LSAClassOf2000

May 7th, 2018 at 10:52 PM ^

You know, you could always stop at "I read nothing" and you would be as well educated as about 90% of the people who scan blogs of all topics around the world really. There was no need to to zero in on a particular topic. You could simply stop after the word "nothing" and all of us would have understood. 

Indy Pete - Go Blue

May 7th, 2018 at 8:13 PM ^

That is based on the coaches’ opinions of him and his enthusiasm and fire for the game. His rating doesn’t need to budge an inch for him to be an impressive kid and a good recruiting get.

Indy Pete - Go Blue

May 7th, 2018 at 9:29 PM ^

This staff has proven to be a good judge of talent. Warinner has done particularly well identifying this type of player. That they thought highly enough of him to offer him a binding offer and the track record for identifying talent is enough for me to affirm his commitment. That is not a bad take. It is uncool and unintelligent to call someone else’s take bad without asking a question or thinking critically.

Bodogblog

May 7th, 2018 at 8:33 PM ^

To the extent that people care, watch the film of the camp reps. He does seem to have good feet, active hands, and "sits down" well. I think he'd be vulnerable to a powerful bull rush right now, but that's easier to fix than the other things.

Fezzik

May 7th, 2018 at 8:55 PM ^

Do they measure heights and weights at camps? I think he is a tackle/guard tweener. Hope he keeps growing into a lengthy OT.

Bo Nederlander

May 7th, 2018 at 8:56 PM ^

You know what's always funny to me that no one ever happens to mention? You know when we get those 90-93 four stars that eventually drop in ranking after the season or camps? Nevermind that we've all SEEN what they're capable of. Oh, no. Nevermind that the coaches don't back off either. Just look at those evaluators (that subsequently aren't even remotely involved in player development). Why does no one dismiss those guys? Hahahahaha! Sorry. Jameson tonight.

JonnyHintz

May 7th, 2018 at 9:33 PM ^

I meant as far as panning out. It doesn’t matter to me where a guy is ranked. As long as he’s a good football player, the ranking next to his name means nothing. I’ll take a 2* like Le’Veon Bell or a 3* like Karan Higdon before I take a 5* like Derrick Green or Kevin Grady. Meaning that I don’t care what a kid is ranked. If he can play, he can play.

Champeen

May 8th, 2018 at 11:06 AM ^

Grady was evaluated fairly well i think.  Maybe a little overranked in high school.  But IMO he was a top 100 kid in high school.

Derrick Green, on the other hand.  I did not like his play in high school at all.  I was lambasted on this board when he committed to us and i gave my opinion.  It was obvioius to me based on his high school vids and army all american game that he would never start at Michigan.

The one that i think would have been an absolute stud was Kelly Baraka.  I still wonder what he would have been like behind our excellent offensive lines in the early 2000's.

JonnyHintz

May 8th, 2018 at 11:33 AM ^

Except he wasn’t evaluated well at all considering he came into college and did a whole lot of nothing. They don’t rank players based on what they do in high school, they rank them based on what’s expected out of them in college and beyond. Grady never lived up to his billing, along with virtually every 5* back Michigan has ever gotten.

SkyPanther

May 8th, 2018 at 1:30 AM ^

Have you heard of Sam Maldonado? He was the last 5 Star running back Ohio St had. It was in the year 2000:

https://247sports.com/Player/Sam-Maldonado-50071/high-school-84937

Carlos Hyde and Ezekiel Elliott were not even 5 Stars.

What ever happened to Sam Maldonado? Have you ever even heard of him.

5 Stars don't always work out.

 

 

JonnyHintz

May 8th, 2018 at 5:21 AM ^

I didn’t say they always work out, nor did I say Michigan was the only one to hit bad luck with them. But this is a Michigan sports blog. I don’t think we really care if OSU had a 5* bust running back 18 years ago. Just pointing out the relevancy that Michigan hasn’t had a 5* back work out at all really. Good job finding one, but most 5* backs do work out well. Michigan just hasn’t had that luck.

SkyPanther

May 8th, 2018 at 10:22 AM ^

5 Stars aren't in particularly needed.

 

The reason I brought up Maldonado is because he is the ONLY 5 Star RB Ohio St has had in about 20 years.

 

I know this is a Michigan blog. But you seemed to be saying, in that first comment, Michigan in particular has had a bad shake with 5 Star athletes.

JonnyHintz

May 8th, 2018 at 11:35 AM ^

No, I said Michigan has had bad luck with 5* backs. I specified Michigan because this is a Michigan blog and we are discussing a Michigan topic. I’d hardly call OSU being 0/1 “bad luck.”

4th phase

May 7th, 2018 at 10:50 PM ^

Camps aren't the end all be all cause let's face it, they have become commercialized just like the rest of college recruiting, but they do serve a purpose. Without camps how can you compare a Texas 6A player to a Rhode Island Division B player.

JonnyHintz

May 8th, 2018 at 5:37 AM ^

At the end of the day, you’re still comparing them in a t-shirt and shorts setting. It’s not exactly the best gauge of football ability when you’re evaluating players based on their performance in a non-football setting. Let’s face it, QBs aren’t throwing live. 40 times are skewed because they don’t run in pads or a helmet. These camps essentially do nothing except tell you who is the most athletic and who has the raw tools. It doesn’t do a whole lot as far as telling you who is good at football. They rely too much on these camp evaluations and that’s why they miss on so many players every year. You can go to a camp and put up good numbers and not be a good football player. Teams like Iowa, Wisconsin and MSU have been able to have success and build solid programs by recruiting players who are just good at football instead of going for the guys who show out at camps. It looks like Michigan is finding a few guys who fit that bill in the last few classes, players like Michael Barrett (POY in Georgia’s highest classification) seem to fit that bill of guys who are just flat out good at football.

DoubleB

May 8th, 2018 at 12:40 PM ^

Watching fucking film. You know actual football as opposed to a "work-out" in T-shirts and shorts. 

You can tell the quality of football around the guy pretty easily. It isn't that hard.

I get the desire to get actual measurements and times on recruits. But working pass pro without pads and limited, if any contact, tells nobody much of anything. 

LeCheezus

May 8th, 2018 at 11:00 AM ^

Completely agree - you can list dozens of reasons why recruiting rankings are flawed yet once a bunch of questionably qualified people put a solid number on a 16 year old kid, it's somehow a quantitative measurement.  The only reason there is any correlation to winning is that the sample size per year is large (20-30 kids per class) and the absolute top teams (Bama, OSU, Clemson, Georgia, etc) are used to "prove" recruiting rankings matter, even though the data gets much cloudier once you zoom out to say the top 25.

Allan Treiu (SP? sorry) was on TMI last week and said something very interesting and telling when discussing Barnhart - That the lower ranked kids need to "earn their way to a ratings boost because it's hard to drop a kid" (I'm paraphrasing but that is the gist).  So let's think about what that actually means - kids are heavily ranked on their junior season and the rankings services don't like to move kids down.  If that isn't blindingly obvious proof that the concrete number they put next to a kids name is at least 50% bullshit, I don't know what is.