Apple Valley (CA) Apple Valley quarterback Jayden Denegal committed to Michigan on Wednesday evening. He picked the Wolverines over offers from Auburn, Georgia, Michigan State, and Utah, among others.
Denegal is listed at 6'4" and 215 lbs.
RATINGS
ESPN: 4-star, 83 grade, #9 pocket passer, #163 overall
Rivals: 3-star, 5.7 grade, #19 pro-style QB
247 Sports: 3-star, 89 grade, #17 QB
Hit the jump for more.
Denegal threw in front of Michigan quarterbacks coach Matt Weiss at a satellite camp, piquing Michigan's interest. He set a visit date for this week, opening up a chance for him to be see by head coach Jim Harbaugh. After working out for the staff in Ann Arbor, he was offered and immediately jumped at the opportunity to wear the winged helmet. His other primary contender seemed to be Michigan State, although it seems UCLA was on the verge of offering him, as well.
Denegal has good height - he's listed at 6'4" or 6'5" - and uses it well, standing tall in the pocket. He's thickly built and his weight is anywhere from 215-230 on various sites; there has been some talk that he shed weight after getting too big. I like Denegal's ability to throw speed outs, as he gets himself lined up well and manages a strong, overhand delivery. On deep throws to the sideline, he puts a good arc on the ball and gives his receivers a chance to make a play.
In general, I am not a fan of Denegal's mechanics other than on his one-step speed out throws. His footwork is inconsistent, and he's very bouncy; rather than taking tiny steps and sliding in the pocket, he tends to just hop up and down going through his reads, which can lead to issues with timing and vision on spatial relationships. Too often he tends to drop his arm to a sidearm or three-quarters delivery, especially on deeper throws, which tends to take some speed off the ball. It can also lead to batted balls at the line of scrimmage and inaccuracy downfield. I also like to see quarterbacks who are quick to make decisions based on pre-snap reads, and there are too few of those throws on his highlight film for my liking. Lastly, Denegal is not a mobile quarterback; he runs okay for a high schooler, but he will not be able to escape the pass rush very easily in college.
Overall, while Denegal is a 4-star prospect and the #19 overall QB in the class, I had hoped for a different outcome in Michigan's quarterback recruiting for 2022. The Wolverines were always going to struggle to land an elite passer in 2022 after signing J.J. McCarthy in the previous class, but Denegal is a project. I'm of the mindset that Michigan should only really be taking projects if they're athletic projects, guys who can either make plays in the running game or have the potential to play another position (WR, TE, etc.). Wilton Speight is the ceiling here - not the expectation, but the ceiling - but only after a few years of seasoning.
I have to question Michigan's recruiting strategy here. The Wolverines brought in a Greg Roman disciple (Matt Weiss) to be the quarterbacks coach, and it was supposedly - according to insider Sam Webb - in order to incorporate part of the Baltimore Ravens running game. The Ravens use multiple tight ends, motions, and the quarterback in the running game. So it made sense that Michigan pursued Nate Johnson (now committed to Utah) heavily. But now the Wolverines are going with a pure pocket passer who can't execute or create big plays in the run game. Naturally, Michigan fans might want a higher rated player, but there are players ranked right around the same spot - Katin Houser (Boise State), Beau Pribula (Penn State), Zion Turner (uncommitted) - that offer more athletic upside or at least better pocket passing capabilities.
Michigan now has ten commitments in the class of 2022.
TTB Rating: 45
On the plus side, we finally have a QB for the class. But I share your concerns here
ReplyDeleteI'll add another: no one expected a stud to follow JJ to Ann Arbor, but if he doesn't work out, we will really be hurting. Really need Denegal to exceed expectations
I think you can say that about almost any blue-chip prospect, especially at QB. Michigan has a few years of Bowman, McNamara, etc. if McCarthy isn't ready by then.
DeleteThis doesn't look like the high end of California football competition.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, at around 2 mins, the kid shows some shake and "escapability". Plus he's big, and against these guys, he looks like he could be pretty hard to knock over. He sort of looks like a kid that runs as fast as he has to, but he's a QB, the main issue is can he throw it.
It looks to me like he can ... and easily. He's throwing accurate, catchable balls all over the place. It doesn't look like he's packing a canon, but his throws kind of feel like his runs, they get the zip he needs to get em there.
I like him better than Thunder does.
Probably a lot better.
The kid I really like is the kid they sniffed around for a bit from Alabama. I don't know his name.
ReplyDeleteConner Harrell. Me too. He needed some work, but his athleticism looked like a better fit
DeleteIf we're going to compare ourselves to Ohio State, then I don't see why JJ McCarthy should rule out a high ranked QB in the subsequent class. Especially since he showed up in the Spring and got a consensus status of "not ready". OSU is landing top 5 ranked QBs every year. From what I remember of the early 90s this wasn't uncommon at Michigan either - guys like Guttierez, Driesbach, Henson would come in without being worried about all the highly ranked guys ahead of them.
