Alpharetta (GA) Alpharetta defensive end Julius Holly committed to Michigan. He picked the Wolverines over offers from Georgia, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M, among others.
Holly is listed at 6'3" and 230 pounds. As a junior in 2023, he made 57 tackles, 8 sacks, 3 pass breakups, and 1 forced fumble. He claims a 4.8 forty, a 4.63 shuttle, an 8'10" broad jump, and a 79.6" broad jump.
RANKINGS
ESPN: 4-star, 80 grade, #34 DE
On3: 4-star, 90 grade, #25 DE, #236 overall
Rivals: 4-star, 5.8 grade, #22 WDE
247 Sports: 3-star, 89 grade, #31 EDGE
Hit the jump for more.
Holly wasn't really on the radar until new defensive line coach Lou Esposito offered him in late May. The in-state Bulldogs followed up about ten days later with an offer, and he took officials to Georgia, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M, along with Michigan, before deciding to pick the Wolverines.
Holly has some nice clips in his highlights of him chasing down some plays from behind. He seems to have a good motor, and I like his humility after making plays. He's not particularly demonstrable or celebratory and just seems to go about his business. Playing mostly out of a two-point stance, he has a good stance and perhaps a more efficient get-off than recent wide receiver commitment Jacob Washington. (That's less a slight of Washington and more a compliment to Holly.) He has the acceleration to challenge pass protectors with his speed rush, and the tenacity to bring down ball carriers. He makes some nice arm tackles and seems to be a capable tackler in the run game, too.
What I don't see from Holly is a real ability to dip his inside shoulder, turn the corner, and get leverage on pass protectors. In fact, if he doesn't win with quickness off the snap, I'm not sure he has the secondary or tertiary moves to win. While his overall motor will help him make some plays, I would like to see him improve the use of his hands and do a better job of locking out blockers. He's not the biggest of edge rushers at 6'3" and 230 pounds, and he could get overwhelmed by some bigger blockers.
Overall, I see a similar player to Jaylen Harrell. Harrell never really wowed with his speed, quickness, strength, or size, but he had a good enough combination of all those qualities to make him an effective player. Unless Holly really develops an array of moves, I don't think he'll be a star, but he could be a solid contributor by year three.
Michigan now has thirteen commitments in the class of 2025, and Holly is the first true edge player, joining defensive linemen Nathaniel Marshall (LINK) and Jaylen Williams. Michigan has never landed a scholarship player from Alpharetta, but there have been a couple recent walk-ons from the school, including long snapper Will Wagner and linebacker Alexander Lidback.
TTB Rating: 76
"Unless Holly really develops an array of moves ..."
ReplyDeleteThat makes me wonder:
Q1 -- How "learnable" are such moves, given the motivation to learn them?
Q2 -- Is there anything in Holly's frame, athleticism, etc., that indicates that even with the drive and motivation to learn, those moves will be limited in their effectiveness?
So the details of defensive line play is something beyond my knowledge, but as I sit here I think about Aiden Hutchinson. I don't recall him being the subject of a lot of talk early on, then he sort of burst on the scene and wreaked havoc. Was he a case of talent just waiting to mature to a point where it could be effective? Or was he a case where he decided to really put in the work, and he developed the moves and strength to do what he did?
Hutchinson was a highly rated recruit whose Dad played in the NFL. He played right away as a true freshman, when he was a backup to Rashan Gary, Chase Winovich and Kwity Paye in front of him. As a sophomore he started every game and kept Mike Danna (a 5th year senior and future NFL starter) on the bench.
DeleteHe was hurt in the 2020 COVID year so it felt like he was blowing up during 2021, but this was the trajectory he was on all along. He was always an elite talent at Michigan.
The other thing that kept Hutchinson from getting a mountain of national hype was that he wasn't producing big sack numbers while playing Anchor in 2019, which was not a position that produced elite sack numbers for either Gary or Hutchinson -- both elite NFL edge rushers. The 2021 scheme change to conventional stand-up edge rush was something that unleashed Hutchinson's production, but he was already playing at a very high level in 2019 as a soph.
I'm not going to diminish the work he put in to get better entirely, because all reports are that he definitely did that, but this was by no means a flip of the switch with Hutch. He wasn't molded from raw clay. He was an elite athlete with a very high ceiling, always. Literally from birth. He had every advantage. Here's Mgoblog's preview of Hutch going into his freshman year:
"Hutchinson blew up as a recruit because he kept getting bigger and faster at the same time, and then he blew up at the Army game. He's now an SDE sized guy who whooped up on the best OT prospects in the country over a week of practice and in the game itself. Long-term he is a great prospect:"
He put in the work to get better, so did Rashan Gary, Chase Winovich, and Kwity Paye, but he isn't a heisman contender and top NFL pick if he didn't have the talent plus the surrounding environment to add to the work.
