Wilton Speight 3*, #21 QB on Scout

Submitted by Real Tackles Wear 77 on

I believe these rankings must be relatively new, because he was unranked as of the last time I checked, which I think was last week. He is the 2nd-highest ranked 3*QB, making him a prime candidate to get that 4* status with a strong senior year. He is also just outside the top 300 overall, as the #19 QB is #297 overall.

 

Some chatter I've heard says he won't be making the camp circuit, but I don't know that for sure. Just thought you'd like an update on his rankings.

 

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=5759238

MGoBoard
Wilton Speight

Michael

March 12th, 2013 at 9:22 AM ^

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.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

Salinger

March 12th, 2013 at 8:21 AM ^

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.

Joined: 01/11/2011

MGoPoints: 5409

Michael

March 12th, 2013 at 9:26 AM ^

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.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

Michael

March 12th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^

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. 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

M-Wolverine

March 12th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^

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.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

Michael

March 12th, 2013 at 5:59 PM ^

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.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

Lac55

March 12th, 2013 at 7:42 AM ^

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.

Joined: 01/18/2011

MGoPoints: 1546