Interesting study on player development

[The Franchise]

This.

How would they separate evaluations from development, in any case?

They wouldn't and they can't. It's all worthless. It's just steering a set of data to formulate or support an opinion. The data itself says nothing on the issue of development.

What is "development" anyway? It's such a vague and nebulous term that it could be anything.

Much of what is dubbed "development" is just natural physical development, hard work by the player, growth and maturity. How do you give a position coach credit for that? How is the same position coach or coordinator or HC a great "developer" if Greg Rousseau succeeds but a terrible one if Jon Garvin doesn't?

 

[LuCane]

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.

Yeah, I'm usually with you on most things and definitely on evaluations, but either hardcore disagreement with some of your points here or a misunderstanding of what you meant. Every player has to show "development" in order to show development of one? What? I don't even know what you refer to as development not being a "one-off" thing. Human development, skills development, professional development can and should all be measured specific to individuals. You're saying it should not? I merely offered some player examples.

Player development (the way I'm thinking of it) is not that different than talent development in any other field. Some different contexts and constructs, sure. Looking at the NFL for evidence is merely correlative data because the NFL draft takes into account variables like productivity, which can mirror development in college. I thought I was clear on that point.

If you want to get into a more detailed definition of "development," then that's exactly what my post encouraged. As you know a bit, my professional focus is on child development between the ages of 6-17. While not all, many concepts (especially in the context of measurement) transfer over to how football players come into a program (environment) and are "developed." It's a really fuzzy term. If the discussion turns to picking out the components of that, great. That was my intent in the first line of the previous post.

 

[Rellyrell]

Yeah, I'm usually with you on most things and definitely on evaluations, but either hardcore disagreement with some of your points here or a misunderstanding of what you meant. Every player has to show "development" in order to show development of one? What? I don't even know what you refer to as development not being a "one-off" thing. Human development, skills development, professional development can and should all be measured specific to individuals. You're saying it should not? I merely offered some player examples.

Player development (the way I'm thinking of it) is not that different than talent development in any other field. Some different contexts and constructs, sure. Looking at the NFL for evidence is merely correlative data because the NFL draft takes into account variables like productivity, which can mirror development in college. I thought I was clear on that point.

If you want to get into a more detailed definition of "development," then that's exactly what my post encouraged. As you know a bit, my professional focus is on child development between the ages of 6-17. While not all, many concepts (especially in the context of measurement) transfer over to how football players come into a program (environment) and are "developed." It's a really fuzzy term. If the discussion turns to picking out the components of that, great. That was my intent in the first line of the previous post.

Appreciate this post

 

[Ethnicsands]

Yeah, I'm usually with you on most things and definitely on evaluations, but either hardcore disagreement with some of your points here or a misunderstanding of what you meant. Every player has to show "development" in order to show development of one? What? I don't even know what you refer to as development not being a "one-off" thing. Human development, skills development, professional development can and should all be measured specific to individuals. You're saying it should not? I merely offered some player examples.

Player development (the way I'm thinking of it) is not that different than talent development in any other field. Some different contexts and constructs, sure. Looking at the NFL for evidence is merely correlative data because the NFL draft takes into account variables like productivity, which can mirror development in college. I thought I was clear on that point.

If you want to get into a more detailed definition of "development," then that's exactly what my post encouraged. As you know a bit, my professional focus is on child development between the ages of 6-17. While not all, many concepts (especially in the context of measurement) transfer over to how football players come into a program (environment) and are "developed." It's a really fuzzy term. If the discussion turns to picking out the components of that, great. That was my intent in the first line of the previous post.

I can’t imagine we disagree strongly on this, but we may be looking through different ends of the telescope, so to speak.

For any given kid, you can see whether they improved materially or not, but the question is why they did, if you’re trying to understand whether our staff is good at development. The fact of one kid’s development doesn’t tell you much about the pattern. Which is why I said you can’t look at it one a one-off basis if the purpose of your inquiry is to understand whether our staff develops well, as opposed to whether one kid did. Hence the 5 DB example. If 4 kids underperform and 1 does great, well, those are sort of facts but what do they tell you? They tell you 80% of that group underperformed.

Player development, imo, is absolutely akin to talent development in other fields.

 

[LuCane]

I can’t imagine we disagree strongly on this, but we may be looking through different ends of the telescope, so to speak.

For any given kid, you can see whether they improved materially or not, but the question is why they did, if you’re trying to understand whether our staff is good at development. The fact of one kid’s development doesn’t tell you much about the pattern. Which is why I said you can’t look at it one a one-off basis if the purpose of your inquiry is to understand whether our staff develops well, as opposed to whether one kid did. Hence the 5 DB example. If 4 kids underperform and 1 does great, well, those are sort of facts but what do they tell you? They tell you 80% of that group underperformed.

Player development, imo, is absolutely akin to talent development in other fields.

