Rush to Judgement

Submitted by Ziff72 on
The Conway meltdown has brought up something that has kind of bothered me for a while. With our depth problems the past few years we have been forced to play many young players and the minute they get on the field they are immediately "scouted" by the masses and so labeled despite the fact we know little or really closer to nothing about the million of circumstances surrounding their play. When you saw the highlight of Conway in the open field did you know...he had an ankle sprain, it was in the 4th qtr and he had never left the field during the game, he had just run 2 fly routes the play before, he's 15-16 years old and at 6' 4" could still be adjustin to his body? All of thes things could have greatly impacted his speed. T. Jones got on the field as a true frosh at a position he was switched to just weeks before and he was immediately dismissed. Someone actually said he looked too slow. M. Shaw got hauled down in Minny as a freshmen and people said he wasn't the home run threat we hoped for. Later we learned he had pretty severe groin injury. V. Smith was labeled M. Hart slow when he got hauled down last year despite the fact he had carried the ball several plays in a row and we had no idea how fast the guy that caught him was. I think it has something to do with the unknown being better than the known or the grass is greener theory. I'm just glad now that J. Turner wasn't thrown on the field before he was ready or we'd all have a true freshmen depth chart at CB. Just a little patience people.

MichMike (not verified)

February 21st, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^

Reading those again it kind of shows the immature nature of whatever Mod posted them. I can see that I have a ridiculously big hill to climb but that's cool. Being called childish further down is funny when you consider what the Mod posted. Looks like kids are running the site, the power of the ban hammer, and one of them likes describing his genitalia. Phoenix from the ashes, baby!

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^

I fail to see how the examples of Vincent Smith, Michael Shaw, and Teric Jones show us anything. It would be more effective if you could point out people who proved the doubters wrong. But Smith's speed still hasn't been showcased, Shaw still hasn't separated himself from any of the other running backs on the team, and Teric Jones hasn't shown he has the speed to play cornerback yet (which might be irrelevant considering the rumors that he's moving back to offense). So while you might have a valid point, these examples don't illustrate it well at all.

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

I was busy last night/this morning and couldn't comment, but I just put a blog post about it. I won't rehash it entirely here, but I like Conway. This is a good offer/commitment.

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^

Well, I thought it was pretty obvious, but apparently you don't understand context. Teric Jones saw the field as a cornerback in a year when we had virtually no cornerbacks. Most of his playing time came against Baby Seal University. He so overwhelmingly "separated himself" from the competition that he's moving back to offense. Michael Shaw saw limited playing time despite the fact that he was behind two injury-prone seniors. He hasn't "broken away" so therefore hasn't dispelled the notion that he's "not a breakaway threat." That one should be pretty easy to understand. Vincent Smith, albeit only a true freshman, averaged 5.8 yards a carry, mostly thanks to Baby Seal University. Everyone latches onto his performance against Ohio State, in which he averaged a whopping 4.0 yards per carry. He so overwhelmingly "separated himself" that once Brown and Minor got hurt, he beat out the aforementioned Michael Shaw, the low-rated Michael Cox, and the broken-scapula-ed Fitzgerald Toussaint for playing time. Why would any of these cases indicate that the "doubters" were wrong? They don't.

blueblueblue

February 21st, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^

Thank you Magnus, my only hope is to post up to your standards in the future. You have no idea how ridiculous you are being do you? You give me a one word answer. I chastise you for it. You proceed to chastise and patronize me in your response. I leave you alone. Then you come back, on your own, and chastise me again, telling me I have to use certain precise inquiry methods in order to get a response of substance out of you. I respond with a smart-ass remark due to the ego required of one to make such a statement. Then you chastise me again. Um, keep up the good work? (I am taking your approach here and using the tack that you used, which I will later criticize you for)

