Player Development

[Palmbeachhoosier]

Caught a YouTube channel called Bigger Ten today. The guy who I believe is a Michigan blogger developed a system for evaluating team rosters. He goes through and re-evaluates teams rosters based on how a player performs during the season. He had Purdue ranked 17 and Indiana 1 point behind and ranked 18 in the country. He had them 4 and 5 in the Big Ten.
Assuming that this is accurate it is very subjective of course because he goes they and assigns the new star rating for the player, but that would suggest that the IU staff is one of the better if not the best staff in the Big Ten for developing talent or at least getting talent to perform at a greater level. They are usually in the lower third of the conference in class rank but are on the upper third based on this ranking system. Again as I said it is very subjective but very interesting. Any thoughts on this?

 

[TMFT]

Interesting. I think the success has the most to do with finding guys that "fit" more than anything.

My uneducated opinion is that football players can be broken down broadly into "talent" and "want-to." I think talent breaks down into speed, strength, football IQ, and frame.

If you're OSU, you can attract such high level talent, and so much of it, that you can bring on 22 kids a year, see who has the want-to and let attrition take care of the rest.

If you're somewhere like IU, you can chase star ratings and get the "best available" talent willing to come to the school, but if they drag the team down because of attitude or don't otherwise pan out, you're going to have a hard time replacing them.

I'm a BIG believer in trying to find the hidden gems that lack one of the talent measureables. Like Tiawan Mullin (too small) or Antwaan (not a prototype QB in 1997), Drew Brees (too small & knee injury), or Wes Welker (too small). They're all missing something that kept them from getting pursued by the big boys but were something special. You can't have a whole team of underdogs like that, but you can get some great players.

On the whole, I think IU has recruited culture first and as success has been borne out, has been able to recruit culture AND talent.

And going back to your original question, I'm not sure how much of it is player development vs good eye for talent. Because I'm struggling to think of a lot kids at IU who have blossomed as a 4th or 5th year player that we didn't see making plays from the beginning of their careers. The best example of player development success I can think of with the current team is probably Caleb Jones, who I am incredibly impressed with.

 

[Chriselli]

Interesting. I think the success has the most to do with finding guys that "fit" more than anything.

My uneducated opinion is that football players can be broken down broadly into "talent" and "want-to." I think talent breaks down into speed, strength, football IQ, and frame.

If you're OSU, you can attract such high level talent, and so much of it, that you can bring on 22 kids a year, see who has the want-to and let attrition take care of the rest.

If you're somewhere like IU, you can chase star ratings and get the "best available" talent willing to come to the school, but if they drag the team down because of attitude or don't otherwise pan out, you're going to have a hard time replacing them.

I'm a BIG believer in trying to find the hidden gems that lack one of the talent measureables. Like Tiawan Mullin (too small) or Antwaan (not a prototype QB in 1997), Drew Brees (too small & knee injury), or Wes Welker (too small). They're all missing something that kept them from getting pursued by the big boys but were something special. You can't have a whole team of underdogs like that, but you can get some great players.

On the whole, I think IU has recruited culture first and as success has been borne out, has been able to recruit culture AND talent.

And going back to your original question, I'm not sure how much of it is player development vs good eye for talent. Because I'm struggling to think of a lot kids at IU who have blossomed as a 4th or 5th year player that we didn't see making plays from the beginning of their careers. The best example of player development success I can think of with the current team is probably Caleb Jones, who I am incredibly impressed with.

I largely agree. It seems like maybe our scouting is better than others. Most of our contributors played significant roles as freshmen. Some, especially on defense, seem to regress...Ball, Crawford, and Riggins come to mind. I do think we have done a helluva job developing offensive linemen and wide receivers.

 

[crossfire74]

Caught a YouTube channel called Bigger Ten today. The guy who I believe is a Michigan blogger developed a system for evaluating team rosters. He goes through and re-evaluates teams rosters based on how a player performs during the season. He had Purdue ranked 17 and Indiana 1 point behind and ranked 18 in the country. He had them 4 and 5 in the Big Ten.
Assuming that this is accurate it is very subjective of course because he goes they and assigns the new star rating for the player, but that would suggest that the IU staff is one of the better if not the best staff in the Big Ten for developing talent or at least getting talent to perform at a greater level. They are usually in the lower third of the conference in class rank but are on the upper third based on this ranking system. Again as I said it is very subjective but very interesting. Any thoughts on this?

