Notre Dame and overall talent level

[solo]

In another discussion the topic of Notre Dame's talent level was brought up. I wanted to make this a separate thread and get people's feedback. I think that Notre Dame has really had average talent for a number of years. When I say average, I am talking about the same talent level as your run of the mill, garden variety, niothing special, mediocre confernce team. We haven't had anywhere near the talent level of the elite programs.

To illustrate this I analyzed the last 3 seasons NFL drafts. The results are quite alarming. Check it out.

Ohio State...26 players taken...8 1st rounders
Miami.........23 players taken...8 1st rounders
FSU...........22 players taken...6 1st rounder
USC...........20 players taken...5 1st rounders
OK.............20 players taken...4 1st rounders
Purdue.......14 players taken....0 1st rounders
UVA...........14 players taken....2 1st rounders
Stanford.....13 players taken....0 1st rounders
ND.............10 players taken.....0 ist rounders
South Car....8 players taken.....3 1st rounders
Fresno St....6 Players taken......1 1st rounder

So as it appears to me, we've had similar talent levels to very average teams and haven't been in the same universe as the elite teams. It appears to me that the best teams out there are having 7-8 players drafted a season, with 1-2 of them being first round talent.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

That's a widely known and pretty telling indicator. It really does speak to a lot of issues we have had in recent years.

Some of it is not just a lack of talent, but a lack of development.

 

[GREENJERSEYS'07]

I'm not sure without doing the research,but it seems to me if you went back about 10 seasons tennessee would be leading the pack.Kinda makes you wonder in which direction phat phil is heading.
I also think usc might be hading to number 1 in the next few years as well.Hopfully notre dame will boost it up over this decade into the next with the players weis is going to get.

I wonder how many teams might could be in this category if they just had the coaching and other players to teach them to become pro players?

 

[solo]

I'm not sure without doing the research,but it seems to me if you went back about 10 seasons tennessee would be leading the pack.Kinda makes you wonder in which direction phat phil is heading.
I also think usc might be hading to number 1 in the next few years as well.Hopfully notre dame will boost it up over this decade into the next with the players weis is going to get.

I wonder how many teams might could be in this category if they just had the coaching and other players to teach them to become pro players?

A decade ago TN was definitely sending more guys to the NFL than now.

1994, 1995, and 1996 drafts....17 players...1 first rounder

2004, 2005, 2006..............12 players 1 first rounder

But the hay day for tenn was 1998-2000....23 players...6 first rounder

So Fulmer had good talent in the early to mid 90's. Elite talent in the lat 90's and now pretty average talent.

 

[GREENJERSEYS'07]

yeah,but i forgot now.What was it?about 5-6 years ago notre dame had what?53 active players in the nfl?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Left Tackles

Left Tackles

In another discussion the topic of Notre Dame's talent level was brought up. I wanted to make this a separate thread and get people's feedback. I think that Notre Dame has really had average talent for a number of years. When I say average, I am talking about the same talent level as your run of the mill, garden variety, niothing special, mediocre confernce team. We haven't had anywhere near the talent level of the elite programs.

To illustrate this I analyzed the last 3 seasons NFL drafts. The results are quite alarming. Check it out.

Ohio State...26 players taken...8 1st rounders
Miami.........23 players taken...8 1st rounders
FSU...........22 players taken...6 1st rounder
USC...........20 players taken...5 1st rounders
OK.............20 players taken...4 1st rounders
Purdue.......14 players taken....0 1st rounders
UVA...........14 players taken....2 1st rounders
Stanford.....13 players taken....0 1st rounders
ND.............10 players taken.....0 ist rounders
South Car....8 players taken.....3 1st rounders
Fresno St....6 Players taken......1 1st rounder

So as it appears to me, we've had similar talent levels to very average teams and haven't been in the same universe as the elite teams. It appears to me that the best teams out there are having 7-8 players drafted a season, with 1-2 of them being first round talent.