Ah, I was not looking at this as an evaluation of our coaching staff's ability to generally develop or evaluate. For the most part, we know where we stand there.

As for how it relates elsewhere, I think we're at the beginning of a transformation of how skills are measured. At least in other fields. I wish the Canes would be at the forefront of that, but we're more likely to read Ohio State has decided to do an in-depth study on it based on their players.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Ah, I was not looking at this as an evaluation of our coaching staff's ability to generally develop or evaluate. For the most part, we know where we stand there.

As for how it relates elsewhere, I think we're at the beginning of a transformation of how skills are measured. At least in other fields. I wish the Canes would be at the forefront of that, but we're more likely to read Ohio State has decided to do an in-depth study on it based on their players.

IMO the question of whether ‘development’ is a real thing at all (rather than an after the fact label) requires a belief that a staff can be generally better or worse at it ... so I didn’t even mean my comment to be about our specific staff, just any staff. I have noted since the old canestime boards that people throw around the term development without clarity. It comes up a lot in the talent and eval discussions, e.g.

But I am right there with you that getting ahead of the curve on development is something important and I’d like to see, and the curve is moving fast in this field, so getting ahead of it takes real resources. It’s not even that hard to do. You can get to most variables without a study based on learnings from other spheres of activity.

 

[LuCane]

IMO the question of whether ‘development’ is a real thing at all (rather than an after the fact label) requires a belief that a staff can be generally better or worse at it ... so I didn’t even mean my comment to be about our specific staff, just any staff. I have noted since the old canestime boards that people throw around the term development without clarity. It comes up a lot in the talent and eval discussions, e.g.

But I am right there with you that getting ahead of the curve on development is something important and I’d like to see, and the curve is moving fast in this field, so getting ahead of it takes real resources. It’s not even that hard to do. You can get to most variables without a study based on learnings from other spheres of activity.

When I read that we're measuring and rewarding 'spontaneous clapping for teammates' (I'm still not sure whether to believe that), I immediately wondered about a flawed approach of development. And, a **** poor understanding of statistics, reward systems, and reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Ohio State or Bama are more likely focusing on marked improvement on a DB's backpedal, acceleration out of a cut, and behavioral traits like the ability to be self-directed (as it relates to watching film or some other relevant, substantive behavior).

For years, my biggest issue with the program has been we're trying to seem like something rather than be it. "Fake it till you make it" (or return to glory) taken to the extreme.

 

[Ethnicsands]

When I read that we're measuring and rewarding 'spontaneous clapping for teammates' (I'm still not sure whether to believe that), I immediately wondered about a flawed approach of development. And, a **** poor understanding of statistics, reward systems, and reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Ohio State or Bama are more likely focusing on marked improvement on a DB's backpedal, acceleration out of a cut, and behavioral traits like the ability to be self-directed (as it relates to watching film or some other relevant, substantive behavior).

For years, my biggest issue with the program has been we're trying to seem like something rather than be it. "Fake it till you make it" (or return to glory) taken to the extreme.

100% agreed. I’d also note that the traits that explain development may (likely do) vary by position - not same for QB, DB and OL, and maybe not even same for OL and DL (as some have observed over time). This makes recruiting hard because kids can switch positions. It also implies some sort of hierarchy or triage of traits – work ethic and self-direction are going to help no matter what. IQ vs reaction time may matter more at one position than another. There is a lot of advancement in understanding the traits that predict physical development today, also, even if our staff isn’t up to speed on the topic.

Re your second comment, it’s spot on. We’ve been 100% fake as a program. The scoring for celebration is a great example. We have no clue on cause and effect, so we reward effects and wonder why they don’t generate more causes. This is par for the course for bureaucracies.

 

[GOCANES05]

When I read that we're measuring and rewarding 'spontaneous clapping for teammates' (I'm still not sure whether to believe that), I immediately wondered about a flawed approach of development. And, a **** poor understanding of statistics, reward systems, and reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Ohio State or Bama are more likely focusing on marked improvement on a DB's backpedal, acceleration out of a cut, and behavioral traits like the ability to be self-directed (as it relates to watching film or some other relevant, substantive behavior).

For years, my biggest issue with the program has been we're trying to seem like something rather than be it. "Fake it till you make it" (or return to glory) taken to the extreme.

Very good point made on last sentence probably the most important line in this thread so true.

The advertisement of the phrase "THE U " has given the impression to the young kids is THE U on your helmet is enough to scare opponents into conceding , but found out it's just makes a bigger target.
With this being said once the youngster finds out it's not enough and opponents are not running away they get the NOW WHAT there NOT running and the shoulders droop head down.

The Playmaker team meeting speech on carrying the torch of the ones whom went before you that MADE this legacy hold true , but sadly like teenagers who know it all and are blue chippers feel there already there in achieving greatness but when they're SLOBBER KNOCKERED by lower teared teams they are HELPLESS and need mommy and start asking WELL I HAVE THE U ON MY HELMET WHY DIDN'T IT WORK ????

