Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
and... i like them? I think I like them.
I think you will get your wish.
they see me trollin' / they hatin'
well, yeah
in case you're interested in the details of a long long appeal process
i do not condone or dis-condone this behavior
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Sam Webb said on WTKA this morning that TE Ron Thompson from East Detroit HS said that he would annouce his decision this week. Sam seemed a little unconvinced that the announcement would really go forward but Sam said he had a gut feeling that Thompson would pick U of M if it does.
Sam's podcast:
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=12012
Thompson's Scout profile:
http://michigan.scout.com/a.z?s=162&p=8&c=1&nid=4825348
Yea! Happy news makes me happy.
Rivals mentioned that Ron Wakes up one day and states he wants to commit to Michigan and other mornings wants to wait it out. Either way looks good for Coach Hoke and Co
It's pretty much only a matter of time with Thompson. He's Scout's #137 prospect overall, so if you trust Scout...this is a very good thing.
How did he make it that high with that offer list? Isn't that the main metric used to grade prospects rank?
It's a part of the evaluation process, but not the whole thing. His old high school isn't very heavily recruited/scrutinized, so he was a bit under the radar.
Scout has been better than Rivals at pegging Michigan recruits in the last couple of years. Early to say, obviously but they seem to have an edge.
I think that statement is arguable.
Arguable, yes, but early indications are pretty clear. Look at where they differ over the last couple classes. Its certainly very early to judge but....
2010 Class Score: 7-3 Scout
Scout appears right in ranking the following players higher than Rivals: Gardner (5 star) Black (4 star) Furman (4 star) Vinopal (3 star). Scout appears right to be sceptical on Rival's rankings of Ash (4 star) Wilkins (4 star) Williamson (3 star).
OTOH, Rivals was right to be more sceptical on rankings of J.Robinson, R.Miller, A.White (Scout 4 stars).
Based on hype, Gardner and Furman are still high-end prospects. Based on playing time Black>Ash and Wilkins. Scout was probably too generous on the receivers but was probably correct to call out Williamson as the 2 star (rather than Vinopal.) Sure someone like Ash or Wilkins could still end up looking like a 4-star or Furman could be a bust, but given all the caveats about premature evaluations, Scout's rankings look vastly superior.
2009 Class Score: 5-3 Scout
Rivals right: Turner 4 star (not 5) Gibbons 2 star (not 3) T.Gordon 3 star (not 2)
Scout right: Gallon, C.Gordon, Toussaint, Washington, Emilien were 3 stars (not 4)
Overall class quality -
The '09 class had both sites way overrate Campbell, Lalota and others. Overall that class has been worse than expected despite Denard and Lewan. Scout was more sceptical (14th nationally) compared to rivals (8th), so the edge is in Scout's favor.
Meanwhile, Rivals gave Michigan its lowest ever rated (20th) in 2010 while ESPN (14th) and Scout (12th) saw a more typical Michigan class. Again, its premature to say, but the 2010 class looks pretty promising, particulalry compared to the bust-laden class of 2009.
Attrition's been about even = 2010's (White, Rogers, Vinopal, Dorsey, Kinard) no worse than 2009's (Forcier, Emilien, Lalota, Turner, Witty)
Are you really trying to rate whether Scout or Rivals was right on the kids from last years class. They were all freshman last year, and most of them would never have even been forced into game action in most situations. You have no idea at this point whether the rankings on these kids were right or wrong. Let them have a few years in the program before you start making claims that their star ranking was correct or incorrect. Freshman playing significant playing time don't mean that their star rating was right or wrong, it just means that our depth was pretty bad at their position, and they were forced into action they should have probably never seen.
that the rating on Turner was wrong
Whatever on Turner. I said nothing about JT. My point was that you are trying to say whether or not the kids who were FRESHMEN last football season had the right star rating or not. How do you know Ricardo Miller, Jerald Robinson, or D.J. Williamson aren't going to be very good wide recievers in the program at some point. Not to mention Ken Wilkins was a physical specimen coming into college, that with the right coaching may become one of the better defensive linemen Michigan has had in a while. JT Turner was a case of a kid who had all the potential in the world, but just didn't have what it took to make it in college. Read what I read before you post a reply as silly as that.