Hutchinson was the highest rated (by PFF) edge player returning to the big 10...after his sophomore year. Mgoblog again, comparing Hutch to Kwity Paye (a first round NFL draft pick with WR/DB speed) after 2019:
"Hutchinson is a year younger and grading out slightly better both here and at PFF. He's likely to improve more rapidly. His ability to rip past OL, inside or out, is already beyond Paye's and there's reason to expect he'll take another significant step forward in 2020."
The only reason he didn't was 2020 being 2020, and getting hurt. Otherwise his "burst on the scene" was just a continuation of the path he was already on.
2021 was a blowup but an expected blowup, not an ineffective player learning to be effective through skills development. I'm sure there's better examples of that than an elite talent like Hutch. Taylor Upshaw? Chase Winovich?
Okay, thanks. Then my original question remains: were those "array of moves" something he brought in already, or did he develop those under coaching?
DeleteMy intent was not really to focus on Hutchinson, per se; it was to focus on the question of whether the "moves" Thunder refers to are something that (a) can be learned, and (b ... new question) commonly picked up under more focused coaching at the D1 college level? It's possible those defensive end moves are just "natural" in the sense that the guy just sort of started do them, to great effect, early on, and from there they just became a natural thing. Perhaps all the great defensive linemen are that way: great athleticism, and a natural inventory of moves that are just baked-in muscle memory at that point.
I don't think all the moves are "natural". I think it's technique that can be learned and is learned since you tend to see some of the same moves get featured across players under different D-line coaches. You can juke a guy with natural talent but you're not going to learn how to use your hands and where to put them just by instinct, IMO.
DeleteEspecially if you're an ultra elite athlete who can be successful without developing technique.
Coaching on the DL is a big deal (as opposed to say RB coach) and you sometimes see EDGE broken out from interior DL to teach the finer points of inside moves vs outside pass rush moves (among other things). I'm sure sure Thunder will give you a better answer
Sorry for the long response above, I've just seen this kind of narrative around Hutch before. In reality dude's talent was at least equal to Rashan Gary but the recruiting industry didn't sell it this way and he didn't look that way to some people, at least not until later on. Both guys came in an were instant contributors out of high school (backing up NFL bound vets) which speaks to talent (as opposed to development).
Obviously Gary never had a blow-up season like Hutch's 2021 because he chose to go to the NFL, but their first 3 seasons track very similarly, and Hutch was drafted, like almost all NFL players, for his potential (i.e., talent), not his production. Gary is just a more obvious example of this.
The NFL combine gave Hutch a 96 athleticism score and Gary an 86. Hutch's Dad was an all american in football and Gary's was not. Hutchinson was called out as a combine freak, even amongst the NFL prospects.
"According to The Athletic's Bruce Feldman, some of Hutchinson's numbers put him in a class with the skill players. "Aidan Hutchinson's shuttle times are why he's such a freak," wrote Feldman. "His 6.73 3-conetime is third best at the Combine (behind a pair of wide receivers) and his 20-yard shuttle time of 4.15 is second fastest, and the guy who beat it is almost a foot shorter and weighs 90-pounds less."
...but how many Michigan fans would say Hutch was a better athlete or more talented than Gary? Very few I bet. Gary was a 5 star out of High School and Hutch was ONLY a high 4 star and they look different. So obviously the difference is work ethic. Right? Right? .... I'm not so sure.
Sometimes these narratives get written based on perception and they stick, even in the face of facts. As an example, quiz some Michigan fans you know sometime about which coach lost to Appalachian State and you'll probably get a lot of Rich Rodriguez responses. We all know who the massively disappointing and embarrassing head coach was -- THAT guy LOL.
Michigan had a freakish run of freaks at EDGE during the Greg Mattison era.
Delete@ Anonymous 12:54 p.m.
DeleteI think offensive line and defensive line are two of the "easiest" positions to coach, because a lot of their effectiveness is based on technique. If you have some basic athletic skills - and the desire to learn - you can improve tremendously. It takes reps and attention to detail. That's not to say you can take any old guy and make him a star, but you can make noticeable improvements. We saw this consistently with Greg Mattison and Brady Hoke turning nondescript players into solid contributors.