I'm assuming the developer put together some sort of numerical value for each player? I'll have to look at that before commenting too much one way or the other. But I do think that Purdue and IU have comparable talent, but it's at positions that matter in games, where that talent really separates. For example I believe that to win in football, you need 3 very strong areas. QB play, OL play, and DL play. In those 3 areas, IU has more experience and depth and is more settled at QB and OL. DL is pretty equal though I do believe IU has more proven depth. Purdue has some serious WR talent in Bell and Moore. Can't dispute that, but if their OL is bad or their QB play is inconsistent, then it won't matter much. Now if Purdue gets solid OL and QB play, then their offense is gonna have a lot more potential and they will should have a very solid season.

Thanks for the topic. I'll look forward to digging it up.

 

[Bowlmania]

Tough to weigh in without knowing exactly how the guy evaluates rosters.

I'm a big believer in Bill Connelly's returning production rankings. He has us #11 overall (Purdue is 20th) and #13 on defense with 82% of our defensive production returning. Given how well the D played against Tennessee, this is very encouraging.

 

[TMFT]

Tough to weigh in without knowing exactly how the guy evaluates rosters.

I'm a big believer in Bill Connelly's returning production rankings. He has us #11 overall (Purdue is 20th) and #13 on defense with 82% of our defensive production returning. Given how well the D played against Tennessee, this is very encouraging.

Amen about the Gator Bowl! That kind of fire would've flipped MSU & PSU and it would have been a trip to Tampa instead of Jacksonville.

 

[td75]

A kid that blossomed his last year here was Patrick Dougherty. He finally settled in on the defensive line after chasing a job on the offensive line his first few years in the program. I thought Wilson's staff did a fine job with that guy.

There's other examples that Indiana's had but there's not really that many now that I think about it. The kids that contributed as seniors, had typically contributed early on in their careers...Mike Barwick contributed nicely during his last year...

 

[vesuvius13]

Caught a YouTube channel called Bigger Ten today. The guy who I believe is a Michigan blogger developed a system for evaluating team rosters. He goes through and re-evaluates teams rosters based on how a player performs during the season. He had Purdue ranked 17 and Indiana 1 point behind and ranked 18 in the country. He had them 4 and 5 in the Big Ten.
Assuming that this is accurate it is very subjective of course because he goes they and assigns the new star rating for the player, but that would suggest that the IU staff is one of the better if not the best staff in the Big Ten for developing talent or at least getting talent to perform at a greater level. They are usually in the lower third of the conference in class rank but are on the upper third based on this ranking system. Again as I said it is very subjective but very interesting. Any thoughts on this?

Interesting rankings and at least based on this guy's evaluation IU is doing a good job with the players they are bringing in. As with any evaluation, beauty is in the eye of then beholder so we have to be careful parsing this evaluation. There are many factors that determine how well players develop which is what makes evaluating recruits so tough to do even for the NFL. At each level there are surprises that play very well while there are disappointments that are hard to figure out.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

One thing that he did say about analysis is that he does not take away points of a a guy goes up one year and does not necessarily contribute as much the next. He says there are many reasons why a kid’s play decreases injuries, package changes, playing time. I think you see a lot of IU players playing time being diminished is because they are recruiting better players also they are playing more guys especially young guys and developing more depth especially on the defensive side of the ball. You can make an argument that this many young kids should be able to come in and play significant minutes on the other hand it is probably one of the main reasons that kids are choosing to come to IU is the chance to play early.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

Interesting rankings and at least based on this guy's evaluation IU is doing a good job with the players they are bringing in. As with any evaluation, beauty is in the eye of then beholder so we have to be careful parsing this evaluation. There are many factors that determine how well players develop which is what makes evaluating recruits so tough to do even for the NFL. At each level there are surprises that play very well while there are disappointments that are hard to figure out.

Definitely agree player evaluations are very subjective. I had a kid several years ago named Nick Jester he was only recruited by Akron and Tennessee under Majors then Fulmer. Also had two other players Dadi Nicholas and Luther Maddy the night before signing day Beamer shows up and offers both both were only offered by Western Michigan. You wonder how this happens in one case a MAC and an SEC school are the only 2 to offer and then a MAC and an ACC school.

 

[DANC]

A kid that blossomed his last year here was Patrick Dougherty. He finally settled in on the defensive line after chasing a job on the offensive line his first few years in the program. I thought Wilson's staff did a fine job with that guy.

There's other examples that Indiana's had but there's not really that many now that I think about it. The kids that contributed as seniors, had typically contributed early on in their careers...Mike Barwick contributed nicely during his last year...

Big Ralph Green improved every year he was here.

I loved that guy's attitude.

Peyton Ramsey improved year over year also.