Good, but good enough?

The time referenced there is the five-year period between the 2011 and 2015 classes.  The metric used is this:

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.

So, we’re looking at the end of the Richt era.  As you can see, Georgia finished twelfth on the list, which seems in character for the time — not bad, but not great.  Four SEC teams are ranked higher.

Georgia checks in with a rating of .78. None of these players were recruited by Kirby Smart, and I’d expect to see an uptick in Georgia’s score over the next few years. However, it is interesting that both Florida (39) and Miami (33) have both produced more total draft picks than the Bulldogs (31) since the start of the CFB Playoff era.

Maybe it’s a case of Georgia closing the gap with Florida.


Filed under Georgia Football

10 responses to “Good, but good enough?

  1. Gaskilldawg

    The time frame also includes the Hugh Freeze “Rebel Rags” era. Bet Mississippi will not be 7th for the 2016-2020 analysis.
    Interesting how well Boom recruited and developed talent at UF.


  2. That is good data to see. And, not surprising.


  3. Every year we get something like this is still the last year of Richt. Next year itll be “looking at the last 6 years”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Normaltown Mike

    this is good info, thanks.

    IMHO, it’s more confirmation that CMR was clearly on the downside of his run those last 5 years. I was a “Disney Dawg” for much of those years but the further we move away from it, it becomes obvious that I was wish-casting on our programs trajectory quite a bit.


  5. W Cobb Dawg

    Meh, one could argue this either way. A great college player like JR Reed wasn’t drafted. By this metric they’re saying he WASN’T coached well.

    Another great player like Deandre Baker came in as a 3-star and became a 1st round pick. So by this metric our coaches become superstars.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. spur21

    We need for this virus thing to be resolved so we can get away from these pointless pieces that don’t make any difference in current times. Writers gonna write even if there is nothing to write about.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Admiral Sackbar

    Isn’t this contradictory of what swamp247 posits? Dan Mullen has superior coaching but Florida has lost the last 3 because they had inferior talent? Am I missing something? They just had a lot of players drafted too so they’re not exactly starved for talent.


  8. addr

    Judging development based on the NFL draft is flawed at best because there is no way to determine whether a player’s draft status was because or in spite of his college program. Players like Andrew Thomas and Derrick Brown were already considered future high draft picks coming out of high school, so it is entirely plausible that their draft prospects would’ve been the same no matter where they went to college.

    Likewise, players like JR Reed were undoubtedly the recipient of some good development, but were never going to be highly regarded by the NFL due to measurables.