Follow up to my tweet on P12 recruiting vs. NFL Draft
1st/2nd Round NFL Draft Picks over past 5 Seasons (with avg conf recruiting rank; avg 247 rating, 5* signed, 4* signed).
1. Washington - 12 (5.9; 85.2; 1, 38)
2. USC - 9 (1.3; 92.3; 20, 92)
3. UCLA - 8 (3.0; 88.6; 6, 78)
4. Stanford - 6 (5.1; 87.6; 3, 45)
5. Oregon - 4 (3.9; 87.4; 5, 57)
5. Utah - 4 (8.8; 84.2; 0, 12)
7. Colorado - 3 (9.4; 83.2; 1, 13)
8. WSU - 1 (10.6; 82.2; 0, 3)
9. OSU - 1 (9.8; 83.2; 1, 5)
10. ASU - 1 (6.0; 85.2; 1, 29)
11. Cal - 1 (6.1; 86.2; 1, 42)
12. Arizona - 0 (8.3; 84.0; 0, 17)
So for ratios...
UW had a 1st/2nd rounder for every 3.25 blue chips.
USC - 12.4
UCLA - 10.5
Stanford - 8
Oregon - 15.5
Utah - 3
Colorado - 4.7
WSU - 3
OSU - 6
ASU - 30
Cal - 43
Arizona - Div/0 error
Comments
-
Whittingham shining through again. 4 out of 12.Dennis_DeYoung said:This is for the 8 years from 2008-2015 that could have produced draft eligible players for these drafts.
1st/2nd Round NFL Draft Picks over past 5 Seasons (with avg conf recruiting rank; avg 247 rating, 5* signed, 4* signed).
1. Washington - 12 (5.9; 85.2; 1, 38)
2. USC - 9 (1.3; 92.3; 20, 92)
3. UCLA - 8 (3.0; 88.6; 6, 78)
4. Stanford - 6 (5.1; 87.6; 3, 45)
5. Oregon - 4 (3.9; 87.4; 5, 57)
5. Utah - 4 (8.8; 84.2; 0, 12)
7. Colorado - 3 (9.4; 83.2; 1, 13)
8. WSU - 1 (10.6; 82.2; 0, 3)
9. OSU - 1 (9.8; 83.2; 1, 5)
10. ASU - 1 (6.0; 85.2; 1, 29)
11. Cal - 1 (6.1; 86.2; 1, 42)
12. Arizona - 0 (8.3; 84.0; 0, 17)
So for ratios...
UW had a 1st/2nd rounder for every 3.25 blue chips.
USC - 12.4
UCLA - 10.5
Stanford - 8
Oregon - 15.5
Utah - 3
Colorado - 4.7
WSU - 3
OSU - 6
ASU - 30
Cal - 43
Arizona - Div/0 error
Not bad @89ute. -
DDY did roaddawg very the maff
-
An important implication here is that, while USC, Stanford and UCLA’s recruiting are likely to stay the same, ours is on a major upswing.
We have signed 27 blue chips in the past 3 years (as compared with 9 the prior 2). If we maintain even a similar ratio, and sign around 10 blue chips per year, we should be pumping out 3-4 top-2 round picks per year for the foreseeable future.
Next year Trey, Taylor, Byron and Jordan Miller have a real chance in the top 2 rounds IMO.
If we simply keep recruiting at the level we had last year we are going to own the conference (if we can ever sign a fucking BUCK).
Also, it’s my firm belief that if Pete makes some adjustments in recruiting we could start signing classes with 3-4 more BC players on average (basically landing us somewhere between Oregon and UCLA).
Vita and Dante were both 3 Stars. Dissly and Azeem were 2s, Kei was a 3. Lavon would’ve been a 3 on this metric. -
-
Along with potentially having 4 players taken in the top 2 rounds (please have good medicals Miller and Murphy), we? also will see McGary, Gaskin, and Gaines taken in the mid-late rounds. That would put us? at 7 players taken overall, which would have tied us for second in this draft (Bama #1 with 12 lol, OSU, LSU, & NC State tied for #2 w/7). There's also Jojo, Jaylen Johnson, and Levi that could improve their stock with a big year.
