Did they say why they've changed their tone? Or just to put different up for people to read?
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Rivals thinks Stokes will go to Tennessee
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 PM
#302
Did they say why they've
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 PM
#303
They gave no rationale.
They gave no rationale.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 PM
#304
they should have an explanation
in the ITF: Signing Day Preview thats supposed to get posted today. thats they impression I got anyways.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 PM
#305
Aww...
hell.
This will be an interesting signing day. Are we going to make it to 25 even?
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 PM
#306
TheWolverine
It's TheWolverine staff that has changed their outlook on Stokes; not national Rivals guys.
Doesn't seem promising now.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 PM
#307
Fuck!
This class will close pretty damn weak. Quite possibly lose DQJ and Pearlie, then lucky to pick up Denard and Witty. And then....nothing.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 PM
#308
It ain't over 'til the fat
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 PM
#309
I'm happy with a lot
of the people we got - don't get me wrong. Just seems like everything has fallen apart in the last week here - we are losing every recruiting battle so far aside from Denard (admittedly, a HUGE one).
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 PM
#310
I'm not counting on Denard,
I'm not counting on Denard, either. I'm fully prepared for Michigan's class to end up exactly where it is at this moment.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 PM
#311
That would be a bit of a problem
And I hope 2010 is as big as everyone thinks it will be. A class with 19 or 20 in it this year will leave some holes down the road.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 PM
#312
I don't think a class of 20
I don't think a class of 20 leaves us with too many holes. Even if we signed all the remaining guys on the short list (Robinson, Witty, Washington, Montgomery, Stokes), we'd still have deficits at LB and QB and/or CB. But most teams have a shortage at one position or another. It's hard to stay stacked at every single position.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 PM
#313
Robinson/Witty alleviates
holes at QB and CB...2 of the 3. Of course, there is the risk that some do not pan out, but the same could be said of every recruit, even Turner. So, if no one else signs on that means we don't have a CHANCE of filling our current holes (that's what she said).
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 PM
#314
Actually Rivals feels better
Actually Rivals feels better today then every on Dequinta and Pearlie.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 PM
#315
Thanks
Good to know. I hope they stick it out.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 PM
#316
Tooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!
Tooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!
Where you at? You know better than anyone - are these guys full of shit or on to something?
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 PM
#317
The last remaining targets..
that were deemed probably, may only be possible at this point, and maybe doubtful in terms of Stokes. Quinton Wash is SC from what everyone is saying, Montgomery would be the surprise of all, and Witty and D-Rob are definitely not "most likelys". Or...maybe this news is making me far too pessimistic. If we do not get one more commitment from this point on, is everyone still satisfied with this class?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 PM
#318
Satisfied? No. The failure
Satisfied? No. The failure to bring in two quarterbacks is a large one, even if it's a lower-rated guy like Dantin (who was not offered and thus committed to Toledo). Linebacker and corner are still big needs as well. The uncommitted guys we're talking about most - Washington, Stokes, Montgomery - are all players who would be nice to get, but aren't at positions of dire need (Montgomery plays a position of need, but we already have two commits at DE without him), with the exception of Robinson.
I think how we as Michigan fans will view this class will depend largely on whether Robinson commits or not. If we get zero commits here at the end, I think you have to wonder about Rodriguez's decision to go so long without naming a defensive coordinator. But we'll see. I'm not going to make any judgments until NSD, because too much stuff could happen.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 PM
#319
Speak for yourself..
I for one will not view the success of this class based on whether or not we get a kid who will be at best our third string QB next year and probably be switched to defense in 2010 when we land another QB.
I think we had a few other more important spots to fill, 1st string QB, safety, CB, DT, DE, LB, OL and I'm pretty happy with who filled those spots.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 PM
#320
In the sense that Rodriguez
In the sense that Rodriguez pulled off a hell of a finish to the 2008 recruiting class, I think a lot of fans will be disappointed if nobody else commits. If I'm not mistaken, that would mean our last commit would have come from William Campbell on January 4. Combine that with all the decommits, and I think a lot of people will be disappointed.
