Mike Farrell talking about Shane Morris

Submitted by robbyt003 on October 3rd, 2012 at 1:54 PM


At first he discusses the possibility of Max Browne taking the #1 spot from Robert Nkemdiche. (I think that is highly unlikely)



This leads me to another quarterback who will arguably be the subject of the most controversial discussion we need to have when it comes time for our next rankings in early December. Of course, I'm talking about Warren (Mich.) De La Salle's Shane Morris.

The lefty was awarded his fifth star following summer appearances at numerous camps as well as The Opening and Elite 11. However, after completing just over 50 percent of his passes as a junior, Morris started off this year 40-of-83 for 456 yards with three touchdowns and three picks. Then he was diagnosed with mononucleosis and could be out for the rest of the season, which makes it unclear if he'll be ready to play in the Under Armour All-American Game in January.

So, was the poor start due to mono or was it more of the up-and-down play from last season that held him back from his fifth star? Mono is unlikely to affect him long term when it comes to his college career, although it could delay his immediate impact depending on how long it takes to recover and gain back weight. His senior year playing sample will certainly lead to some detailed discussion.

More than likely he will lose his 5th star (whoopty doo) and hopefully he will still be able to play with a lot of his teammates in the All-American game. 




October 3rd, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^

Well considering his worst game of the short season he had, the like 20% completion game with three picks against one of the best teams in the nation, St. Eds, was also the game he had to leave early, and then subsequently diagnosed with Mono, I would say the mono has a lot to do with it.


October 3rd, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

Make it more Morris-specific if you want more eyeballs

I'd be interested to know if they take his receivers and OL into account when factoring in his on-field performance.  You'd have to look at the tape to see, but if every ball is being dropped in the end zone, obvs. the stats won't follow.


October 3rd, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

Max Browne is stud. He looked real sharp when his team played on the U, unlike Hackenberg.. Havent had a chance to see Nkemdiche play but all sites rate him as #1.. We shall see   


October 3rd, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

Is what, exactly, scouting wise?

This was all cuter when a couple of guys in their basement were going to the library to make photocopies of their newsletter for everyone.  They're taking it WAY too seriously now.


October 3rd, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^

The only reason I follow recruiting is because I'm excited about the kids that want to come to Michigan and what they can do for us. I don't give a week old mouse turd for how some dork ranks them. I want to hear from guys like Ace and TomVH. How they play.

Sometimes I wish a school would end up with a horribly rated recruiting class that ended up totally dominating, so we could tell the recruiting fanatics to stuff it. I don't care if David Dawson is the 5th or 500th rated lineman. I care if he can play. I don't care if Wyatt Shallman is a great "athlete" or a mediocre "running back". I care if he can play. And I sure as heck don't care if Shane Morris, a kid who bleeds maize and blue, recruits like he was part of the staff and throws it 7,000 yards loses a 5th star because his teammates aren't as good as he is at football and he got mono.

My response to this whole thing is simple. "Get well, Shane!"


October 3rd, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^

I'm confused.  What do Ace and TomVH know that a national recruiting analyst doesn't?  I'm not a fan of Mike Farrell, but I don't know that the aforementioned guys trump him in any way when it comes to football knowledge...


October 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^

It's not that they know something the national analysts don't, it's that they specifically work within the confines of Michigan football, so they pay close attention to recruits that we care about. Thus, many times, they will take a closer look at certain prospects and provide a more thorough analysis than someone from Rivals who is responsible for opinions on a much larger number of players.


October 3rd, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

They go to games, watch them play, and report on their play. They don't release list after list of top-X-hundred kids, award or remove stars, etcetera.

I guess what I should say is that I want to know how a kid performs, his measurables, etc. I don't give a crap how he "ranks" vs other kids when we're talking about vastly disparate high school teams and opponents, camps that not all kids are invited to to perform, etcetera. I care about whether a kid completed so many passes, made so many tackles, or gained so much weight, etc. I don't really give a damn if somebody thinks they are among the tops in a group. It's like using W/L to evaluate pitchersl. It's a terrible tool. Instead, give me an objective view of how THEY performed, from somebody who watched them do it.

these wolverines

October 3rd, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^

His squad had no business playing St. Eds. If Dymonte doesnt get a 5th star its a shame, this kid is putting up sick numbers, over 1000 rushing and 15tds plus has double digit tackles in almost every game.


October 3rd, 2012 at 4:40 PM ^

De La Salle has an awful offensive line. As quarterback, Shane either has to make some VERY quick decisions that could lead to picks or a lot of incompletions or just take the sack, so I don't think his senior season stats represent how good he is exactly.