Rivals just released a new top 100. Gardner has dropped out, and CC is now 99.
to play football, not to play trumpet
Rivals just released a new top 100. Gardner has dropped out, and CC is now 99.
Why are we not in contention for the nations top RB's?
First off we're Michigan, second off we are clearly building a NC-level offense geared toward the run. Why is Tony Drake the best we could get. Why not Baxter, Seastrunk, Lattimore, others?
Tony Drake wasn't even going to play running back for us.
i missed that. what was he going to play, slot?
and if so, why? too deep at RB?
Because that's where the coaches wanted him.
Baxter is still on the board.
We'll get our backs. Just let it happen.
I fear this is what early February might look like; although I keep up my hope.
Wow, Ronald Powell has become #1. Surprised b/c rivals always seems to give the #1 spot to the wavering, uncommitted prospect who usually signs after NSD.
William Gholston and Dominique Easley gets 5 stars. Florida now has 3 5 star DL in the top 10.
Your right, wouldn't be surprised if he "waivers" before NSD
but it is agitating that our guys seem to drop every single time they release updated versions
along those lines, what has Gardner done to drop?...play well in the UA game?...did Cullen just replace him?...are there anti-Gardner factions out there now too?
Gardner didn't play THAT well in the Under Armour game. He had some bad passes, didn't run extremely well, got killed a couple times, etc. He's extremely raw. People who expect him to contribute early on at Michigan are deluding themselves, in my opinion.
If I'm not mistaken, ESPN is all about the UA game while Rivals is all about the Army game. In the past haven't recruiting sites elevated the rankings of players who play in "their" game?
This would make sense, since Gardner moved down on Rivals.
IMO Lattimore would be the perfect back for our offense. I've seen him play in person several times and he is exactly the physical type of back that would really thrive in our offense.
You've seen Lattimore several times? I had no idea that you're a Tennessee recruiting hostess.
I think Lattimore would be the perfect back for LOTS of offenses, thus the ridiculously high rating on every guru website.
I don't disagree with that. I was commenting more toward the fact that he brings something to the table that we are missing right now: a big, powerful, hard runner. The one thing about Lattimore is that he's not as fast as his reported times would suggest. I mention this because it further goes toward my point that he's more of a power back than anything, which is not something that would be evident from his measureables or his film.
Im sorry I forgot but who was it that said Gholston, while impressive in camps completely disappears in games?
113 tackles and 27 sacks his senior year says he showed up for a fucking game or two.
That's my favorite kind of game.
you're wrong. he's committed to MSU; therefore he never showed up in HS games.
that Tom Beaver said that.
Vernon and William Gholston
and yes Vernon seems to have fallen off the face of the planet
I'm surprised Gholston got 5 stars. From all accounts, I thought he under performed at the UA game. Although I know they fell in love with his physique.
I think the comments were, great upside but disappeared in the game. Seems like the NY Jets have the same feeling about another Gholston as well.
We have got to get our guys to work on their pad levels. That is the mark of a 5 star kid, right?
This also means that MSU has the number 1 ranked player in the state... I just love to give those "humble" Sparties something more to gloat about.
we don't need marcus lattimore when MIKE COX is penetrating any opening he can find.
also, i think toussaint, v. smith, hopkins, and shaw are fine options for the next 2-4 years. Michigan will get a top flight RB in 2011.
I was initially going to laugh at the Mike Cox comparison to Marcus Lattimore, but then I realized I don't know a damn thing about Mike Cox. I think this might be a ridiculous question (I don't mind admitting when I don't know something, but really, what is going on with Mike Cox?
That might be a question for your doctor, sir.
rivals i believe is a southern based company, so there gonna favor southern schools. If DG went to florida he would be a 5 star and in the top 50. the fact that hes the best dual qb but not a 5 star is bs. russell shepard who was the best dual threat qb who went to lsu a few yrs ago was a 5 star and top 10 player, but yet he will never play qb at lsu and he cant even see the field for them. so rating dont mean a whole lot, but it would be nice to get the top tier guys everyonce inawhile.
