UT talent history by year

[Clockwork Orange]

EDIT: Image adjusted . . . it should have only gone back to 1977, Majors's first year.

Awhile back I pulled together a bunch of draft info so that I could make this post, but I wasn't completely happy with that since it only had yearly shapshot based on recruiting and said little about total talent on a given team. Well, I finally had time to go back and look again and reorganized the same data by years in which each drafted player lettered, thereby getting a total number of active future draft picks on each team. I adjusted for the old, expanded draft by only counting players that were drafted in the top 260-- roughly equivalent to the number of players in the modern draft.

What you get is this, color coded by coaching era. Note that 2009 is the last year I counted because it's the last team whose players have had time to play 4 years and be drafted. There are still two players (Marlon Walls, Greg King) from that year that could but probably won't add to its total. The three teams since still have time to grow.



I think three things jump out immediately.

1) Every team from 1993 through 2002 had at least 20 players on the roster who would eventually be drafted. Any wonder we won 99 games in those 10 years and, in particular, 33 games in 1997-1999?

2) The obvious downward trend from 2003 to present is at the same time thoroughly depressing and completely unsurprising. The 2008 and 2009 Vol teams had the fewest NFL draft picks since 1977.

3) Majors deserves tremendous credit for building up the program that Fulmer then took to the highest level. Look at the gradual ramp-up of talent that occurred from the time he took over to the time Fulmer was handed the reins . . . and those teams from 1987-1992 were very nearly as talented as the first decade of the Fulmer era. This simultaneously begs for credit to Majors and explains why he was fired for not reaching the next level. It was believed he underachieved based on his talent and perhaps this chart bears that out as well.

One other note-- while it may not be surprising to see that 1997 was the most talented Fulmer team overall, it shocked the hell out of me that the 1996 team was the least talented in his first 10 years. I always thought that team should have won an SEC title an competed for the national title, but perhaps it was not quite talented enough to do that.

[Creek Walker]

I prefer "fewer draft picks" to "less talented." Because I still think that '96 team should have won a national championship. It was, in my opinion, more talented than the '95 team. Probably not hardly as talented as the '97 team, but the road to the MNC would've been much tougher in '97 even without the loss to UF.

[Clockwork Orange]

I prefer "fewer draft picks" to "less talented." Because I still think that '96 team should have won a national championship. It was, in my opinion, more talented than the '95 team. Probably not hardly as talented as the '97 team, but the road to the MNC would've been much tougher in '97 even without the loss to UF.

The two are highly correlated, though I understand you making the distinction. One team's role players could be better than another's. Another thing this doesn't account for is at what stage in their career the draft picks were, or how much they played. We know they played some or otherwise they didn't letter . . . but they may have been situational backups or every down starters.

As for 1996, here are the drafted players:

Code:

Kent, J		WR
Graham, J	RB
Austin, R	DB
Manning, P	QB
Fair, T		DB
Nash, M		WR
Little, L	DE
Brown, J	DE
Teague, T	OL
McCullough, A	WR
Gaines, C	DB
Wilson, A	LB
Price, P	WR
Bryson, S	FB
Hall, J		K
Terry, C	DE
Clifton, C	OL
Goodrich, D	DB
Martin, T	QB
Westmoreland, E	LB

12 of the 20 were in the top 3 rounds, but only one of those was an interior lineman (Clifton, and he was a freshman). They were in positions where impact is obvious-- receivers, backs, quarterback, defensive ends, linebackers, and defensive backs. This was early in my UT watching days so I don't recall-- were we weaker on the line of scrimmage in 1996?

[Black Diamond Vol]

The two are highly correlated, though I understand you making the distinction. One team's role players could be better than another's. Another thing this doesn't account for is at what stage in their career the draft picks were, or how much they played. We know they played some or otherwise they didn't letter . . . but they may have been situational backups or every down starters.

As for 1996, here are the drafted players:

Code:

Kent, J		WR
Graham, J	RB
Austin, R	DB
Manning, P	QB
Fair, T		DB
Nash, M		WR
Little, L	DE
Brown, J	DE
Teague, T	OL
McCullough, A	WR
Gaines, C	DB
Wilson, A	LB
Price, P	WR
Bryson, S	FB
Hall, J		K
Terry, C	DE
Clifton, C	OL
Goodrich, D	DB
Martin, T	QB
Westmoreland, E	LB

12 of the 20 were in the top 3 rounds, but only one of those was an interior lineman (Clifton, and he was a freshman). They were in positions where impact is obvious-- receivers, backs, quarterback, defensive ends, linebackers, and defensive backs. This was early in my UT watching days so I don't recall-- were we weaker on the line of scrimmage in 1996?

We had a relatively weak running game that year.  Even with Graham as a senior, that offense wad carried by Peyton and the WRs.  I can't recall if the OL was young, but that's probably the case.  As for the defense, they were only decent.  Chavis didn't have an elite run-stopping unit until 98.

[VinnieVOL]

Very interesting.  Thanks for posting, Clock.

[murfvol]

Great work Clock. That's fascinating.

[BanditVol]

Very interesting to see the huge peak...and where we are now.   

I mean, we are even lower than 1977....