'14 MO DE Jonathan Bonner (Notre Dame Signee)

[NDhoosier]

So we could see him play the Prince Shembo role (CAT position) down the road?

 

[TerryTate]

That's where they see him according to TJ

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Darqueze Dennard - Michigan State

Dennard is another highly regarded NFL cornerback prospect. The Michigan State senior is ranked fourth out of more than 240 potential NFL eligible corners for next year's draft. Dennard brought just a two-star recruiting ranking coming out of Dry Branch, Ga., but he had a first-round NFL draft grade this year before deciding to return for his fifth year at MSU.

Anytime anyone wants to critique a coach for selecting a player, and prognosticate the azimuth of a players potential, think of this kid. And by the way, our own Bennett Jackson, a three star wide receiver is widely regarded as the number five corner in his class, for draft purposes. I expect him to add to that and light em up, if his shoulder is healthy this year!

 

[NDinL.A.]

Anytime anyone wants to critique a coach for selecting a player, and prognosticate the azimuth of a players potential, think of this kid. And by the way, our own Bennett Jackson, a three star wide receiver is widely regarded as the number five corner in his class, for draft purposes. I expect him to add to that and light em up, if his shoulder is healthy this year!

The problem with that is that for every 2 star that makes it you could probably name 50 that don't. There's a reason that we went 3-9 in 2007, and that's because Ty Golfingham stacked his roster with lowly rated kids. It's good to think about kids that made it against the odds, but it's not bad to remember the mistakes coaches have made either.

I personally defer to the staff when it comes to recruits like this. I trust this staff. I also trusted CW's staff, and I was wrong. I never trusted Ty, and I was right. But I know nothing compared to these guys, so I just choose to watch a little film and trust what the staff thinks.

However, I don't think it's bad for people to question the staff. They are not infallible; they have made plenty of mistakes. And it makes for good discussion (providing people actually do some research on the recruits and not just look at their star rating, of course) on this board.

 

[Emcee77]

The problem with that is that for every 2 star that makes it you could probably name 50 that don't. There's a reason that we went 3-9 in 2007, and that's because Ty Golfingham stacked his roster with lowly rated kids. It's good to think about kids that made it against the odds, but it's not bad to remember the mistakes coaches have made either.

I personally defer to the staff when it comes to recruits lie this. I trust this staff. I also trusted CW's staff, and I was wrong. I never trusted Ty, and I was right. But I know nothing compared to these guys, so I just choose to watch a little film and trust what the staff thinks.

However, I don't think it's bad for people to question the staff. They are not infallible; they have made plenty of mistakes. And it makes for good discussion (providing people actually do some research on the recruits and not just look at their star rating, of course) on this board.

Love this. Really well put. I know that I know nothing compared to the staff. But that doesn't mean that it's not fun to watch a little film and try to see if you see what the staff sees. And if you don't, nothing wrong with saying so. The politely expressed conclusion that, after due consideration, you don't see what the staff sees in a recruit never bothers me. I only get annoyed when people make extremely strong statements, ranting and raving about how we should never recruit this guy because he obviously sucks, when those people are only going by star ratings and haven't even bothered to watch the recruit's film or do any research.

 

[irishff1014]

His offers aren't impressive at all. A bunch of bad schools.

 

[NDdomer2]

The problem with that is that for every 2 star that makes it you could probably name 50 that don't. There's a reason that we went 3-9 in 2007, and that's because Ty Golfingham stacked his roster with lowly rated kids. It's good to think about kids that made it against the odds, but it's not bad to remember the mistakes coaches have made either.

I personally defer to the staff when it comes to recruits lie this. I trust this staff. I also trusted CW's staff, and I was wrong. I never trusted Ty, and I was right. But I know nothing compared to these guys, so I just choose to watch a little film and trust what the staff thinks.

However, I don't think it's bad for people to question the staff. They are not infallible; they have made plenty of mistakes. And it makes for good discussion (providing people actually do some research on the recruits and not just look at their star rating, of course) on this board.