I'm not EXPECTING that our class is done, but I wouldn't be surprised, either.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 PM
#321
No, disagree totally.
Magnus was mainly IMO directing the comment at the issue of whether we should be satisfied if no one commits other than our current list of verbals. QB is huge, and anyone who thinks that they know what a prospective QB recruits role will be in future before they sign on has too much hubris for me. Because this is such an inexact science, depth in recruiting at positions is critical, simply because there is no way of knowing how well any 4 star will play once in school, as other past 4 star recruits that have bombed at QB and other positions have proved. In that context it would definitely be disappointing to not land a second QB, especially one of Robinson's perceived caliber--and he has even higher than normal value to due to his ability to play other positions. Your welcome to the opinion of course, but with all due respect you're overlooking a lot.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 PM
#322
So..
Who was the second QB recruit in Henson's class, who was it in Henne's class and who was it in Mallett's class.
If this is a true judge of a good class, I need to know this so I can evaluate whether those were good classes.
Seriously though, you can't judge a class on the second QB recruit. It is hard to get two great ones in one year. It would be great to get another but it isn't fair to demand two good ones because you can't sell the playing time. If you don't beat the other kid in your class, you may not see the field. Look at OSU they couldn't even get a top recruit the year after Pryor because kids know they won't see the field for a while.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 PM
#323
dude, way off base
we didn't NEED a 2nd QB in some of those classes because they already had a depth chart.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 AM
#324
Point is...
it's hard to land two in the same class due to playing time. If you take kids one year apart, they may get two years as a starter if they redshirt. Take two in the same class and one might be a sideline signal caller for four years. Most kids don't want to take that chance (See Beaver/Newsome). No one wanted to come here the same year with Henne or Mallett because they were likely never to see the field much. I agree that we need more QBs for depth but you can't judge this class on whether we land a good second one. I'm happy with Tate and hope we get one of the dual threat kids out of Michigan next year to start adding some depth.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 PM
#325
When we recruited Henne, we
When we recruited Henne, we had Guttierez all ready to take over the starting duties. When we recruited Mallet, we had Henne already at the helm. At the same time, we had depth with qbs that fit the system. We neither have quality qb depth, nor do we have guys who fit well into the system. Two dual threat qbs are needed in this class. I do agree with you though that we cannot judge the entire class based off of a second qb, but should we not get a second qb I feel that it does leave somewhat of a dent (maybe not a huge one) in our class.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 PM
#326
Lol..
At the TTOOOOMMMM cry for help...
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 PM
#327
I thought he was telling
I thought he was telling recruits to go to UM? Bill Kuric(sp) on his blog on ESPN said Stokes is going to UM.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 PM
#328
Both Rivals and Scout say
Both Rivals and Scout say that's a lie, though Scout seems to still think Stokes will go Blue.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 PM
#329
That's a death knell right
That's a death knell right there. ESPN is wrong about EVERYTHING.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 PM
#330
I heard that too..
..but that's how this stuff goes. Everything is just fodder to discuss before signing day. From Big Will to Marcus Hall, Dequinta, and so on...it's getting crazy. Yet I still follow it all day long. Damn.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 PM
#331
Unfortunately......
Unfortunately a lot of these kids aren't going to share too much at this point. I'm working on a few things, but nothing yet.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 PM
#332
FWIW....
FWIW, I'm still hearing he's most likely blue.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 PM
#333
just remember
UM picked up Odoms, our most productive freshman, the day after signing day last year. Rod will be using that snake oil to get what he needs.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 PM
#334
Balls
Just plain Balls
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 PM
#335
for those worrying -
stay away from the computer until Wed afternoon and let the cards fall where they may.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 PM
#336
A memo to Je'Ron Stokes
Dude... you're seriously gonna wear ORANGE for the next four years of your life????
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 PM
#337
Four Years???
I think half my closet is maize and blue. This is a lifelong decision.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 PM
#338
Only 50%?
5th year senior here, I could wear a different Michigan-related shirt for probably three weeks straight without doing laundry.
