Well...this isn't BAD news...so I refuse to comment on it!!!
Wilton Speight 3*, #21 QB on Scout
3 star?!1!!?? He must suck.
I know, right???
How old is this young lady? The exceptional structure of her teeth make me think she may be around 20, but the bow in her hair throws me off.
Definitely college age. I'd guess around 20-21 ish. I know a decent number of girls/have some friends who wear Michigan bows to games.
She's like 16. She's sitting around other families and she has a drink from the stadium.
rolling probable cause!
puts the lotion in tha basket
...she is too young.
bow heads; the University of Alabama has lots.
watch out for the 3* mafia to start their rabble, rabble, rabbling
Three star mafia is dead now:
I think high 3 stars low 4 stars is fair but I think he will be underrated. He has the mechanical issues which is going to hurt him in the rankings...but combined with what look to be really good accuracy and really good touch. Add in reading defenses and that has all the makings of a very successful college quarterback. If he doesn't correct some of the mechanical issues he's likely to be Tebowesque in the future as in not getting love from pro scouts but being a very successful college player.
we can haz national championship, too?
there is a possibility he doesn't climb much. This is the pattern I have noticed the past few years of following recruiting. Under the radar kids usually come out during camps and make their way into the rankings. Kids who are currently ranked high often fall a little.
I agree for the most part, but Ondre Pipkins seemed to make his way up the ranks with solid performance.
If he doesn't hit the camp circuit, I don't expect his rankings to change much. I do expect him to be a 4* and nationally ranked by ESPN considering Luginbill seemingly loves his film and invited him to the UA game. Kind of a disappointment because if nothing else, the camp circuit gives us something to watch during the long off-season.
He might not hit the "big" camps put on by Rivals, ESPN, etc., but he does attend the Steve Clarkson camp.
This video was taken Jan. 22 at the Steve Clarkson Field Generals Camp
There is a day 2 video, but it is super short and only has one rep of Speight.
This was the first film i saw on him. Nice touch on the deep throws, looked like he missed by a mile on that little out route hehe.
Can't wait to see some of his senior films.
As for going to the UA game i wish he wouldn't. I know it's cool cause you get to be on espn and all but that games a train wreck. I'd rather see our guys in the Army all American or the Semper Fi bowls. They where better coached teams and the coaches are there to do a job not try and get laughs on TV
Wow. Stone hands at the 40 second mark.
He is tall with decent mobility, OK arm strength and very good touch. Probably rated correctly at high 3* based primarily on raw skills (as a contrast, the next QB Dawkins has 4/5* skills).
These drills are important, but really only to the degree a kid properly executes the skill - more binary grading. Wilton does them well enough.
His ability to understand the offense, diagnose Ds, make progressions and throw on time are far more important given the baseline skills and surely the key criteria for Borges.
The camo circuit leads to the Army AA game, not UA. FYI.
Didn't he just go to the Nike camp in SoCal? This staff is definitely making a name for itself in spotting talent prior to the ranking services picking up on them.
If Borges found him to be the most talented to fit his offensive scheme then I'll take Al's pick over any rating service. 3* or 4*, I'm sure Al did his homework.
I'ma take the flak for this but he liked Bellamy too!
I'm just saying... think of the QB depth chart last year without Russell Bellomy
We would have been forced to play Gardner against Nebraska......
I cringe at the thought of that.
I'm pretty sure Borges would not have offered Bellomy in any other year, and probably would not have put him ahead of Gardner if the WR position wasn't so weak last year. It's not a function of talent evaluation or development as much as it is a far from ideal roster.
All Bellomy has done is perform poorly in one game where the other team's front 7 was exploiting our weak interior line to pressure the QB. I'm not really sold that Gardner, Morris or the second coming of Tom Brady would have done wonders in that situation. Specifically related to Gardner, it took him a quarter to really get up to speed against just Minnesota. At the end of the day it wasn't a great year to be a Michigan QB, weak interior line and no running game to bail you out.
I want to see Bellomy get some reps against the non conference schedule in 2013 and see how he does. I'm expecting him to look like above average backup at the least, with his main limitations due to lack of a deep ball.
To completely write off a redshirt freshman that was inserted midway into a game as a backup at night against the team playing for the division championship in a very harsh environment is amazing. I'm not saying Bellamy is necessarily the answer going forward, but he can still be a viable addition to Michigan's QB depth and can be good enough to lead the team into some games. He was phased in that game, most QBs (including probably DG) would have been. He's young, his footwork will improve, making all his mechanics improve, making his passes and decision making look much, much better than they did in that sample size of one. I'm getting pretty sick of so many people on here saying "Bellamy is the reason to not trust Borges", and completely writing the kid off as no good.
"I'm getting pretty sick of so many people on here saying "Bellamy is the reason to not trust Borges", and completely writing the kid off as no good."
While I agree that he shouldn't totally be written off and that Bellomy isn't really a positive/negative for Borges (especially so early in Bellomy's career), if we're being honest...
...Bellomy has not looked good at any juncture. He was mediocre in the spring game (constantly checking down and afraid to throw the ball downfield), did poorly against Alabama, and did poorly against Nebraska. The sample size is still small, but early returns are not so promising.
He hasn't looked good at any juncture yet, but he's still a redshirt freshman. I think by the time he becomes an upperclassman he can be servicable. Regardless, at this point, I think it's way too early to look at him as a lost cause.
