Developmental Programs

SCHawkeye2

SCHawkeye2

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Pretty interesting. It says what we know about teams like Iowa but also shows that the big dogs don't get where they are just because of 4 and 5 star guys. They develop their share of 3 star and below. I guess I usually assume that, if they're a star at one of those schools, they must've been a 4/5 star, even though we all know better. Also, getting the 4/5 star guys doesn't mean success, you have to develop them (cough Nebraska).

Also of note: Iowa State is second to last on the list. Pretty sad for a team that will never get a steady flow of 4+ star guys.
 
One thing the article points out is that Ohio State generally gets 3-star kids that are higher ranked within that classification. 3-stars are kids ranked 600-1500 so there could be a pretty big gap in talent from within that range. I also think the denominator comes into play. With an Ohio State recruiting a vast majority of their players in the 4-5 star category, they have less 3 stars in total number. I think a school like Wisconsin is more telling (and deserving) because of these factors.
 
99topdawg said:
Pretty interesting. It says what we know about teams like Iowa but also shows that the big dogs don't get where they are just because of 4 and 5 star guys. They develop their share of 3 star and below. I guess I usually assume that, if they're a star at one of those schools, they must've been a 4/5 star, even though we all know better. Also, getting the 4/5 star guys doesn't mean success, you have to develop them (cough Nebraska).

Also of note: Iowa State is second to last on the list. Pretty sad for a team that will never get a steady flow of 4+ star guys.
Click to expand...

I give Iowa State three moons…………. Let me undo my pant buckle now……….
 
I personally think it says more about the accuracy of the “star” number than anything.

None of these guys assigning 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars knows dick about high level football, even less so than a P5 college coach. They want you to think they know what’s up, but if they did they wouldn’t be writing blog posts about some kid’s high school game tape they saw on Hudl.

Let’s not forget that these guys are just schmucks giving rating to thousands of kids every year. The difference between a “3 star” and “4 star" is just these schmucks’ gut hunch to get clicks on 24/7 or Rivals.

LeVar Woods, Ladell Betts, Phil Parker???

Those guys know how talented a kid is relative to others in his position group and I can guarantee you they couldn’t give a shit less how many stars some jackwad blogger who’s never met the kid nor seen him play assigns to him.
 
First, stars are subjective. There are multiple services out there. One evaluator's 3 star is another one's 4 star. I think we all know that OSU and other blue bloods are getting a better caliber of 3 star kids than Iowa.

Second, I would love a list that tries to parse this more precisely. It seems like 3 stars is a pretty ubiquitous title. Its almost the default rating for any kid that has a D1 offer. I would love to see what kids that are 2-3 star kids versus kids that are more 3-4 star type kids. Or, do this analysis not based upon stars, but confirmed P5 offers. How many kids has Iowa taken that had no other P5 offers and put them in the league? More than most I am confident.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
3-Star U: Which schools are best (and worst) at developing NFL Draft talent? - The Athletic

I know this site is paywalled, but some on here are subscribers.
Interesting analysis of the best and worst developmental FBS programs.
Iowa is neither in the top 10 or bottom 10 for % of 3-star recruits drafted into the NFL, which is a bit surprising.
Wisconsin is 10th best at developing 3* talent into NFL draft picks.
Click to expand...

A lot of work to write that article. I was also surprised that Iowa was not listed. It seems that Iowa has an unerned reputation for a lot of things in CFB.


By the way, you can generate historical photos of Iowa winning the national championship on www.open.ai

1682000564714.png
 
Fryowa said:
I personally think it says more about the accuracy of the “star” number than anything.

None of these guys assigning 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars knows dick about high level football, even less so than a P5 college coach. They want you to think they know what’s up, but if they did they wouldn’t be writing blog posts about some kid’s high school game tape they saw on Hudl.

Let’s not forget that these guys are just schmucks giving rating to thousands of kids every year. The difference between a “3 star” and “4 star" is just these schmucks’ gut hunch to get clicks on 24/7 or Rivals.

LeVar Woods, Ladell Betts, Phil Parker???

