Crawford/Filiaga vs Welschof/Schoonmaker

Snazzy, it would have been graceful to not name specific players when you were covering the high end of the rankings, particularly since one of them is still on the team.

Royal rumble!!!

You make a good point about the importance of development, and pleasant surprises.

However, in the perfect world you envision, where rankings directly correlate with the level of play, wouldn't that mean there'd be no chance to pick up an unheralded player and get development? With every program locked into their rankings level?

Cliff notes version:

"Sometimes higher ranked players dont produce as well on the field as lower ranked players.  This happens because sometimes recruiting services evaluate skills differently and sometimes it's because the player isnt located in a geographic area heavily covered by the services.  This is especially true of players who dont attend many camps.

And because of this variance dont be a dickwad here on the board tomorrow when lower ranked players are signed."

what are you seeing in kris jenkins that tells you what kind of player he'll be? 

So youre saying, welschof has another year to figure it out and so thats why we should be confident in lower ranked guys?

I think this has been documented many times before. being highly rated doesnt mean youll be great. being lowly rated doesnt mean you suck. hope that the people in charge can recruit more of the highly rated that perform to potential, and hope that the people in charge can identify the lowly rated that have the potential to out-perform.

Look forward to tomorrow's discussion on the same topic.

Caveat to what I am about to say: coaching, development and scouting all matter and can drastically alter outcomes of player's careers.

Now, the way to look at ratings is through an expected value perspective, at least in my opinion. Each star level/ranking indirectly corresponds to a % hit rate on a recruit at that level. So, to an individual player stars matter less, but when you start aggregating over an 85 man scholarship roster it becomes much more indicative of what your total talent will be.

For example, if a 5 star has a 50% chance of being a great player (1st round pick) and a 10% chance of being an All-American while a 3 star has a 5% chance of being a great player and a .1% chance of being an All-American. That means on average every 2 five stars you bring in yields you one first round pick quality player. It would take 20 3 star players to match that number.

Justin Feagin vs Mike Jones 

 Not sure your examples really help your argument.  Guy?  Welschoff?  Jenkins?  Hoping for the best but little early to be saying they outplayed their ranking.

Not another Snazzy McDazzy thread!

Saying Kekoa Crawford didn't have athletic upside seems like some revisionist history. From his recruiting profile:

Like Johnson, Crawford's combine testing numbers are pretty righteous. He was one of the top performers at the Opening:

Dylan Crawford was one of 10 participants out of the 166 who tested to qualify for NIKE Football Rating Championship. At 6-1.5, 183 pounds, the athlete clocked a 4.45-40, 4.01 in the shuttle, jumped 37” in the vertical and threw the power ball 42’.

Crawford was just out of a walking boot and ran for the first time in a month when he put that on the board. FWIW, 247 had completely different numbers—worse 40, worse shuttle, better vertical and power ball—but either way, dude was one of the most athletic guys at a gathering of the top recruits in the country. He came in second in combine testing at a loaded Opening regional in Los Angeles as well; he'd win the WR MVP award after bringing in "numerous" deep balls that displayed "his ability to stretch the field." How this jibes with the consistent "he's fast but he's not that fast" above is unknown.

That 6'1.5" is also a positive. It's a rare recruit who ends up listed smaller than he actually is by the recruiting sites. Crawford is one of them. He grew a couple inches after he popped up on everyone's radar.

What a surprise.

Did we win?

For every underrated success story, there's nine that don't pan out. Coaching staffs that can reliably ID those one in ten prospects obviously have a leg up, but taking the exceptions to question recruiting rankings, which by and large accurately reflect future success, is kinda disingenuous. 

Look at meeeeee!

Seems pretty subjective. I had High hopes for Crawford and perhaps he didn't get enough looks? He certainly played here when the offense was trying to find itself. I wouldn't fully say he didn't have the chops to make it, just that he wasn't targeted enough to decide, based on the identity crisis we were going through but time is running out. I still think Filiaga has a chance to make good on his potential and I think he becomes what we expected. Sometimes these guys just don't develop in one or two years. It takes the whole 4 years before they become all big ten. I wouldn't give up on him yet. Welschof is a mystery for me. I've seen him in garbage time and on special teams but can he compete against the edge guys we are recruiting? I don't think so. Schoonmaker on the other hand is ready to become THE GUY. Only thing is, so is Erik All. Its a shame that both these guys are not able to show their full potential, like Jake Butt, because of the shared time. I guess I'd rather have those problems than not have either. Go Blue!!!!  

Here is the thing… Michigan is doing their own scouting on every single player they contact or offer. They know their measurements, they know their numbers. They watch games, they watch film. They have hundreds of comps with former players to compare. They know what they are doing. Filiaga strikes me as a good player to have. He provides depth, leadership and honestly he’s pushing our guards to be that much better. He would start for 3/4 of the Big Ten. 

You look at a kid like Lance Harbor. Was he was a 5*?  Sure. Did they lose a game after he got injured? Sure. But that team really came together around Moxon. His daddy was a no talent p word, but at least he listened.

Also, Schoonmaker and Welschof from Connecticut and Germany, exactly the places that the stargazers here are always putting down as sources of talent. Not a good look for the 5-star gang.

Oh yeah, also Ojabo,Cade, Stueber, Vastardis, and CJ just on this team. Many others on prior teams.

I think Michigan's scouting is getting better all the time, and it's leading Harbaugh to recruit differently than he did early in his time at Michigan.  It's worth remembering that he was at Stanford for only four years.  I think he's figuring out what kind of HS players fit his system, who he can develop, who will mesh with his personality, etc. and it is leading to a different product on the field.  

Fans see Hassan Haskins and forget that every other position is chock full of 4-stars, including the OL that he runs behind. 

Most of our best players are highly rated guys. Aidan, Jabrill, Jourdan were all top 100 players coming out of high school. Cade, Ojabo, Corum all had higher recruiting rankings than Mac Jones. 

I knew this thread was going to suck when I clicked on it...when will I learn? Why must I continue to subject myself to this?

It seems that teams need a mix. Having hardworking, under the radar types emerge and form the backbone of a team, while adding ~40% of on field players being 4 stars and ~5% 5 stars to cause opponents to scheme around them is a solid recipe for success. 
 

it’s working for Michigan this year, at least