We? saw Lake and other coaches tweeting about developing NFL players. Recruits have started to notice. Wait until next year when we have 7 players taken, and hopefully 4 in the first 2 rounds. It will make a big difference and recruits from outside of Washington will notice (we hate WA recruits anyways).
I've seen Eason's name pop up a few times. That would be hilarious. Transfers to UW only to declare before playing a game and leaving us with Haener in 2019. -
The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level? -
McGary will go higher than people think...the guy is freaky athletic.
-
I like this and it gives me a massive doog boner.
I am curious about the 2nd round delineation though. Either way it will be interesting, but the data could be totally different if that moves to the 3rd round, or 5th, or the whole draft, etc.
And no, I'm not going to do the work myself cause fuck that. -
Agreed, fun with selective endpoints for surewhlinder said:I like this and it gives me a massive doog boner.
I am curious about the 2nd round delineation though. Either way it will be interesting, but the data could be totally different if that moves to the 3rd round, or 5th, or the whole draft, etc.
And no, I'm not going to do the work myself cause fuck that. -
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level? -
Dennis_DeYoung said:
This is for the 8 years from 2008-2015 that could have produced draft eligible players for these drafts.
1st/2nd Round NFL Draft Picks over past 5 Seasons (with avg conf recruiting rank; avg 247 rating, 5* signed, 4* signed).
1. Washington - 12 (5.9; 85.2; 1, 38)
2. USC - 9 (1.3; 92.3; 20, 92)
3. UCLA - 8 (3.0; 88.6; 6, 78)
4. Stanford - 6 (5.1; 87.6; 3, 45)
5. Oregon - 4 (3.9; 87.4; 5, 57)
5. Utah - 4 (8.8; 84.2; 0, 12)
7. Colorado - 3 (9.4; 83.2; 1, 13)
8. WSU - 1 (10.6; 82.2; 0, 3)
9. OSU - 1 (9.8; 83.2; 1, 5)
10. ASU - 1 (6.0; 85.2; 1, 29)
11. Cal - 1 (6.1; 86.2; 1, 42)
12. Arizona - 0 (8.3; 84.0; 0, 17)
So for ratios...
UW had a 1st/2nd rounder for every 3.25 blue chips.
USC - 12.4
UCLA - 10.5
Stanford - 8
Oregon - 15.5
Utah - 3
Colorado - 4.7
WSU - 3
OSU - 6
ASU - 30
Cal - 43
Arizona - Div/0 error
-
I usually use Top 3 rounds, since it is basically the Top 100 players and round numbers are handy. But if you look at the charts of average Approximate Value by draft slot, the quality of picks drops off very steeply from the top pick right down to somewhere between pick 50 & 75, where things start to level out. In other words, there is some evidence that the top two rounds is actually a pretty good way to look at things and not really about being selective to shape a narrative.dnc said:
Agreed, fun with selective endpoints for surewhlinder said:I like this and it gives me a massive doog boner.
I am curious about the 2nd round delineation though. Either way it will be interesting, but the data could be totally different if that moves to the 3rd round, or 5th, or the whole draft, etc.
And no, I'm not going to do the work myself cause fuck that. -
It’s just what the West Coast CFB dude did; but we are going to come out aces no matter how you slice it.
Next year I imagine we will have the following guys drafted:
Gaskin, Sample, Trey, Kaleb, Gaines, Johnson, Bartlett, Miller, Murphy, Rapp. JoJo will probably sign with someone.
I suspect some of our guys next year might be third rounders and that could look extra good for us... Gaines, McGary, Gaskin. Jaylen is an intriguing kid if he can stay healthy.
Can Tevis ball out at a more natural position for him?
Maybe BBK and Chico will get drafted!!! loljk -
And fast strategyHoustonHusky said:McGary will go higher than people think...the guy is freaky athletic.
-
BBK day one pick imo
-
Still waiting for the part where you say we are FUCKED
-
GRONK!Dennis_DeYoung said:
Arizona - Div/0 error
-
Yesdnc said:
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level?