I think it's WAY too early to judge the 2010 class, especially the defensive linemen like Ash and Wilkins. And Gardner has barely seen the field, so I'm not sure why his 5-star ranking on Scout is more accurate than Rivals' 4-star rating.
Furthermore, Cameron Gordon, Toussaint, and Washington all still have a chance to be pretty good players. So I'm not sure why they shouldn't have been 4-star recruits. The jury's still out on the majority of these guys. Will Campbell should have been a redshirt freshman this past season.
long way from being finalized, but early returns say Scout looks right twice as often as Rivals.
Both sites rated Cambell the same.
Early returns say nothing. You're counting Josh Furman as a success story when he has literally never played a down of college football. There are huge, huge errors in your assessment of the recruiting services.
Looking back at the 2006 and 2007 classes would be more helpful than looking at 2009 and 2010. Otherwise...bleh.
Agreed, this is ridiculous. Furman has earned his 4 star rating but Toussaint, QW (who have both played and looked pretty good) and Cam Gordon (who started every game last year and is projected as a starter this fall) haven't? Furman should be in the same category as Ash and Wilkins - defensive players who redshirted last year and probably won't start this fall but will likely see the field. How can you say one of those three have earned their 4 stars but the other two haven't?
When game did QW look good in?
C.Gordon was an obvious target at S and is reportedly still unprepared for being a starting LB despite being a guy who redshirted and started all year. That sounds like a 3-star caliber player to me more than it sounds like a 4-star.
He, like Vinopal, played due to extreme need. They looked OK at times, but have obvious deficiencies that say they're probably closer to 3 stars then 4.
Ash and Wilkins are far more uncertain because they have legit starters in front of them. But the fact that Black, Heininger, and position switches are ahead of them (according to reports from spring) tells you they might not be 4-star players.
Agreed though, you could certainly argue to swap a handful of these guys...but say you did - Scout would still have better marks.
Guys, I realize its early. Just like recruiting rankings of high school kids you have to take it with a grain of salt. But we have more information than we had over 1 or 2 years ago and if we were to re-rank/re-star these players things would look a lot more like scouts ranks than rivals.
I know people don't want to feel like saps for giving their money to a recruiting site with a pretty format but come on... no need to be so defensive unless you write for Rivals.
We can't say anything conclusively but the signs all point in a certain direction here.
You're right that Cam Gordon was an obvious target at safety...
...which is why he's playing linebacker. If you ask me, BOTH sites deserve a big fat donut for rating Gordon because they both ranked him as a wide receiver. But the dude was 4th on the team with 77 tackles, picked off 3 passes, recovered 2 fumbles, and scored a defensive touchdown. And he did all that in his first season playing defense as a redshirt freshman. So a redshirt freshman position switcher does all that...but you somehow say he's not a 4-star? And then you say Furman IS a 4-star based on some practice reports? WTF?
It's not the same as saying we can't evaluate the 2007 class because Steve Watson still has a year left. You can't be serious. Fifth year seniors are different than redshirt freshmen and true freshmen. I figure you know that, but maybe you need a reminder.
What position switchers are ahead of Ash and Wilkins? You mean Quinton Washington and Will Campbell, both of whom are a year older? And Wilkins is playing 5-tech DT, which as far as I know, is not populated by any position-switchers.
I'm all for making predictions if you think Scout WILL PROVE TO BE more accurate. But as far as the 2009 and 2010 classes go, there's nothing conclusive whatsoever up to this point.
Both Gordon and Furman where offensive stars in HS, expected to be LB's in college, then got hype as safeties during spring practice. The difference is that Gordon's proven to be a fairly deficient player and had to move positions, while Furman still has plenty of upside (and 4 years left). Yeah, the same could happen to Furman or he could be an freshman all-american. We don't know either way.
