In-State Preview of 2015 Recruiting
I've been working on a list of roughly 70 prospects from the state of Michigan who have Division I potential. You'll find heights, weights, rankings, 40 times, offers, short scouting reports, etc. for all of them. I think this 2015 class has fewer high end prospects (like McDowell, Webb, Harris, etc.) than some other recent classes, but there look to be a few more Iowa, Indiana, and Purdue-level players scattered throughout the state than last year.
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2014/02/in-state-preview-of-2015-rec…
February 12th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^
Stallworth bothers me a bit, but Sparty got on him early
I'm sure you've thought of ordering it highest to lowest instead of alphabetical - is that too much work or you're just not ready to rank them?
February 12th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
I have thought about it, yes, and I am planning to do a ranking. I wanted to do this as more of an informational piece, though. I also thought that this might bring out some more news on other "sleeper" prospects (like the comment below) that I can check out for ranking purposes.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^
I have a question tho, have you heard of Ray Glenn from Niles Michigan? Same division as St Joe. He was All State at WR. Any news on him being a D1 player? Thank you.
February 12th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
I have not heard of Ray Glenn, but I will check him out.
Yeah, I think DeKurtis Murphy looks like a potential beast. You never know what might be keeping schools away (lack of exposure, grade issues, personal issues, injuries, etc.), so it will be interesting to see how his recruitment develops. You should be proud to have beaten him a couple times. Then again...you might be on his highlight video, too.
February 12th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
FWIW, I think Dekurtis has not received any offers because he plays at such a small school. He also has an inconsistent motor on the field. Nonetheless, he has only been playing organized football for a few years and should improve a lot in a college program. Borges visited him at his school once or twice in the past year, and he's taken some unofficials to msu.
February 12th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^
/hazasad.
February 12th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^
Thanks Magnus for putting this together. Great work!
February 12th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
Thanks!
February 12th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
From my personal experience:
Alex Grace: A very good HS running back for a mid-level program (based off size; SVHS has about 650 kids or so). Obviously not elite entangles, but he has an excellent work ethic and is a very tough kid from a blue-collar power program. Will likely be a MAC type guy that I agree could end up at LB, but just as easily could be a great RB. He is very instinctive and reads blocks very well. He is also faster then one would think.
Kyonta Stallworth: Big boy that moves well for his size. Strong, but lacks the motor necessary to be a consistent playmaker on both O and D. Uses hands well but his technique and feet are both sloppy IMO. This young man's biggest liability is his attitude. Frankly it is not very good. Has been known to 'play dirty' at times. When things are going well he is captain of the ship, when things are not going his teams way he's the first to abandon. Recruit at your own risk. Glad he is currently headed to state.
One guy who was not mentioned who I think will be a D1 guy and has the entangles to do so is 2015 rising junior QB Will Bobek. Tall and skinny but has a big arm and fluid mechanics. He plays in a spread offense that passes to open up the run game. At around 6'5" 185 lbs I would be surprised if he does not make a big jump in the rankings this summer. Probably another guy who could project to the MAC but would also look the part for schools like Iowa or Wisconsin.
This is obviously all just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
Motor/attitude are things you often can't see on highlight films, so thanks.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
Iowa level players? You mean that Iowa team that beats us every other year? Hmm..maybe we should hold on to those players.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
Yeah. I mean, I somewhat agree... I don't really know what it is, but they seem to get a lot of lightly regarded players from Michigan who turn into quality Big Ten players. But Michigan gets those same kinds of guys and they turn into Teric Jones, Delonte Hollowell, etc.
February 12th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
You do know what it is and so do most others. The reason those guys do well at schools like MSU and Iowa etc. is because those schools have to be elite at developing talent. The bigger and more well known programs are able to get away with less from a development stand point becuase they attract bigger names and hence, get players who are already ahead of the curve. Those other schools tend to get the loftovers and over the years, have found a formula that works and that's getting coaches who excel at developing players.
I think if people are being honest ,we could all say that it's been a long time since UM was great at developing talent. In the past we were great at identifying talent and convincing that talent to come to UM but other than Mike Hart I can't remember too many "under the radar" guys who our coaches have turned into great players. No...for us we pretty much have to recruit the highly regarded guys and hope they pan out because our coaches haven't shown a propensity for developing lesser players.
That isn't necessarily meant to knock our coaches entirely. I mean, over the years we still managed to have some pretty damn good teams so we did have coaches that knew the game. They just haven't been great at developing lesser players into something more than people thought they would become.
