Why not Tyler O'Connor?

Submitted by jbibiza on May 15th, 2011 at 7:38 AM

I have mentioned this in previous comments, but still cannot understand why we haven't offered Tyler O'Connor.  I keep watching his film to look for flaws but all that I see is a guy that I would much rather have than either Kiel or Mauk.  How does he fit our offense? let me count the ways: excellent mechanics, great touch but also can zing it in when he needs to, plays in a pro style offense, moves well in the pocket, can run enough to be useful (almost 500 yards rushing last year with 13 TDs - and he ran back two INTs for TDs), good size at 6'3" 210, 3.75 GPA.  Other than Pike I have seen no other QB who is a better fit for us this year.  

Watch the film and you will see that he knows how to put air under the ball but also throws lasers when he has to.  Would love to see this kid in a winged helmet competing with Bellomy after Devin departs... or before.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFtw1cFLHc&feature=player_embedded

Comments

Rabbit21

May 15th, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^

There's something the coaches ate waiting on, whether it be seeing him camp or just letting other offers play out first. I don't necessarily think it means there's not serious interest, more a question of how the coaches want the class to play out.

hrod1203

May 15th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^

I like O'Connor, but saying you would much rather have him than Kiel is kind of crazy.  Kiel is the top QB on Scout and Rivals.

jbibiza

May 15th, 2011 at 8:52 AM ^

The scouting services like 24/7, Scout and Rivals are merely guidelines - particularly before a prospect's senior season.  They all tend to get on board with the same hyped players and only find the others after coaches dig around to find them.  That is not to deny the obvious fact that most 5* guys are top players (and welcome additions to the Maize & Blue), but if you look at Kiel's tape and then at O'Connor's you will find it hard to understand why one has 5* and the other 3*.  Bottom line = don't just go by star ratings.

Tim

May 15th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^

So you trust yourself over not only the paid scouting services (which, this is their job. They're not perfect, but they have experience), but also over coaches from such schools as:

Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Purdue, TCU, Tennessee, USC, and Wisconsin, all of whom have offered Kiel but not O'Connor?

Methinks they're a little more experienced in evaluating high school prospects than you are. I don't mean that as an insult, either, just... they make several million dollars a year, in part because they're really good at this.

jbibiza

May 15th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^

Hi Tim,

I appreciate your contribution to this fan-tastic Blog so no offense taken, but my main point was that the poster I was replying to apparently takes the star ratings as gospel.  After watching numerous recruiting classes matriculate you gain more perspective on how accurate a star rating is five months before the beginning of a recruit's senior year.  It's just an educated guess - far more educated than mine - but a guess nonetheless and not beyond questioning in a forum like this.  Keep up the great work!

D.C.Blue

May 15th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^

3* QB out of Audubon High School couldn't break the starting line-up behind NFL drifter, Tyler Palko, at Pitt.  There are many, many examples of overlooked talent.  It's entirely possible that Tyler O'Connor could fall into that category.  

BiSB

May 15th, 2011 at 8:19 PM ^

We don't question the idea that talent sometimes goes unnoticed.  Tom Brady went in the 6th round, Pat White was a negative-7-star, etc. 

What we do question, however, is whether we can reasonably rely on an untrained eye to properly evaluate talent based on seven minutes of Youtube highlights, when so many professionals miss-evaluated him based on (presumably) more film, the chance to see him throw live, and that same seven minute highlight reel.

He could be right... but if I were a betting man, I would put my money on the pros.  I don't think skepticism is out of line. 

D.C.Blue

May 15th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^

was not to suggest that any player should be offered purely on highlight reels.  As a matter of fact, there are a number of current players and future recruits that based on their highlight reels, if I were the coach, I wouldn't have offered a scholarship.  What I'm suggesting is that the scouts are as wrong as they are right. I mean about a week ago, the entire board was talking about how Rivals missed some guys that should have been higher ranked or in the list, but weren't. 

BiSB

May 15th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^

But I disagree on the idea that "scouts are wrong as they are right." The pros are actually really, really good at their jobs:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-How-recruiting-rankings-hold-up-at-t?urn=ncaaf-wp1103

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830

Perfect? No. But if I were a betting man, I would put money on a five-star any day of the week.