If we're talking about 2nd and 3rd year players we're ranking them on what they it seems they could potentially do and right now it looks like Furman has higher upside so that's why I'd give him 4 stars and Gordon 3. I admit, it's a fine distinction, and based on conjecture and rumor...but it's all we know for now.
No one said there was anything conclusive. It just SEEMS (SO FAR) like Scout is doing a better job.
RE: DL
Yes, I mean Washington and Campbell, but Van Bergen can count as a position switch too (not that that's a bad thing in his case). Heininger is supposedly ahead of Wilkins - thats not a good thing. Yes, Washington and Campbell are one year older than Ash but also haven't distinguished themselves. The opportunity is there and he's not taking it.
Look, I realize we have to take Spring Practice reports with a grain of salt, but usually where there's smoke theres fire and the rumblings from 'insiders' fed info by coaches says this defense has some players that are a long way off from being quality players despite ample opportunity to see the field. Like a 2 or 3 star ranking as HS recruits, it doesn't meaned they're doomed for a unexceptional career, but it means things don't look that promising or exciting for that guy.
"The difference is that Gordon's proven to be a fairly deficient player and had to move positions"
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about. Gordon hasn't proven to be anything other than "not a a safety." The previous defensive staff, which was absolutely clueless, played Gordon at FS because of poor judgment and/or a lack of bodies. To say that he's been "fairly deficient" is beyond ridiculous. And if you put so much stock in spring practice reports, then you should know that Greg Mattison has spoken glowingly of Gordon.
Your contrast of Furman/Gordon is wrong. Flat-out. Just stop.
Van Bergen isn't a position switcher. He was a high school defensive end who played defensive end in 2007-08, played defensive tackle for one year (2009) out of necessity, then played defensive end in 2010, and he's playing defensive end again in 2011*. There are no position switchers ahead of Ken Wilkins. Period.
*Van Bergen is playing the 5-tech DT spot, which is essentially a strongside defensive end. The only difference between a 5-tech DE and a 5-tech DT is in the name.
So...Van Bergen switched positions but is not a position switcher - got it.
Let me ask you this, if you were to give updated star rankings to players what would they be? When would it become OK in your eyes to start saying "maybe this guy isn't really a 4-star caliber player"?
You're ready to call a 2007 recruit (Watson) a 2-star (or whatever), but not ready to call Gordon a 2009 recruit (Gordon) a 3-star.
What about 2008 recruits? Can I call Fitzgerald and Shaw 3 stars yet? Can I call Martin a 5-star?
How about other 2009 recruits? Is it still too soon to judge Will Campbell. Is he still a 5-star recruit? How about Jeremy Gallon, just waiting to prove he's a 4-star once all the WR depth clears out?
Would you still rather have 4-star Cullen Christian than 3-star Courtney Avery or can we begin to suggest that Avery has beaten him out and is more deserving of that rank?
Sweet Jesus...do you REALLY think Ryan Van Bergen is a position-switcher and, therefore, it speaks poorly of Ken Wilkins that he's behind a fifth year senior? These are the ramblings of an insane person. You're not insane. Do yourself a favor.
No, I'm not ready to call Gordon a 3-star, Campbell an anything-star, Gallon an anything-star, etc., judge Cullen Christian or Courtney Avery, none of that. That's stupid.
If you need a refresher course on how star ratings are determined (by Rivals, at least), follow this link:
http://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1
At no point in that explanation does it say that a player's potential needs to be reached by, say, April of his true freshman year (which you're implying with your judgments of Christian, Avery, Wilkins, Ash, Furman, etc.).
This argument is a waste of time. I've had my say.
Did you read that? EXPECTED IMPACT.