Relatives don't know what else to get me for xmas (I tell them money, but they don't listen).
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 PM
#339
Yea....
Yea but you probably only do laundry 4 times a year anyway.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 PM
#340
zing!
Well-played, sir.
But even you should know I'm up to five now. The number of times students do laundry per year is directly correlated to how long they've been at school!
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:53 PM
#341
I just talked to.....
I just talked to Je'Ron, and he's pretty hush hush. He didn't really have anything substantial to say. I tried to get something out of him, and all he would say is we're in the top for. If anything he was joking and seemed like the way he said things was a good sign. (I know that sounds weird, but I look a lot into that)
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 PM
#342
I'll take it on faith
that things aren't hopeless with Stokes. Thanks for the update.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 PM
#343
I would think that if he was being evasive...
to you, that it doesn't look good for us then. He knows which team you cover.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 PM
#344
Sounds more like he was being
"coy." Sorry, can't think of a better word. If he sounded stiff and uncomfortable when talking to Tom, then yeah, bad news. I don't blame him for not spilling the beans - might as well wait till signing day now.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 PM
#345
Not necessarily. He doesn't
Not necessarily. He doesn't want his thunder stolen. It could be good for us, or it could be bad, but him being hush-hush isn't surprising with signing day all of 2 days away.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 PM
#346
I think he probably wants his
I think he probably wants his announcement to be an actual announcement. I'm sure he knows if he tells Tom "you have nothing to worry about" or anything like that, then it goes on this board and from there it gets out everywhere.
Maybe he's coming to Michigan, maybe not, but I wouldn't read a lot into him not wanting to give a clear indication to Tom.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 PM
#347
We'll see.
We'll see. With all thats happened with recruits and recruiting this year, I would not be surprised by anything. Thats just me.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 PM
#348
...*sigh*
...*sigh*
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 PM
#349
Do you have any other info on this?
What do our chances look like?
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 PM
#350
Sounds like Ron Zook, whose
Sounds like Ron Zook, whose QB throws to nobody besides Arrelious Benn, and Lane Kiffin, whose QB sucks and has NOBODY to throw to, have successfully accomplished a negative recruiting coup against Michigan.
If Tom says he's optimistic, I suppose hope shouldn't be lost...but it seems like both of the recruiting sides have changed their tune.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 PM
#351
What type of contact (if any)
What type of contact (if any) are the coaches allowed to have at this point. Can Rod shoot Stokes a phone call to counter some of this?
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 PM
#352
Phone calls are allowed (one
Phone calls are allowed (one per week, I think), but honestly, if things are going sour after all the face to face stuff, I don't think a phone call is going to fix things.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 AM
#353
That's probably true. But
That's probably true. But I'd imagine around signing day that these kids have a LOT going through their minds. I know when I got down to those last few days before having to pick a college, I was switching back and forth every second. I'm hopeful, but if things don't work out I understand. His choice, it is what it is.
Still, I can't see how someone would want to play for Zook. A nice guy I'm sure, but what consistent success has he ever had? And Kiffin isn't even proven and could shit the bed this season at Tennessee. While Rod had a bad year, he has CONSISTENTLY shown he can win. That's my rational outside slightly biased opinion, but oh well.
I'm hoping Tennessee though over Illinois. Better to keep solid receivers like him out of the Big Ten, especially with our backfield.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 PM
#354
Per Rivals ITF Extra
We are now in a dead period until Signing Day.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 PM
#355
The dead period prohibits
The dead period prohibits face-to-face contact, not phone calls.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 PM
#356
I'm sure other schools get
I'm sure other schools get negatively recruited as much as Michigan does, right? Also, we're doing it too right?
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 PM
#357
FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
Got ya. Hence your pessimism at defunking all the negative bullshit put out there by douchebags like Zook (seriously, this good-for-nothing piece of shit voted for UF instead of M in '06/'07...maybe someone should remind him how unceremoniously he was told to GTFO of Florida) and Kiffin (a guy who many people are now saying Al Davis was CORRECT to fire and is the CRAZY one between he and Raiders owner).