Gardner had a touchdown pass in the all-star game, averaged over 4 yards per carry, and completed somewhere around 50% of his passes (from what I recall). Not an exceptional showing but certainly solid.
Additionally, because of the straw vote on starters, he had limited opportunities in the game. But did almost as well as can be expected considering limited snaps and poor blocking. HE CERTAINLY DID NOTHING THAT SHOULD CAUSE HIM TO DROP.
Moreover, from all reports, he was extremely impressive in the practices. Drawing raves from those who saw him play.
What I think is happening is a decided Michigan bias by Rivals. More than a Michigan bias..... a Rich Rod bias. I surmise and suspect that someone there does not want him to succeed.
Ricardo = should be a 4 star
MRob = should be a top 100 player or just on the cusp
Devin = should be a top 50 player if not higher
Cullen = should have maintained his position
JRob = should have maintained his position as a 4 star
Furman = should get a bump up to 4 star status because of his exceptional play in the playoffs and off the chart measurables.... but I'd be willing to bet he won't get that bump
And on it goes....
Seriously? Rivals is biased against Rodriguez and therefore rates his players lower? Take off the tinfoil hate.
Ricardo is slow and stiff. He's either a slow WR or a small-ish TE. What about that screams 4-star?
Gardner probably isn't a top 50 player. Rivals rates 5-stars based on the likelihood that they will be first round picks in 3-5 years. Gardner is extremely raw and has the physical ability to be a first rounder, but it's a crapshoot on whether he'll develop the mechanics and aptitude to play at a high enough level to be a high pick. He's definitely not a 5-star, and I don't know that I'd put him on the cusp of being a 5-star, either, which is what a top 50 ranking would do.
Furman should get bumped up to 4-star status because he had 400 yards rushing in the playoffs? He's going to play defense (where he's very raw), which means his rushing stats/abilities have little to no bearing on how he should be ranked.
Marvin Robinson had an underwhelming senior year, and his team didn't have much success, either. I think you're buying into the hype that has been swirling around Robinson for the last three years. He's been on Michigan's radar so long that Michigan fans think he's an awesome player. He is very good, but he's got some flaws, too. And Rivals ranked him as an OLB, which he's never played.
Intentional or no, "tinfoil hate" is an awesome phrase.
Magnus.... it sounds like you are buying the hype AGAINST our own players.... instead of FOR them.
I have yet to see a recruiting expert say that Devin is raw.... not one. Devin is a proven passer who throws the ball with great accuracy and touch.... according to Ex.NFL coach Sam Wyche and other scouts who have watched him play.
Moreover, I trust our coaches. They have shown that they are great evaluators of talent. Ricardo was a stud before who was not stiff before he committed to Michigan.... I don't see why that should change after his commitment.
MRob was injured part of the year but when he did play his play was exceptional. Didn't he have something like 22 tackles in a single game? Moreover, he performed very well on the camp circuit. Lastly, his junior year was good.
Devin is a 5 star on Scout. And Devin is a very good passer.... very accurate according to the reports coming out of the allstar practices. Combine that with 6'4" frame and excellent speed, and Devin has every bit the change of being a 1st round draft pick when he graduates.
Follow the trend. A player commits to Michigan and evitably drops in the rankings. That is not by happenstance.
re⋅al⋅ist [ree-uh-list] –noun
1. a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
EVERY recruiting expert has said that Devin Gardner is raw. They've all said that he needs to work on his mechanics, which = raw. Sam Wyche said it himself, but you must have glossed over that part.
Our coaches have shown that they are great evaluators of talent? Our coaches have gone 3-9 and 5-7. They haven't shown anything yet.
A guy I played with in high school had 22 tackles in a game. You know where he played college ball? Wayne State. I'm not saying Marvin Robinson isn't any good, but 22 tackles in one game doesn't make him a big star. He honestly didn't have a great senior year, and like I said, neither did his team. He's not the elite player that Michigan fans want him to be.