The thing about CW is everyone trusted him. It wasn't just a couple of people who got sucked it it was a fan base as a whole, and who can blame them/us.

Agree that this kid from MSU is def. the exception and not the rule. On the other side it happens in every year in every draft.

One thing that is almost impossible to determine by the coaches no matter how much homework and evaluating they do is an individuals determination and natural physical development.

There are freak of natures like Clowney who at 17 you know right away what they are gonna be then there are kids like JJ Watt who were 2 kids with offers you can count on one hand that end up being Pro Bowlers.

Watt had that extra mental gear that kicks you in the *** to work harder than others and then he physically developed much later (and impressively so) than your 5 players.

 

[dublinirish]

The thing about CW is everyone trusted him.

yep very true and when he was pulling in 5 star guys like Floyd, Rudy and Clausen it papered over the cracks of the failures he was having recruiting the defensive side of the ball.

As regards Willingham, the guy was being outranked in the recruiting tables by Middle Tennessee State FFS!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Love this. Really well put. I know that I know nothing compared to the staff. But that doesn't mean that it's not fun to watch a little film and try to see if you see what the staff sees. And if you don't, nothing wrong with saying so. The politely expressed conclusion that, after due consideration, you don't see what the staff sees in a recruit never bothers me. I only get annoyed when people make extremely strong statements, ranting and raving about how we should never recruit this guy because he obviously sucks, when those people are only going by star ratings and haven't even bothered to watch the recruit's film or do any research.

Why question the Kelly staff? I mean it isn't a problem for me, but I guess I just see it as an effort with a diminishing return. It is the process, and the process works. First straw man. Kelly is not Ty Willingham or Charlie Weiss. He is not Jim Tressel; he is not Urban Liar Meyer. We have been through all this.

Second point from the first. I am trying to objectively gage the value of Paul Longo's place in the program. I think he is unheralded. I think he put that big tackle from CMU into the NFL and I think that he put more than his share while on U of I's staff. The rest is history.

Second straw man, third point. Talking about the kid from MSU. Talking about BJ. Talking about Prince. RO. Talking about Spond. Talking about KR. Talking about MF. Talking about Michael Deeb, and new guys like Brent and Martini. I think anyone that doesn't see that kind of incredible development, often with that kind of fit at a different position, needs to respectfully look at things differently.

Point fourth, and is it straw man three? Can someone total the hits and misses we have had(on the lower rated recruits), are more or less significant than an average success rate of lower rated player in a major D1 program? And tell me if the bigger, clear misses have been higher or lower rated recruits.

 

[Luckylucci]

yep very true and when he was pulling in 5 star guys like Floyd, Rudy and Clausen it papered over the cracks of the failures he was having recruiting the defensive side of the ball.

As regards Willingham, the guy was being outranked in the recruiting tables by Middle Tennessee State FFS!

In our six losses that year we gave up an average of 32.5pts/game. Like you said he was great at flashing super bowl rings and bringing in the offensive recruits but man our defense suffered.

 

[arrowryan]

His offers aren't impressive at all. A bunch of bad schools.

Tyrann Mathieu had worse offers than Bonner: LSU, FIU, Miami of Ohio, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, and ULM.

Sure, question the staff all you guys want about taking 3 star kids. Charlie Weis had a bunch of 2 and 3 star guys because he put ALL of his time into the big fish and he got burned. So if you're gonna go and question this coaching staff about taking 3 star guys, go ahead and question Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Mark Richt, and every other DI football coach out there.

I went back and did a little research on how many 3 star recruits get playing time at Notre Dame- Farley, Springmann, Jackson, Nick Martin, Spond, Rees, Smith, McDaniel, Okwara, Barrati, and Hendrix.

