Didn't he commit to Michigan almost a year ago? What took them so long?
This is maaaaybe premature there, ESPN. Maryland #1 FWIW.
Didn't he commit to Michigan almost a year ago? What took them so long?
that is odd. hollowell gets nothing throw his way. b/c he blankets his man.
you don't notice the good ones b/c nothing happens on their side of the field
this is why morgan trent seemed so ubiquitous
Some more Michigan hate. Who cares as long as he red shirts and we get some depth. That is unless he comes in like Woodson and gets in a fight with Stonum in practice after he shuts him down. Then please start.
I think, more than anything, his drop occurred because some other player was moved up into four star range. I'm not too worried about him being a solid prospect. What is more surprising to me is that Kellen Jones dropped even though he is having a monster season.
He's playing in Texas and putting up monster numbers. He's a ridiculous pass rusher and is perfectly sized to be an ideal MLB in college. Obviously he'll need to put on a couple pounds but he's got the ideal height and frame. Not sure why the dropped. I was expecting a 4th star.
He plays in a league with all private schools, and it isn't very good.
'cuz the guest-rating-updater was none other than Michael Rosenberg.
Rosenberg is turning into the unofficial villain of MGoBlog; you can imagine him cackling gleefully in his dark basement whenever something bad happens to UofM. Actually don't imagine it, because I'm sure that's what actually happens.
Name: Michael Rosenberg
Job Title: Official Villain of MGoBlog
Job Description: To orchestrate and cackle gleefully at the misfortunes of one, Rich Rodriguez, and the University of Michigan Football Program.
Experience: Almost 3 years and counting.
References: A bunch of shitty Free Press articles.
Future Goals: To be buried next to Lloyd Carr.
I think the point is that Rosenberg is in a state of eternal mourning for LC. Many of his pieces have the subtext of RR not being as chaste/articulate/competent as LC.
Eh, saw this coming. Whatever.
I didn't. At all. Hollowell has been good this year.
All the more chance for the coaching staff to show that they don't need big names to win.
Because they have such a great track record of that so far????
WVU, Clemson, Tulane, etc
What's with Cass Tech consistenly putting out highly rated (and somewhat undersized) corners? Is it Wilcher's coaching or someone on his staff?
I would hate to take WIlcher away from Cass Tech since it's turned into a pretty nice pipeline, but maybe we should get him on Michigan's staff, assuming that he's responsible.
If you bring him here, but replace him at Cass with another UM alum or loyalist, then it could be a win-win.
I guess he's going to have to make a few more one handed snags to climb back up there. Or commit to ND.
Or he can commit to an SEC school and become a five star.
That's not at all how it works. Prospects that commit to Michigan that people don't know about are usually given more attention and are usually rated higher later on in the process. It's just prospects from the south that are given higher ratings. If Hollowell were at a high school in Florida, he'd probably be rated higher, not if he chose to go to an SEC school.
You're right, but apparently I needed to include this:
Nothing wrong with a 3 star corner, thats what Derrelle Revis was rated at coming outta high school and look how that turned out!
are strong RR-haters. I wonder if that has something to do with it.
Josh Helmholdt from Rivals does contribute to Freep, so there is that connection. I am not sure if he does ratings.
They "give their input" which the guys who do their rankings can take into account or chose to ignore.
also, good to see where blake countess is rated. hollowell, countess and crawford would be a nice class.
What is up with him? I searched the board and found an Oct. 25th post about him having to get a decent score on his SAT. Does anyone know if he did?
I don't want to misquote Sam Webb, but I believe he's said that he doesn't expect Kinard in this class.
Not sure why Hollowell would take a dip to a 3*, Cass Tech is undefeated and a large part of that is from the play of Hollowell.
It's not a ranking of the best high school players. It's a ranking of the best college prospects. The two aren't necessarily correlated.
Isn't it best pro-prospects? If that is the case, then it's surprising to me that Hallowell got up to 4 stars considering his height.
I've heard someone from either Scout or Rivals say that the stars are based on a player's projected status as a pro.
except for folks obsessing over the weekly recruiting class comparisons "it just doesn't matter"
They may have been anticipating him growing. To be an elite corner, he needs to grow at least a couple of inches. Note that there are zero other 5'8" CBs in their top 60 CBs and two 5'9" CBs at #48 and #56.
How did that whole Arnett is a lock I have inside information thing go?
They give passes on prospects with really elite coverage skills
Good. I wouldn't want him to feel out of place when the 3* mafia comes calling.
is it a function of some kids committing early, being 'taken off the market' as it were, and with decreased competitive recruiting interest, their star ranking falls?
This is something I worried about, for about half the time that it took me to type the subject line.
On the plus side, he just became at least 10 times grittier.
they would give all his recruits higher star rankings. if they lower a guy and he turns out great, it just makes Coach look better... (or maybe they are not super bright over there)
It doesn't make any sense for this to happen, but this happens a lot and the rivals people don't really seem to care about it. And it's not the rivals guys that cover Michigan that make these changes, it's the national guys who rarely see the players play.
