Gooding (ID) Gooding tight end Colston Loveland committed to Michigan on Sunday evening. He picked Michigan over Alabama, Auburn, LSU, and others.
Loveland is listed at 6'5" and 230 lbs. As a junior, he caught 69 passes for 816 yards and 6 touchdowns.
RATINGS
ESPN: 3-star TE, 79 grade, #8 TE
Rivals: 3-star TE, 5.7 grade
247 Sports: 4-star, 90 grade, #13 TE
Hit the jump for more on Loveland's commitment.
Loveland was offered by Michigan in April, and things progressed rather quickly. Alabama's offer preceded Michigan's, and LSU's offer came afterward, but Loveland seemed to be high on the Wolverines from the jump and canceled a previously scheduled visit to Colorado in favor of visiting Ann Arbor. He took that official to Michigan in late June and silently committed to the coaching staff on the trip, finally going public on the Fourth of July.
Loveland is listed at 6'5" and 230 lbs., but he doesn't quite look that tall or that heavy on film. He splits out wide quite a bit in high school, and the coaches at Gooding try to get him the ball in space since he appears to be their best athlete. He does a nice job of snagging the ball out of the air and has an ability to high point the ball. He has caught a lot of passes in his career (173, according to Hudl), so he has a lot of reps and experience catching the ball in traffic.
One thing he lacks is bulk. He needs to thicken up and get stronger for the next level. But the biggest drawback with Loveland is his lack of standout athleticism. I was a bit surprised when I first watched Loveland's film a couple months ago, because for a guy with a ton of production and some big offers . . . he just doesn't do very much on film. He plays against weak competition in Idaho, and yet his highlights are pretty ho-hum - no long touchdowns where he outruns everyone on the other team, no big runs where he just powers through tiny defenders, etc. For having 69 catches in his junior year alone, his highlights are fairly sparse.
Overall, I have a hard time getting too amped up about Loveland. He is a decent prospect, but his 247 Composite ranking (3-star, #588 overall) seems about accurate. He is not a difference-maker at the next level, in my opinion, because I don't see him being dominant in a small Idaho school. (There are approximately 1,200 students in his whole school district, grades K-12.) Can he play at Michigan? Sure. Will defenses need to game plan to defend him? I doubt it.
Michigan now has 13 commitments in the class of 2022. Loveland is the second tight end, joining Marlin Klein. Michigan has had five total players from Idaho in school history, with the last one being walk-on long snapper Matt Baldeck from 2017-2019.
TTB Rating: 65
In other words, Michigan is on it's way to a okay but not good or great 2022 recruiting class for a team like Michigan. The star ratings are not encouraging, and the TTB ratings in the 60s do not lend to much optimism. The sliver of hope is that Michigan is building a foundation on which they can deliver solid 9-3 and 10-2 seasons, and maybe from there inch up into 11-1. Michigan has to show they can develop these players and win road games they have been losing the last five years.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put "too much" on recruiting rankings. COVID took an entire season of development & film, camps, physical relationship building, and - for many - a lot of time in gym
ReplyDeleteAs for Loveland, my hope is Saban & Ogeron know what they're looking at, and this kid can be a diamond in the rough (fingers crossed)
I'm more concerned by the lack of enthusiasm of our host.
DeleteI'm not sure Michigan can afford to have too many diamonds in the rough project types. Places like Alabama, LSU, Clemson, Florida, State can afford to have a few of those types because they have productive talent elsewhere to produce some wins. Michigan does not have that luxury.
Yep, and Thunder has a pretty solid track record* Also also alarmed me about the Denegal/Valari ratings
Delete*except about Ty Isaac 😉
Fun fact: Ty Isaac and Tyrone Wheatley have the exact same career yards per carry (6.1).
DeleteLOL. Never say die especially if you're dead.
Delete-LANK
Bama and Lsu offers are compelling. Very few TEs get gameplanned around so that's not a great bar to set.
ReplyDelete-lank
This is the second TE and speculation there will be a 3rd. Last year was a bit of a blur but I don't really remember Gattis using TEs all that heavily.
ReplyDelete@Thunder - does it make sense to you to recruit this many TEs?
-LANK
Maybe these are the tecruits we are hoping will replace all the DL lost to transfer
DeleteHilarious! Remember JE that players are never "lost". There is always the same number of scholarships (i.e., players). Though NIL may change that...
DeleteMore likely explanation IMO - the traditional recruiting approach at RB is being extended to other positions like TE. Bring a bunch in, more than you'll ever need, knowing that the winners and losers will sort themselves out and transfers will result and are inevitable. Moreso now than ever.
As always, over recruiting one position means under recruiting another. I don't know if that's happening at TE but that is the basis of my question.
Grad transfers, extended eligibility, NIL have changed the sport to be more athlete-centered and it would not surprise to see the recruiting approach to change in response to the rapid evolution.
Perhaps the staff sees some other positions as easier to fill via the portal and taking a new approach at TE.
I don't know the answer but at surface level the approach seems different than the last few years as we shifted away from FB/TE to more WRs on offense.
-LANK
It doesn't make sense to me to recruit three tight ends in this class unless you're trying to get Delp (a.k.a. another elite tight end) and then hoping one of your current players/commits transfers/decommits. If Michigan were using its tight ends well enough to be difference-makers, then that would be one thing. But the past couple seasons (the Josh Gattis era), the tight ends have not been used correctly.
DeleteAgree. I was not a fan of McKeon but Eubanks was underutilized. All probably needed more seasoning but still had a role. Even considering some of the drops, the TEs weren't utilized downfield enough IMO.
DeleteSometimes throwing scholarships at a problem is an answer but here it seems more about scheme and development than personnel.
It remains to be seen where the scholarship short will end up hitting but the TTB community seems to be in agreement that we hope it is not on OL or DL.
-LANK