That's 11 three star guys that will all see the field this year

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Love this. Really well put. I know that I know nothing compared to the staff. But that doesn't mean that it's not fun to watch a little film and try to see if you see what the staff sees. And if you don't, nothing wrong with saying so. The politely expressed conclusion that, after due consideration, you don't see what the staff sees in a recruit never bothers me. I only get annoyed when people make extremely strong statements, ranting and raving about how we should never recruit this guy because he obviously sucks, when those people are only going by star ratings and haven't even bothered to watch the recruit's film or do any research.

Exactly. He could be great, and Kelly obviously knows what he's doing. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that having 3 stars makes it more likely he'll be an awesome player.

 

[Domina Nostra]

...

 

[Domina Nostra]

The problem with that is that for every 2 star that makes it you could probably name 50 that don't. There's a reason that we went 3-9 in 2007, and that's because Ty Golfingham stacked his roster with lowly rated kids. It's good to think about kids that made it against the odds, but it's not bad to remember the mistakes coaches have made either.

I am not disagreeing with you, but the big difference is that we are not talking about building a roster of 2-star kids. For the most part, the staff agrees with the rating services and builds around 4 and 5 star kids.

What we are talking about is:

(1) a professional coaches personally evaluating and offering a select few 3-star kids;

(2) offers based on personal evaluations, not made blindly based on the kid's star-rating; and

(3) offers going out PRE-senior year. Not only do most of these kids end up getting a bump in the ratings, but they also have their senior year to improve their stock. You can attribute the bump to the school's prestige, but both Tuitt and Lynch got sugnificant bumps very late in the game.

As far as bad evaluations: Kelly said he liked ROberson more than Gio Bernard.

On the flip side, it turns out Rees has been more valuable than Hendrix, Montana, or Jake Locker.

 

[NDdomer2]

 

[NDdomer2]

 

[NDdomer2]

 

[ColinKSU]

I don't have a lot to add really, other than to say the mental and competitive side is as important as the physical a lot of the time. Some kids are athletic freaks, but don't want it. Some are average athletes with a crazy motor and want to.

I don't know much about this kid, but he has ok measurables and the staff saw him personally and scouted him well before his senior season. They must have seen some tools -- both mental and physical -- that they could work with. It's not like they were desperate for bodies at this point.

 

[Rhode Irish]

NDdomer, I don't think there is anybody here that doesn't understand the point you're trying to make by posting those graphs. I just think that the services miss enough guys that I don't really value their ratings for any individual recruit. I may place more value on how they rank entire classes because, as the data you posted shows, in the aggregate they will be right more than they're wrong.

As far as watching film and critiquing it, people do seem to like doing that and more power to them. There is a bit of a difference between watching film and then making a specific observation and supporting it with specific things from the film (i.e., "he did [X] on the play at 2:30 in this video, and that makes me wonder about his ability to do [Y]") and expressing disappointment that a kid committed to your team. Even if you think you're a film-studying genius, you don't know enough to warrant that reaction. First of all, even if you're right in your evaluation of a kid, once he is committed to your team he should be afforded some amount of respect. But more importantly, you don't really know what an offer was based on. Maybe the film you saw wasn't a good representation of his game, or maybe he was recruited for a specific skill the coaches are looking for and the shortcomings in his tape don't really matter to the coaches. Whatever the case may be, I find it difficult to believe that anybody on this board will notice something about a kid in 5 minutes of tape that the coaches wouldn't notice in all of their diligence leading up to making an offer. Obviously not every kid that comes to ND is going to be a star, so if that is your criteria then yes - sometimes coaches will be "wrong." And obviously not every 3 kid is going to turn into a first round pick, but that isn't a good enough reason to act disappointed when one commits to your team.

 

[koonja]

I don't have time to read everything that's being said, but I think posters on here have done really well at understanding offer list > >>stars, for the most part. Kudos to us educated ND fans!

 

[NDdomer2]

NDdomer, I don't think there is anybody here that doesn't understand the point you're trying to make by posting those graphs. I just think that the services miss enough guys that I don't really value their ratings for any individual recruit. I may place more value on how they rank entire classes because, as the data you posted shows, in the aggregate they will be right more than they're wrong.

