forums

Interesting study on player development

DMoney said:
I tend to agree. To me, the takeaway is that we are very good (relative to the rest of the country) at avoiding busts but need more homeruns and more seniors.
Click to expand...

I’ll give you relatively better, but the exclusions help out a lot. I just don’t agree with this list bc it’s so hard to name someone we’ve truly developed lately. We don’t ever have guys get better every year. All we see are plateaus and flashes. The NFL develops our products.

To your we need more seniors point, until this year who would’ve truly upped their stock by coming back? IMO nobody offensively. We’ve had terrible systems. There are a couple on defense, Bandy included.
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
To your we need more seniors point, until this year who would’ve truly upped their stock by coming back? IMO nobody offensively. We’ve had terrible systems. There are a couple on defense, Bandy included.
Click to expand...

I'd say RJ McIntosh, Joe Jackson, Jon Garvin, Trajan Bandy and Kendrick Norton all sold themselves short a couple rounds.

Of course, that assumes they play hard like Chad Thomas and don't coast.
 
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...
This is too strange and goes against the narrative
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
This really says nothing about actual development. It's just a compilation of data that they labelled as development when that data doesn't actually reveal anything about development.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Simply getting a volume of players drafted can get you on the board, even if it's a bunch of 4th/5th/6th rounders.

Miami has done a porous job recruiting & developing, and no amount of gerrymandered stats can dispute that. The proof is what we see on the field.
 
Last edited:
I think at some point we should have a board-wide meeting to decide what we mean by "development." Is it "production?" Is it "getting drafted?" Is it where you get drafted vs your star ranking?

To me, the simplest definition is taking a player with a certain level of skills and polishing those skills so they're grown and visible in the best way possible by the end of the player's time here. It correlates to production, but isn't necessarily production. Draft position gives a hint, but isn't causative either.

I think Rayshawn Jenkins is a good example of development. I think Jon Garvin is an awful example of development. I think if Tecory Couch becomes a 2nd-3rd rounder, it'd likely be a great example of development. I think if Gurvan Hall leaves here as a 6th rounder, it's another example of crap development. I think Anthony Chickillo's development was a disaster, for example. In his case, we took a talented kid, developed an ill-suited skill set, made him look worse than what he offered, and he ended up a 6th rounder. He's since played a handful of years in the NFL showing he could have done more here and outplaying his draft position.
 
I’ll try to do it but I just do t have the time. But I would love to see how many players have gone through the front runner schools that were highly rated, top 100, top 10 at their position that never made the league. That sht would open up a lot of eyes. I mean just look at fspoo. Unfortunately some bag man would just tape a bunch of Benjamins to theirs face and ask the kid tell me what you see?
 
Advertisement
In my opinion miami has a culture problem. Some of the players are developing rosseau, deejay dallas, shaq quarterman. The problem is where is the leadership. Players missing curfew, partying, not learning the plays. Somebody said Jeff Thomas was walking through drills. That stunt that mark pope pulled his freshman year he would have been punched in the face in other locker rooms. At clemson u think these players coast and leave early to go undrafted? Idc what anybody says some of these kids have quit in previous season. Thats more reflected in wins and losses than anything. U had a kid on the team saying he dreamed of being a florida gator and they kids on the team congratulated him on leaving. We need more than development we need to go to the wizard of oz to get some f*ckin heart like the tin man!
 
LuCane said:
I think at some point we should have a board-wide meeting to decide what we mean by "development." Is it "production?" Is it "getting drafted?" Is it where you get drafted vs your star ranking?

To me, the simplest definition is taking a player with a certain level of skills and polishing those skills so they're grown and visible in the best way possible by the end of the player's time here. It correlates to production, but isn't necessarily production. Draft position gives a hint, but isn't causative either.

I think Rayshawn Jenkins is a good example of development. I think Jon Garvin is an awful example of development. I think if Tecory Couch becomes a 2nd-3rd rounder, it'd likely be a great example of development. I think if Gurvan Hall leaves here as a 6th rounder, it's another example of crap development. I think Anthony Chickillo's development was a disaster, for example. In his case, we took a talented kid, developed an ill-suited skill set, made him look worse than what he offered, and he ended up a 6th rounder. He's since played a handful of years in the NFL showing he could have done more here and outplaying his draft position.
Click to expand...

How much is development vs how much is not having a culture where a guy just says im not gonna play hard and the coaches still play him.
 
The Franchise said:
This really says nothing about actual development. It's just a compilation of data that they labelled as development when that data doesn't actually reveal anything about development.
Click to expand...
Even if it was you'd have a Ray Lewis type skewing the averages.
 
Advertisement
To me, it all boils down to utilization of talent. We’ve had good and bad evaluations. Some players have developed, some haven’t. Compared to the rest of the country, we stack up OK. But the the schematic issues have killed us for the past decade.