ND is definitely down in draft picks as well as 1st rounders but one thing they can put in the NFL (regardless of head coach) is left tackles. The part that pisses ya off is that they seemed average (or underachieving) while in college & now they start 16 games a season for damn good money. Quinn will be the first QB to have a shot at starting since Rick Mirer. I know Jarrious Jackson toiled w/ the Broncs a few yrs but never got any serious PT at QB.

 

[Timugen]

In another discussion the topic of Notre Dame's talent level was brought up. I wanted to make this a separate thread and get people's feedback. I think that Notre Dame has really had average talent for a number of years. When I say average, I am talking about the same talent level as your run of the mill, garden variety, niothing special, mediocre confernce team. We haven't had anywhere near the talent level of the elite programs.

To illustrate this I analyzed the last 3 seasons NFL drafts. The results are quite alarming. Check it out.

Ohio State...26 players taken...8 1st rounders
Miami.........23 players taken...8 1st rounders
FSU...........22 players taken...6 1st rounder
USC...........20 players taken...5 1st rounders
OK.............20 players taken...4 1st rounders
Purdue.......14 players taken....0 1st rounders
UVA...........14 players taken....2 1st rounders
Stanford.....13 players taken....0 1st rounders
ND.............10 players taken.....0 ist rounders
South Car....8 players taken.....3 1st rounders
Fresno St....6 Players taken......1 1st rounder

So as it appears to me, we've had similar talent levels to very average teams and haven't been in the same universe as the elite teams. It appears to me that the best teams out there are having 7-8 players drafted a season, with 1-2 of them being first round talent.

While I agree with your basic conclusion that ND has average talent, I believe the stats you chose to look at are a little deceptive.

There is a distinction between a good/great college player and an NFL prospect. There could be teams that have had some NFL prospects (Purdue, UVA, Stan, SoCar,Fresno St in your sampling,) but didn't have a team full of studs. You could have a team full of mediocre college players and a couple/few NFL prospects annually and still have a crappy college team.

Your analysis is really rather misleading, as the overwhelming majority of college football players do not get drafted, and unless a coach is able to fill an entire lineup with NFL talent, the talent level of the team will be based on the talent of those not getting drafted.

This logic is tantalizingly misleading. It assumes that anything below NFL talent is subpar, neglecting the fact that there are exceptional college players out there who will never be drafted. As an example, you could have a team with a few (let's say 3-5) NFL prospects and the rest mediocre players playing against a team with maybe 1 or 0 NFL prospects and the rest above-average or excellent college players - I'd put my money on the second team. In this case, the draft status of a few players is an extremely misleading indicator of the talent level of the teams.

The analysis you made may be appealing to an elite HS recruit looking for a route to the NFL, but it is hardly indicative of the overall talent level of a program.

That being said, I'll once again state that I agree with your conclusion that we leave a bit to be desired in the talent department (but based on our last couple of recruiting classes I see that changing big time.)

GO IRISH!!!!!

Oh, and welcome to the family Chris Little. You and your classmates are among those that will make this discussion a moot point in the near future.

 

[kjones]

The analysis you made may be appealing to an elite HS recruit looking for a route to the NFL, but it is hardly indicative of the overall talent level of a program.

I think I would disagree here Timugen. While your are correct in saying that isn't necessarilly a direct correlation between number of NFL picks and the talent of the team (see Calvin Johnson), I think most people would agree that we can in fact infer something about the quality of a program by how many people it has that could be taken by the NFL. A team that has many players going the NFL is probably NOT filling up the rest of its team with crummy athletes, but actually probably has high standards, and the ability to attract a high level of talent.

Say it another way. You said he was assuming all the non-NFL guys were sub-par, but au contraire, if a team is sending many player to the NFL, its other players are probably NOT sub-par, but are actually probably very good, because the program is good.

