The following system is used for rating Michigan prospects. Ratings are determined by the author of this blog and are subject to change throughout a player's recruitment. Ratings are dependent on the current roster, other committed players, and their fit with Michigan's system. For example, a "4-star" quarterback committed in the same class as a "5-star" quarterback might result in the 4-star being ranked much lower since he might not be given much of an opportunity to see the field.
100 = Best prospect in the country at his position; high likelihood of 1st round NFL potential (Ex: Charles Woodson)
90-99 = Outstanding starter in Big Ten; likely All-Big Ten and All-American; high likelihood of NFL draft potential (Ex: Brandon Graham, Taylor Lewan)
80-89 = Very good starter in Big Ten; good chance of All-Big Ten; some NFL draft potential (Ex: Mike Martin, Jonas Mouton, Denard Robinson)
70-79 = Solid starter in Big Ten; some NFL draft potential (Ex: Brandon Minor, Craig Roh)
60-69 = Average starter in Big Ten; little NFL draft potential (Ex: Ricky Barnum, Mark Ortmann)
50-59 = Below average starter or good backup (Ex: Greg Banks, John Ferrara)
40-49 = Average backup or solid special teams contributor (Ex: Darnell Hood)
1-39 = Below average backup or special teams contributor (Ex: Brandon Logan)
NOTE: Examples are based on a player's completed college career, and NOT his potential as a recruit.
A quick question for you sir. In your ratings of the 2012 recruits for UM you seem less than fond of what Ben Braden brought to the table. I think you had him pegged in the mid 60s range and felt he was average athletically. What happened that he is now the leader in the clubhouse at left guard (ahead of even Kalis) and is probably, at this juncture, the most promising of all the vaunted recruits on the offensive line from that outstanding class? I saw his highlights and was amazed at his ability to get to the second level at that size. Definitely a potential four-year starter for my beloved Wolverines and I couldn't be happier for him. Is his progression an indictment of the star system or just an outlier? I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the number of stars a recruit gets rather than looking at the more important aspects. Braden only attended the UM camp and cared little for ratings, he was also coached by Ralph Munger at Rockford who has certainly produced his fair share of collegiate linemen and worked the UM camp for many years mostly focusing on the offensive line.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I saw during his recruitment:
Deletehttp://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2011/03/ben-braden-wolverine.html
As you can tell from the 2012 Offer Board, I bumped Braden up into the 70's after his senior year. He had some deficiencies, though, which I outlined in his commitment post. If he has overcome those issues, then good for him. We'll see how things go.
i think ur ratings are kinda brutal...in no way is JBB a 68.that is laughable at best.ur ratings for last year were brutal too dude...gotta give guys more credit. i feel like they are either amazing or they suck in ur ratings, no in between, u should work on that
ReplyDeleteYou're certainly entitled to your opinion.
DeleteI think you get wrapped up in the hype machine. Most of the rankings are in the ball park and with JBB he has tons of potential, but most likely will be a depth player .
DeleteI had an interesting thought on adding a little something to your rating system. If you could one day when you get time..maybe look up some players to add next to the Examples(like at least 2 on each), so people can compare one player to a few other names. I think it would be helpful, To me anyways haha
ReplyDeleteI honestly think more guys need to be rated lower. We are all too happy to see guys in the 70s and 80s but the reality is many of these guys won't see the field. I have yet to see a recruit rated in the 20's or 30s, but guys like Terry Richardson are unlikely to play any valuable minutes here at Michigan. I appreciate the candid rankings.
ReplyDeleteKaleb Ringer from the 2012 class was rated in the 30's. He ended up washing out after a year.
DeleteTo be honest with you, I haven't seen many guys who look like they deserve to be rated low. I think Hoke has recruited a lot of talent, and the lack of attrition during his tenure (aside from the 2011 transition class) suggests that a lot of these guys are going to last until their senior or redshirt senior years. And guys who last that long are bound to get on the field, start, play a key backup role, etc. As for Terry Richardson, you're right that he seems mired on the bench, but he was a 4-star guy who I thought had some skills. Unfortunately, he just hasn't developed. There's nothing I can do about his rating now.
You put Denard in the wrong category. He was an all-american in college and was drafted into the NFL. He should be in group 1.
ReplyDelete*All-American at a position he didn't play (RB) and a late round draft pick. Denard is where he needs to be.
DeleteI agree that Denard should be in group 1. He set the NCAA record for QB rushing, fergodsakes. If not for the coaching change, probably one of the best college QBs in the history of the game statistically, and a higher draft pick to boot. We are talking about the prospects value as a college player, not a pro. Coaching change out of his control, and he still carried the team despite the buffoonery at the top. A clear group 1 player. Still like thunders ratings a lot. He does a good job of looking past the hype.
ReplyDelete