 |
| Hinsdale (IL) Central wide receiver/tight end Ian Bunting (image via Twitter) |
Bunting stands 6'6" and 210 lbs. As a junior in 2012, Bunting had 16 catches for 412 yards and 4 touchdowns.
RATINGS
ESPN: 4-star, 83 grade, #5 TE, #114 overall
Rivals: 3-star, #14 TE
Scout: 3-star, #17 TE
247 Sports: 4-star, 90 grade, #11 TE
Bunting visited Michigan in November 2012 for the Northwestern game, but he didn't receive an offer from the Wolverines until March. At the time of that in-season visit, he had just one offer, which had come from Purdue. When he visited again last weekend, it was thought that Notre Dame was his leader, but he was impressed enough to commit a few days afterward.
Bunting is a long and lean prospect. He's listed from 6'5" to 6'7" and from 210 to 215 lbs., but he plays like a wide receiver. When he gets an unimpeded release off the line of scrimmage, he's very difficult to cover. He can run past some defensive backs, and jump balls are no contest for someone with his size and athleticism; if defenses cover him with a linebacker, that will be a huge mismatch. He's a very flexible player who picks up his knees when he runs, can bend at the knees to block, and can adjust well to the ball in the air. I also like the way Bunting runs routes; he changes direction well for such a tall guy, and he shows a dedication to proper footwork. As a blocker, he shows the willingness to be physical and he keeps a nice, wide base when engaged with defenders.
There's not much to dislike about Bunting. He will add weight as his body matures, so it will be interesting to see whether that changes his athleticism; he won't be a mammoth bruiser, but he should probably be 240-245 lbs. by the time his college career ends. I also wonder how he would react to press man coverage, because no defensive backs seem willing to test him in that respect. He will have to learn how to shed press man defenders if he doesn't know already.
Michigan will likely use Bunting like they use Devin Funchess, splitting him out wide, moving him around in the backfield, and sending him downfield as a deep threat at times. I think those two have very similar skills. Michigan should be able to redshirt him in 2014 to add some weight, but if he's not being used as an in-line blocker, there's not much of a reason to keep him off the field if he can contribute. Funchess did just fine at about 228 lbs. in 2012, and Bunting has another year and a half to add that 10-20 lbs.
Recruits have stated that the coaches only plan to take one tight end in the 2014 class, so Bunting will likely be the only player for the position unless something changes with the roster. He's the seventh commitment in a class that will probably be around 16 or a few more. Walk-on wide receiver Brad Anlauf also attended Hinsdale Central High School.
TTB Rating: 78 (ratings explanation)
Your comments about him make a rating of 78 seem a tad low, the kid seems to have star potential. What is keeping him from a rating of 80+?
ReplyDeleteMichigan has yet to really turn a tight end into a star. Koger, Funchess, and others have just been mildly productive over the past couple years. Bunting has the potential to be pretty darn good; but it remains to be seen whether Michigan can get him the ball enough to be a stud, All-Big Ten, All-American, etc. If they use Funchess more effectively in 2013, that might help Bunting's TTB Rating.
DeleteI understand how your rating system works, but if you were in charge of the Rivals ratings and used it how they currently do: Would you have him ranked higher than the 14th overall tight end?
DeleteHe would be higher than 14th, yes. I'm not sure how much, though. I would take him over Weishar, but this is a pretty good year for tight ends, in my opinion. There are a lot of good ones.
DeleteNot sure the "Michigan has yet to really turn a tight end into a star" argument is worthwhile since we're still working our way out of the RR era. I think we'll know a lot more after DG has spent an entire offseason as the presumptive starter.
DeleteGardner didn't use Funchess much last year. I'm not saying that he won't, but we haven't seen it. It's a worthwhile argument because it's true, and if Michigan is going to spread the ball around to its wideouts, its running backs, and numerous tight ends (Funchess, Butt, Bunting, etc.), then nobody may develop into a star.
DeleteI suppose I just think your ratings system is very useful for the purpose of evaluating player potential. Trent Richardson didn't have less potential when he was running behind Mark Ingram. You can't say Bunting has less potential just because Michigan has many other top options. But, maybe I'm wrong...
DeleteI'm not saying he has less potential. I'm saying I don't see him having a career worthy of being rated higher. I'm not going to rate a tight end in the 90's, for example, when Michigan hasn't shown that they can develop a 1st round/All-American type player at the position.