The old saying goes "necessity is the mother of all invention" or something like that and it holds true here. UM has done fairly well over the years with the formula they have employed which is to take advantage of the name of the university to attract recruits who are already good to great players and ride those winning records and occasional titles. For some reason this university seems happy with that (though most of us fans disagree).
Schools like MSU, Iowa, Minni etc aren't that fortunate. They were losing out on the more talented prospects so they had no alternative but to become very proficient at developing average HS players into good-great college players. They had no choice lest they fall WAY behind everyone else.
At least in MSU's case, they have become so good at their niche that now they are reversing the trend somewhat. Now those good-great HS players are looking at that school because of the success that formula has yielded and we are the ones in danger of being left behind. It'll be intersting (and possibly very frustrating) to see how this goes over the next 10 years.
February 12th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
Now plying trade with Miami Dolphins
February 12th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
but I would think the one or two exceptions speak more to the fact that the player was originally underrated than it being the coaches developing him into something he otherwise wouldn't have been. I think if it were the coaches, there would be a lot more examples of those lower rated guys turing into something no one saw coming. Instead we just as many highly rated players flaming out as we do lower rated players out performing expectations. I would think that shouldn't be the case when you have coaches who are great developers of talent. Of course this is only my opinion...what the hell do I know.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
As Michigan fans we can't have it both ways. Generally, our norm is to expect great recruiting classes of the sort that Brady Hoke has put together over the past several years (as opposed to the 55% retained tire fires during "the coach who shall not be named" tenure). Accordingly, the athletes arrive with a preconceived (sometimes overinflated by fans) perception of ability/potential starting from day 1. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with so few classes for Hoke (he doesn't have his own Seniors yet) to say his coaches can/cannot develop talent.
February 12th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
Not very high on JMFR are you?
February 12th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
Again....I'm not saying there aren't exception to every rule, just that I don't think we have been great at developing talent. That can just as easily be guys who were originally undervalued as it is coaches developing them IMHE.
Allow me to offer some counters to your point: Justin Turner, Cullen Christian, Mike Shaw, Mike Cox, Will Campbell, Brennen Beyer, Richard Ash (was a 4*), Marvin Robinson, Josh Furman, Kenny Wilkins, Vlad Emilien, B. Cissoko, J.B. Fitzgerald, Elliot Mealer, Brandon Moore, Dan O'Neil, Terrence Robinson, Brandon Smith....
I mean, I could keep going on and on, my point is when you look at the last decade we have far more guys who turn out to be busts than turn out to be diamonds in the rough. That, to me, signifies our coaches just aren't that great at developing talent. You can disagree and you could be right, but this is my opinion on the matter.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
I think there are probably a lot of good/great programs out there who have more "busts" than "underrated stars" because just about every 3-star or 2-star guy at a major program has to beat out some 4-star or 5-star talent to get there.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
The fact that we have receive committs from more players who would be in the high three to 5* range means there isn't really a lot of players who would be considered under the radar recuits and thus, the you would expect more untapped talent here and the inverse in a place like Iowa and MSU who have more players that fit the under the radar category than the 4-5* types. I can agree that would definitely play a role in the numbers. I'm still not sure that we should have so many players in the 4-5* range who have not reached their perceived potential, but again, that could be just me.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^
Why so mean to Brennan Beyer. Kid's developing. Plays solid.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
Yeah, I would say he is solid. I just think a guy who was ranked as high as he was could reasonably be expected to be better than "soiid" when entering his fourth year. I mean...this is all about individual perceptions, and this is just mine. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone for having a differing opinion.
February 12th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^
Recall, if you will, he started as a true freshmen. After the third game of his first season, he claimed the starting sport that he did not relinquish for the remained of his time in AA. Fred. nor any of the other coaches "developed" him. They may have fine tuned his style as to what they expect as to M RBs, but this kid, much like Woodley, won starting jobs as freshmen because they were exceptional from the time they stepped onto campus, and incidentally better than all others at their respective positions, not unlike Henne. I don't think pointing our freshmen "phenoms" who win their starting jobs in preseason practices can be considered great as a result of being "developed." If, however, they start out as average, spend time on the bench and are ready to step in-something we saw did not occur last season- and play at the level of their predecessors, that would be considered "developing" not unlike Smith did with Denard from season one to season two.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
So now I am wondering if they have ever developed anyone....EVER? Seriously, the perceived under the radar recuits we have as success stories are all guys who came on campus and started pretty much right away. JMFR, Desmond Morgan, Mike Hart....Most (if not all) of the lower ranked guys who made big names for themselves here fit that mold. Te number of higher ranked guys that didn't pan out though....that number is very large.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
That's a failure of logic.
