"Potential Signing Day Surprise" - Willie Henry DT - Glenville

Submitted by Maize.Blue Wagner on January 28th, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Per Sam Webb's Twitter: 

 

SamWebb77 Sam Webb 
 
#Scout's @BillBankGreene dishes on today's visitor Willie Henry aka #Michigan's potential signing day surprise - ($)

Perhaps the 3 star, DT recruit Brian mentioned the other day? It would be great to get another guy out of Glenville and continue to chip away at that Ohio stronghold. Rivals profile: http://rivals.yahoo.com/syracuse/football/recruiting/player-Willie-Henry-130818

As someone whose first name and middle name is William Henry, I think getting this guy would be awesome. 

 

 

 

Comments

Profwoot

January 28th, 2012 at 9:04 PM ^

I'm sure many on here will question this one after denying Schutt and DOB, but let's hope that if it happens it's because Hoke and co see greatness, not because the class didn't turn out how they wanted.

markinmsp

January 28th, 2012 at 10:25 PM ^

This guy is not your prototype “nose” tackle like DOB and Schutt.  We passed on them because they would fill the same role as PeeWee Pipkins.  (And frankly, I think neither of them will have the career that I expect from PeeWee.  I really think 4yrs from now we will be looking at an another at least All-B1G in Pipkins)  I hope we get another DT also that can play on the opposite side of him.

jaggs

January 29th, 2012 at 1:05 AM ^

We pulled offers from DOB and Schutt and are now looking at another lesser rated DT. Star rankings dont matter, trust coaches derp derp, I'm guessing they ended up not landing some targets they expected and don't want to bank the scholie.

drewro02

January 28th, 2012 at 10:06 PM ^

I'm guessing you probably didn't hear Schutt's name in the Under Armour game, because he played in the Army game. Also, not being overly impressed by a kid because he was dominated by Kalis seems a little ridiculous. Considering Kalis is one of the best offensive linemen in the country, I don't think getting beat by him in practices makes Schutt a bad player. I'm not trying to defend Schutt, but your reason not to be impressed by him doesn't seem valid.

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 12:01 AM ^

 Regardless of the game, I didnt hear anything about him. Even 11Warriors said he had little impact and was a non-factor.
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2012/01/west-beats-east-in-sloppy-army-all-american-bowl

I justify my opinion on the fact that Tommy Schutt was facing legitimate top tier D1 lineman every snap at this allstar game and he did not seperate himself during the week. Most of the scouting reports on Schutt are "good size, decent technique and motor but doesnt dominate the competition". Seems to me he might be a big fish in a small pond, both literally and figuratively.

CRex

January 29th, 2012 at 10:31 AM ^

The real reason not to be impressed with Schutt  was how the whole commitment thing went down.

He tried to commit to ND and was turned away.  He turns right around and tries to commit to Michigan.  Then he goes to Penn State.  Now he's at Ohio State.  It seemed like he was mad at ND so he was just flailing around for a spot without really commiting.
 

A couple days after the coaches told Schutt no sale, PeeWee commits and has been solid ever since.  The coaches made the right call on that one when they stayed on target and with Peewee.  Otherwise right now we could flipping out because Schutt, our only NT commit, just flipped to tOSU.  

 

JohnCorbin

January 29th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^

I don't question anything Hoke and Co. do anymore, I have faith.

No lie, couple months ago I did throw a few questions out, especially regarding interior DL depth.  But, if Hoke and Co. think Q, BWC, Wilkins, Ash, and PeeWee can handle the situation, then I wont question it.

(Perhaps a move to a 3-4 coming in a couple years with all the LB recruiting?)  Is a question I wont ask, because Hoke and Co. know better than I do.

UMICH 15

January 28th, 2012 at 9:07 PM ^

Is ranked #38 DT on Scout. Nothing special about his resume and we may be smarter to bank that scholarship.  But let's leave it up to the coaches as usual.

BostonWolverine

January 28th, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^

You're 100% right. Our depth in the middle of our D-Line goes for miles, so it makes no sense to bring in a relatively low-ranked player with three defensive line-oriented coaches there to help him along in his development. What's the point? Three-stars don't do anything at the college level, anyway.

I don't get it either.

drewro02

January 28th, 2012 at 10:17 PM ^

That list may not be fully correct. RVB, Roundtree, Demens, Black, and Bryant were all given four stars by at least Scout or Rivals, and Koger was listed as the number 4 and 6 TE respectively to each site. I would say Warren is a much different kind of project, and it would be hard to compare his potential to all of these guys who are high three star, low four star guys. Warren is a middling three star at best, and will be a project, which I'm sure the coaches can handle. If the coaches want him, I want him, but comparing him to some of these guys as a prospect doesn't make much sense to me.

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 12:11 AM ^

What? People are projecting/picturing Willie at the 3-tech, most recently occupied by RVB. This list has a direct comparison, in that RVB was a 3 star (to both Scout and ESPN) and was an extremely productive starter on a BCS bowl winning team.

