Michigan's Depth By Class, 2011

I'd like to see Carvin Johnson starting at safety personally. I really liked the way that kid put some hits on people when he got a chance late in the season.

I will be shocked, nay, horrified if Ray "Stumpy" Vinopal is the starting FS in 2011. I expect to see Woolfolk at FS, personally.

A few other areas I feel differently than Brian:

I doubt VanBergen will slide inside to play DT. I think Campbell or Washington plays DT. VB stays outside at SDE.

I think J.B. Fitzgerald will be the starting SAM.

I think Marvin Robinson will be a starter at some position (SS or WLB) in 2011.

I don't anticipate Vincent Smith will be even in the 2 deep at RB under Hoke. Smith is a very good candidate for a transfer IMO.

this is a joke, right?  the talbotts are brothers.

Please be kidding.

Noticed that too.  Depth at OG and OT (especially) are super thin, especially after this season.  Youch!

They are. Seniors would play football in fall 2011 and then traditionally graduate after the winter 2012 term.

Brian must have been thinking of just the playing year and not the receive the diploma year

There has to be a reason why the staff wanted him for defense only.  I agree w/ other posters that there are other more-pressing spots than the WR.  It'd be nice, but let's just see what happens.

We have more pressing needs than WR, plus that is a position where a true freshman can make an impact.

the walkon hash, obvs.

Because he's considered a scholarship player. See the allotment.

How many o-linemen get out there on kickoff or punt teams? Need to have depth at LB and DB for that.

Isn't it obvious that when Hoke and his coordinators reviewed the film from every Michigan game last year, they came to the conclusion that the immediate need for this team (based on current and future personnel) was defense ?  They recruited for the immediate need.  Did they get everyone they wanted ... nope, but in a very short time they evaluated and recruited as best they could ... and better than most everyone thought.

Go Blue !

Actually, we're fine at C and OT.  It's OG where we're thin.  We really could have used Fisher, and I hope there's still some OG out there on the staff's charts that we don't know about.  Otherwise we're starting a true freshman in 2013, with freshman backups.    

I think they gambled on Fisher and Nowicki and lost. It would have been nice to have seen a stronger run at Flavin, but given the state of the defense and special teams it's likely DB and LB got prioritized for bodies.

Floyd was the worst tackler on the team, which is saying something.

I don't think so. Avery was starting to become a decent coverage guy at the end of the season and Vinopal will arguably be a better tackler and has more FS experience.

According to Hoke we wont know until much later in the process.  IIRC he said something like towards the end of his eligibility; I'm not sure what he meant by that.  

I wouldn't say that's an exhaustive list of our needs. I'd throw in a WR,TE,2nd DT and either switch the FB to a RB or add a RB.

The large class in 2010 and the focus on DB and LB in this class set up the future classes fairly well.  The issue is that where there are deficiencies (DT, OL, TE) they are severe:

DT (2):  With both starters gone after 2011 there isn't any (yet) proven talent to come in in 2012.  One DT recruit certainly won't be enough unless Campbell/Washington/Ash emerge as viable starters.

OL (5):  It may be premature to access positions but 6 players over 3 classes (2009-11) is devastatingly thin.  Lewan/Schofield should be starters through 2013, but there is desperate need for depth behind them at OT.  The OG situation is also very open with Bryant (and Posada?) being the only options after the three senior OGs graduate in 2012.  I agree the target should be 5, at a minum.  Several will have to play as redshirt freshman.

TE (2):  Three TE on a roster is pretty thin for a pro-style offense.  You want to have 4 or even 5.  With Koger graduating you'll need 2 TE recruits just to get to 4.

Those 3 position groups could make up nearly half a recruiting class by themselves - so it's a good thing the other positions are (generally) well-stocked.  It'll be a challenge for Michigan to identify how it will allocate it's other scholarships, especially when some higher profile players considering UofM (who Michigan won't want to turn down) don't necessarily fit positions of need.

It probably won't matter because we'll see attrition, position changes, etc. that'll make this depth chart look very different come December.

A 2nd DT, RB, pro-style WR, and TE.  Also, you have to look at the talent available close by next year.  The DE from Toledo has a HIGH interest in Michigan and is one of the very best defensive players in OH.  I say he gets an offer.  And there are two very good LB's in the state next year.  My point is if there is (are) some really good athlete(s) with an interest in Michigan at some position, that has to be taken into consideration too. 

Or Christian, or whoever else proves themselves at that spot. MRob was back there for the last several games, but I'd also like to see him at SS

However it turns out, will not resemble the doomsday-enhanced scenario above. We're not going forward with 9 CB's, 6/7 SS's, and just 2 FS's (one of those being a true freshman).

Wilkins did not play against Purdue:

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111310aaa.html

Purdue's box score has him listed as making a tackle actually made by Obi Ezeh, on a 3rd and 12 play in the last minute of the game.  Purdue's box score is wrong, if you check the game broadcast.

http://record-eagle.com/prepsports/x1613222979/Recruits-get-their-wish