ACC vs Pac10 Talent

[methomps]

I'm just sick of it...USC is pounded down our throats relentlessly nationally, and I get it ad nauseum locally. The PAC10 is mediocre at best and without USC in the equation, would be the weakest conference of all.

You obviously didn't watch a single ACC game this weekend. And the Big10 sans Ohio State would be pretty crappy, too.

 

[ashlandbuck]

You obviously didn't watch a single ACC game this weekend. And the Big10 sans Ohio State would be pretty crappy, too.

In the last four years the ACC has produced more players drafted in rounds 1 thru 4 than any other conference. 89 players. Much like the Big Ten it is not given it's due.
During that same time period ('05 thru '08) the SEC had the second most players drafted in rounds 1 thru 4. 86 players taken in the first four rounds.
Followed by the Big 10 with 79 players drafted in those first four rounds.

The Pac 10 had fewer than even the Big 12 with only 60. The poster that you were replying to was actually right on.
This years draft numbers wont be much different.

 

[methomps]

In the last four years the ACC has produced more players drafted in rounds 1 thru 4 than any other conference. 89 players. Much like the Big Ten it is not given it's due.
During that same time period ('05 thru '08) the SEC had the second most players drafted in rounds 1 thru 4. 86 players taken in the first four rounds.
Followed by the Big 10 with 79 players drafted in those first four rounds.

The Pac 10 had fewer than even the Big 12 with only 60. The poster that you were replying to was actually right on.
This years draft numbers wont be much different.

So you think the ACC is the best conference in the country?

 

[methomps]

I'm telling you not to under estimate the talent level there. Don't get caught up in the media hype about the SEC's talent and the lack of it in the Big Ten or the ACC. Those numbers don't lie. The ACC has produced 29 more players drafted in the first four rounds in the last four years than the Pac 10 has. That says something.
The poster you were replying to was correct in that you take USC out of the PAC 10 and those draft numbers for the PAC 10 are absolutely horrible. This isn't as true in the Big Ten or the ACC.
Wisconsin and Michigan has also produced a lot of draft picks. In the ACC it is relatively spread out with FSU and Miami leading the way.
In '09's first round there is an estimated 6 players from the PAC 10 going in the first round. 5 of them are from USC!
In the seond round there should be about three players from the PAC 10 taken and 1 is from USC. So, in the first two rounds that makes 9 players with 6 coming from USC.
The Big 10 will produce an estimated 12 picks in the first two rounds with 6 coming from OSU. The talent is again going to be greater in '09 the Big 10 and more spread out as well.

Again, when a metric suggests that the ACC is the best team, maybe that metric isn't very reliable.

 

[ashlandbuck]

Again, when a metric suggests that the ACC is the best team, maybe that metric isn't very reliable.

The ACC isn't a team. It's an entire conference with an overall greater amount of talent than the PAC 10.
I think the NFL knows it's business and is quite reliable.

 

[methomps]

The ACC isn't a team. It's an entire conference with an overall greater amount of talent than the PAC 10.
I think the NFL knows it's business and is quite reliable.

Yes, the NFL knows its business: pro football. Which is why when it selects Brady Quinn in round 1 and Troy Smith several rounds later, it isn't saying that Quinn is a better college QB than Smith.

And the ACC is a conference, not a collection of players.

 

[jwinslow]

The ACC isn't a team. It's an entire conference with an overall greater amount of talent than the PAC 10.
I think the NFL knows it's business and is quite reliable.

How'd that "talent" work out while at NC State?

 

[ashlandbuck]

Yes, the NFL knows its business: pro football. Which is why when it selects Brady Quinn in round 1 and Troy Smith several rounds later, it isn't saying that Quinn is a better college QB than Smith.

And the ACC is a conference, not a collection of players.

No, the NFL drafts strictly on talent and each player's talent level. There is no doubt that the team around TS made him a better Qb. He was a better college QB because he had a lot more NFL talant around him.
This will never take away from the fact that there is more professional talent in the ACC than the PAC 10..
You simply can't deny the stats. That includes the past four years or the upcoming '09 year.
It simply makes no sense to say that the PAC 10 is better than the ACC because it produces better "college" players. There is no better judge of talent than the NFL and they have spoke loud and clear for the past 4 years and will do so again in '09. The ACC has produced 29 more draft picks in the first four rounds of the draft than the PAC 10. To continue to argue this point is fruitless. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[jwinslow]

Ashland, how much ACC football have you watched the last few years? This NFL potential/talent smack is attempting to cover up years of ineptitude from this conference, which is somehow even worse this fall.