So yes, I think the hand fighting and counter moves can be taught/learned. There are some skills I think you either have or don't have (first-step quickness, ability to bend/turn the corner, etc.), but good coaches can make a quality defensive line from less-than-stellar components.
Hutchinson Sr. was to my way of thinking the second best Michigan defensive lineman of his era, behind only the great Mark Messner, and not all that far behind. Like Messner and Bo's D lines in general, across the board forever, he was small for a D lineman and moved to linebacker for his very short pro career which ended with about as strange an injury as you can imagine, complications from a tetanus shot. Michigan football enjoyed 8 straight years of superior defensive tackle play as those two guys came through back to back, Messner first.
ReplyDeleteLike Messner again, and because of his size, he was a technician and way hard to block in Bo's defensive system where down linemen never, as far as I could tell, took anybody on, but rather spent the game shooting at one gap or the other. Then, still yet again like Messner, Hutchinson was a workout warrior, and then unlike Messner became a physician.
So young Aiden benefitted from excellent training at home both on his body and his technique ... then there's the genetics.
I don't think anybody would have predicted the ceiling he would attain, but there was absolutely no doubt that he was a player ... ever.
Roanman
Yep, as I recall most of us were excited about young Hutch early on
DeleteThunder, it seems that you are pretty lukewarm on Michigan's 2024 recruits, grading them in the 60s & 70s. Do you think recruiting evaluation has slipped?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that recruiting evaluations have slipped, but the truth is that not a lot of these guys are upper echelon (top-100 or so) players, as evaluated by the recruiting services. I also think the transfer portal era, these guys are more likely to leave early . . . and Michigan is more likely to "recruit over" them by bringing in transfers. A case in point is the one at cornerback where Cam Calhoun and D.J. Waller both left despite an open job at one cornerback position and another one likely coming in 2025 after Will Johnson leaves; another case in point is at linebacker, where there were a bunch of transfers this off-season while Ernest Hausmann (transfer from Nebraska) and Jaishawn Barham (transfer from Maryland) are both likely starters. In the past, we would have almost certainly had guys like Jimmy Rolder and Jaydon Hood starting at linebacker in 2024 after the departures of Colson and Barrett.
DeleteIt's definitely true that turnover is much higher now. That challenges the "at Michigan" part of the player evaluation. So does the fact that earning a starting spot is harder than it used to be, because the Portal raises the floor.
DeleteHowever, there's still some relative relevance of this, even at other programs. The most obvious example is guys are transferring to programs of equivalent caliber. Keon Sabb's TTB ranking at Michigan is just as relevant at Alabama, as is Deuce Spurlock's at Florida. Even if it's not "at Michigan" it's still essentially the same. Even if the "system" is different, it could also be different at Michigan due to coaching changes.
But most guys are transferring out to get more playing time at lower levels. This makes perfect sense and doesn't necessarily need to toss aside (with the bathwater) the relevance of the TTB ranking "at Michigan".
Why not? Because we already know most backup types at Michigan (not good enough to start let alone be all conference or all American) are good enough to start at SOME other school. For DJ Waller that means starting at an average SEC school. For Taylor Upshaw it was an average Pac12 school. For Matt Hibner and Myles Sims it means starting at a low level ACC school. For Shane Morris it meant a MAC school. For Omaury Samuels it was conference USA. For Teric Jones it was...well, High School I guess LOL.
Typically for transfers, they end up at a place that is more reflective of their abilities. Not always, but generally. Drew Singleton was a pretty good player at Rutgers. Nickael Hill Green was a pretty good player at Charlotte. Water finds it's level.
Bottomline:
DeleteI don't think the TTB rankings need any change to remain just as relevant as they have been. Even with transfers being more prevalent.
Looking at the ratings they have always been more generally for the Big Ten conference not just at Michigan.
https://touch-the-banner.com/rating-system/
There's always been a range of programs within the Big Ten and while the bar has elevated for the Big Ten (with the portal and consolidation of quality teams to two super conferences) there's still some pretty mediocre football teams in the Big Ten.
So you can still look at a player like Drew Singleton who started 9 games as a 5th year senior for Rutgers and look at Thunder's TTB ranking of 83 and know that he didn't quite hit the mark (of a very good starter in the Big Ten) and he was more like a below average starter (or good backup) in the Big Ten in the high 50s. It didn't take him staying at Michigan to know that he would have been a 2nd or 3rd string guy at Michigan.