Also, who the hell is Warren?

drewro02

January 29th, 2012 at 1:15 AM ^

Sorry. RVB was a four-star to Rivals however, which you fail to mention. Comparing a 6-6 RVB to a 6-2 Henry seems a bit odd. I'm not saying Henry can't be good, but there is no doubt he will be a project. RVB's size and potential were much greater than Henry's when both are/were seniors in high school. Ratings-wise, Henry is a much different type of prospect then most of the guys you mentioned.

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 2:21 AM ^

 Let me break this down for you.
1.This isnt basketball; height on the DL isnt that big of a deal. If anything, taller guys have more issues playing inside due to leverage concerns.
2. The  point of this issue is that ratings don't necessarily mean "I will dominate". Saying "RVB had more stars on 2 of 3 sites so he is obviously a better prospect" is ridiculous. By your logic, given one schollie left, we should have signed Anthony Lalota over Omameh.
3. Coming out of hs...
Henry                    RVB
6'3 265                  6'5 260
4. Watch the tape. He doesnt look like hes carrying bad weight  and it doesnt seem like he's really a project.  He's playing at Glenville, against some of the toughest HS football competition in the country.  And he's running with WRs. Give me 6'3 265-70 pounders who can run with wideouts all day.
5.  Hes a physical, large and  athletic kid coming from a program reknowned for its football prowess. He uses his hands well, high motor and seems to fight through blocks. He has good penetration, but might overpursue. Seems to me like this is a no brainer.  Factor in the depth chart at interior DL.
6. Give me a legitimate, non-Scout/Rivals starfucker reason that you see him being not on par with RVB coming from high school and I'll consider respecting your opinion.

drewro02

January 29th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^

Said a single thing about the kid's game. Simply as a prospect, RVB had much more potential coming out of high school. I'm still not sure how you are getting the whole RVB was a three-star recruit either? He was rated by Rivals as the number 18 DE, Scout as the number 8 DE, and ESPN as the number 13 TE. The type of prospect RVB was is not the type of project Henry is. I am by no means putting the kid down and I like the idea of the motivated middling three-star who is spurned by the non-ohio state offer, and will be motivated, and getting another kid from Glenville. I get all that and I like it, but to say it is a no brainer? The kid will be a project, which is a concensus from everyone around here, and if this was such a slam dunk, why are we waiting until three days before signing day to finally offer the kid. The kid is right in our back yard, and from one of the top high school programs in the state, so it's not like the coaches are just finding out about him. And I believe your Lalota/Omameh reference refers to taking a player at a position of need. If it was that big of a need, why did we turn down two top guys at that position? You can say you aren't impressed by Schutt as a prospect, but there is no denying he is a far better prospect than Henry. If it was that big of a need, I'm guessing the coaches would have taken or gone after a DT long before the "midnite hour" before signing day.  Although a very good back up plan, it is pretty obvious this was a back up plan move. Oh, and thanks for the breakdown. I had no idea how recruiting works. How are you not working for Rivals or Scout by now? Do you really think Henry can run with WRs? If the kid was 6-2,3-ish with football talent and was running a 4.4-4.5 forty, he wouldn't be getting last minute offers from schools. Every school in the midwest would have already offered based on potential alone. That's laughable.

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^

You are dense. A prospects worth is based on his play not what some recruit site has to say. I asked you to watch his tape. You havent. Because you are lazy, here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XNveNDm9So

Check out the 4:55 mark. Thats running with V'Angelo Bentley, a 5'10 RB/CB with offers from Pitt and Illinois and clocked at a 4.6 40. 

We didn't turn down 2 guys at the position. Your football knowledge is lacking. Pipkins, Obrien, and Schutt all play the 1 Tech or NT position. We need a 3-tech, or a true DT. The difference is the 3 tech plays over the guard/tackle gap and usually ends up with 1 on 1s instead of being doubled like the nose. 

And to say that he wasn't offered etc. as your reasoning is ridiculous. Maybe he didnt go to camps. Maybe he truly wants to stay close to home and only spoke with schools that are closer.  Not having a huge offer sheet is not the judge of a players worth, 

So again, I ask you to look past stars at the actual player and make a judgement. 

Finally. Mattison passed on Schutt and offered Henry. That alone makes him the better prospect.

Magnus

January 29th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^

The 3-tech and 1-tech positions are NOT that different that you would turn down a kid you wanted just because he's a better 1-tech than a 3-tech.  If Michigan WANTED Schutt, they would have taken him . . . and if they wanted O'Brien, they would have recruited him harder and more consistently.  Michigan was wishy-washy about both O'Brien and Schutt, so they essentially Michigan turned them down.

tasnyder01

January 29th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^

You say "watch the tape" and "A prospect's worth is based on his play, not what some recruit site has to say."