If you can draw a substantial number of NFL quality picks, and develop them to the point where they go to the NFL, then you probably have a program doing the right thing, and among the elite. Other teams might get lucky, or have a few really good athletes, but you HAVE to be doing something right to have consistently larger numbers of picks than anyone else.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that you can gauge the health of a program somewhat by how many players go to the NFL. Of course, you are quite allowed to disagree. :cheeburga

 

[Timugen]

I think I would disagree here Timugen. While your are correct in saying that isn't necessarilly a direct correlation between number of NFL picks and the talent of the team (see Calvin Johnson), I think most people would agree that we can in fact infer something about the quality of a program by how many people it has that could be taken by the NFL. A team that has many players going the NFL is probably NOT filling up the rest of its team with crummy athletes, but actually probably has high standards, and the ability to attract a high level of talent.

Say it another way. You said he was assuming all the non-NFL guys were sub-par, but au contraire, if a team is sending many player to the NFL, its other players are probably NOT sub-par, but are actually probably very good, because the program is good.

If you can draw a substantial number of NFL quality picks, and develop them to the point where they go to the NFL, then you probably have a program doing the right thing, and among the elite. Other teams might get lucky, or have a few really good athletes, but you HAVE to be doing something right to have consistently larger numbers of picks than anyone else.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that you can gauge the health of a program somewhat by how many players go to the NFL. Of course, you are quite allowed to disagree. :cheeburga

Really? So UVA, Purdue, and Stanford have been powerhouses the last few years? I personally can't think of another context in which these teams would be mentioned in the same sentence as teams such as OSU and USC.

Oh, but wait....FSU and Miami cleaned house this year.....oops; sorry they didn't.

Outstanding NFL-level talent of a few players that are successfully recruited into a program based on a history of a school/coach sending players to the NFL does not translate to overall team talent.

There are Div-IAA teams with more NFL prospects than some Div-IA teams that would lose to those Div-IA teams based on overall talent.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I fully understand the recruiting implications of these stats and how it has the potential to affect a program's talent level long-term, but to look at it so narrowly as in this example is quite a bit misguided.

 

[solo]

While I agree with your basic conclusion that ND has average talent, I believe the stats you chose to look at are a little deceptive.

There is a distinction between a good/great college player and an NFL prospect. There could be teams that have had some NFL prospects (Purdue, UVA, Stan, SoCar,Fresno St in your sampling,) but didn't have a team full of studs. You could have a team full of mediocre college players and a couple/few NFL prospects annually and still have a crappy college team.

Your analysis is really rather misleading, as the overwhelming majority of college football players do not get drafted, and unless a coach is able to fill an entire lineup with NFL talent, the talent level of the team will be based on the talent of those not getting drafted.

This logic is tantalizingly misleading. It assumes that anything below NFL talent is subpar, neglecting the fact that there are exceptional college players out there who will never be drafted. As an example, you could have a team with a few (let's say 3-5) NFL prospects and the rest mediocre players playing against a team with maybe 1 or 0 NFL prospects and the rest above-average or excellent college players - I'd put my money on the second team. In this case, the draft status of a few players is an extremely misleading indicator of the talent level of the teams.

The analysis you made may be appealing to an elite HS recruit looking for a route to the NFL, but it is hardly indicative of the overall talent level of a program.

That being said, I'll once again state that I agree with your conclusion that we leave a bit to be desired in the talent department (but based on our last couple of recruiting classes I see that changing big time.)

GO IRISH!!!!!

Oh, and welcome to the family Chris Little. You and your classmates are among those that will make this discussion a moot point in the near future.

Well, I didn't intend for those facts to mislead anyone.

The critical fact that I think you are overlooking is the first rounders. 1st round draft picks are difference makers. For example, what kind of team is ND this year without Brady Quinn? He will probably be our only first rounder this year. ND hasn't had difference makers for some time.

Total number of NFL draft picks combined with the number of 1st rounders somewhat does tell the story for me. Teams like Purdue and UVA did recruit well 4, 5, and 6 years ago. That recruiting was reflected on the field in 7 and 8 win sesasons . These 2 programs are traditionally not all that good. But the lack of first rounders means that these teams while doing OK, have not been ablke to compete with the big boys.

