to have done well but didn't crack the Top-10 out of 18 QB's - not sure if the rankings keep getting updated through the rest of The Opening or not.
That being said, I trust in Nuss - kid is a BALLER!
I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but "admirably" here means that nobody has said bad things about him. So far he hasn't been one of the top 11 performers on either day, and he's actually being outfperformed by Ryan Brand, a 5'10" Detroit U of D Jesuit kid who's committed to Air Force.
Ok, so what if you *tried* to be a DD?
My sources tell me that it would cost about $3,700. I'm currently an A-cup.
each or for the pair?
Um...*cough*...well...er...I've only got, like, one of 'em.
Jeez. This is awkward.
How 'bout them Cowboys?
DON'T BE DISSIN' THE AFA DUDES.
Signed,
GoWings2008, 1991 USAFA Graduate.
will the kid from UDJ change his last name to Freedom, or will it be Service?
will have a say on that one, depending on if his number is odd or even.
What he implied was that a "lowly" school like AFA isn't worthy of a QB prospect that is higher rated than the one going to Michigan.
Oh, I can read between the Magnus lines alright...
I have not watched and won't pretend to know how he's doing, but Shane was getting GREAT reviews from Dilfer the entire time he was there and then didn't crack the "elite 11." I don't really put much stock into what Trent Dilfer (or his "experts") say in a shorts and t-shirt atmosphere.
There is way more to being a QB than putting them through a controlled "chaos" drill. I didn't like the Malzone offer when it went out, but truth-be-told, the kid loves and will fight for Michigan, and I'll take that type any day over a kid like Mallett who runs when things get tough.
I think he has always been a gamer - speaking from seeing him on the field. He doesn't look to have the best mechanics. But he has a good arm, throws a nice touch on the deep ball, and loves Michigan.
Not trying to be a dick ... Just wondering what you saw, or didn't see, in him to warrant it being a good offer?
I didn't like the offer, either. The truth (or at least my interpretation of the truth) is that there were other, better quarterbacks out there that Michigan could have pulled in. The same goes for Messiah DeWeaver, although that's irrelevant here. I think the coaches got antsy about not having a QB in the 2015 class, so they lowered their standards a little bit. They could have gone after Brandon Wimbush, Travis Waller, Kyle Kearns, Brady White, etc., but they offered Malzone instead.
It's nothing against Malzone, I just felt there were several uncommitted guys [that were better] we could have put the full court press on. Malzone would've still been available in December, IMO. You keep recruiting Malzone by letting him know he can earn an offer during his senior season, all while going hard after Torrance Gibson, Blake Barnett (when he became available), and Kyle Kearns.
I mean Tennessee is in the "driver's seat" for Torrance Gibson. You cannot tell me that Michigan does not have more to offer than Tennessee and SMU for Kearns.
I'm not sure Kearns is any better than Malzone, and it's not like other top programs are drooling over him. Some of the other guys you and Magnus mentioned might be, but the coaches likely had a good pulse on who was likely and who wasn't. Brady White never showed any interest in anyone outside the Pac-12, for example.
It's possible Malzone may have been available in December. It's also possible some program "almost" as good as Michigan offered him before then that he jumped at and never looked back.
Brady White mentioned interest in Michigan way back when, but he never visited and was never offered.
Malzone's other offers came from the MAC, Pitt, and Wake Forest, IIRC. It's likely that he would have picked up other offers between now and December, and December is too long to wait for a QB commit. But still. If another quality program came in with an offer, Michigan still would have had a chance to swoop in shortly thereafter. Let's say Notre Dame offered at the beginning of August; what's to stop Michigan from offering a day or two later, just so they don't get far behind?
I'll admit that I'm higher on Kearns that the recruiting services and some schools, so I'm not saying that Michigan's coaching staff should absolutely agree with me. But some of the other guys I mentioned are both ranked higher AND have better offer lists than Malzone. There are certain people around here who don't care about recruiting rankings and trust offer lists. There are very few who say "None of that matters at all."
