wasnt he listed as a meh HB?
ESPN - Sione Houma now #3 FB
He was an unranked (which for ESPN is a 45) RB two days ago. Now he's the #3 FB. Hmmm I wonder what happened..
Just watched his film ... and got really excited because he reminds me of mike hart. Anyone else get that feeling? The kid just doesn't go down after first contact.
They guy doesn't like to go down, but he isn't particularly shifty like Hart was. Very reminiscent of Brandon Minor.
Haven't watched his film but I wouldn't be opposed to more RAGE
It's nice that when we discover someone now, they get a "Michigan bump" in the ratings. It wasn't long ago that as soon as a prospect committed we would wait for an uncalled for "Michigan slump."
cyberspace, into the machines of our detractors
Allen Trieu said this morning that Scout's just ranked the FB's, in fact they did it last night. So expect that to come out soon - he didn't really say where Houma would appear on that list, but you get the feeling it wasn't too low.
There's a kid from Trotwood down there at #15, I'm surprised we didn't give him a look (or maybe we did and I just haven't heard of it)
EDIT: b/c Trepps beat me, here's some more info. Houma didn't get into games until later, or at least didn't become the primary ballcarrier until later. Injury he had or something else, it wasn't clear, but he didn't really start playing until the 6th or 7th game last year. I also believe Trieu said - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - that he had something like 900 yards in 3 playoff games? Sounds crazy, so maybe I heard incorrectly.
Per the write-up on the Main Page, Scout and Rivals list Houma as rushing for 1,211 yards and 9 TDs during his junior year, while his highlights video lists him rushing only 1,064 yards and 7 TDs. If his highlights video did not include his playoff stats, that would mean he rushed for 147 yards and 2 TDs during the playoffs.
I read an article in a Utah paper and he ran for 661 yards and 5 TDs in the final three playoff games during their state championship run. He was behind a Sr. fullback at the start of the season. They saw a ton of potential, but he had a problem with fumbling. They worked on his technique in practice, he fixed the fumbling issue and then the Sr. FB got sick and the rest is history.
that Scout just finished ranking the FB's so he may get a similar ratings bump on Scout.
Why do the FB seem to have such low rankings? I mean the highest one is a 75 3* on espn. Is this an off year, or is this normal?
I think because the FB is such a limited position in terms of contribution and utility, that even the best FBs are not as useful as a mid-level player at another position. Of course, this depends on the offense...
I was under the impression that the star-system is designed to correlate to a player's likelihood of being drafted. So, I guess the question is "how many fullbacks are drafted each year?" Judging by the stars granted fullbacks, I would guess the answer is "less than two."
Serious thought though, maybe because they are fullbacks. Not highly used positions in todays game.
recruiting sites just arent that high on FB's for whatever reason, and never have been. I suspect this for a couple of reasons. First its just not as glamorous as other positions of comparable body type like tailback or linebacker, and second, FB has been over the last few years an increasingly underused position thats starting to disappear from rosters due to lack of use in certain offensive schemes.
FB have been slowly being fading out in most offenses. singleback or 2 RB is in. A FB today kinda is like a fish out of water. most guys that big either play TE or defense.
Fullbacks in general are not well rated anywhere. They basically are guys who lack the ability to be a RB or TE. Or so the stereotype for them goes anyway. So generally FBs get low marks in the athleticism category.
Keep in mind, though, that a lot of big tailbacks are considered fullback prospects by the analysts. Brandon Minor was considered a FB recruit by Rivals.
This is a normal year, they just don't respect fullbacks. However, to put it in perspective, they also don't respect kickers. Only the top five or so kickers can even get three stars. I think most coaches would agree that a top five kicker is well worth a scholarship though. I'm not too stressed on what the ratings gurus have to say. We just need to put the right guy in the right spot, and we probably just did.
I feel like if a fullback was more athletic, he'd usually be a tight end. I find it intriguing that this kid is a rated fullback considering his size. He's smaller than Toussaint and Hopkins, but whatever; I'm sure the coaches know what they're doing.
Tight ends are almost always 6'4" or taller. Most fullbacks aren't that tall. Aaron Shea (who played both positions here) is one of the only ones I can think of.