And moreso, I think the area where there is going to be an even bigger gap is that Helton’s recruiting will gradually start falling off in part as we get stronger. The fact that Helton’s group is largely super lazy by offering guys we offer immediately after we offer them isn’t a good look -
Too bad Peterman will never be able to develop talent like Whittingham and LeachDennis_DeYoung said:
UW had a 1st/2nd rounder for every 3.25 blue chips.
Utah - 3
WSU - 3 -
I’m mostly with you on recruiting. I don’t think he’s any worse of a developer than his post Carroll predecessors though.Tequilla said:
Yesdnc said:
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level?
And moreso, I think the area where there is going to be an even bigger gap is that Helton’s recruiting will gradually start falling off in part as we get stronger. The fact that Helton’s group is largely super lazy by offering guys we offer immediately after we offer them isn’t a good look -
Darnold’s regression isn’t a good lookdnc said:
I’m mostly with you on recruiting. I don’t think he’s any worse of a developer than his post Carroll predecessors though.Tequilla said:
Yesdnc said:
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level?
And moreso, I think the area where there is going to be an even bigger gap is that Helton’s recruiting will gradually start falling off in part as we get stronger. The fact that Helton’s group is largely super lazy by offering guys we offer immediately after we offer them isn’t a good look
The next 2-3 years will be telling
If he’s an absolute disaster he will get fired ... so I’m hoping he’s at least moderately competent. The longer Helton holds the SC job the better for UW -
Helton has one more year. USC may fuck up the hires but they fire fast
-
I doubt any QB would feel negative about Darnold. He went #3.Tequilla said:
Darnold’s regression isn’t a good lookdnc said:
I’m mostly with you on recruiting. I don’t think he’s any worse of a developer than his post Carroll predecessors though.Tequilla said:
Yesdnc said:
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level?
And moreso, I think the area where there is going to be an even bigger gap is that Helton’s recruiting will gradually start falling off in part as we get stronger. The fact that Helton’s group is largely super lazy by offering guys we offer immediately after we offer them isn’t a good look
The next 2-3 years will be telling
If he’s an absolute disaster he will get fired ... so I’m hoping he’s at least moderately competent. The longer Helton holds the SC job the better for UW -
Not saying the #3 is a good look ... saying that the criticism of the staff isn’t a good lookRoadDawg55 said:
I doubt any QB would feel negative about Darnold. He went #3.Tequilla said:
Darnold’s regression isn’t a good lookdnc said:
I’m mostly with you on recruiting. I don’t think he’s any worse of a developer than his post Carroll predecessors though.Tequilla said:
Yesdnc said:
You think Helton's worse at developing players than Sark/Kiffen?Tequilla said:The USC data is super damning and will only get worse under Helton
Did anybody else catch the coaching dig during the draft when talking about how Darnold showed minimal improvement from Year 1 and 2 and how much he will be coached up quickly at the NFL level?
And moreso, I think the area where there is going to be an even bigger gap is that Helton’s recruiting will gradually start falling off in part as we get stronger. The fact that Helton’s group is largely super lazy by offering guys we offer immediately after we offer them isn’t a good look
The next 2-3 years will be telling
If he’s an absolute disaster he will get fired ... so I’m hoping he’s at least moderately competent. The longer Helton holds the SC job the better for UW -
Been there 2 years and has a Rose Bowl, conference title, and 2 BCS games ... they aren’t firing him any time soonRaceBannon said:Helton has one more year. USC may fuck up the hires but they fire fast
The sneaking in element for him is ideal for UW -
Yes they are
-
-
The Pirate may be insane but he clearly works.
Meanwhile, UCLA is still where Blue Chips go to become Charmin soft.
Oh and water is wet. -
Leach is one of the best at getting good results out of sub-standard raw materials. No way to say whether he could get great results out of better raw materials, because he has never had the chance to prove it.DoogCourics said:
The Pirate may be insane but he clearly works.
Meanwhile, UCLA is still where Blue Chips go to become Charmin soft.
Oh and water is wet.
Oklahoma won a MNC using the Air Raid, but it was a year after Leach left and the Air Raid was still relatively new and different back then. -
I was surprised that USC didn't fire Helton on the 50 after the bowl game loss.