There is no denying that the teams with the highest draft picks and the highest number of 1st rounders have been dominating. OK, USC, Ohio State, etc. You can point to the fact that Miami had a down year this year or that FSU has been slipping. But in general, there is a correlation between high round draft picks and the quality of the team.

Lets look back to the Holtz Golden years. We had 25 players and 8 first rounders in 92, 93, and 94 drafts. 94 was an off year, but the other seasons were top 5 finishes.

I'm really not trying to be deceptive here. I simply do in fact see a direct correlation. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, but I would like to see data that validates your opinion. Because as I look at the teams that are winning titles, they all seem to be peppered with NFL players.

If you want to name a few national champions or top 5 teams that you think weren't loaded with talent, I will gladly go look up the NFL draftees from those teams for those seasons.

 

[weisbankaccount]

the facts arent misleading. He have black/white facts and you gave "well a team can have above average college talent and another team could have mediocre talent with some NFL prospects.....blah blah.

Some of the top teams he listed just ran off a 19 game win streak, and two 34 game win streaks in recent years. Thats proof enough for me.

 

[BestBIrish47]

Football is truly a Team sport. It takes all 11 men to execute to have success. However, when a coach sits down to game plan, he tries to take advantages of MATCH UP advantages his team may have. Thus the true art of game planning, and If a coach has multiple match ups in his favor, the game plan becomes much much easier to impliment. This forces the opposing coach to make multiple adjustments to combat the matchup disadvantage.... opening holes for other match up issues. Talent is the wild card for mediocre game planners to have tremendous success, while great game planners have to adjust on the fly way more. Look at the LSU game, we ran Max Protection most of the game, sending 2 receivers out on routes and keeping 8 in to block because of LSU's front 4. Think about 5 to 6 guys covering two receivers and you get the idea of why Brady had a tough time finding guys open. Match ups dictate strategy, if you have the talent to win one on one match ups... you can over compensate for your weaknesses! I can't wait to see how charlie does with top notch recruits running his system!!!

 

[johnnd05]

Football is truly a Team sport. It takes all 11 men to execute to have success. However, when a coach sits down to game plan, he tries to take advantages of MATCH UP advantages his team may have. Thus the true art of game planning, and If a coach has multiple match ups in his favor, the game plan becomes much much easier to impliment. This forces the opposing coach to make multiple adjustments to combat the matchup disadvantage.... opening holes for other match up issues. Talent is the wild card for mediocre game planners to have tremendous success, while great game planners have to adjust on the fly way more. Look at the LSU game, we ran Max Protection most of the game, sending 2 receivers out on routes and keeping 8 in to block because of LSU's front 4. Think about 5 to 6 guys covering two receivers and you get the idea of why Brady had a tough time finding guys open. Match ups dictate strategy, if you have the talent to win one on one match ups... you can over compensate for your weaknesses! I can't wait to see how charlie does with top notch recruits running his system!!!

This seems entirely right (and I suppose it splits the difference between Solo and Timugen). A key factor is your DEPTH of talent: not depth as in backups, but depth as in having athletes all over the field. To the extent that teams could put just one LB on Darius, or lock down Shark with a double-team, ND was in deep trouble this year ... meanwhile we had to keep track of what seemed like a dozen speedy and athletic WRs when we played LSU. Now, not all of those LSU receivers are going to the NFL, but the number of players you have drafted (or even playing on practice squads or in other pro leagues, for that matter) is surely a pretty good indication of the level of athleticism on your team.

 

[irish4life99]

Funny thing, no Fighting_Irish9 comment on this thread. Most of the time when you talk about the lack of talent over the last few years he's up in arms because it sounds like your dissing his boy Ty. So it's either lack of talent, or lack of development. Either way it looks bad for Ty.

Ty pulled one decent class his first year riding the hype and his lucky 8-0 start. He did absoulutely NOTHING with those players and Weis turned them into first rounders in one year. So in my oh so ever humble opinion it was both. Ty couldn't get talent in to ND and even if did pull a few he didn't know what the hell to do with them.