DeleteThis seems like an odd approach to me. It's not as though Michigan never had any standout tight ends prior to the Rich Rod era (Joppru, Tuman, and McGee come immediately to mind). And the current staff hasn't given me any indication that they won't develop any new TE prospects to their fullest potential--it's just that some of the guys they've been working with so far were a bit limited.
DeleteKoger wasn't very limited, and Funchess wasn't, either, for what they wanted him to do. Perhaps it was the presence of Denard Robinson that kept the tight ends from being heavily involved (although Funchess did pretty well with him early last season). If/when Michigan shows improved usage of the tight end this fall, then Bunting's rating might go up. If Gardner keeps targeting the wideouts the vast majority of the time, then there won't be a need.
DeleteWell, I appreciate your response, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Koger, I agree, was not limited--and I thought he had a very productive senior year, both with effective run-blocking and making plays in the passing game. IMO Funchess was one-dimensional (basically a big WR) in 2012, yet still I thought Michigan got a lot of production out of him for being a true freshman. The players I had in mind as being "limited" were guys like Brandon Moore and Kwiatkowski. I agree Moore had a disappointing career, but overall I am not sure what else we were supposed to have seen by now out of the TE position based on the personnel we've had.
DeleteThat said, I really enjoy your blog--especially now that I can read it at work. Keep up the good work!
Okay, so now for the big question, Thunder: Bunting or Helm?
ReplyDeleteI would have probably taken Helm because he's bigger and you know what you're getting a little bit more. Both are good options, though. I think Helm has the ability to play Y or U, whereas Bunting is pretty limited to U.
DeleteHe rattled that kid's grill pretty good on the fake reverse thing they ran at about 5:50.
ReplyDeleteIt's really looking like the plan going forward is simply all jump balls are ours.
How many defenses do you think will be equipped to deal with the kind of size Michigan will have with Harris and Bunting/Funchess?
ReplyDeleteZero.
DeleteNice get for us. Should be a mismatch when he puts on weigh and hits the field. GO BLUE.
ReplyDeleteThis is very intriguing. Given the direction that it seems Borges is going finally - they are building a "Stanford like" stable of multi-role TE's with size, U-Backs (hill), H-backy kind of guys (shallman imo). Especially like that we are equipping the offense with some pretty interesting match-up problems as these kids get on the field. I think Bunting will eventually get up to 250 - 260 as he matures and lifts. Excellent !
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I'm excited about the commitment. This kid's offer sheet speaks for itself, and I think he'll be a real matchup problem a la Funchess.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm a bit wary of these "flex" TE's. I would have preferred a kid like Helm who can both block and receive (a more traditional TE) to a kid who is a receiving threat though unproven in blocking. We saw last year how Funchess's inability to block kept him off the field, and although that can largely be attributed to his being only a freshman last year, him showing up to spring camp at 220 does not inspire confidence in me that the grand plan is to make him a blocker. This uni dimensionality I think will ultimately limit the production (and playing time) of a flex TE vs. a traditional (ie Jake Butt) TE.
But hey, that's why Borges makes the big bucks right? I'm withholding judgement on the Flex TE position until I see how Borges intends to use these hybrid players in the next few years. Certainly the NFL has made flex TE's en vogue with guys like Gronkowski (though Gronk is around 265), so perhaps Borges has something similar in store.
Overall, I think this kid has excellent potential to add a lot of weight. His receiving skills are way above average for a TE recruit. The question is: is it easier to teach blocking to a receiver or receiving skills to a blocker? I, for one, think it's the former. Very excited, nice pickup.
I agree that it's the former. And I think Bunting has good potential as a blocker from the technical and attitude standpoints; he just needs to develop his body.
DeleteI don't think you are comparing apples to apples with Funchess to Bunting. Your point is valid, but just because a high school is using an athletic huge kid as a wide-receiver doesn't mean that he can't (or can't be taught to) block. It's just the way that coach uses him which is probably pretty effective against your average HS corner. 2, 3, tight end sets with big backs and tall WR's - a defense is going to have to hedge its bet and commit to a probable defensive approach - that will give Borges and our QB some very good audible opportunities. Remember too, you don't have to be a Mike Ditka, pile driving TE to be effective. Just delay, help set the edge or occupy the defender and we should have some good sized RB's to do the rest.
Delete