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^

"Thank you Magnus, my only hope is to post up to your standards in the future." The hypocrisy of this sarcastic statement should be apparent to you. My one-word answer wasn't sufficient for your yes/no question, so you chastised me for not replying up to your standards. Again, I have put forth several somewhat detailed responses in this thread, both to the OP and to you. Your responses have essentially been limited to: a) Doesn't what you're saying mean the exact opposite of what you're saying? (Uhhhh...no.) b) Hurrr...yes sir Magnus sir...hurr hurr...you're egotistical. If you want to talk about football, let's talk about football. If you're just going to regurgitate your failure at logic and chastise my smart-ass responses to your smart-ass original posts, then there's nothing more to discuss. I look forward to the next time you try to put me in my place.

blueblueblue

February 21st, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^

Again Wow. My statement was not hypocritical, it was ironic. I know I chastised you, I said as much myself. It was your ensuing chastising of my chastising, and the egotistical tone of your chastising, that I have been responding to. My repetition of your statement "Keep up the good work" should have made my intended irony throughout this apparent. "I look forward to the next time you try to put me in my place" - I'll just end with that quote, as I think it says all about you that needs to be said.

Ziff72

February 21st, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^

Magnus the point of my point is not that I think these guys will be stars. I was trying to point out that people make an evaluation on a player the moment they see them regardless of situation and they cling to it never to change. I have no idea if any of these guys will be good, I'm just saying they are young and give them time. Please see J. Navarre, he drove me nuts, but you know by his senior year he turned out to be a pretty good qb but most people just remeber the torture he put us thru when he shouldn't have been on the field With V. Smith we may never see his true speed because of the injury, but my point stands if you have a guy carry the ball 3 plays in a row on some hard runs and then he breaks into the free he may not post his fastest time, but everyone says look how slow. Same with JT Floyd, I have no idea if he'll be any good, but he was thrown out there for his 1st playing time ever, his legs probably felt like jello, he got toasted and everyone says move him to safety, despite the fact he may have no skill set whatsoever to play safety. Maybe he has to learn more and get more confident to learn how to cover up for average speed. With Conway it was 4 miutes of clips that looked from about 2 games. To make a judgement on his game from that is foolish.

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^

I don't disagree with your point. What I was disagreeing with were the examples you chose to illustrate it. When it comes down to it, those initial evaluations of the aforementioned players might turn out to be 95% accurate. A better example might be Brandon Minor. A couple years ago, people thought he was too slow to play tailback, he couldn't break tackles, and he was probably going to be Owen Schmitt. It turns out that he was clearly our best running back over the past two seasons and, had he stayed healthy, might have been an All Big Ten-caliber player.

Ziff72

February 21st, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^

I understand your stance. I just think 3-4 years is a lot of time for a kid to improve, especially if he hasn't had the proper coaching. If Lalota and Turner had been thrown out there last year and bombed we would have moved onto the next recruit. Let the kids grow then make a determination based on some solid facts.

Calvin

February 21st, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^

I don't see what the big deal is. I just watched his highlight video. Most of the kids videos I see on this website of recruits people are pretty happy about, never really seem to impress me. I don't end up caring or thinking the kid is bad. I just think this is terrible video work, terrible camera, and this kid isn't even grown up yet. Their supposedly best season (senior season) hasn't even happened yet. I watch a lot of the videos and usually think, meh. All of these speedsters seem to get caught from behind. So why does that mean when other guys get caught from behind they're slow? I watched the video and the kid seems pretty solid. He's huge, looks to have great hands, not easy to bring down, moves that are kind of impressive for his size. Couple that with RR thought it was important enough to offer this kid when we don't have many scholarships? I think this kid will do alright.

Rbigdog222

February 21st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

NEGATIVES: Does not get deep separation or a receiver that wins out in foot races. Lacks the quick explosive route running skills. That sounds like our kid right? Well that is also what a lot of people consider the best wide out in the NFL.... ANSWER Larry Fitzgerald. This is direct quote from Larry's combine bio.

bobbyhill57

February 21st, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^

I compared Conway's video with one of Kyle Prater's and didn't really see a big difference. Conway's QB doesn't appear to have the arm to get the ball down the field. if this is the case we wouldn't see a highlight film showing Conway's separation. FWIW I like the offer and acceptance.