Every sports anyalyst in the country sees the overall lack of athletisism on the field. However some blind Ty homers will never see it. Just quote you a hand full of players going first round. We'll guess what, there's 85 starters on those rosters, most which would not start for elite teams. No offense to our players it's just a fact!!

 

[solo]

Just out of curiousity, I went back and looked at the AP top 5 teams for the last 5 years. For each year, I analyzed the draft before that year, at that year, and after that year for a running 3 year total. To be a dynasty, you need to have NFL talent flowing in and out every year. So if Weis wants to return us to glory, we will need to have 5 or 6 guys go pro every year and 1 or 2 of them be 1st rounders. To occassionally break the top 5, you can get by with a lot fewer athletes. But you still need to have difference makers (1st rounders). And if you have fewer NFL prospects, you need to have a great coaching job. On thing is constant though. No team in the last 5 years has finished in the top 5 without having at least one first round player selected. Below is the data. The first number is the total NFL draftees in that 3 year period, the second number is the number of first round picks.

2005
TX 13/6
USC 20/5
PSU 10/1
OSU 26/8
WVU 5/1 (however, White and Slayton will both go pro which isn't reflected here)

2004
USC 14/5
Auburn 9/4
OK18/4
Utah 8/2
TX 11/4

2003
USC 11/3
LSU 16/1
OK 9/3
OSU 27/3
Miami 28/15

2002
OSU 19/2
Miami 26/13
GA 21/5
USC 10/1
OK 8/2

2001
Miami 23/10
Oregon 9/1
Fla 17/4
TN 24/5
TX 6/4

Since 1995 Notre Dame has had 3 players taken in the first round. And people wonder why we haven't been able to compete. Sure, we've also lacked coaching. But the numbers clearly indicate a lack of talent as well. Who knows what Bob Davie or even Losingham might have done had they been given the same recruiting leeway as Weis has. I am not an apologist for either of those coaches. But it is clear that Weis is going after guys that these coaches did not. Football is once again being emophasized at ND and you will see the number of first round draft picks rise dramitically in the coming years. All it takes is 1 or 2 differrence makers a year. That can be the difference in unranked and top 5 (with proper coaching).

 

[kjones]

Really? So UVA, Purdue, and Stanford have been powerhouses the last few years? I personally can't think of another context in which these teams would be mentioned in the same sentence as teams such as OSU and USC.

No, they haven't, that's why the've sent LESS to the NFL than OSU and USC. Did you read the post? They have sent 14, while ND has sent 10, the big boys more like 22+.

Oh, but wait....FSU and Miami cleaned house this year.....oops; sorry they didn't.

I wonder if they send less players to the NFL this year... Besides, would you say that over the last several years, FSU and Miami havn't had great programs? That's what this is about.

Outstanding NFL-level talent of a few players that are successfully recruited into a program based on a history of a school/coach sending players to the NFL does not translate to overall team talent

True, but have NFL level talent of MANY players seems like it would. Few players would be ND level, like 10. Not elite program. High nubmers would be OSU, et al, 22+. Elite program. That's the whole point.

 

[Timugen]

I guess I kind of overcomplicated my point. I agree that the dynasty-type teams are based on NFL talent. My point is that just because you send a few more players to the NFL than the next team doesn't necessarily guarantee that you are the better, more successful team. I'm talking more about the teams other than the "elite" top 5/top 10. It's a no-brainer that those "elite" teams are where they are largely because they have so many NFL-level players. They have guys grabbin' pine that would be starters at most other programs as well.

I was more referring to the team's that are the "also-rans" in the top 25 and those just out of the top 25. Once you get out of the elite teams, you are not gonna be looking at a team that is stacked with prospects, but they will have some. My point (poorly communicated on my part) was that it is the talent level of the non-NFL guys on those teams that is just as important as whether they have 5 guys getting drafted or 10 getting drafted.

 

[ACamp1900]

I have one thing to say to this thread and the idea of our "inferior" talent....


































BAH!!!!!


























NC OR BUST!!!!