From 2011-2015, our two-gap defense did not fit our personnel and was historically awful. From 2018-2019, our plodding pro-style offense did not fit our personnel and was historically awful. In between, when both sides clicked for a fleeting moment, we had a 15-game winning streak.

These issues caused us to lose games. Bad records kept us from landing the premium, first-round players. Bad records led to bad morale, which caused players to coast and leave too early. Both of those issues are reflected in the results of the study. We have a lot of NFL-caliber players but not enough home runs.
 
DMoney said:
247 did a five-year study on player development from the 2011 to 2015 class. Not sure what to do with the results, but they should provoke some discussion.

This was the criteria:

It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program signed along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program’s ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks, removing a "quantity over quality" argument. We also limited this list to teams that recruited at least 10 Top247 players from 2011 to 2015.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data:
  1. Players who were dismissed.
  2. Players who didn’t qualify.
  3. Players who medically retired.
  4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team’s 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.
Miami finished 11th. Here is the list:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Oklahoma
7. Ole Miss
8. FSU
9. Stanford
10. Notre Dame
11. Miami
12. Georgia
13. USC
14. UCLA
15. Penn State
16. Washington
17. Auburn
18. Texas A&M
19. Virginia Tech
20. Michigan

Texas was 30th.

Miami put 54% of its 247 prospects in the NFL, which ranked 5th behind Ohio State (64%), Alabama (59%), Clemson (55%) and Florida (54%). The reason it wasn't ranked in the Top 5 overall was the absence of premium, first round types. Note that Miami was tied for 12th in overall Top 247 Players signed.

That tells me Miami has two issues: (1) not winning enough to attract the no-brainer, first round players; and (2) too many guys are leaving early and going 2-3 rounds too late.
Click to expand...

the study tells me two things:

first, if you are in say, the top 10-12 on that list, you can probably compete for a playoff spot. not saying you'll get it, but talent on the field is good enough to at least give you a shot.

second, UM is way too good to have not been winning 10 games a year, and losing to the FIU's, UNC's, and the GT's of the world
 
Advertisement
Liberty City El said:
Precisely.

Simply getting a volume of players drafted can get you on the board, even if it's a bunch of 4th/5th/6th rounders.

Miami has done a pourous job recruiting & developing, and no amount of gerrymandered stats can dispute that. The proof is what we see on the field.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! Jeez Louise. It's not rocket science.
 
LuCane said:
I think at some point we should have a board-wide meeting to decide what we mean by "development." Is it "production?" Is it "getting drafted?" Is it where you get drafted vs your star ranking?

To me, the simplest definition is taking a player with a certain level of skills and polishing those skills so they're grown and visible in the best way possible by the end of the player's time here. It correlates to production, but isn't necessarily production. Draft position gives a hint, but isn't causative either.

I think Rayshawn Jenkins is a good example of development. I think Jon Garvin is an awful example of development. I think if Tecory Couch becomes a 2nd-3rd rounder, it'd likely be a great example of development. I think if Gurvan Hall leaves here as a 6th rounder, it's another example of crap development. I think Anthony Chickillo's development was a disaster, for example. In his case, we took a talented kid, developed an ill-suited skill set, made him look worse than what he offered, and he ended up a 6th rounder. He's since played a handful of years in the NFL showing he could have done more here and outplaying his draft position.
Click to expand...
Development cannot be looked at on a one-off basis, imo. If you take 5 kids at DB and 1 improves a lot and 4 don’t, did you ‘develop’ him? What about the other 4? How do evaluations fit in? Maybe the kid was well chosen and he ‘developed’ himself - the way kids do at plenty of other schools around the country. (Worked hard, took advantage of S&C, etc.).

For ‘development’ to have meaning separable from evaluations, you need a way to measure value-add once a kid gets to campus, as opposed to before a kid gets there (which is what evals are about). It’s very hard to separate those two traits and yet they are really different.

Also, probably the most important aspects of development are about how a kid performs IN COLLEGE. Looking at the nfl draft for evidence is flawed, imo, for two reasons - because it is a small and skewed subset of the kids you’re trying to assess, biased towards athletic ceilings rather than actual development or college contributions, and because the goal of a staff is to win games not create draft picks. It’s complex to assess these things, though, because performance in college is a function of the guys around you, scheme and game planning, not just development. It’s harder to shine when you’re not put in a position to shine by a coach, or don’t have someone to get you the ball, or block.

I have long said on this site, people use development as a label without understanding it (@franchise saying similar point I believe). I don’t know how to prove it/measure it, but I would suggest it comes in 3 parts: helping kids harness their athletic talent, helping kids build their physical capabilities, and helping kids refine their technique. S&C is measurable. The other two, not so much.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top