Excellent point here

GOCANES

 

[PredaCane]

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.

I was with you u til you mentioned winning enough. Ole Miss started paying players and landed the mother load. If it's about winning how it Tennessee having the run they're currently having on the recruiting trail? If you ain't paying they aint coming.

 

[bshaw28]

When the same study was done and the recruiting classes were:

2010 - 2014 - Miami was 5th
2011 - 2015 -Miami was 11th

Because the 2015 - 2017 Miami recruiting classes didn't produce any players drafted in Rounds 1-3, Miami will fall further back on this list as it slides forward.

2013 - 2017 will look particularly bad.
2014 - 2018 should bounce back because Rousseau, Jordan, and maybe one of our DB's will pull Miami's ranking back up.

 

[Artist Formerly Known As]

We aren’t 11th best in America in developing talent. We are “value pick U.” The NFL loves our guys bc they underperform or are criminally misused here and they can get a talented kid really late.

I wouldn’t even say this is accurate. Maybe if our guys getting picked late were turning into studs, but they’re not. They’re fringe roster players for the most part.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

I wouldn’t even say this is accurate. Maybe if our guys getting picked late were turning into studs, but they’re not. They’re fringe roster players for the most part.

Nobody is saying they’re turning into superstars but a lot of them have gotten that second contract which means they’ve contributed at a very cheap price for the first couple of years.

 

[skyman]

When I read that we're measuring and rewarding 'spontaneous clapping for teammates' (I'm still not sure whether to believe that), I immediately wondered about a flawed approach of development. And, a **** poor understanding of statistics, reward systems, and reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Ohio State or Bama are more likely focusing on marked improvement on a DB's backpedal, acceleration out of a cut, and behavioral traits like the ability to be self-directed (as it relates to watching film or some other relevant, substantive behavior).

For years, my biggest issue with the program has been we're trying to seem like something rather than be it. "Fake it till you make it" (or return to glory) taken to the extreme.

That starts at the extreme top, very little investment in program after move to ACC where you can lose every game and still cash checks given with smile while screaming building champions on social media. More worried with perception of building champions and not even having a clue of actually doing it. More worried with being NFLU (off the work of teams from early 2000s who actually won) than actually winning college games. When you cry broke hire cheap coaches dont invest in program til in dire straights you get these results. Thats who we are, we get what we pay for

 

[Arehel]

I think what's plagued the program since 2004 or so, was the imblanace of talent on the roster.
For example, we could have strong OL (Linder Flower, Figs) but a bad DL (and DC).

We just haven't found the center of good coaching and a roster of a balance of talent everywhere.
We've been stuck with a terrible unit (I.e. OL and QB) or terrible coaching Donofrio and some others with talent imbalances.

 

[305407cane]

Biggest tragedy is guys leaving too early. Derrick brown Christian Wilkins and clelin Ferrell are just a few examples are 1st rounders staying and still being first rounders. Justin Herbert also. Our team would be loads better if bandy stayed. Our past teams would have been better with norton or McIntosh. Joe Jax. Look at the DT from fspoo who stayed. His name Eludes me but you get the point. And his team sucked and will probably suck again. Our coaches aren’t good recruiters but their biggest flaw is recruiting our own dam players to stay and help the team and help themselves with a degree.

 

[305407cane]

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.

I’d also argue that the 15 game streak coincided with our best roster balance in a while.
On defense we were good (not great) at all three levels. Good secondary good linebackers and good defensive line with adequate depth. On offense at the end of 2016 when we were clicking we had tight ends that were dynamic and coley Richards and berrios coming into his own. Running backs were solid with Walton emerging somewhat. The O-line has some veterans and still wasn’t great but I’d argue 2017 was Donaldsons best year here unfortunately. Offensive line development has been **** poor and so has quarterback development

 

[Canedog]

I don't think information about a study, that disputes so many posters constant refrain about player development, should be allowed hear.

 

[Gatorhater]

I would also add:

(3) Miami coaches are not successful enough at skills development, thus creating situations where obviously talented HS players do not maximize the 3-5 years of college coaching, yet are able to re-engage with superior NFL coaching and play for 1-10 additional years at a higher level.

and

(4) many SoFla kids that Miami signs allow an expectation (which may be true on the part of the coaches as well) that 3-5 years at Miami, with its longtime culture and history of alums in the NFL, will somehow magically transform them into NFL-draft-level talent, but have actually lost sight of the specifics of what prior coaches and players actually DID to produce those results.

Amen. I think any analysis of fate of Miami coaches during same period at gaining jobs in NFL would tell even worse tale.

 

[JD08]

Not to mention people are trying to use objective statistics on subjective scores.