Firstbase

February 21st, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^

...that we tend to allow hype and popular YouTube clips to dictate our feelings about HS kids and project this ahead of their arrival on campus. I'm guilty of this, too. Rivals and Scout "analysts" are equally predisposed to this type of critical thinking, IMHO. Just because a kid goes through a FL or TX program where PR and hype is high, doesn't necessarily translate to success at the next level, nor does it mean there aren't equally talented kids playing in less popular venues. I'm certainly not qualified to determine the worthiness of a HS senior as a recruit, assess his growth potential, or judge his character and work ethic. I'll defer to the Michigan coaches for their expertise and trust they know what they're doing the vast majority of the time. To that end, if I were a Michigan coach entrusted with recruiting (thankfully for Michigan football, I'm not), I'd avoid paying much attention to ESPN, Scout, Rivals, etc... and do my own homework, hit the road and judge for myself. And to Conway, Vinopal, etc... I say, "Welcome to Michigan, the most storied program in the nation. We're glad to have you. Wear the maize and blue with pride in the tradition that only Michigan football can offer."

Wolverine318

February 21st, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^

I am sorry I am going to trust the opinion of a professional such as Rich Rod wen it comes to recruiting over people who are working for recruiting services. If those people that work for rivals/scouts actually knew what they are talking about then they would be working as recruiting coordinators for BCS universities.

Fat Mike

February 21st, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^

he is the definition of a redzone threat. after the first play I say come on down. how many times did we struggle to score touchdowns in the redzone? he is one of those braylon type recievers where tate can just throw the ball up and have him high point it in the corner of the endzone. If he can do just that then hail yea

MacombBLUE

February 21st, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^

Do you think he could eventually become a TE. Having a debate with a friend and he is absolutely sure he is 100% WR because he is "too slim" at 183. I think that's kind of quick to say considering he is only a Jr and could fill out. Am I wrong for thinking he is a TE possibility?

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^

Yes, you are wrong for thinking that he is a TE possibility. He said he was recruited as a wide receiver, and at 183 lbs., he is too small to be a tight end. Koger and Webb are walking around in the mid-240s. Do you really think he's going to put on 60 lbs. to play tight end?

MacombBLUE

February 21st, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^

Uhhhhh....That's not really explaining it. That's you just guessing based off two other guys. If I find the "our TEs HAVE to be 245 lb" edict from RR, I'll say you're awesome. Though it is an asset, weight does not necessarily MAKE a TE. Even if he eventually grows to 225 or so, he could become a hybrid type.

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^

By the way, here are our tight ends' weights from this past season: Koger - 249 Moore - 243 Webb - 245 Considering Rodriguez and Barwis have a pretty hefty say in how much weight each of their players carry, I'd say the fact that they're all within 6 pounds of each other is as close as you're going to get to an "edict" with him saying "Our tight ends must weigh _________ lbs." But you're obviously going to believe whatever you want to believe, so I'm sure you don't care about actual statistics.

MacombBLUE

February 21st, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^

LOL! Wow, are you going to be ok? Really? Sorry if I asked more questions to try to have a little conversation and "what if"...but hey, go ahead and wear the big boy pants. Now, I understand that they are all around the same weight, but can there be an exception to the "rule" with a different "type" of TE??? Sorry if I offended your another question since they are obviously not allowed after you answer. But I'll shoot anyway.

Magnus

February 21st, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^

"Now, I understand that they are all around the same weight, but can there be an exception to the "rule" with a different "type" of TE???" Rodriguez has not shown any propensity for using small-ish tight ends. His tight ends at Michigan have been in the 240s and his tight ends at WVU were large-ish, glorified offensive tackles who never caught the ball.

MacombBLUE

February 21st, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^

"Rodriguez has not shown any propensity for using small-ish tight ends. His tight ends at Michigan have been in the 240s and his tight ends at WVU were large-ish, glorified offensive tackles who never caught the ball." Ok. I UNDERSTAND THIS. As a "rule", they are generally large. That doesn't shut the door on a different type of "quicker" TE. If he can use his height, show some ability to block rather affectively, he very well COULD be the exception to the rule. I don't understand why it's open and shot on a HS Junior who is still growin.