Exactly right. Look at the best fullbacks from the NFL level in the recent era and they are mostly 5'11"-6'1". Le'Ron McClain, Lorenzo Neal, Mike Alstott. Of course, they all have at least 30 pounds on Houma, but combine his attitude and get him in the strength program for a few years and he can get there. Can potentially be a great lead blocker, check-down receiver, and short yardage running option.
-Brady Hoke on the Fullback. In Houmas case he's already 6' so he's ahead of the curve in my book. :)
He's bigger than every RB other than Hopkins. I'm not sure what weight you saw for Toussaint, but he's like 200 lbs according to the roster. The only other back that's close is Cox.
I'm kind of wondering if we are going to run some triple option out of the I formation or even some Flexbone. You'd pretty much have to sellout on Denard and the pitch man, leaving this guy going up the middle for 6. If you sellout on both then you're going to get burned over the top.
Dude has some great speed. Especially at top end.
Mattison.recruit = leverage(rivals, scout, espn)
Hopefully all focus is now on the DT's to commit.
of EJ Fatu, so it makes sense that we signed him up!
It isn't the offer that helps the ratings, but the commitment... interesting
acurate, it's a "commitable offer" that I think they care about.
The west coast offense at its best has a FB who catches swing passes out in the flat roughly as often as Bo like running off tackle. I'm thinking Tom Rathman to cite the most famous example. I believe I read on another site that the FB had the 3rd most receptions on SDSU last year-- maybe someone more intrepid can do the googling to see if that's accurate.
I was just looking at our recruits on ESPN and they show Allen Gant as a WR any thoughts as to whether he could be a WR for us and then we could bring in Wayne Morgan or someone else for a DB position.
He's a SS and that's final.
He's the #1 FB in my book now.
Anyone remember Gerald White from those great mid-80's teams? He came in as a highly touted tailback, but Bo converted him to FB. Look at his stats over his last two years:
ATT YDS TD REC YDS TD
133 564* 7 18 123 4
88 323 5 38 408 3
I would love to see production from our FB like White's numbers, especially in the short passing game. I know these stats are from a different era, but a FB can be a useful offensive weapon (e.g., Tom Rathman, as someone mentioned above).
*Rushing stats this year were heavily skewed by his 29 ATT/129 YD outburst vs. OSU...was Jamie Morris hurt this game? I, of course, cannot remember.
Chris Floyd and B.J. Askew were two other guys along those lines. Floyd was an absolutely savage blocker.
Floyd was a monster, and could defnitely catch the ball. Askew had probably the best stats of any FB-type for Michigan in the past 30 years. I didn't originally include him because I remember him in a lot of single-back formations...he didn't exclusively live off of FB dives up the middle, but actually had some speed to get to the corner (feel free to correct me if my memory is shaky here). Here are Askew's impressive 2001/2002 stats:
ATT YDS TD REC YDS TD
199 902 10 26 236 2
110 568 6 36 280 1
Like you said his are probably more impressive that most fullbacks cause Askew played a lot of tailback too. He and Perry split time at tailback.
He reminds me a little of Stanley Edwards. He had good speed for a fullback and could do some damage in the secondary.
For eveybody saying that we could have used a scholarship on another postion because we are tight on scholarships, look at USC (CA). They can only accept 15 commitments this year, and even so, they have a commitment for a FB. Not saying that we need to be just like them, but I'm just making a point that if a FB is an important part of your offense, then it is worth it to get a good FB.
I'm no expert on film, but it sure looked like this kid could play halfback to me. I wonder what the staff has in mind for him???
He was recruited as a fullback. Obviously things can change but that appears to be the plan.
will have him #1 down the road. Trust the coaches. Liked Jarrod Bunch also ... check his HS stars.
Wierd that the #3 fb is a 2 star...Anyways, for someone I had never heard of he sure looks damn good. He has got to be one of the fastest FB's I've seen....
#3 FB in the country and not on the ESPN150 list???
Fullbacks usually do not get high RATINGS because they are very difficult to evaluate in high school and are not considered to be a "glamerous" position on the field. They don't need the stars anyway, they are still worhtwhile.
He's fast, hard to bring down, catches the ball, productive and has a sweet name. I don't care how many stars he gets, I like him. I bet he shows up to campus at least 20 pounds heavier.
As others have mentioned, UM has had a rich tradition at the FB position until just recently. I love that we're going back to this style of offense and will utilize FBs and TEs.
is that another big Polynesian?