Dreisbach1817

May 10th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^

Jaleel Johnson is very high.  Not unwarranted but still top 150 is very good.

No Sheldon Day or Maty Mauk.  NO WORMLEY.

Diamond, and both OSU RB commits (Dunn and Ball) are fairly low considering the hype.

ken725

May 10th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^

The analysts at rivals said that Wormley has the physical attributes, but doesn't put it together on the field consistently.  They also said that he tends to disappear from big games.  I have no idea if that it true or not, but I find it hard to trust them because they have no midwest analyst.

Magnus

May 10th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

I don't know if I believe that.

A good company would want to be right just to be right.  Being different doesn't do them any good.  If they are indeed being different just because, that's probably a bad business plan.  Because when these 5-star recruits turn out to be MAC-level players, they're going to have egg on their face in three to five years.

Magnum P.I.

May 10th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

I have to agree with Ken on this one, for a couple of reasons:

1. Rivals is hugely incentivized to make their rankings look different from the other services, especially 247--since it's new and free (I think). If they throw out the same basic list order as 247, customers are going to say, "this is the same thing as 247; why the hell would I pay for Rivals when I got the same think two months ago?" 

2. You can't evaluate the validity of a recruiting service's predictions until four years down the road. Rivals has to worry about business today.

3. It's not like they're taking huge risks plugging in no-name MAC-level players into their five-star slots. They're basically taking the same group of 400 or so top players and rearranging it a little bit differently to make themselves stand out. 

I definitely think they're making some omissions and pumping some guys up simply to generate some buzz and make it look they know something that the other service don't.

me

May 10th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^

Helmhodt's disdain for the kid's game. I'm nor disagreeing with your evaluation as it's consistent with all of the other national sites as well as all Ohio sites. Rivals is the only one out of whack.

Frank Drebin

May 10th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

We have seen this go both ways before. There was a great deal of hype surrounding Ricardo Miller, Marvin Robinson and Jeremy Jackson, but they were rated low if at all when the lists came out. Also, we saw the initial watch lists from Rivals last year not contain Dee Hart, and he ended up as a 5* player when all was said and done. Let the summer camps play out and we will see some movement, especially when their senior seasons start.

Magnus

May 10th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

Josh Helmholdt at Rivals mentioned poor conditioning and poor combine numbers as a reason that Diamond slipped.

Personally, I think he was overrated by the other sites.  I think #209 is a good place for him.  He's a good prospect, but not the awesome one Michigan fans wanted to think.

Magnus

May 10th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

Yes, I heard that as well.  It's understandable that he would put up poor numbers, but it's also understandable that he would slip in the rankings, since they can't necessarily be sure of what he can do at 100%.  It will all sort itself out if he has a good senior year.

ken725

May 10th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^

Some other players to watch for:

#137 Paul Thurston OL Colorado

#139 Wayne Morgan DB New York

#185 Ken Ekanem LB Virginia

#186 Corey Smith WR Ohio

#187 Armani Reeves DB Massachusetts

#191 Shane Callahan OL Colorado

#194 Amara Darboh WR Iowa

#213 Tom Strobel DE Ohio

#242 JJ Denman OL Pennsylvania

#247 Deaysean Rippy LB Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

Mdjohnny5

May 10th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

One thing to note is Corey Smith is announcing soon and we aren't in his top group (haven't offered him yet).  Anyone else a little surprised we haven't gone after this guy?  Powers is coaching him and he has offers from Alabama, Georgia, UNC, MSU, Tenn, ND and PSU.

Hope he doesn't end up at MooU

 

GratefulBlue

May 10th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^

Anyone know enough about SDSU or Ball State to talk about Borges' track record with WRs? After passing on Lucien, and considering this non-offer of Smith, just wondering if we have evidence to support or bemoan his seeming reticence to go after some highly-rated WRs.

Blazefire

May 10th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^

was Borges and Hoke looking at the roster and saying "Whew! Look at all those WR's. We've got to save some scollies for other areas." They'll probably gradually open up WR recruitment as the numbers thin out and it becomes more and more apparent that very few of our WR's are adept at standing 15 yards up on the sideline and being taller than everyone else.

Erik_in_Dayton

May 10th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^

Bucknuts, part of the 247 network, lists Wormley as the No. 1 player in Ohio. 

Having watched his highlights - and granting that they are only highlights - I can't see how he's not one of the top 250 players in the country 

Blue_in_Cleveland

May 10th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

That's strange because wasn't he their 3rd ranked player in the state of OH this year before these rankings came out? Ohio's 3rd ranked prospect in the new rankings is listed at 61 (Se'Von Pittman). It's hard to imagine that they had their minds changed that much about him.

CB2009

May 10th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

So from the guy listed in this thread how many do we think will commit? I'd say 2-3 from the OP's list, plus Wayne Morgan? So about half of our first 15 recruits would be 4*, already making our class better ranked than last year's.  It's nice to see that all three sites are in agreement about a lot of the recruits that we're focusing on.