...I'm pretty sure these recruit site guys watch a lot more tape than you, I, or he/she does.  Not only that, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say those guys even know what to look for.   So like, recruiting stars are basically: some dude who knows how to watch tape of these HS guys, and does it for a living is telling you "dude, here's what I think".

Stars are not the end-all be-all.  But are you seriously suggesting that you're a better grader than someone who's paid to grade?  That's like saying "professor, give me the mic.  You're evaluations on my doctoral thesis are not correct." 

 

I'll agree with your Mattison point tho...

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 2:46 PM ^

Never said I was a better analyst of tape than professional recruit sites. I have watched a ton of football and tape (specifically defense), and was giving my opinion . I was asking drewro to look at the tape and give me a reason that he didnt like the kid as a prospect, not just "starhhzzzz".  He could have pointed to the fact that Henry looks like he gets lost in the shuffle a bit, or that he seems to play high.
Secondly, it might be that recruiting sites haven't looked at his senior film in depth yet.  With all the craziness of signing day and the shifting of recruits based on Urban/coaching changes in the midwest, I dont think it would be crazy to say that. 

Also, if you have written a doctoral thesis (100+ pages on one topic), you should know more than the professor questioning it. Your situation is the legitimate protocol for a thesis defense.

drewro02

January 29th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^

So in one argument you talk about how he plays at Glenville, and against top high school football talent. But in this argument you say he may have been an under the radar type. I hate to tell you, but whether a kid goes to camps or not, if he plays at Glenville nearly every coach in the country is going to know about him. His lack of offers is not because he has flown under the radar this long, its becuase coaches from across the country either didn't think he was good enough or didn't fit their scheme, and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't fit anyone's schemes. And what makes you think he is a sure-shot three tech? A 6-2,3-ish, 270 pound high school DT could very likely end up playing nose once they get to college. And I don't know the kid personally, but I would be willing to bet money he doesn't run a 4.6 forty at that size. I will stick by my statement and say if that was the case, he would have offers from all over the country. Again, I am not bashing the kid. He looks like he has potential, and could be a good player, but noone, and I repeat noone is ever going to fly under the radar at Cleveland Glenville, period. Even if his idea was to stay closer to home, schools are still going to offer and try to change his mind. If he comes to Michigan I will root my ass off for him every day, but the fact is the kid was a backup plan, and the coaches are going to have some work on their hands. You say not to use the recruiting sites, so the simple fact that few other BCS programs offered is proof enough. And this all started on the fact that you called several of our previous recruits three-star types that weren't, which you are still wrong on.

maizedandconfused

January 29th, 2012 at 6:50 PM ^

I'd argue with you some more, but it seems to be fruitless as you consistently ignore anything I say unless it suits your narrowminded argument.  You win the internet. Your epinion is superior to mine.

Frank Clark. Under the radar at Glenville. Suck it.

drewro02

January 29th, 2012 at 9:04 PM ^

Frank Clark was not under the radar at Glenville. His offer list: Michigan, Cal, Michigan State, Minnesota and North Carolina. If Cal and North Carolina knew about Frank Clark, so did everyone else in the nation, which is my point. If you play for Glenville, or any school in the country that is a known hot bed for talent like Glenville, and are a good football player, coaches will know about you. Clark is an example of your original post of someone who is performing above what scouts saw of him, which yes, does happen often. Clark showed flashes of great athletic ability in high school, which excited a lot of us when he committed, but many other coaches around the country obviously didn't feel too good about him as a prospect. Henry is the same way. With all the talent that is at Glenville, I guarantee you nearly every coach from around the country has seen his film, and for whatever reason decided not to offer. Not to mention, we offered three days before signing day. At this point it may not be a bad offer, but the whole slam dunk thing that you suggested I just dont agree with. And I will stick to my original opinion that Henry is not the same type of prospect as most of those guys you mentioned in the original post. None of those guys were last minute offer guys. Again, I will also restate that I am not trying to put Henry down, and if he comes to Michigan I will root for the kid to prove everyone wrong and be a solid contributor to Michigan and society after he is done at Michigan.

jbibiza

January 29th, 2012 at 7:28 AM ^

RVB was a consensus Four Star - Scout, Rivals and a high 78 on ESPN which did not give stars back in 2007.  That said I like the idea of Willie Henry giving us more depth at 3Tech and  Scout shows his interest in UM as "High".  He also shows some potential as an offensive guard, though I think we are looking at him mostly as a DT.   FWIW I am totally confident that Mattison passed on both Danny O and Schutt because they did not fit what he wants in a "Michigan Defense".

Senior highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XNveNDm9So

cjd3mtsu

January 28th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^

Schutt is the one who asked to visit and we respectfully declined I think. Henry's highlight video is rather impressive though. Looks like a high motor kid. 

flysociety3

January 28th, 2012 at 9:14 PM ^

Honestly, at this point... I would really like to get ANY other DT... 

Obviously the coaches have got their plan, but I just feel like a huge rotation might serve us really well in the next few years.