FUCK ILLINOIS AND FUCK TENNESSEE. I'd tell Fat Fuck Phil Fulmer to fuck off, too, but his shitcanning is whole reason we got into recruiting Je'Ron.
Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to Other Brian's post. OMGWTFANGER got the best of me.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 PM
#358
Really?
I didn't get that feeling from your post at all.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 AM
#359
I'm hearing from.....
I'm hearing from both sides now. There's one side that is still optimistic, and the other has said the negative recruiting with Je'Ron got to him.
Obviously there's going to be rumors going around about all the last recruits. At this point it's hard to get anything out of them, so we'll all just kind of have to sit back and wait.
FTR, I'm hearing bad things about Je'Ron and Denard Robinson right now.
Is it January 2010 yet?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 AM
#360
See above rant.
Insert
See above rant.
Insert negatively-connotated statement about Urban Meyer where you please.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 AM
#361
Stokes
Washington
Robinson
Mo
Stokes
Washington
Robinson
Montgomery
At this point, just snagging one of those 4 seems like a mini-miracle. That, and keeping one of the two DTs.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 AM
#362
Calm under fire
I am not looking forward to January 2010. I'm looking forward to the practices, the spring game, and each game of the 2009 season.
C'mon, Tom. I know you are living and breathing this, but step back. We have a very solid recruiting class, particularly given the abysmal season. You do a great job. Keep your chin up and keep on swinging.
In the words of Sir Winston, "We will fight on the beaches. We will never surrender."
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 AM
#363
Fucking goddammit
Even I can't put a positive spin on this one.
Does anyone have reliable information or a link of some sort to discuss what is actually being said re: negative recruiting? I heard the one bit about Pearlie (omg RR will be fired!), but is there anything else?
Thanks guys.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 AM
#364
The negative recruiting re:
The negative recruiting re: Stokes is that Michigan uses their outside receivers as blockers only and they never throw the ball, etc.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 AM
#365
Two words for Je'Ron Stokes:
Two words for Je'Ron Stokes: Isaiah Williams
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 AM
#366
You would think that
Michigan signing on 2 top WR in the 2010 class ALREADY would alleviate fears of that nature. Of course these committments could have other bad impacts like scaring off 2009 talent, but it seems like most kids with talent aren't too worried about being buried on any depth chart.
Dammit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 AM
#367
Ahem...Chris Henry? (minus
Ahem...Chris Henry? (minus his personal life)
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 AM
#368
Unfortunately it's all about
Unfortunately it's all about the here and now. Recruits don't listen when somebody tells them that Shaun King set the NCAA record for passing efficiency under RR or that an RR QB became the first 3000/1000 yard guy in NCAA history.
To dispel these myths and lies, the only thing that matters is on the field results.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 AM
#369
Are there any rumors about any
of our "solid" commits being snake-oiled away?
I've already been trying (with little success) to lower my expectations for SD, but I don't want any more nasty surprises.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 AM
#370
Ron Zook and The Wet Paper Bag
My question to someone like Je'Ron would be WHY would you want to go to a school like Illinois with Zooker as your coach?? The man has a PROVEN track record of being a SUBPAR coach with GREAT talent. One of the crappier coaches in recent history in terms of getting results on the field with incredibly talented players.
Flat out, Ron Zook is a bad coach. Great, if not incredible recruiter. Lousy coach. Wet paper bag, etc.
There goes my OMGWTFANGER again.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 PM
#371
I find myself slightly
I find myself slightly saddened that a coach has to bash another school in order to grab another player. I have no problem with coaches being overly-confident in their schools and program, but that's not something I'd like.
When I was getting recruited my junior/senior year (albeit it was for divison II lacrosse, but the process is similar), coaches weren't bashing others, even when two rivals both recruited me. That's pretty classless. Then again, a lot of coaches aren't about class, it's about the W's for the contract extension.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 PM
#372
Bashing?
Saying MICH won't throw enough to outside WRs isn't bashing. It's persuading. Relax, everyone. Zooker might be bashing behind the scenes, but this sure isn't it.