Those guys know how talented a kid is relative to others in his position group and I can guarantee you they couldn’t give a shit less how many stars some jackwad blogger who’s never met the kid nor seen him play assigns to him.
Click to expand...

According to a buddy about my age who grew up in the west burbs of Chicago, the foundation of the system was established by a guy they used to call "The Postman from Palatine." It was just a dude who was mail carrier in Palatine Illinois who went to a bunch of local football games and collected VHS tapes from other local games. He started ranking the kids in the Chicago area and it blossomed from there. There are absolute outlier freaks who are can't miss guys at least at the collegiate level. Terrelle Pryor, Miles Garrett, Orlando Pace, Bo Jackson. But these guys are such outlier freaks that anyone can see how good they are. The fact is there are a bunch of other really good players as well and discerning between them, particularly after they spend two years in a collegiate training program, is pretty much impossible. I knew Jack Campbell was a solid ball player, but did I know that he would win the Butkus Award? Hell no. No one did.
 
okeefe4prez said:
According to a buddy about my age who grew up in the west burbs of Chicago, the foundation of the system was established by a guy they used to call "The Postman from Palatine." It was just a dude who was mail carrier in Palatine Illinois who went to a bunch of local football games and collected VHS tapes from other local games. He started ranking the kids in the Chicago area and it blossomed from there. There are absolute outlier freaks who are can't miss guys at least at the collegiate level. Terrelle Pryor, Miles Garrett, Orlando Pace, Bo Jackson. But these guys are such outlier freaks that anyone can see how good they are. The fact is there are a bunch of other really good players as well and discerning between them, particularly after they spend two years in a collegiate training program, is pretty much impossible. I knew Jack Campbell was a solid ball player, but did I know that he would win the Butkus Award? Hell no. No one did.
Click to expand...
Correct.

It's like Pro Football Focus and their bogus ratings. They love to tell you how they rate every player on every play of every game, and how they go in-depth as far as assignments, route running, blah blah blah.

There are 285 games in an NFL season. Last year the average was 158 snaps per game.

285 x 158 x 22 players = 990,660 individual "evaluations" every year. That's horseshit. All done by "evaluators" who don't know shit about football and have zero clue what a player's assignment was on any particular play. It's total crap, made up numbers to sell subscriptions and generate twitter clicks. People who pay money for that stuff are morons.
 
Fryowa said:
Correct.

It's like Pro Football Focus and their bogus ratings. They love to tell you how they rate every player on every play of every game, and how they go in-depth as far as assignments, route running, blah blah blah.

There are 285 games in an NFL season. Last year the average was 158 snaps per game.

285 x 158 x 22 players = 990,660 individual "evaluations" every year. That's horseshit. All done by "evaluators" who don't know shit about football and have zero clue what a player's assignment was on any particular play. It's total crap, made up numbers to sell subscriptions and generate twitter clicks. People who pay money for that stuff are morons.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I find some of what PFF puts out there interesting if for just comparing players sake. But do I put any huge amount of stock into it? Hell no. They usually state the obvious. Tyler Linderbaum is good at football. We all know that already.
 
Fryowa said:
Correct.

It's like Pro Football Focus and their bogus ratings. They love to tell you how they rate every player on every play of every game, and how they go in-depth as far as assignments, route running, blah blah blah.

There are 285 games in an NFL season. Last year the average was 158 snaps per game.

285 x 158 x 22 players = 990,660 individual "evaluations" every year. That's horseshit. All done by "evaluators" who don't know shit about football and have zero clue what a player's assignment was on any particular play. It's total crap, made up numbers to sell subscriptions and generate twitter clicks. People who pay money for that stuff are morons.
Click to expand...

One of the best things I did was simplify my sports life. I cut down to only following Iowa, the very top of the Big Ten and the very top of the SEC (and on everything other than Iowa I only have a passing knowledge of matters). I used to be able to name the two deeps of every NFL team and crap like that, now I don't even care. At the gym this morning there was some clip on ESPN "After the break we will run down the number 7 pick in the NFL draft, including the stars picked at 7 in the past and our panel will evaluate who they think will go 7." Who in the hell cares about this crap? They have to stretch so hard to generate content.
 
