2016 Recruiting
I spend way more time following recruiting than I should. This includes me watching film from just about any kid that shows interest in Michigan. And beacause I have too much time on my hands I decided to start writing down what I think of these recruits film on a blog I just made. I grade them on a scale of 1-50 and since I was an Olinemen back when I played that's the position group I'll be evaluating first. I'll eventually rank all the Oline recruits that Michigan has offered. I've already written up two recruits, Michigan commit Erik Swenson and Plymouth, Michigan prospect Michael Jordan. And I've graded state of Michigan prospects Mchael Onwenu and Thiyo Lukusa but I have yet to write them up, same for GA recruit EJ Price.
Their grades from best to worst are:
Swenson (41/50)
Price (40/50)
Jordan (33/50)
Lukusa (32/50)
Onwenu (29/50)
I explain how I grade them it's not just throwing a number that I think fits. So, If you too spend too much tme followiing recruiting or are just bored you can take a look at my blog if you want.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:35 PM ^
Can't disagree, great that someone else analyzes film like this! I would say, if I were a betting man we are recruiting Onwenu as a NT more than a OG. He is definitely the least polished olineman of the 5.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^
He looks like a NT to me, but that's the word.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
He could be an OG down the road, but he seems much more natural on defense.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:31 PM ^
Someone needs to grab him by the facemask and yell at him that football is a high intensity game.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:36 PM ^
February 27th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^
I guess that's one way to differentiate yourself from other recruit rankings.
Cool of you to take the time to do this though.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^
Go over to his site ... he has 7 criteria he grades 1 to 7 ... so top score is really 49, but he throws in a 1-point kicker to round to 50.
I think a 49 point scale is kinda-sorta cool ... the 1-7 x 7 criteria model is eye-catching.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:42 PM ^
In your criteria you include "footwork". With respect to the offensive line, what are some examples of bad footwork, typical footwork, good footwork ... and what offensive lineman (playing anywhere -- HS, college, pros) has great footwork? And why?
I suspect that varies by O-Line position. I would guess tackles need really good lateral. Not sure if Centers require that as much as maintaining base.
Anyway ... I'm just curious what "footwork" translates to specifically.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:20 PM ^
Because I don't know what footwork their coaches teach them ona certain play. For example, on a reach block(Where the offensive tackle or tightend tries to seal the edge) It usually varies by the defense. If the defesive end has contain you'll usually use a full bucket step to try to run him as wide as possible if you can't reach him. If the D-end doesn't have contain you'll usually just see a stretch step to try to reach him as quick as possible.
The main things I look at when grading their feet are how well they run their feet on and through contact, similar to a running backs "leg drive". If their feet slow down or what you'll see a lot is if on contact they dig their feet in the ground and just push from where are then those are negatives because you don't get as much movement. I also look at how quick their first step off the ball is because a quick first step goes a long way to getting under the defenders pads, giving you leverage. Another thing I look at is if they keep a wide base through the block, you'll often see on the highschool level players getting too narrow. What this means is you want to keep a wide base like when you squat because that is where you are most powerful.
And with regards to your question about what player has good footwork I've been really impressed with former Iowa LT and projected first round pick Brandon Scherff.
February 27th, 2015 at 5:16 PM ^
Nice! This is the kind of football nuts-and-bolts I love to read. Thanks!
February 27th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^
The only concern I have is letting the "offers" be apart of the criteria for grading the players.
In some cases I could see it working, but not all the time.
For example, say Alabama or USC only needs to take 1-2 offensive line prospects. Now since these programs only need a couple players they might feel comfortable not offering a lot of prospects even if a prospect is VERY deserving of an offer.
So those programs go without offering and now according to your rankings it might hurt them because they aren't getting big national program offers.
This situation can vary many different ways as we all know recruiting is weird to say the least.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:14 PM ^
February 27th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
It might be for QBs, though. A lot of schools will fill up quickly without sending out many offers. At any position, a player that commits very early may limit his offers.