If the 2-star/3-star guys are good simply because they're good football players and were poorly scouted by recruiting services, then it should follow that the 5-star guys who bust are simply bad football players who were poorly scouted by the recruiting services.
These players do not exist in a vacuum. They grow, learn, mature, etc. for some reason or another (upbringing, coaching, genetics, work ethic, etc.). It's impossible to say how much they grow due to each of those categories, but it's silly to say that we haven't developed any player ever.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
I tire of the whole "our coaches don't develop players meme". Basically, you recruit young men from high school who are rated entering university. The idea is the higher the rated kid the higher their current skill/ceiling (except in cases like Drake Harris who was injured the entirety of his senior year re: current skill). Conceptually, the higher the ranking the higher the potential if you "coach em up". This does not account for the changes you reference nor outliers (Sparty last year). Anyone who sees the Sparty development meme as the norm can list me their other Rose Bowl wins since 1989.
Highly ranked talent just means the ceiling is *potentially* higher or more likely higher than lower ranked talent. Scouts can and are often mistaken and as such a tackle from CMU can go first overall in the draft.
Taylor Lewan didn't arrive on campus a first round draft pick but he'll leave as one. Is this not development?
February 13th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^
I don't think I agree with that point. It would be my opinion that if a guy enters college as a 2/3* and immediately blows up and takes a starting job he probably wasn't poorly scouted, he was probably under-scouted. He probably didn't attend camps or went to a school know one considered good or played good competition etc etc etc. Point being, he probably just didn't get the exposure a 5* would and therefore not much was known about him.
5* guys don't have that issue. When you're a 5* player you have attention on you constantly and scouts evaluating/re-evaluating you on a constant basis. Knowing that, it would be hard for me to believe that there are as many guys in the 5* and 4* category who were actually "bad football players" that were poorly scouted.
The other thing I consider is the fact that every other week we have a post on here about "Stars rankings matter". That has been proven time and again and I have even seen you agreeing with that sentiment. If we accept that to be true (which most people do) then when these 4-5* guys end up not becoming contributors in some way, then I say that would reflect poorly on the coaches, not the scouts. When you have one or two guys who don't meet expectations, that is probably a scouting thing, but when you look back over our previous recruiting classes and see all the 4* guys who didn't have nearly the impact we expected....poor development seems to be just as reasonable an explaination as anything else.
Again, I'm not saying some 5* players won't live up to their recruiting hype or that some two stars won't turn out to be stars, but when you look at a program like MSU that continuously puts a solid product on the field while using a majority of 3* players who are outperforming their rankings that speaks to coaches ability to develop players. Conversely, when you have a team made up by a majority of 4-5* players, many of whom don't live up to expectations, one could easily draw the conclusion it has something to do with the coaches ability to develop talent.
Now I could easily be wrong about this, it wouldn't be the first time, but nothing I have read to this point convinces me of that. We have different opinions on the matter and that's fine but I have to say, sometimes it seems like you just like to argue for the hell of it. If that's your thing that's cool, whatever, but when you take a comment from a post that is very clearly sarcastic and try and use that to challenge the credibility of the rest of the post I have to wonder about your intentions. Are you more interested in trying to make people look stupid or having intellegent debate? I'm not trying to be a jerk, that's an honest question so I can determine whether conversing with you is a waste of time or not.
In case you aren't sure what I'm talking about it is the "it's silly to say that we haven't developed any player ever". I would say it's far more silly to believe when I posted that, that I was being serious.
February 13th, 2014 at 9:06 AM ^
First of all, when you're railing against Michigan's development of players, it's very difficult to tell (in writing) when you flip from being factual statements to hyperbole. You surely realize that sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet.
Secondly, one of the main reasons I disagree is that I have seen plenty of 4-star and 5-star prospects whom I believe are ranked too highly. So when Kaleb Ringer drops out after one year, or when Jeremy Jackson is perhaps Michigan's slowest wide receiver in the last 20 years, I don't really think Michigan failed to develop them. Putting that kind of blame on Michigan's coaching staff is strange. There are a number of 4-star guys who fit that bill - Cullen Christian, Richard Ash, etc. Christian was always a little bit slow to be an elite corner, and he didn't like to tackle. Ash was a good size as a junior in high school, and then he got fat as a senior and into college.