Same thing happened to Ricardo Miller.. top250 guy, dropped to four-stars, then to three because of one event. Farrell probably saw Hollowell once and nobody threw at him so he lowered him. It is what it is.
How the hell did it take this long?
usually mean nothing. 5 stars can be busts, 2 stars can be All-Americans. Its. how hard he works and how well he's coached.
That being said, ESPN has him as a 4 star still.
do actually generally coorelate with success. What you're showing is the exceptions. Chad Henne (5 star) vs Justin Feagin (2 star) is generally what will happen.
Personally, I thought Hollowell was overrated from the beginning. I suspected he'd be a 3-star back when they gave out the original rankings. 5'8" corners have certain limitations and, like Boubacar Cissoko, I don't see Hollowell as a big playmaker (one-handed catch in one-on-ones aside).
Not to take anything away from Hollowell, but I've made one-handed catches in competitive situations, too. I think that one-handed catch has given Hollowell more traction amongst Michigan fans than it probably should.
Anyway, a 3-star prospect sounds about right. I like Dallas Crawford a little more, and I'm a big fan of the Countess offer.
I'm also weary of little corners after watching BC try to defend Michael Floyd. It must be something in the water that makes Cass Tech corners shorter than 5-8.
Yeah, I'm weary of short cornerbacks as well. After all, I live in Minnesota so I watch Vikings games every weekend.
And geez, that midget Antoine Winfield really, really is no good, AND he's only 5'9" (and I've met him before - good luck on that 5'9" business).
Well, you've named one good 5'9" cornerback.
I guess they all must be great!
Just like the other guy cherry-picked a recent flame-out recruit.
With a sample size of 1 we can play the game all day long. I'd prefer we let the guy show up, redshirt if possible, and then find out in his 3rd year whether he can contribute. Color me patient.
The difference is that his example is more representative of the overall trend.
Yours is not.
I don't know if you're right or you're wrong, but I am sure that your argument sucks.
Luckily for me, I'm more interested in being right than satisfying your requirements for making a "good argument."
Your bad argument means there's no reason to think you're right.
Height is already taken into account by the services. You think height is an under appreciated asset in a corner. The burden is on you to show this. Expecting us to just assume that's the case because you say so is asinine.
It should be common knowledge for people who follow football.
I guess it's not.
It's already taken into account by the services. Dear Lord.
I understand that. But I'm glad you boldfaced it.
Here's a bit of knowledge just to make common knowledge more common. You might be interested in the ideal cornerback size.
Bravo for doing this, research is hard and time consuming. But while I applaud you for doing this and think it's interesting, it's far from dispositive on the question of whether the services undervalue height in corners. There are two problems in that regard: one, it shows correlations of success in the NFL rather than college and two, it doesn't speak to the services' evaluations.
I think someone got confused somewhere. Maybe it was me. Maybe not.
I'm not arguing whether the services undervalue height in corners or not. I really don't care whether they do or not. I think the recruiting services are a fairly accurate guideline and nothing more. I'm not a part of the 3-star mafia or anything.
The only point I've tried to make in this thread is that a) I'm not a huge fan of Delonte Hollowell's skill and b) I'm not a huge fan of short cornerbacks in general.
Whether Rivals/Scout/ESPN value height or not, I really don't care.
You are actually one of the most patient people on this blog. You have the patience not to worry about recruiting until signing day. I usually waste time at work reading up on possible future Michigan players.
Right on cue.
Why are you even reading this thread? You don't even care about recruiting...right?
Hollowell's ranking among CB's didn't change at all - which suggests their opinion of him didn't change much either.
People focus to much on the "stars" system. He is still the same player regardless of his rating. Especially if people have proof he is playing well, then his rating doesn't really matter. He is still a good cornerback who I believe will help are team.
This thread is overflowing with fail.
This thread is overflowing with Magnus.
I fixed that for you.
Wow, your comments are thoroughly insightful and intriguing.
Not to take anything away from Hollowell, but I've made one-handed catches in competitive situations, too.
How can anyone measure up to the brilliance of this comment?
You either don't understand the context of the comment, or you're too interested in arguing with me to try. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain anything to you.
Cissoko seems to lower our hope for Hollowell, and that may not be fair? Yes, he was short, but that never seemed to be Boubacar's problem as much as he could not ever cover anyone unless he was holding onto them. I'm pretty sure he could have been 6'2" and been still pretty hapless out there.
His lack of height might be a reason that he held on so much.
I'm sure you're right to some extent. He was "in over his head",
For no other reason than just seeing who was the tallest and shortest prospects for the class of 2011, I decided to poke around on the internet. All the chatter above made me curious so, I used the recruit search and database on rivals. (setting it to search anyone taller than 5'5").
The tallest player who is rated by rivals is Keelin Smith @ 6'3" 185lbs, committed to FSU.
The shortest player who is rated by rivals is Kishon Wilcher @ 5'6" 154lbs, committed to Toledo. Interestingly he is from Cass Tech and I believe he is the son of the head coach.
These are listed heights for rivals so who know how accurate they are. This search only included CBs and not athletes that might project to CB in college.