No, I don’t think that a college football program’s highest priority is to develop NFL draft picks, but, still, this post is a fun read. As to my point, check out Chan Gailey’s domination of the second coaches’ list – it’s great that his program was incredibly efficient at turning out NFL prospects; it’s just that he couldn’t get enough of that talent through the door in the first place to keep his job. (That, plus Reggie Ball.)
On the other hand, there’s the anti-Gailey. Charlie Weis’ player development skills are less than Chantastic.
… Weis’s monster class of 2006 (934 team points, my #7 class of the last 11 years) yielded two 6th round draft picks. His first class which was much less regarded still only yielded a single fourth round draft pick…
As for the inevitable Richt comments I expect this post will generate…
Of the nine elite recruiters (3,000 or more adjusted recruiting points) Pete Carroll and Jim Tressell come out on top, with Phillip Fulmer close behind. The bottom three are all southern coaches, Bobby Bowden, Larry Coker and Mark Richt. Bob Stoops, Mack Brown and Lloyd Carr make up the middle third.
… does anybody expect Grantham, because of his background, to have an impact on the number of defensive players Georgia sends to the NFL in the next few years? And how much should that matter to us?
Get The Picture 
I’d love to see a breakdown by position group. I do think Grantham will have an impact, but my hunch is that our tendency to have smaller defensive backs and smaller running backs hurt these numbers when you stack Richt up against the top eight other elite recruiters…
I’d also be curious how a guy like Danny “DJ” Ware counts in the numbers. We’ve had some guys that signed undrafted free agent deals and made it in the league.
LikeLike
Guys like Stephen Hill really throw a curve in a purely statistical argument
LikeLike
Hill wasn’t a Gailey recruit.
LikeLike
just meant in general…you have guys like Hill that emerge from a GT program not condusive toward NFL development
LikeLike
If you sort the un-adjusted chart, Richt is #2 in Recruiting points, #14 in Draft points, and #28 in the Ratio. By no means is this anything close to being a definitive measuring stick, but it does add to the meme that “UGA gets all that talent, but then what?”
I really think the answer is that the recruiting rankings are pure garbage. We get a lot of the best of the in-state talent, which is probably graded higher than kids in other states, giving Richt that #2 ranking. Carroll, Bowden, Brown, Stoops and Coker fill-out the top 7 in Recruiting points…Cali, FL and TX prospects. So does a kid in TX or GA get a 4-star a little easier than a comparable athlete from Kansas? I think so, and that skews this analysis to the bias in the recruiting ratings.
LikeLike
“the nine elite recruiters” should consider themselves fortunate that Calipari does not coach college football
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/03/09/calipari-defends-his-one-and-done-strategy/
LikeLike
It may not be a college football program’s highest priority to turn out NFL talent but putting players in the league is one of, if not the number one criteria of blue chip players when deciding on a school. Not pageantry, not tradition, or even a quality education. The turn around on d at UGA is 100% because of this. Grantham’s system prepares talent for the NFL and these kids know that. We as fans should care even if we don’t watch the NFL because it positions the Dawgs for success.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Following that rationale the type of offense run at UGA (similar to most NFL teams) and the offensive players turned out by the program as ultra high draft picks ( Staff, Moreno and most recently AJ) ought to influence somebody, too.
LikeLike
I don’t think talent has been the problem on offense. Except for on the offensive line.
LikeLike
I think Grantham already has had an effect! These players coming back this year that passed up the draft, thats because of Grantham; these recruits coming in with their hair on fire, thats because of Grantham; watching Jarvis go in the first round soon, thats going to be Grantham’s doing too. The NFL is the icing on the cake.
LikeLike
I don’t want to be a dick…well maybe I do…What if we had an OC that was the equivalent to what Grantham is as DC……? Just sayin’…..
LikeLike
Rebar is right on with an answer to the Senator’s question. The D players have bought in to what CTG is doing and stayed in school. I believe it’s reasonable to say those players will likely enjoy better careers in or out of pro football – whether they are measured against other schools or their counterparts on O and STs.
LikeLike
This is 2002-2006 data. I’m curious about future data and will hold an opinion. AusDawg85 makes good points concerning recruiting points to which I agree in previous postings on this blog.
I like the way he started this study and the correlation he got with draft vs recruiting points charting. Draft points are skewed slightly with Richt concerning holdover from Donnan (ESPN called our attention to it for 4 yrs). I didn’t try to figure out how he computed the adjusted pts since he glossed over the detailed explanation. That’s one reason I’m holding my powder until he goes through the next 4 yrs. That would include at least 3 first rounders from UGA and turn his chart upside down. However, it is intriguing to contemplate the further results from such data manipulation and how blocks of 4 yrs can make such a chasm of difference using his “formulas”.
I’m an old Null Hypothesis guy myself and maybe, if time permits, I may run one or two using this “data”. Anyway , it’s plausibly interesting.
LikeLike
Being the CEO over at Pro Dawgs blog, I have an opinion.
Look at the facts… Active players by college,
http://pro-dawg.blogspot.com/p/active-players-by-college-university.html?m=1
UGA is 5th.
Does not matter how they got there, they are there.
LikeLike