ReplyDeleteI get why it's reasonable, I'm just surprised at that level of understanding and tolerance in light of other less reasonable comparisons to OSU.
I don't feel too strongly about Denegal one way or the other but for being a supposedly recruiting-oriented staff I haven't been too impressed with their 2022 class so far.
-LANK
I agree. This pick and the 2022 class does not lend much confidence. It seems like Michigan is content to be second-tier, and the recent changes in the coaching staff were window-dressing. Michigan's football program is drifting sideways.
DeleteLank is right in that the bar should be higher. But the reality is, we're competing for runner up in the East most years, and occasionally simply to not be awful
DeleteI'm not sure where the bar is because it seems to move around a lot.
DeleteI would say that historically speaking, if we are in the top 5-15 range then that is success. Others would put the bar relative to OSU (currently at an all time high in the top 3). The last time Michigan was at OSU's level of current production was under Fritz Chrysler or, if you want to be picky, Yost.
"Awful" is subjective and relative too. I think 2008 was pretty bad but still competitive with most opponents.
-LANK
Michigan's goal *should* be to (a) be able to consistently beat every team in the B1G not named "Ohio State," and (b) play competitively against Ohio State, even in defeat. They're definitely failing on (b), and (a) is not looking good either.
DeleteDefine consistently. Michigan has done fairly well against MSU, PSU, Iowa and Wisconsin over the whatever years and dominated most everybody else. I don't think the Big 2 Little 8 era is coming back anytime soon.
DeleteWhile the program should never give up on beating OSU, as fans we should probably recognize that until OSU falls off it's perch it's not very likely. In other words us beating them is as much about them as us.
I do think Michigan has been mostly competitive with OSU under Harbaugh. They just haven't been able to sustain it into the second halves and close it out. I think that's where a lot of the frustration with Harbaugh comes and, as we saw similar failings under Rodriguez in second halves.
-LANK
Comparing Harbaugh with RR ... who could have predicted?
DeleteWho could have predicted one UM coach would be compared to another? Literally everyone. It happens every time.
Delete-LANK
Perspective matters. Who would have thought they'd be compared as failures
DeleteI'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
DeleteThey are similar in some ways (good offense) and different in others (defense). Comparisons assess both.
-LANK
Neither had a good offense. JH had a couple years of good D, but that crashed & burned
DeleteRodriguez never had a good offense at Michigan. Not when it counted. Against any half-decent defense, the one-trick Rodriguez offense sputtered. The bowl game against Mississippi State was the nail in the coffin.
DeleteHarbaugh's 2015 offense showed some potential in the second half of the year. But since then the offenses have never been credibly threatening.
Wrong. The 2015 and 2010 offenses were equally ineffective against OSU. 1 TD. 364 vs 351 yards. 19 vs 20 first downs. OSU shut em both down.
DeleteThe 2010 offense was better overall. The 2015 performance against the shell of Florida was fool's gold.
-LANK
-LANK
2010: close out the season by losing to Wisconsin by 20 points; losing to Ohio State by 30 points while scoring only a touchdown; and losing to Mississippi State by 38 points where Michigan's two touchdowns came in the first quarter, with nothing thereafter.
DeleteRodriguez *was* a good offensive coach back in the early 2000s, but his scheme was figured out by defenses and he never adapted. He didn't do that well at Arizona, and would have been fired from there even without the sexual harassment problems. He did next to nothing as OC at Ole Miss. And now he's who-knows-where.
I don't know why people still cling to the idea of Rodriguez eventually being successful at Michigan had he been given a chance. He wouldn't have.
Pointing out what happened in 2010 is not the same thing as speculating on what could have happened in 2011 and beyond.
DeleteI don't know why people still think acknowledging the handful of good things Rodriguez did means an endorsement of his overall coaching ability or fit at Michigan. Even those who were against his firing over a decade ago acknowledge his lack of success since. Like Hoke, he has faded back into a much smaller role.
-LANK
In 2016 Michigan played OSU competively. A case might be made for 2017 where it was 31-20. But 2015, 2018, and 2019 were routs. 2020, had it been played, would have been another rout. Playing competitively in the first half then falling apart in the second is not playing competitively where it counts.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't like all the facts. Just bits & pieces of a few
DeleteThat's not a fact JE. Add it to "compare" -- basic words JE needs to look up to understand.
Delete-LANK
It's a fact we were destroyed 3 of 5 times. While it's a mere 'solid guess' we would have been ripped to shreds last year, only Lank would argue against
DeleteAdd "destroy".
Delete-LANK