"No one said there was anything conclusive. It just SEEMS (SO FAR) like Scout is doing a better job."-Mat
Scout has been better than Rivals at pegging Michigan recruits in the last couple of years.-Mat
Looks like you are that one calling it conclusive. Your points are just so off. You dig yourself a bigger and bigger hole with each post you made on this topic. Just leave it be and go somewhere and buy yourself another t to go on the end of your name.
Thats why I said caveats apply, but its pretty damn clear that some of these guys aren't players.
So yes, Furman is an unknown, but Turner isn't.
The way you're arguing this - we can't even say anything about the '07 class because for all we know Steve Watson will be all-big-10 at TE this year.
The final results are far form in, but we have SOME useful information.
Rivals and Scout were generally pretty agreed on how they viewed Michigan's classes until the last 3 years, so trying to parse differences between ranking a class 10th or 12th in the country doesn't seem real interesting.
No one is arguaing at all about Turner, but the fact that both sites had him rated very high and he was a total flop, neither is more right than the other. They both biffed on him, and that happens.
But for almost every other guy you mention is something completely off-base. Furman is a guy who has players his age playing above him (but gets good practice reports!) and he is warranted a 4-star (even though I haven't exactly heard a waterfall of raving reviews on him and certainly nothing saying he'll start) but Cam Gordon, who is a similar player to Furman in a lot of ways, is a very likely starter (and likely far more lauding practice reviews!!) and he's a solid 3 star. Only because you think he wasn't very good when playing as a freshman in what ended up being the wrong position for him. Do you see why this is crazy? Do you now understand why people negged you?
Richard Ash is right where you would expect a RS frosh 4 star DT to be: behind upperclassmen who are a 4- and 5-star. Kenny Wilkins is where you would expect a RS frosh 4 star DT/DE to be: behind a 4 star 5th year senior returning starter. Josh Furman, however, is likely going to lose a battle with guys either in his own recruiting class, a 3 star in the class above him (T. Gordon) or a walk-on.
The guys you left out of your discussion from that class that Rivals ranked better than Scout is Carvin Johnson and Cullen Christian. Rivals had Johnson as the #33 S, whereas Scout had him at #79. For a guy who started the first game of the season and looked good as a true frosh, I'd say Rivals wins that battle. Although both services overrated Cullen Christian (at least so far), Scout though he was a slam dunk naming him the #3 CB in the country, while Rivals was a little less confident saying he was #8 nationally. Not a huge difference, but I think we'd all agree Rivals was closer.
Turner was a 5 star to Scout and a 4 star to Rivals - he's the biggest argument in Rivals favor. Scout whiffed more than Rivals there.
I agree that its premature to judge Furman. BUT, I have heard that Furman is projeced starter at FS right now, ahead of people who have already proved to be servicable players (Gordon, Johnson) and hyped recruits (MRob). Given his recruiting accolades and physical ability and how he's impressed in Spring, he sounds maybe close to making a Denard Robinson-like 2nd year leap from raw-as-hell to scary-in-a-good-way. Or at least more like that than a Cameron Gordon "well, we don't have anyone else" style promotion. Gordon got a lot of hype last year, but this year he's still getting a lot of "long way off" talk. He's a year older and so the hype train should be further along on him, more like "ready to make an impact". That's my logic.
I'm not saying either guy is a solid anything, I'm saying the arrow is pointing in a certain direction. If it makes you happy, I can call both guys 3 stars until they prove otherwise and move on. As I said, that just changes the math from 12-5 to 11-6: still heavily in Scouts favor.
Ash is behind two guys (Campbell/Washington) that have been OL in the last year and are moving over because of need. Not saying he's a bust, but like Campbell, at some point you wonder if/when the light will go on. Plenty of time for him, but the longer it takes the more the player looks like a 3-star than a 4. Wilkins is behind a walk-on (Heininger).
Johnson was a 3 star and Christian a 4 star to both sites, which is all I went off of. Good points and I would agree that your more detailed look could/should count in Rivals favor, I just didn't go to that level of detail (for anyone).