I think as he gets more comfortable with his reads and understands his footwork better, his timing, mechanics, and decision making will all improve. This will happen when he isn't as nervous (my feeling is he was probably feeling nerves during all of those situations). As he begins to learn the speed of the game and what throws he can make, he should be able to push the ball into some places he hasn't shown yet (if he begins to understand his reads and footwork as well). His arm strength will always probably be a problem, but that that can be mitigated enough at the college level to overcome it, as long as he understands where and when to throw it and improves his mechanics.
I don't think he'll be "the answer" either, but I think he can be ok. I actually agree that most likely he wouldn't have been an offer in most cases, it was just the circumstances the coaches were in at the time. But that's not to say that he can't provide adequate depth and occassionally play later on.
And also, even as a Borges supporter for the most part, I think on the reasons not to trust Borges scale, Bellomy is very low.
Still, it's a very small sample size against two of the better defenses we played last year. In the Alabama game, he threw one pass at the end of a blowout. He had a whole half against Nebraska and didn't do well, but he had a couple of passes dropped early and had a nice drive going at the end (until he threw an int). Once again, not saying that he's going to ever start, but I wouldn't hold those performances against him.
Michigan's spring 2012 defense was not a particularly good defense.
And regardless of whom it was against, his arm strength is still a huge question mark. Playing against a bad defense wouldn't change the fact that it took a month for his throw to reach Kerridge (IIRC) in the flat.
but completely agree with Magnus. Bellomy's raw QB skills (arm strength, touch, mobility) are average at best for a B1G QB. His HS ratings reflect those raw skills.
So the most concerning aspect with 2012 was the lack of "soft skills" such as poise, D reads, anticipation throws, etc.
He needs to flip the proverbial switch with the soft skills. I wouldn't write him off, but he's shown no reason to count on him on Saturdays.
Did you see Al's offensive shcheme against the Buckeyes? I'm not saying Borges should be fired or anything, but I'm certainly not at a point where I just trust every strategy he employs without question.
Yeah, Borges hasn't earned the fanbases' trust yet. If Mattison offers an under the radar guy, fine. But Borges hasn't really shown anything that says he can get high level production out of, well, anybody really.
If there's one bone to pick with this coaching staff, it's their handling of the QB position. Denard regressed under Borges (due to scheme, coaching, or whatever - it happened and wasn't related to injury). They thought Bellomy was actually a viable option.
Recruiting rankings are not the final word by any means, but as has been mentioned before, this staff has not earned the "trust without skepticism" status many people commenting here have given them when it comes to quarterback.
Without Bellomy the coaches are forced to put Gardner in for the rest of the Nebraska game and Michigan wins it......just sayin'
What evidence do you have to substantiate this? The coaches said that Devin had been out of the rotation in practice for weeks prior to Denard's injury. Throw a player who hasn't been coached up for weeks in there and the result, though probably less ugly, is still the same. A loss is a loss.
I'd say Gardner's performance the remainder of the season, coupled with the re-emergence of Gallon and Roundtree are evidence that having Gardner ready to play QB was the best option.
The complaint isn't that they put Bellomy at QB instead of Gardner in the Nebraska game; it's that Gardner wasn't ready to play by design.
He's the #1 receiver and the coaches don't even have to give a thought to DG moving to WR. If you want to criticize the staff for thinking that Bellomy was a viable option, fine, but they didn't move Gardner to WR just for the hell of it.
I understand that, and it was ultimately their decision to make. I think hindsight has borne out that the WR corps was just fine without Gardner and that Bellomy was not a viable option at QB. As Magnus pointed out, the admittedly small sample size of Bellomy scrimmage/game action has not shown he is capable of running this offense.
Put another way: what game might Michigan had lost with Gardner not playing WR? What game might Michigan had won with Gardner playing QB? These are counterfactuals to be sure, but from a risk/reward standpoint I think they are valid.
He said Gardner goes in and wins the game vs. Nebraska. What game did Gardner win during the season that makes you believe he was winning at Nebraska, coming in as a backup for the first time all season, whether he was the backup the whole year or not? If Gardner is the backup all year and Denard gets injured when he does, there isn't a single game outcome that changes.
Now if you want to argue that Gardner should have started over Denard, that's a different story, and I have the dead horse over here for you to beat if you like.
I'm not saying I agree with Jethro, and I understand where the coaches were coming from: you want your best 11 guys on the field and Gardner was a servicable wide receiver. My argument is twofold:
1) The WRs were actually pretty good without Gardner and his presence at wideout didn't really make a difference.
2) In this conference with a QB like Denard, you have to have two quarterbacks ready to play. Bellomy was not ready and him as QB = automatic loss against any Big Ten team. We were actually moving the ball on Nebraska quite effectively until Denard went out; whether Gardner coming in instead of Bellomy would have resulted in a win is a question mark, but Bellomy's presence guaranteed a loss. With Gardner we have a chance to win the game and head to Indy and possibly Rose Bowl. (This is in a hypothetical world where Gardner was the actual #2 QB all season)
My ultimate point is that Hoke and Borges have NOT earned the right to be unquestionable with respect to decision making at quarterback. I think it's a settled matter that recruiting rankings DO matter, so I can understand why some people would be a little uneasy bringing in a guy like Speight. That said, I will give Hoke the benefit of the doubt since he's obviously a good football coach.
He went from unranked to a 2*, and now a three star. At that rate without going to a bunch of camps, and it being before his senior year, he could very well move up to high 4*/low 5* status before its all said and done.
Tim Sullivan over at Rivals said that he thinks Speight will start off as a high 3-star on that site, too.
Gerg wonders if rankings really matter that much. Mike Hart is brought to gerg's mind #Hart4Heisman
What is your question for Gerg?
That was my question.
Gerg is confused #wut
I thought I was the ones asking the questions here.
Gerg did not know you were the question-master #takesdrink