Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- WR3
- IOL2
- TE2
- RB1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Georgia (2016).
2016 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Steady development, low risk.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The 2016 recruiting class for Georgia has shown a mixed bag of outcomes when compared to the original recruiting expectations. The class was initially ranked 3rd, indicating strong anticipation for immediate impact players. However, the S2S rerank reflects a drop to 6th, suggesting that while some recruits performed well, the overall class did not fully live up to the high initial expectations.
Among the notable outcomes, recruits like Mecole Hardman and Javon Wims emerged as significant contributors, with Hardman achieving NFL Pro Bowl status. This demonstrates the potential for unranked or lower-ranked players to exceed expectations. Conversely, highly ranked players such as Chauncey Manac and Jacob Eason did not fulfill the promise suggested by their rankings, with Eason only achieving the status of College Starter despite being a top-10 recruit.
The data indicates that Georgia successfully developed several talents from this class, particularly in the receiving corps, while also facing challenges with some of the higher-ranked recruits. This pattern highlights the unpredictability inherent in recruiting and the importance of player development within the program.
Overall, the Georgia 2016 recruiting class met expectations, as evidenced by several high-performing recruits that exceeded their original rankings, while some did not perform to the level anticipated based on their recruiting status. The S2S rerank dropped due to the underperformance of a few key recruits who had high expectations attached to their rankings. In summary, while the class showcased strong individual performances, it also highlighted the variability in recruiting outcomes.