This is maaaaybe premature there, ESPN. Maryland #1 FWIW.
Michigan's 3 star commits have potential
Mainly when looking at recruiting, you judge a team's class based on how many 4-5 star players they have. Despite the in depth coverage that services like Rivals and Scout attempt to provide, the system is not foolproof.
Michigan, according to Rivals.com, has four 3-star players committed. Obviously, any fanbase can call their lower ranked recruits "sleepers." However, this may be the case for a few of Michigan's 3-star guys.
For example, Teric Jones exploded on the camp and combine scene this year, having the fastest 40 yard dash at the All-American Underclassman Combine. However, Jones received only a 3-star rating from Rivals.com. The culprit for this is that Jones did not start in his junior season, but rather split time with another Div-1 prospect, Indiana commitment Cortez Smith. In his limited time however, Jones did make an impact, however, averaging more then 10 yards per carry.
Another 3-star prospect that has blossomed of late is Michigan commitment Dewayne Peace. While Peace does not have great numbers on paper outside of his shuttle time, Peace does not blow off the profile page. He is only 6-0 and 180 pounds, but he does the little things to help you win. Peace has some intangible characteristics to his game including excellent hands and ball skills. While not having mind-boggling stats by any stretch in his junior year of HS, Peace could be a very productive receiver at Michigan.
While the recruiting services do their best to rank impact players at 4 stars or more, they do overlook certain circumstances around recruits that may be holding them back.
Yes, I hope that player development will be a hallmark of the new coaching staff, but I wouldn't be so quick to assert, "Under Carr, ratings were hugely important, because players didn't develop as well as they did at other schools. With the Barwis Effect in effect, and a coaching staff that apparently believes in coaching, we may have some recruits turn from water into wine."Of course, the oft-cited examples of Mike Hart and Braylon Edwards (both 3* players) are important to remember, since those players developed under Carr. But I did a little checking (on Rivals) and found that the recruiting classes from 2002-2004 (NFL eligible guys) feature 5 3* players and 12 4-5* players who are in the pros right now. That's pretty good by itself: 17 NFL players over 3 classes, but more impressive is the fact that about 25% of our 3* recruits over that period are now drawing an NFL paycheck. Since something like 2% of 3* recruits make the NFL, the fact that 25% of ours have made the NFL is awfully impressive (and, yes, I realize this is a small sample).
The best teams recruit the best HS talent year in and year out, but Michigan has had a better hit rate (and I'm talking starters playing meaningful minutes/all conference players/NFL picks) with 3* players than just about any major CFB team over the last decade. I'm not crediting any one thing in particular (coaching, S&C, whole pizzas), but the facts are the facts. We developed 3* players under Carr. I hope we do just as well with RR. Chances are, some of these 3* guys will be All Big 10 and some will disappear into Pat Sharrow/Anton Campbell land.
of the exact owning you are speaking of. To me, Gabe Lynn was either injured or didn't really care to be there.
No way he was that outmached by EVERYBODY.
Why do receivers drop passes? Why can't they turn their bodies to make the catch? Its because these things are intangible. You can show a kid how to catch a ball, but when you have a strong safety breathing down his neck about to attempt to kill him, they will drop it a lot.
And many commentators use the term in a clumsy fashion, but any skill is definitely tangible. If a guy gets thrown 100 balls and catches 95, you'd say he had a certain tangible skill...it's empirically verifible. That doesn't mean he's going to catch every ball, but it does mean he has the skill (my son, by way of contrast does not). Another tangible skill is speed: either you can run a 4.4 or you cannot, and there is nothing intangible about that.
Usually, when commentators talk about intangibles, they focus on the fuzzy things like camaraderie, teamwork, etc. These things are often imagined to have an impact on games and seasons, but we don't really know because we cannot measure them (like dropped passes, for instance) and so we call them intangibles (though even that is iffy since certain guys' poor behavior can be observed and verified even though its overall effect on a team's performance is difficult to gague). I tend to think that "intangibles" (as described by commentators) are overrated (I'd rather have Mario Manningham's bad attitude than my good attitude, bad hands, and slow footspeed), but tangible skill is almost never overrated.
I'm not sure they care too much about grammar. Seriously, dude, why are you being such an ass hat? We are all on the same team here, and there's no reason to be a douche because someone said something that you disagree with. You mentioned your rage; perhaps you should consult a professional before it manifests itself into something worse.
Daniel L has been a commenter on this board for a long time. He is not a troll.
Further, to take issue with the original post:
You argue that Peace may be under-rated because recruiting services have not observed "intangible" skills like hands and ball skills. Choice of words aside (I side with Daniel in his interpretation), I'd argue that if a recruiting service does not incorporate how good a WR hands are, they're sort of missing the entire point. In other words, I think that Peace, due to his high school production, is likely only deserving of three stars. That doesn't mean he won't be better.
The rage line was a joke. I don't actually have personal issues about what people write on the internet.
That aside, I was not correcting his grammar. My point was that his entire comment was nonsensical.
- The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
- The study of structural relationships in language or in a language,
sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.
- The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.
You can say I'm "disagreeing" with him. But in reality he's 100% wrong and using words to mean something they do not in any way, shape, or form. I'm trying to correct a terrible thought process before it manifests. I do not want to read 100s of mindless comments justifying 3 star players because they have "intangibles". I 100% guaran-fucking-tee you the coaching staff recruited them because they are good football players, not because they have intangibles (including, according to you, the ability for a wide receiver to catch the ball).
In conclusion, if you want to avoid the one thing that pisses me, Dex, and others off to no end, learn what fucking words mean before you use them.