I think it's only fair to admit that the offer is a little bit questionable based on his stature, ranking, offer lists, etc. It may or may not work out for Michigan in the long run, but it's understandable to question it at the present.
I hear what you're saying, but it's certainly possible that the coaches knew that those other guys were unlikely to commit to Michigan so they got their guy who would. And I don't know if we still have a shot if ND offers Malzone. if he comes to Michigan 20 times with no offer, and shows up to another power progam twice, gets shown lots of love and an offer, he very well might commit and tell MIchigan to stuff it (I know I might have). Then we're left holding out you know what.
Often times on this blog I see "but we could have had (uncommitted recruit X)." But just because recruit X was uncommitted, doesn't mean we had a shot. The coaches probably have a good way of getting the pulse of these recruits, and it's entirely possible that all of the options better than Malzone gave the coaches the "I'm interested but not that interested" vibe, so they offered Malzone.
As others have mentioned, it seemed like we were losing a lot of ground on most of our QB recruits. There seemed to be a lot of general interest in the 2015 class but no one seemed like they wanted to jump on board. Do you think patience and some more targetted interest at some of the remaining targets would have led to success with another recruit?
The DeWeaver offer is the one that seems too soon. He seems like he has a lot of potential but with a prospect that seems to still be developing, it would seem prudent to see how he continues to develop. Maybe the situation resembles Beilein with recruits where the coaches are looking at kids who are still developing and trying to project talent and physical skills a couple years down the road. Obviously basketball recruiting is very different. Magnus, has there been any word on whether the coaches have stopped recruiting other 2016 QB's? All the general recruiting evaluations seem to keep mentioning Costello, Henry, and a few others. Does the strategy seem lock DeWeaver down early so we have a QB in the 2016 class and then swing for the fences with a higher rated prospect who could come in and not need to RS? Then we could RS DeWeaver and give him more time to develop. Just a thought.
I think the coaches were worried of playing musical chairs with the remaining targets and being left without a seat when the music ended so they offered a local kid who is a lifelong fan and who's profile was rising.
What has me somewhat encouraged is Nussmeier's track record of identifying and developing QB prospects. Nussmeier saw all these guys throw live and still decided to offer Malzone when they did.
but it appears his mechanics look good. His initial first step seems to be large, and his resulting steps seem to keep his rear foot properly spaced. I thought I remember the depth and number of steps is more dependant on the scheme than anything. RR used a quick three step throw a lot, while more prostyle use a longer drop. He also keeps the ball high and tight and appears to have a quick delivery.
You are right though, it doesn't matter how well a player throws and moves in controlled drills. QBs are made when the pocket is callapsing and keeping these mechanics under pressure. I rmember that being one of Brady's best traits when he played here. While freshman/sophmore Henson had more talent (arm strength and speed), Brady seemed to be the same no matter what the situation and was masterful in the pocket.
he seems to have a lot of movement in this throwing motion. Especially his upper body. But Nuss saw him throw and extended the offer so I have to believe there is nothing major wrong in his mechanics.
Hoping nothing but the best for the kid.
He bleeds blue and we have the trumping card in Nuss to develope. He'll be fine on the college level.
I disagree, I think the kid has had his fare share of critisism in regards to his height and pitchers release. But what is there to harp on? He makes all the throughs and has a strong arm and is fairly accurate so why harp on the negatives thats what the coaches are for.
(just my opinion)
Throws.
Fair share
That's
So is it too late to flip Brand? :P
On the side-by-side clips at the end of the video, Alex is taking very deep drops while his counterpart is taking short steps. Is this good or bad? Both are releasing at the same time. Seems to me like a deep drop is better, but harder to protect from the outside rush.
Or you could just do what I do in NCAA and keep dropping back until you're ready to throw.
Drop back all the way.
that Malzone has a pretty strong arm, good velocity coming out, and accuracy seemed to be pretty well placed. Knock would probably be that he's a bit shorter (6'1"), but he seems relatively mobile/athletic, moves around pretty well. His release was fairly quick.
