '20) support that view. If you're making a different argument, let me know, because this is getting old.

Our offense has “improved” in 2020 partly because of King, and partly because our offense was so bad in 2019 that there was no way to go but up. I’m really not impressed by the offensive “improvement” this year.
 

LustNCanes

COQUI
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
3,701
Unfortunately I feel we are headed down the same path with Diaz as we did with Richt after the 2017 season and 2018 class. That class was highly ranked but a lot of the players didn't pan out, mostly due to our Culture and Coaching/Development. And then Richt was let go after the 2018 season.

2021 Class looks great, but What has changed with us? Coaching and Development still seems to suck, and our Culture is still off (ie. Slip and Slide Manny, Dancing on the Sidelines, Talking ****, etc.). Even if we land a great recruiting class, it doesn't matter if we can't develop and coach the talent up.

Manny has been here for 5 years now. How many 1st-2nd round Defensive players has he developed? Any?
He's been here for 5 years and our LB'er and CB's situation is horrible! WHY? If you're the DC you should know the recruiting numbers on each position correct? If not, then the position coaches need to go, because they're not doing their job!
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
2,699
Calais and Olivier. Those guys are probably near the top. Frank is still churning out the yardage, he's the rushing leader for the worst team in the NFL.

Seahawks and Bears have 5 UM alums each. Browns and Chargers have 4 UM alums each.
We don’t have very many average to above average guys in the league anymore. I would include Rayshawn in that list, but it’s tough to come up with many more.
 

not an al golden fan

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
301
I would bet against us winning out, but it's possible. I also don't expect a 2013-type collapse unless King gets hurt. He's too steady, and we don't have a D'Onofrio defense.

2017 is a much more likely possibility, but that season was a step forward. We finished #13 (highest ranking since 2004) and signed a top 10 class. The problem is that we didn't make adjustments and took a massive step back the following year. We will see how this season plays out.

This season probably won’t even be as good as 2017, and even if it is, so what. With King gone, we’ll probably have another 2018-19 type season in 2021.
 
Top