D.C.Blue

May 15th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^

on my part to say "as wrong as they are right".  Over the last 15 - 20 years the prognosticators have fine tuned their skill, but when I played HS and later D1 ball, I saw flame out after flame out of what would be considered 4* & 5* talent.  That was the early 90's and they have admittedly gotten better at assessing talent so on that point, I retract my embellishment. However,I do still trust my own eyes over most scouting sites.

wolverine in the 216

May 15th, 2011 at 8:40 AM ^

I would be fine with O'Connor. I like soome of the things he does and could see him being developed down the road. But  I actually like Austin Appleby more. Watch his film and he makes throws to every part of the field. He hits sideline routs at 15-20 yards from the pocket. Drops the ball into the seams and does a good job with crossing routes.

Some fans think that Gunner Kiel is getting ready to announce. I would be curious to see what would happen with Shane Morris if Kiel were to verbal. I don't expect it, but would Morris stay commited? 

icefins26

May 15th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^

I wouldn't say that there is a little chance of Kiel going Blue.  Rivals is hinting that Kiel may have more interest than people believe -- also, he is keeping his recruitment virtually silent right now so it's purely speculation about where he is leaning.

ryebreadboy

May 15th, 2011 at 9:12 AM ^

I agree with this.  I actually like Appleby much more than Mauk, and more than O'Connor.  I think he was underrated by recruiting services due to the injury he is rehabbing from (and rehabbing ridiculously hard) and his recruitment is going to blow up this year.  I know they're making him wait and camp (and he seems willing to do so) but I think he'd be a great recruit to snare in the event that Kiel doesn't want to go Blue.

Morris has already indicated he'd stay committed if Kiel were to commit.  I mean, the kid has to know all of the hype around himself already -- if Auburn can sign 5* quarterbacks in consecutive years, it's clear that they're willing to compete with one another.  I don't think anyone has even indicated that Morris is unwilling to compete (well, except for Sparty, 'cause you know that's why he committed to us instead of them).

ryebreadboy

May 15th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^

We certainly could be.  I know people are muttering that we're not, but he doesn't really talk to the media.  We didn't even hear any comments from Tom after his visit.  At this point I'd say we have as good a shot as anyone else (though I'd like it if we could get him on campus again... I think he's been to Oklahoma twice).

wlubd

May 15th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^

Don't claim to have an answer. Only know that if the coaches felt he was worth an offer this early then they would haveextended one.

I like his film. Not as good as Kiel but I would take him over Mauk. I'm not the coaching staff though and I defer to their judgment when it comes to offering players. They have access to more information then we do and typically have far better insight.

Monocle Smile

May 15th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^

if we never question the coaches' recruiting decisions that somewhat limits the scope of the board.

I personally find that it limits the stupidity of the board. This is part of the reason why I feel Magnus has an important place here. He's coached for a while and has evaluated more recruits for the next level than I can count. His feedback is appreciated.

Personally, I admit that I know dick about football compared to the coaches both at Michigan and on this board, and I feel justified saying this is the case for most users here (relative scope). We also have much, much more restricted access to these players, both in person and with film.

Acting like we're better at identifying what our coaches want in a recruit more than the coaches themselves is rather absurd.

maizedandconfused

May 15th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

entirely sure why this is off topic. We havent offered Tyler because, at the moment, we have between 7 and 10 spots left. We still need to pick up 2 defensive tackles, a realistic strong DE (Godin is a good get for this spot, not entirely sure where he projects though) and at least 4 more OL (at the very least 3.. with hopefully 2 Ts). With all these offers, we cannot afford to extend offers to kids this early in the process when there are 

A. positions of greater need to recruit

B. positions that have players with interest with higher overall ceiling and abiility

 (jarrod wilson, wright, wormley)

Im a big believer in covering holes then waiting to get the best you can for the remainder. If Tyler is genuinely interested and wants to go to UM then he will camp and get an offer..

Be excited. Our recruiting class is shaping up to both upgrade talent and fill holes. 

 

wlubd

May 15th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^

You're presuming we don't take a QB though. The coaches have always said they plan on grabbing a QB every class, and flat out told Morris that when he committed. We'd all like some high-profile lineman but we'll be looking for a QB as well. The staff is supposedly planning on a class of 22 (even though only 18 are open right now). That still leaves 11 spots open for 2-3 DL, 3-4 OL and the rest. There's room for a QB in there.

maizedandconfused

May 15th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

If you look at our depth chart, we are royally screwed if we dont get at least 4 OL and we absolutley need a DT.

In two seasons (whcih would allow us to redshirt any lineman from this class who commit) we will have 8 offensive lineman. 8. And that is assuming no injuries and that everyone pans out. I wont lie, the offensive line situation scares the hell out of me. 

