Rivals updated their prediction today. They have been predicting that Michigan would be the choice, but today they're saying with "medium" certainty that Stokes will choose Tennessee.
at least it's not just us?
Did they say why they've changed their tone? Or just to put different up for people to read?
They gave no rationale.
in the ITF: Signing Day Preview thats supposed to get posted today. thats they impression I got anyways.
This will be an interesting signing day. Are we going to make it to 25 even?
It's TheWolverine staff that has changed their outlook on Stokes; not national Rivals guys.
Doesn't seem promising now.
This class will close pretty damn weak. Quite possibly lose DQJ and Pearlie, then lucky to pick up Denard and Witty. And then....nothing.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Actually Rivals feels better today then every on Dequinta and Pearlie.
Good to know. I hope they stick it out.
Where you at? You know better than anyone - are these guys full of shit or on to something?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
we didn't NEED a 2nd QB in some of those classes because they already had a depth chart.
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.
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.
At the TTOOOOMMMM cry for help...
I thought he was telling recruits to go to UM? Bill Kuric(sp) on his blog on ESPN said Stokes is going to UM.
Both Rivals and Scout say that's a lie, though Scout seems to still think Stokes will go Blue.
That's a death knell right there. ESPN is wrong about EVERYTHING.
..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.
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.
FWIW, I'm still hearing he's most likely blue.
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.
Just plain Balls
stay away from the computer until Wed afternoon and let the cards fall where they may.
Dude... you're seriously gonna wear ORANGE for the next four years of your life????
I think half my closet is maize and blue. This is a lifelong decision.
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).
Yea but you probably only do laundry 4 times a year anyway.
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!
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)
that things aren't hopeless with Stokes. Thanks for the update.
to you, that it doesn't look good for us then. He knows which team you cover.
"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.
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.
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.
We'll see. With all thats happened with recruits and recruiting this year, I would not be surprised by anything. Thats just me.
What do our chances look like?
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.
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?