February 27th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^
I think it's a bit odd that you incorporate a player's offers into the rating, when all the characteristics have to do with the player's actual ability. I mean, presumably a player doesn't become better at football just because Alabama offers him a scholarship.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^
February 27th, 2015 at 4:39 PM ^
Yeah, offers are obviously a good shorthand way of assessing what caliber a prospect is at. I'm not denying the importance of offers at all--indeed, personally I am one of the people who thinks offers are usually a better indicator than stars or number grades (like Rivals' bizarre 6.1 scale).
What I meant though, is that all these things rating should ideally be independent data points. If a guy has 3 stars on a recruiting site, that's one piece of information suggesting how good he is. Then if he has an impressive offer sheet to go with it, now I have a second piece of information suggesting that maybe he's better than his star rating indicates. If he's got 3 stars and just a bunch of MAC offers, then the second data point suggests maybe he's not as good a prospect. Then if I go on TTB and see that Magnus has watched the guy's film and rated him 75, then I have a third data point, and so on. Granted, in practice a player's offers probably do influence the star ratings and whatnot quite a bit, but in theory I believe those ratings are supposed to based on some analyst making an independent assessment.
So, let's say I am trying to form an opinion on a prospect, and I see that he's got 3 stars on Rivals, an impressive offer sheet, a 62 rating on Magnus' site. If I then I go to your site, I want your score to help refine my opinion a bit further. If you come up with a score based on your own review of the film or other observations, that helps me. But if your score includes offers in your the rating, then instead of providing a separate data point you are at least partly just reiterating the information I already have from looking at the offer sheet.
Well, this got longer than I had intended. Also, I really meant this as constructive criticism and hope it has come across as such. Thanks for puttiing in the time to review these prospects and share your work. It is much appreciated.
February 27th, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^
I appreciate all input that I get because my process is far from perfect. The offers are just one point in my criteria so if you want you could just ignore that point and just go off of my other criteria. Anyway thanks for the input and 'll keep trying to make my system better.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:03 PM ^
Completely out of curiosity, what level did you reach in your playing days and what position did you play? You'll probably agree with me that old offensive linemen generally share a bit of a bond.
(As for me, played center and a little tackle in high school, then tackle/guard at a D-3 college. I was a D-3 offensive line coach for a year and then decided to give up on it and move on to a more stable/lucrative profession.)
February 27th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^
I was first team all state but being severly undersized all I got was Division 2 and 3 interest. I ended up player Tight End at a D3 school while pretty much only used as a blocker.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
Like with Swenson. But if you look at someone like Ej Price's offer sheet he could play college ball anywhere he wants as opposed to michael Jordan who does have midwest interest but isn't a a national prospect. Or someone who has MAC and low FBS level offers vs a national prospect there is an obvious talent difference there.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:53 PM ^
February 27th, 2015 at 5:08 PM ^
February 27th, 2015 at 7:09 PM ^
There will always be room for new recruiting blogs, but you might consider adding a few criteria for your evaluations, such as:
Football I.Q.
Do they always know what the play is, and block the right person ?
How often, and what type of penalties do they commit ?
Can they play through adversity, or do they quit when they get behind ?
Do they play to the whistle, or do they fold when they get beat on a play ?
Do they control their actions, or do they let the opposition under their skin ?
Do they watch their Q.B. get illegally concussioned, and then just stand there watching the guy, or do they kick the guy's ass like a Mother Grizzly Bear ?
Do they play their best in key games and situations, or do they get nervous and screw up ?
Misc.
How well do they use their arms to keep distance from the defensive lineman ?
How well do they use their arms, without holding, to control and fend off def. linemen ?
Do they know who to block in an all out blitz ?
Do they block anyone on a screen pass, or do they just run out there and look around ?
Highlight films are just that, their best plays, which only shows their upside, but to know the complete player, you have to watch all of their film, and this makes player evaluations, if you want to do it right, a long time consuming thing to do, for you have to watch ALL of their film to glean these subtleties, and determine what player you are really getting.
February 27th, 2015 at 9:36 PM ^