Brandon Smith Likely To Transfer
This has been the hot rumor the past couple days and TomVH has confirmed that redshirt freshman safety/LB Brandon Smith has received transfer papers and is looking to move on. Hurray.
Smith was a top-100 "athlete" in the hybrid Rodriguez/Carr class who technically committed after the transition had been announced but, like JT Floyd, was a Carr recruit all the way who was just stringing out his commitment for reasons unknown. So this could be a "Carr guy" moving on to a place he'd rather be. In any case it's the departure of one of the most highly rated players in a class entering its third year at a position, be it linebacker or safety, of desperate need.
Smith didn't seem to be working out, as he was too big and slow for safety and spent his game as a quasi—linebacker starter on skates, but there's zero upside here. He could have put on 20-30 pounds easily—his "frame" was a reason he was rated so highly—and eventually turned into a contributor at linebacker. At the very least he would have been a relatively veteran body on a defense that needs every last potential contributor. BONUS: Michigan can't even add anyone to replace him because of a mysterious but apparently real oversigning change that prevents Big Ten teams from backdating players who enroll early*. DOUBLE BONUS: Before the season I took a look at Michigan's APR and concluded that sanctions resulting from transfers were unlikely, but the attrition has continued at a pace that makes me nervous.
*(Which will definitely help the struggling conference compete nationally.)
December 7th, 2009 at 7:24 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 8:29 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 4:48 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 8:12 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:26 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 7:50 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 9:28 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^
Additionally, see Misopogon's investigations of the recruiting and retention shortcomings that traced Carr's clear responsibility.That's not what the Decimated Defense Series said. The lack of linebacker and defensive back recruits was his (and his staff's) fault, but it was only that in addition to RR's retention problems which destroyed us. In essence, we had Penn State-like recruiting, and Alabama-like attrition. PSU-like recruiting you can get away with if you have high retention rates. Alabama-like attrition you can get away with if you have huge classes the size of Alabama's (and if you, like Saban, can make sure it's the old 3-stars who are doing the exiting). Both and you end up with nobody around. Specifically, with the 2008 class, RR stuck with Carr's recruits (two linebackers didn't even make it to campus) and focused his efforts on getting a few ninjas for his offense, striking out with the top ninja he targeted. RR knew he was changing Michigan's culture, and that we would lose some guys to such culture shock was foreseeable. I don't know how much more defensive recruiting he could have done, given the time and scouting restraints, but I'm sure there were people around who knew which guys we were in on who might be re-interested, or scouting reports on guys who maybe wanted a more RR-like program. One more 4-star defensive back recruit in that class could have made a huge difference. STW P. Brabbs worries about RR being kept at arm's length from fulfilling his potential are well-founded at this point. No matter what truly belongs at RR's feet, we have a perception problem. We were 3-9 and 5-7 in the first two years of Rodriguez's tenure. That means any conversation with any recruit has to begin with explaining why that won't be the norm. If we went 5-7 in 2008 and 7-5 this season, I wouldn't be worried. But now we've come two games under moderate expectations both years. We now have a perception problem in a sport where perception problems hurt long-term success. We now have a dearth of players in a conference that doesn't let teams quickly replace players. We are trying to work our way back up to the upper echelons in a sport designed to protect the teams in the upper echelons. I'm starting to worry.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 5:01 PM ^
The lack of linebacker and defensive back recruits was his (and his staff's) fault, but it was only that in addition to RR's retention problems which destroyed us.That fits with what I outlined. The point was to demonstrate Carr's culpability, not lay everything at his feet. It was an attempt to summarize this:
Linebacker is a clear-cut case of decimation due to attrition. Defensive back is a clear-cut case of decimation due to under-recruiting. Both of these factors have ravaged each class from 2005 to 2008. Along the way, there were some serviceable players picked up, but we are still generally two serviceable players short of the Michigan norm at several linebacker positions and all four defensive backfield positions, i.e. we are at least 12 good, useful, on-the-roster players away from a normal Michigan defense.As you said, 2008 was a microcosm of what had been happening at Michigan for the past few seasons:
The 2008 linebacker and DB hauls are a perfect microcosm of Michigan's bigger problems. Linebacker: At a position that had zero depth left over from previous classes, we brought in four 4-star players: Marcus Witherspoon, Taylor Hill, J.B. Fitzgerald, and Kenny Demens. Of those, two (Witherspoon and Hill) were lost immediately to attrition. One (Fitzgerald) is on track to be a long-term contributor. One (Demens) seems to be a bust. In this case, Michigan fulfilled its recruitment needs, but was hit by double the expected attrition. Result: one serviceable player when we needed at least two. Defensive back: At a position that had zero depth left over from previous classes, we brought in two 4-stars (Brandon Smith and Boubacar Cissoko) and one flier (J.T. Floyd). As with Mouton, Smith was immediately deemed a linebacker, and this was a known likelihood during the recruitment period, so really we brought in just a 4-star and a flier. The 4-star looked to be a bit behind track for his rating, until he got himself kicked off the team. The flier, as was the expected result, was not useful. Result: zero serviceable players when we needed at least two or three.Where do you lay the blame for Witherspoon and Hill? What about under-recruiting safety and corner? What about Booboo? Why not go over individually each player that Rich has lost? The suggestion hasn't been until possibly now that it's worth leaving as a result of the direction of the program. Like I said, Smith's departure is only an indictment if it turns out he's talented and useful for the team. Given that Leach and Kovacs have been in the program as long as he has, I'm guessing that's not the case.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:52 PM ^
Like I said, Smith's departure is only an indictment if it turns out he's talented and useful for the team.We don't get to make decisions in hindsight. Foresight counts. Otherwise, you have to go with expected contribution. You don't know what he'll become. You know he was a 4-star, which gives like a 60-percent chance of becoming a solid starter. If we have Brandon Smith and Isaiah Bell and Mike Jones for that position, and one is a 4-star and two are 3-stars, then losing the 4-star much reduces the chances of getting one productive starter out of that bundle. Further evidence that this is a loss is that he played on the 1st team this year against Wisconsin ahead of Michael Williams. Granted, it was to give us a more anti-run look, and he didn't perform well. But lots of guys step on the field their first time and look like lost puppies: J.B. Fitzgerald is one. Others: Chris Graham, LaMarr Woodley, Willis Barringer. Guy could be anything. The fact that he earned PT could be a sign that he was showing something in practice. It also could be a sign that of our two starting safeties, one was a freshman walk-on, and the other was the weaker of the pair.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:06 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 4:28 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 10:14 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 8:38 AM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
December 7th, 2009 at 7:29 AM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 8:02 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^
December 6th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
Comments