You and I have different sources, because the way it sounds to me...Carvin Johnson is your likely starter at FS.
Ash and Wilkins literally have not finished their freshman years of college. Heininger, while a former walk-on, is a 22-year-old fifth year senior. Furthermore, they play positions (defensive line) that typically require multiple years of seasoning, strength gains, technique improvements, etc. Rob Renes didn't start until he was a redshirt sophomore. William Carr didn't start until he was a junior. Both turned out to be pretty good players.
had a higher level of difficulty to get to their starting positions.
Again, not saying these guys are garbage, but Black was a 4-star and came in and played immediately. Yeah, he was a little overmatched, but the need was there, the opportunity was placed on his lap, so he stepped up and looked better than Washington and Campbell looked. Yet those 2 guys are well ahead of Ash and Wilkins.
So, if Ash and Wilkins are 4 stars then I think that makes Black a 6 or 7-star based on what we've seen. I mean, one guy sticks out in terms of promise from that trio of '11 recruits. Since 6 and 7 stars is off the scale, I'd rather knock back Ash and Wilkins a bit to 3-star level (not exactly scrubs) than call Black a 6 star.
Your quarall with this is tupid. We're talking about a guess of future performance and production. You have no problem with Rivals doing it with high school kids, but give an opinion on a guy entering his 3rd year and it becomes preposterous to even try to guess what might happen...
I hate tupid quaralls
for a typo and spelling error. burned
Just easing the tension baby. Just easing the tension.
Someone has to since this thread's delved in to the Mat vs. Magnus throwdown over I can't even figure out what.
Remember when His Dudeness and Magnus used to have those epic slapfights?
Mat - I don't want to argue with you anymore, I just don't think you're very smart.
Someone who thinks ranking high schoolers with no college experience is okay but revising that ranking based on a year or two of college is totally unreasonable thinks I'm not very smart. I'll do my best to recover.
Nobody has a real issue with your revision of predictions.
It's that the evidence you use for those revisions is completely random.
Expectations are subjective - they're an opinion. You may (and have) chosen to quibble with who I rank as a 3 or 4 star, but that doesn't make my opinions stupid. You just disagree.
It boils down to your expectations of people like Gordon and Furman being slightly different from mine (it's not like 3 or 4 stars are worlds apart).
If your response was "well I think so and so should still have 4-star expectations" - no problem. You and LA think its a good idea to call me stupid for disagreeing with you. That's fine, you just might think about how that sounds.
"No, I'm not ready to call Gordon a 3-star, Campbell an anything-star, Gallon an anything-star, etc., judge Cullen Christian or Courtney Avery, none of that. That's stupid."
That seems to contradict what you just wrote.
No, it doesn't contradict what I just wrote. I said nobody has a problem with you revising predictions.
I never said that I would participate in such a revision. Because, like I said, it's stupid. We don't know enough about redshirt freshmen to determine whether they're deserving of their ratings.
I disagree with C. Gordon, but I appreciate the analysis, caveated as it is
There's no question in my mind that Cam still has upside, but I guess I'm starting to wonder if we'll ee it. Same goes for Campbell, but I'm a lot closer to giving up on him ever being a star, given that he's shown less in games and only has 2 years left on campus. I don't have a strong objection to saying Cam is still a 4-star - but to me he's inched closer to 3. Hope I'm wrong.
he dosen't have more offers than he has. Kid seems to have a ton of upside
Someone correct me if I heard wrong, but did he say we might take 3 TE's in this class. that seems like a lot with less than 20 openings.
The staff is saying that TE is a huge priority this year. He didn't mention a number, though.
Thanks, I don't know why I thought I heard 3.
Three is unlikely with the numbers we have available and the huge need we have on the offensive line. If attrition happens...who knows?
5-6 OL and possbily 2 TE's doesn't leave a lot of openings elsewhere on O. Could we possbily take more TE's than WR's in this class again.