I've never taken Dilfer's opinion as gospel. The guy loves quarterbacks like him-- not as much talent, but smart and playbook worms. There is a classroom aspect to the E11, if I recall correctly, no?
As for the 3 versus 5 step drop, the two quarterback drill may have been simulating different scenarios, and one QB was told to take a short drop and one a deeper drop. I don't know that for fact, though.
(not by you but in general). Plenty of "short" QBs have been very successful in a whole lot of different offenses and 6'1" (if truly a 6'1") seems more than tall enough with a high release point, which it appears he has. The most batted balls at the line I can remember came from our 6'6" QB.
"The most batted balls at the line I can remember came from our 6'6" QB."
And I know for a fact that the 4'9" Vincent Smith never had a ball batted down at the line of scrimmage.
the joke
What was even more frustrating was that one of Navarre's teammates was 6'-8" DE Pat Massey, and I swear I cannot remember him ever batting down one pass himself. He never seemed to be able to even get his arms up in the air.
Pat Massey had 5 pass breakups in his career. Since he was a DT, I can only imagine most/all of those were batted down at the LOS and not swatted down while covering wide receivers on crossing routes.
For a guy with his size and wingspan who lettered all four years and started 32 games on the DL, a total of five pass breakups seems pretty paltry to me, especially considering the number of passes thrown during his career.
This is such a dumb example. Navarre had a lot of balls batted down despite his height. This does not mean that height is not advantageous for a QB. I'm sure you can find a tall basketball player who doesn't rebound well or block shots well, and that doesn't mean that height plays no factor in a player's ability to block shots or rebound.
You want your QB to be tall. Can shorter QBs still be successful? Of course. But you wouldn't say that you want your RB to be slow because Mike Hart was better than Carlos Brown, would you?
You want your QB to be tall so he can see the field well, not just so his passes aren't batted down. I'm not saying Malzone is too short to be good, but let's not act like that's not an important attribute for a QB.
but I'm arguing the point that it is not as important an attribute as some make it out to be. Is it nice to have? Yes, but there are a ton of other things that are more important. Banks (Iowa), Smith (OSU), Brees (Purdue) are just a few examples of smaller QBs that have excelled in college. I just think that if he is a legit 6'1", then his height is not that big of a drawback. The batted down passes were just one argument people have against "smaller" QBs that isn't always the case based on release point and how fast the ball gets out.
Your point about the running backs is what I am trying to make. Size and speed is a huge metric when it comes to RB. By all accounts, Carlos Brown should have been the better running back than Hart, but we know that wasn't true. If I'm looking for RBs I am still looking for fast and big, but I've learned that I should not discount a player solely based on some metric for the "ideal" player. Hart showed he was a good football player all through high school and continued in college. Malzone has shown to be a good football player in games in high school and I think this is more important than an inch or two in height.
Could be different scenario, different route, different timing, etc. But the QBs are fairly clearly doing different things, it's not just Malzone getting deeper.
The Ann Arbor News (or MLive d/b/a The Ann Arbor News, if you prefer) did their own writeup on Malzone's performance at the Elite 11, if anyone is interested - LINK
Their review is quite positive, as you may expect, but the piece does have a few quotes from Malzone himself which people might find intriguing enough, including one which expresses relief that he has resolved the question of where is going and can more easily concentrate on improving his game. I will say though that the clips that OP posted do look rather good - very nice, accurate throws highlighted there.
How in the h3ll does an article get published with a headline misspelled like that? I worked at the University of Toledo college newspaper (CSB) and we would have been reamed for a misspelling in the last paragraph - much less the headline!
That being said - thanks for sharing! :)
AA.com or whatever the hell it is has horrible editing/proofing, if it has any editing/proofing at all.
They're not the only ones, though—I see obvious typos and grammatical errors everywhere on the internet. It's like they just don't give a shit, or the writers and editors working online simply don't know any better.
though I think a lot of it based on the need to get content out cheaply and ASAP. Many "news" sites have obviously made a concious decision to put speed and frequency over the quality of content.
De feet of de dog went over de fense before de tail.