Additionally, coaches don't necessarily follow the recruiting rankings. A high 4-star guy to us might be a guy they're taking to "fill out the class" or "play a role," not necessarily a guy they expect to be a star. Look at Dennis Norfleet as an example. Likely by your logic, he's a Rivals 4-star guy who hasn't been anything spectacular, and if he has two more seasons like his last two, you would probably consider him a "bust" or at least a guy Michigan "failed to develop." However, Fred Jackson said on NSD in 2012 that they didn't picture Norfleet as much of a contributor on offense, and they saw him as almost exclusively a special teams guy. In my opinion, he's not a guy who is likely to be "developed." He is what he is.
I think you're making some general, blanket statements that I don't really appreciate, because they don't take individual stories into account and they ignore warning signs that I (and certainly others) saw. Just because Mike Farrell or Tom Luginbill thinks a guy is a 4-star talent doesn't mean we should judge our coaching staff based on Farrell/Luginbill's standards.
February 12th, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^
Honestly, it's probably more a perspective thing.
If we get a 3/4 star guy from Michigan..
a.) He turns out to be good, we expect that, no big deal
b.) He turns out to be bad, "OMG why did we recruit him, we suck at developing," etc.
If Iowa (and others) get a 3/4 star guy from Michigan..
a.) He turns out to be good, "Why did we let him out of the state?!"
b.) He turns out to be bad, "Who?"
So we only see/think about the success stories at other schools, while we can look over our own successes with those types of guys, and pile on our failures. I mean for every Delonte Hollowell, there is a Desmond Morgan...
February 12th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
Personally I don' tthink there is a sucess story for every player that doesn't develop. Also my remark wasn't only referencing in-state prospects. I know that was the original OP, but I was speaking about recruiting in general.
The fact is for MSU, they generally only get 3* guys (until recently), so everytime someone succeeded at MSU it was a success story, and lots did. Same goes for Iowa. When any of them didn't pan out, they were generally players that weren't ranked highly to begin with so they wouldn't have been considered busts.
Check my post above where I name a few of the 4* guys who haven't panned out here over the past 5 or 6 years. Try and find as many of those diamond in the rough types you said there were for every one of those names. This is just my opinion, but I don't believe you can
I'll give you a +1 anyway because this is some good honet debate IMHO.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
My post was actually in a response to Magnus's orignal response to my OP. *postception*
So I didn't actually go through everything you said above, and I wasn't really debating you on your points. My main comment was that if M, MSU, and Iowa each have 4 3-stars from the state of Michigan, and 3 of those players out-perform their ratings at Michigan, 2 do at MSU, and 1 does at Iowa, we basically look at it this way...
Re: Michigan - What the fuck, that one guy didn't develop, we suck.
Re: MSU - Sparty sure knows how to develop talent better than us. We suck.
Re: Iowa: letting that guy out of the State was a huge mistake!! We suck.
My main post was poking fun at Magnus' use of the description of players as "Iowa level," when in fact M probably does pull more "Iowa level" players out of Michigan than Iowa does. It is just our perspective that Iowa does better with those players then Michigan does because we look at our failures moreso than our successes, while only looking at Iowa's successes.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^
Much appreciated.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
very informative. Off the subject, do you think Sparty will withdrawl their offer to Campbell? (assuming he's not in jail). A 10 second video clip can't really tell us the whole story of what happened last month, but it sure looked bad.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^
No, I don't really think they will. I mean, they might, but I just can't jump to the conclusion that they will withdraw the offer. Dantonio doesn't mind dealing with guys who have personal issues, and most of us probably remember the infamous Glenn Winston situation. I think their coaching staff will keep an eye on the situation, keep the offer out there, and perhaps go after an additional quarterback in 2015 (like Alex Malzone) just for insurance purposes.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
thanks... If things are what they seem on the video, I think I'd be hard pressed to justify keeping him. But like you say.... Winston.
February 12th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
its funny seeing a guy from Central Montcalm on that list, fuck those guys
February 13th, 2014 at 8:00 AM ^
You seem a little bitter. What did they do to you?
February 12th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^
Truthfully I expect him to decide to play basketball in college at the D1 level. He's sick in hoops too.
February 12th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
He's not an OLB in the sense of a pass-rushing guy like Jake Ryan or a 3-4 rusher, but an OLB in a 4-3 Over (such as a WILL linebacker).