The DT spot is essentially the same.. we have 3 guys left. We need ot take 2 possibly 3 DTs or we are going to be ridiculously thin. 

I get that they probably will take a QB, but before we extend offers (which if a recruit says yes to we have to take them) I'd like to address the needs.

ALso, I think 22 is a bit high of a #.. maybe 20. 

wlubd

May 15th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

I don't disagree with you, I'm just relaying what the coaches have said. They're planning as if there will be 22. They plan on taking a QB.

You don't see a QB as being a need. A lot of people agree with you. That's ultimately irrelevant because the staff does see 1 QB as a need. Taking 1 won't affect the OL/DL numbers you've mentioned, which yeah we're a little thin everywhere but DE.

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 15th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^

Pet peeve: calling YouTube and Rivals highlight tapes "film" like we're some kind of professional scouts.  "Yeah, I watched his film."  The fuck you did.  You watched the sanitized version that they put out so you'd get excited over him as a prospect.  Every quarterback looks good on highlight tapes.  That's why they're highlights.

Litt1e Rhino

May 15th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^

This is what I thought when reading this post. What most of us watch are highlights, we don't have access to full game footage. We see there best 5 plays from each game and see what they can do when things go right. We don't see the other 85 percent of their plays where they throw into triple coverage or over throw the long ball 9 out of ten times. We have no choices but to trust the coaches and recruiting sites. 

BiSB

May 15th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^

If he had just said that he liked Tyler O'Connor based on the highlights he had seen, that would be different.  What he said was that he "cannot understand why we haven't offered Tyler O'Connor ."

Liking a guy based on incomplete information is an opinion.  Being befuddled that your opinion doesn't match the combined opinions of dozens of top BCS-level coaches (including Michigan's staff) and every paid recruiting service under the sun... well, I don't know what that is.

dothepose

May 15th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^

now that i looked at his highlights, i agree. he seems to know when to zip it or put touch on, i like his delivery more than mauks, his looks like hennes where it could get batted down at the line alot

BiSB

May 15th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

When you're trying to say someone's delivery is less than desirable, you might not want to compare said delivery to a four-year starting quarterback who owns just about every Michigan record and went in the early second round of the draft.

Compare it to Terrelle Pryor.  Then we can chat.

dothepose

May 15th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^

i always enjoying getting responses from people that feel like policing the blog. i am just making an observation, henne did get quite a few passes batted down, no where in that sentence did i say henne was awful there is a reason i own an orange authentic miami dolphins henne jersey.

BiSB

May 15th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^

Disagreeing with the content of a post isn't "policing the board."  If that was my intention, I would have gone with "the shift key is your friend," "nowhere is one word," or "holy lack of punctuation, Batman." 

I was merely pointing out that "damnit, he has a Chad Henne delivery" is not going to win a lot of support for your position around here.  Most Michigan fans would take Chad Henne Part Deux without so much as a second thought.  Worrying too much about a few batted balls makes you look like that guy who whined when Barry Sanders led the league in negative yardage every year.

dothepose

May 15th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

Damn, you are just superior to me. I apologize for not using the proper etiquette for blogging from my phone. Thank you for overanalyzing my statement. In all honesty, who cares, Shane Morris is coming here regardless I am more than happy with that.

GoBlueinOhio

May 15th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^

their offense is a little weird.. they always go for the onside kick, don't have a running back, and watch him scramble.. he takes the snap out of the gun, then runs back another 3 to 5 yards. He has a great arm. But a lot of those stats are padded.

Sextus Empiricus

May 15th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

good enough.  If Tyler wants a spot ... it's on him to make it known and establish communication.

It does seem odd not to offer him in some respect (since not all offers are commitable) but there's more going on here than a fan can know.  

Given the recent info wrt Hoke's recruiting techniques (which aren't any different than most other D-1 schools AFAIK) Tyler knows where he stands (if he cares to know.)  Hoke isn't going to leave any D-1 talent in the dark that contacts the staff.  There is no insult in asking a QB to camp or visit to get an offer.

Kelly was not offered which I thought strange seeing as he visited, but he was asked to camp.  Post camp (is June 19-23 the date?) we should have a better idea.

MgoSuh

May 15th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

In the spirit of this "why not" theme...Does anyone know why Michigan has not offered Georgia DT Jordan Watkins? I remember being really excited when Tom interviewed him in February, and he seemed genuinely interested in Michigan. I just haven't heard anything about him in a few months, and was wondering if anyone had any insight on his situation? He's a 6'5, 260 lb 4 star DT, and seems like he'd fit in well.