As far as watching film and critiquing it, people do seem to like doing that and more power to them. There is a bit of a difference between watching film and then making a specific observation and supporting it with specific things from the film (i.e., "he did [X] on the play at 2:30 in this video, and that makes me wonder about his ability to do [Y]") and expressing disappointment that a kid committed to your team. Even if you think you're a film-studying genius, you don't know enough to warrant that reaction. First of all, even if you're right in your evaluation of a kid, once he is committed to your team he should be afforded some amount of respect. But more importantly, you don't really know what an offer was based on. Maybe the film you saw wasn't a good representation of his game, or maybe he was recruited for a specific skill the coaches are looking for and the shortcomings in his tape don't really matter to the coaches. Whatever the case may be, I find it difficult to believe that anybody on this board will notice something about a kid in 5 minutes of tape that the coaches wouldn't notice in all of their diligence leading up to making an offer. Obviously not every kid that comes to ND is going to be a star, so if that is your criteria then yes - sometimes coaches will be "wrong." And obviously not every 3 kid is going to turn into a first round pick, but that isn't a good enough reason to act disappointed when one commits to your team.

I wasn't exactly trying to prove a point, if anything it shows why you should take some 3 kids but why you should target those big fish as well. I just wanted to provide some statistical data for everyone to see how it pans out into the nfl from high school.

On a disclaimer: when looking at those charts everyone should take in to account that how they may have been drafted high or as projected that doesn't mean they had a successful nfl career either. This solely looks at star rankings from high school to first round draft picks.

 

[Grahambo]

Charlie Weis is an offensive coordinator and nothing more. Yeah, we bought into the Super Bowl rings and the attitude but he never ran a program before and its why ND should not be a place for 1st time head coaches.

BK was a head coach and ran several different programs for 20 years and over those 20 years he was able to develop and evolve as a coach and somebody that could not only coach but teach as well.

 

[aubeirish]

You guys are putting way too much stock into stars. These guys are 16 years of age. Development has just started. This is not the NFL draft. I personally can't think of more than maybe 2-3 guys that I did not like the film and the potential during the Kelly era. Once a guy passes the eye test, there much more going on than just what 24/7 think of a guy and the number of stars he has. What kind of a kid is he? How does he handle himself? Is he a winner that strives for perfection or is he just sitting on his talent. Does he compete every down? Is he coachable?
You can really see a pattern in the type of kids Kelly and company are attracting. To me, this staff has earned my trust(whatever that is worth) on every decisions they make. Are they going to make mistakes? Sure, but their batting average is pretty damn good if you ask me. We are getting serious looks from kids that we wouldn't have dreamed of 3 years from now.

Anyways, work hard Jonathan and prove the naysayers wrong.

 

[irishff1014]

Tyrann Mathieu had worse offers than Bonner: LSU, FIU, Miami of Ohio, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, and ULM.

Sure, question the staff all you guys want about taking 3 star kids. Charlie Weis had a bunch of 2 and 3 star guys because he put ALL of his time into the big fish and he got burned. So if you're gonna go and question this coaching staff about taking 3 star guys, go ahead and question Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Mark Richt, and every other DI football coach out there.

I went back and did a little research on how many 3 star recruits get playing time at Notre Dame- Farley, Springmann, Jackson, Nick Martin, Spond, Rees, Smith, McDaniel, Okwara, Barrati, and Hendrix.

That's 11 three star guys that will all see the field this year

I question the offers not the stars. Like many on here you can tell most of the time by the offers what kinda player that can be.

And about the players you listed other then Bennett none of them are above average.

 

[notredomer23]

I question the offers not the stars. Like many on here you can tell most of the time by the offers what kinda player that can be.

And about the players you listed other then Bennett none of them are above average.

Spond, Farley, and Nick Martin are definitely above average too. A few of those like Okwara are still definitely to be determined.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And about the players you listed other then Bennett none of them are above average.