Fryowa said:
Correct.

It's like Pro Football Focus and their bogus ratings. They love to tell you how they rate every player on every play of every game, and how they go in-depth as far as assignments, route running, blah blah blah.

There are 285 games in an NFL season. Last year the average was 158 snaps per game.

285 x 158 x 22 players = 990,660 individual "evaluations" every year. That's horseshit. All done by "evaluators" who don't know shit about football and have zero clue what a player's assignment was on any particular play. It's total crap, made up numbers to sell subscriptions and generate twitter clicks. People who pay money for that stuff are morons.
Click to expand...

How many times have we seen a 3* recruit that was going to come to Iowa change his mind and decide to go to Michigan, then all of a sudden he turns into a 4* overnight.

I think if Cooper DeJean were ranked now coming out of HS, he'd be a solid 4*. Maybe he was a 4 coming out, not sure. If he's a 4 now, did it change after last season?
 
So all these rankings aside what is it that Iowa needs to do to be more of a division champion and more competitive? We seem to put a significant amount of players in the league. This means they are prepared physically and mentally to play at the highest level.

So why is Iowa falling short as a team as far winning the division more often than we do? I mean look at our division. Couldn’t really ask for more of a chance to be dominant especially at the rate we put players in the league.

We are falling short somewhere. If it’s just the OC what aspect of the offense needs a major upgrade. We know it’s not TE’s. Historically it’s not the O-line either. So that leaves the skill positions and I think this has been a historical issue for a significant amount of years. What does the coaching staff have to do to improve in this area? Is it possible to change what’s causing this?
 
BigD said:
So all these rankings aside what is it that Iowa needs to do to be more of a division champion and more competitive? We seem to put a significant amount of players in the league. This means they are prepared physically and mentally to play at the highest level.

So why is Iowa falling short as a team as far winning the division more often than we do? I mean look at our division. Couldn’t really ask for more of a chance to be dominant especially at the rate we put players in the league.

We are falling short somewhere. If it’s just the OC what aspect of the offense needs a major upgrade. We know it’s not TE’s. Historically it’s not the O-line either. So that leaves the skill positions and I think this has been a historical issue for a significant amount of years. What does the coaching staff have to do to improve in this area? Is it possible to change what’s causing this?
Click to expand...

Iowa is very much an above average program at many positions on the field, but in years where we have a gaping hole on the o-line or in the secondary it is bad. Last year's o-line was so bad nothing schematically was going to change the offense's fate. You can scheme around one bad guy in the secondary or on the line, but if you have two you're doomed.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Iowa is very much an above average program at many positions on the field, but in years where we have a gaping hole on the o-line or in the secondary it is bad. Last year's o-line was so bad nothing schematically was going to change the offense's fate. You can scheme around one bad guy in the secondary or on the line, but if you have two you're doomed.
Click to expand...
I tell people Iowa is a school where if they had all the pieces even at an average level they'd be a top 10 fairly regularly at the end of the year because our coaching tends to be really good. They're always right on the cusp but every year there's at least one unit or position that cuts the team's achilles. 2015 was the last time we didn't have any glaring deficiencies; since CJ left it's been a maddening 6 year streak of sub par quarterbacks and the traditionally strong Iowa OL has been regressing each year. Stanley could look like Joe Montana against .500 teams but shit the bed against teams with a pulse. Petras, nice guy but more of an FCS player.

IMO recruiting misses have hurt more than coaching issues, with the exception of Brain Farence.
 
Fryowa said:
I tell people Iowa is a school where if they had all the pieces even at an average level they'd be a top 10 fairly regularly at the end of the year because our coaching tends to be really good. They're always right on the cusp but every year there's at least one unit or position that cuts the team's achilles. 2015 was the last time we didn't have any glaring deficiencies; since CJ left it's been a maddening 6 year streak of sub par quarterbacks and the traditionally strong Iowa OL has been regressing each year. Stanley could look like Joe Montana against .500 teams but shit the bed against teams with a pulse. Petras, nice guy but more of an FCS player.

IMO recruiting misses have hurt more than coaching issues, with the exception of Brain Farence.
Click to expand...
Yup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top