Likewise we know something about Andrel Anthony, who was the number 1 WR at Oklahoma last year (until he got hurt), and considered a high probability draft candidate if he returns to form. So you know that the Thunder's 67 ranking is low, even though he never started at Michigan.
Jimmy Rolder is another guy, who got a similar ranking to Singleton (81). But Rolder is still, probably, on track to be a starter at Michigan. He just has to wait an extra year because of Barham's arrival, just as Gio El Hadi had to wait an extra year because of Henderson, Nugent, and HInton filling out the depth chart. We'll still get a sense for the ranking whether he stays at Michigan to become the next starter (as I expect) or not. If he transfers at the end of this year to Charlotte or Western Illinois, that'll tell us something different than if he transfers to Texas A&M or Oklahoma.
There's always been some inherent multi-tracking that went beyond success at Michigan in the rankings anyway. By virtue of including the NFL potential of the players in the rankings. For example Jake Moody was the college football equivalent of a 99 or 100 ranking player, as a consensus all american and lou groza winner. But he never had any real chance of being a 1st round pick, because he's a kicker. Karan Higdon was a thousand yard rusher and 1st team all big ten (so could arguably rank in the 90s or at least the 80s) but he had very little NFL interest and went undrafted and was out of football within a couple years (which is more like a guy in the 60s). Thunder split the difference lists Higdon as an example of a guy in the 70s. Meanwhile Thomas Rawls and Mike Cox were deep bench backups for Michigan and ended up in the NFL. In Rawls case, at the NFL level, he was one of the more successful RBs to come through the program in the last few decades, putting up over 1000 yards.
This NFL disconnect has always been an inherent inconsistency bigger than "at Michigan" inconsistency that has been heightened by the portal era, IMO.
While I think the TTB rankings are still just as relevant as ever, I do think they could (but do not need) to be tweaked for 2024 and beyond.
DeleteThe simple fix, insofar as there needs to be any at all, is to deemphasize the fit for the Michigan system. Since guys can now transfer to a "system" that suits their skills better if Michigan isn't the right fit. One might just say "a Michigan caliber program consistently in the top 20 nationally" for clarity, if desired. Sabb, Waller, Anthony, Milton, and McNamara are all guys who think they can succeed in a different "system" without necessarily being at a program of substantially lesser stature.
Another (not necessary) "fix" would be to add to the rating system an equivalent rating at a lower level program. For example the 40s, 50s, and 60s could include reference to being a some caliber of starter at a MAC level program -- a 60s guy could be an above average MAC starter, a 50s an average starter, and a 40s a backup level guy, even in the MAC. It doesn't have to be the MAC - you could set an alternative bar at any level you want to achieve this purpose, as long as it's less than Big Ten. But most of us don't care all that much about rankings in the 40s-60s and it's pretty rare that Thunder is giving out those kind of rankings anymore anyway, I think. Perhaps he could, since Michigan seems to be now treating more high school recruits as fliers than they did in the past.
"The simple fix, insofar as there needs to be any at all, is to deemphasize the fit for the Michigan system. Since guys can now transfer to a "system" that suits their skills better if Michigan isn't the right fit."
DeleteI disagree with this. Honestly, who really cares how good guys are in another system? The thing I really like about the TTB rankings is that it considers fit with Michigan. I don't really care if Singleton ends up playing well at Rutgers - I want to know how he might do at Michigan. This is what differentiates the TTB ratings from the general ratings systems (that do not consider fit with chosen school) and one of the key things that I find most interesting. e.g. I don't really care if Mikey would have been a backup in Georgia's defensive system - he was excellent and a key component in Michigan's system.
Michigan's "system" isn't a fixed thing. It changed a lot when Don Brown came in and then again when McDonald/Minter came in. And we'll see how much it changes again with Wink. On offense it also changed a whole lot between 2015 to 2023 and likely will change quite a bit with Orji at QB also. Remember when our roster had a bunch of FBs and guys like Houma, Mason, and Hill were playing notable roles at RB? Pep Hamilton stopped giving scholarships to FBs entirely. Josh Gattis introduced "speed in space" whatever that meant. The TE room has handled the FB job since. It's not a fixed thing, even if you ignore the issue of transfers entirely.
DeleteThat aside Kurt, your perspective is reasonable. My suggestion is an attempt to address Thunder's concern that transfers have lessoned the relevance of the ratings of high school guys.
Another option, to stay laser focused on Michigan, is to start rating the incoming transfers on the same scale.