Farley and Spond started on the defense that carried us to the NCG last season. They're well above average.

Let's take a look at the 3 players Kelly has signed since 2011 (his first full recruiting class). I'll be excluding specialists and Badger (due to his special circumstances).

2011-- McDaniel, N. Martin, Hanratty, Hounshell, Springmann, Brown, J. Atkinson, Farley-- 3 of these guys are projected starters next season, another 2-3 are providing quality depth in the two-deep, and another would be if not for the injury bug. Very solid hit rate from this group.

2012-- Prosise, Brown, Harrell, Okwara, Turner, Baratti-- 4/6 will be on the two-deep against Temple.

2013-- Deeb, Matuska, Robinson, Kinlaw-- Robinson is already turning heads in practice, and Deeb has the early makings of a locker room leader. But we won't be able to judge this group for a couple years yet.

Point being, Kelly's 3 recruits have been very productive for us. He's given us no cause to doubt his chops as a talent evaluator.

And more importantly, as Lax frequently points out, every program needs "glue" guys-- totally committed, hard-working players who love ND. They help build and maintain the program's culture. Without 3 glue guys like Deeb, Robinson, Farley, McDaniel, etc., we'd start looking like USC-- lots of stars, but too many egos for the program to succeed.

 

[koonja]

It's kind of funny how sensitive a lot of people get when a 3-star commits to ND. I imagine if we ever got a 2-star, this site would go bananas, lol.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Tyrann Mathieu had worse offers than Bonner: LSU, FIU, Miami of Ohio, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, and ULM.

Sure, question the staff all you guys want about taking 3 star kids. Charlie Weis had a bunch of 2 and 3 star guys because he put ALL of his time into the big fish and he got burned. So if you're gonna go and question this coaching staff about taking 3 star guys, go ahead and question Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Mark Richt, and every other DI football coach out there.

I went back and did a little research on how many 3 star recruits get playing time at Notre Dame- Farley, Springmann, Jackson, Nick Martin, Spond, Rees, Smith, McDaniel, Okwara, Barrati, and Hendrix.

That's 11 three star guys that will all see the field this year

I just want it be known that almost everyone here to a man likes the offer and are very happy with his commitment. What the majority of us are saying in the little exchange is that we appreciate the right to see a recruit for ourselves and respectfully give our opinions on them without everyone jumping down out throats (and fwiw, like I said, I know next to nothing compared to the coaches so I just defer to them almost 100% of the time. But I like to hear others' honest opinions on them).

Don't mistake people saying they like to evaluate players on their own as saying they don't like the Bonner commitment. That's far from what is going on here.

 

[koonja]

I just want it be known that almost everyone here to a man likes the offer and are very happy with his commitment. What the majority of us are saying in the little exchange is that we appreciate the right to see a recruit for ourselves and respectfully give our opinions on them without everyone jumping down out throats (and fwiw, like I said, I know next to nothing compared to the coaches so I just defer to them almost 100% of the time. But I like to hear others' honest opinions on them).

Don't mistake people saying they like to evaluate players on their own as saying they don't like the Bonner commitment. That's far from what is going on here.

Reputation points.

 

[NDWorld247]

It's kind of funny how sensitive a lot of people get when a 3-star commits to ND. I imagine if we ever got a 2-star, this site would go bananas, lol.

I think it's kind of funny how a lot of people start bashing people that care about star ratings or start defending the commitment and saying they don't care about star ratings when, in fact, no one said they were disappointed a player was a 3-star.

People are like, "shame on all of you that care about star ratings", yet, no one said they cared about star ratings, at least not that I've seen on this board. It seems this happens every time a 3-star commits.

Point being, Kelly's 3 recruits have been very productive for us. He's given us no cause to doubt his chops as a talent evaluator.

Agree 100%. Kelly and staff have proven their talent evaluation skills are second to none in college football.


Re: Bonner, he's the best SDE in a state that has 23,000+ kids playing HS football. The kid can play.