Look at Michigan. They have a who's who list of LBs in the NFL, about half of which were average or worse in college.

 

[ashlandbuck]

Being a USC fan I hate to say this but UVA just wasnt very good, period. Theyve got some talent but their entire team looked intimidated, disorganized, and overwhelmed. Im oretty sure they would be in the bottom tier of both the Pac Ten and Big Ten if they played there. I hope they prove me wrong because it would do good for USC's SOS and Viriginia had pretty nice fans but their team just wasnt very good.

UV has 22 players on their two deep that are freshmen, redshirt freshmen and sophmores. They are young...and not very good.

 

[ashlandbuck]

Ashland, how much ACC football have you watched the last few years? This NFL potential/talent smack is attempting to cover up years of ineptitude from this conference, which is somehow even worse this fall.

Huh? I guess the numbers I gave mean nothing. The ACC has produced more players drafted in the first four rounds of the last four drafts. 89.
I'm not sure how you want me to argue with you. It's a simple fact.
They have produced more high draft picks in that time period than any other conference. Even more than the mighty SEC. 29 more than the PAC 10.

So these scUM linebackers were pretty bad in college huh? Wow...I didn't realize. I wonder where you got that piece of information?
I'm giving you stats and facts. Is this your opinion?

 

[NightmaresDad]

No, the NFL drafts strictly on talent and each player's talent level. There is no doubt that the team around TS made him a better Qb. He was a better college QB because he had a lot more NFL talant around him.
This will never take away from the fact that there is more professional talent in the ACC than the PAC 10..
You simply can't deny the stats. That includes the past four years or the upcoming '09 year.
It simply makes no sense to say that the PAC 10 is better than the ACC because it produces better "college" players. There is no better judge of talent than the NFL and they have spoke loud and clear for the past 4 years and will do so again in '09. The ACC has produced 29 more draft picks in the first four rounds of the draft than the PAC 10. To continue to argue this point is fruitless. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Could this be that the vast majority of Pac 10 talent is on the offensive side of the ball?

I don't even know how accurate that is, it just seems to be the impression I get watching the Pac 10. Since you've already done some research here, maybe you know how the draft picks shake out by offense vs defense.
I would think the ACC gets a lot more LBs and DB draft picks than the Pac 10.

 

[jwinslow]

The ACC has produced 29 more players drafted in the first four rounds in the last four years than the Pac 10 has. That says something.

Does it really? NC State has had 4 first rounders, and 3 top-10 picks. Yet they were very mediocre during their tenure.

Here's another statistic which pokes a hole in this juggernaut of talent you're trying to sell

Check out these numbers:

• Of the ACC's 114 NFL draft picks from 2006-2008, 63 or 55.2 percent have been defenders.
• 73 percent have been defenders and offensive linemen.
• There have been two quarterbacks.
• 8 wide receivers/tight ends
• 7 running backs
• 4 punters/kickers

Is this league loaded with talent? No question. Just not at the offensive skill positions. Does that translate into winning? Ask Frank Beamer. His team had the most players drafted over the past three years -- 20 -- and five of them were receivers/tight ends, four were in the secondary, and one was a running back. No wonder he's won two ACC titles in the past four seasons.

Or the fact that the ACC is 1-9 in BCS games.


Miami and FSU have plenty of talent. That doesn't make them good teams. NFL teams have drafted FSU rbs in spite of their lackluster performance in college.

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not sure how you want me to argue with you. It's a simple fact.

I want you to actually analyze their play, not regurgitate empty numbers.

Glenville produces more talent than almost any high school, yet they can't even win a state championship. It takes more than raw talent to be good.

 

[ashlandbuck]

Could this be that the vast majority of Pac 10 talent is on the offensive side of the ball?

I don't even know how accurate that is, it just seems to be the impression I get watching the Pac 10. Since you've already done some research here, maybe you know how the draft picks shake out by offense vs defense.
I would think the ACC gets a lot more LBs and DB draft picks than the Pac 10.

I don't have those stas in front of me ND, but off the top of my head I would think you were right. Although USC produced a bunch of defensive draft picks in '08.
I think the ACC talent for the '09 draft is spread all over the place.