But what does "evitably" mean? I've never come across that word before.
don't waste your time on him Magnus
When I saw that word, I tried to correct it but this site wouldn't let me edit for some reason. I guess you only have so much time.... or until someone responds to your post. Smart arse.... you know the word is "inevitably". Lol. But it's all good Magnus.... I had that one coming.
So if everyone's convinced the rankings are bullshit why do they care about them so much?
I only come here for recruiting info. I could not possibly care less if "ZOMG D. Gardner no haz a 5 star!!!!1!!!111!!!" Rodriguez and pretty much every single other college coach takes those rankings with a grain of salt at most. We should not care where our players are ranked as this has no effect on how they play. Pat White! Mike Hart! Ahhh!
The back field was not as much an issue as our defnsive needs.
A Noel Devine/Steve Slaton type guy would be nice though.
Well, Devine would be right up there with the players the OP listed. He was a 5 star.
There are no QBs in the top 50 and only two in the top 100.
Will favor the heavy run teams about 2-3 years from now.
Of the 2 QB's in the top 100. Heaps was pretty good in the AAA game. But Sims was ten times worse than Gardner or anybody that they put out there, yet he is at 60 something?
It also includes how the players performed during practice, and Sims has an absolute cannon for an arm. I think he was voted to have the strongest arm of the quarterbacks, and you could see it on a few plays in the game.
Yeah but that is one thing. It doesn't mean much if he can't throw it very accurately. IMO(and many others) arm strength is the most over rated factor for a good QB.
Yes, but it's kind of like how people always say, "You can't teach speed." Speed by itself doesn't do a whole lot of good if you can't catch the ball, but you can work with it. It's hard to take a noodle-armed QB and turn him into Brett Favre, but if he's got the arm strength, all he's got to work on is honing his delivery.
Sims has to work on his mechanics, but he's got a cannon for an arm. Gardner has to work on his mechanics, and his arm isn't as strong as Sims'. So it's not hard to see why Gardner might be ranked lower.
"You can't teach speed" is a common misconception. People have a preset potential based on muscle fiber composition between slow/fast. But you can teach mechanics of strides and improve muscle explosiveness. There's a reason power cleans correlate positively with vertical jump and sprinting speed.
It just takes a long time to improve speed, typically longer than mechanics because one is muscle memory and one is muscle development.
I know you can improve speed, but only by a finite amount. For example, no matter how hard Mike Hart trains, he'll never be Chris Johnson.
"People have a preset potential based on muscle fiber composition between slow/fast. "
I know. I read what you said the first time. You're basically just reinforcing what I said in the first place - you can't teach speed. You either have it or you don't.
I'm not going to argue semantics. I was just saying that people use "you can't teach speed" to state preference for teaching something else like mechanics. If mechanics were as easily taught as people think, then why doesn't every pitcher use Tim Lincecum's delivery, or every football QB throw like Manning?
I don't get your point. You basically seem to be saying that speed can only be improved to a certain point...but mechanics can't be taught, either. So why do we teach anything?
The average person can be taught throwing mechanics much more easily - and successfully - than to run fast. But Tim Lincecum's delivery won't work for everyone, because he's particularly flexible in ways that other pitchers aren't. There's not one set way of throwing a football. The key is to find mechanisms that work for each individual QB, not necessarily applying one particular method to every QB.
Yeah, that's not at all what I'm saying.
You can IMPROVE speed by teaching stride/sprint mechanics.
You can IMPROVE throwing velocity by teaching mechanics.
In either case, your potential is limited by physiological factors.
I didn't really read the replies to the original post, but there is one obvious and compelling explanation for the Gardner downgrade and all the rest of this: Rivals is part of a vast conspiracy to ensure that EVERY player that ends up signing with Michigan this year is a 3 star.
You heard it here first. 100% three stars.