Time To Update "Never Forget" Again
Fantastically bizarre and apropos Google image search for "Cullen Christian."
So… yeah. I learned my lesson from the Great McGuffie Saga and won't say this is 100% happening because people change their minds, but a couple solid sources indicate Cullen Christian is asking for his release today and plans to transfer.
That would obviously be bad. We've got massive collages that no longer have room for all the guys Michigan has lost prematurely in the secondary over the last few years that are already out of date since Ray Vinopal decided to peace out earlier in spring. Christian, a consensus top 100 guy, was the highest-rated corner on the roster after Justin Turner's departure*. Despite that he struggled immensely when forced onto the field last year, was obviously behind both of his classmates, and was supposedly running third team in spring despite the absences of Troy Woolfolk and JT Floyd. So the impact on this year's team wouldn't be great.
However, even if he seemed well on his way to Bolivian he could have moved to safety or something. At this point walk-ons leaving the secondary make me cringe—losing the sole touted corner on the team is not so good.
Again, disclaimers about people changing their minds or whatnot but this is so totally happening (probably). Ten million dollars the eventual destination is Pitt, right?
DEFINITELY NOT BONUS: I don't have a second source on this one so file this under strong rumor, but DJ Williamson is also supposed to be on the way out. Williamson was a track star who also played football and I'm not sure anyone had super-high hopes for him (he was a two star on one site) but there was always the off chance he'd be Mario Manningham or something. His departure would highlight how weird dumping Devin Lucien was.
*[Boy, does our imaginary secondary kick ass!]
UPDATE: Christian's transfer is official($).
April 21st, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
We can take TWolf and Floyd off of the collage to make room for Mr Cullen and Mr Vinopal, right?
April 21st, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
RR's house has still not sold so I moved the collage.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
You can also take Warren off since he would have graduated by now.
The wolverine needs more tears...
I like how Vinopal's hovering above the word "Forget", about to tumble off the edge of the flag.
I think they only come off the collage when they actually return to full practice AND have not lost a step
April 21st, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
I expected some attrition to happen. DJ Williamson leaving is no real surprise, but I am always surprised when a member of our secondary leaves. With the depth we have, or lack thereof, everyone is one play away from playing. It just doesnt make sense to me for anyone to leave the secondary.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
A third stringer behind a walk-on is more than a play away from playing.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
Not so fast my friend. Say Floyd makes a tackle on the Michigan sideline and hits the walkon tearing his ACL, while simultaneously spraining his ankle. Christian is in.
/defense of my argument with a horrible hypothetical
April 21st, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
as I hit entered I was thinking "ok that's not completely accurate because something beyond crazy could happen."
Seriously though, at the end of the day we don't know what Cullen is thinking here. He was clearly fighting for second string with Woolfolk and Floyd the presumed starters and Anderson and Avery behind them. How close was he to second string? Are Woolfolk and Floyd really going to b healthy come August? Only he and the coaches know that answer. But if he was struggling to beat out Anderson/Avery and essentially being on par with Talbott and there's four freshman coming in nipping at his heels, with one having a pretty decent spring showing, I could see him deciding to move on. (probably a run-on sentence there). I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I could see it.
So could he have been one play away? possibly so if he busted his ass during the summer and proved to the coaches he belonged or maybe the writing was already on the wall for him.
being behind Tony Anderson probably isn't where he saw himself after his freshman year.
for a kid to be hoping his teammates get hurt so he can get onto the field. Maybe he decided that crossing your fingers isn't as solid an option as going somewhere that needs you right now.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
$10 million wager.
I'll go with Cincy as my bet.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
I'll go with Miami (YTM)
April 21st, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
That was actually the other option I was weighing
April 21st, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
Help me, please. I know (at least I think I do) that Miami (YTM) refers to the University of Miami, aka "Miami of Florida," distinguishing it from Miami of Ohio (Miami University). However, as hard as I have tried, including numerous google searches, I can't figure out what YTM refers to. (Most google searches lead to MGoBlog posts, which just use the acronym but don't explain it.)
So, please, can you let me in on the secret??
April 21st, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
YTM= Yes That Miami
As opposed to NTM= Not That Miami
April 21st, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
used less often since Miami of Ohio is more frequently mentioned. And, at least to my experience, is referred to as Miami (not that Miami)
April 21st, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Miami (YTM) means Miami (Yes That Miami) when talking about the University of Miami. Miami (NTM) is Miami (Not That Miami) when talking about the school in Ohio.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
YTM = "yes, that Miami"
April 21st, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
That's awesome. Thanks to all of you.
Can I take the bet and my choice be "not Pitt"?
But yeah it will probably be Pitt.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
April 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
I still have no idea why that happened. I'm sure there is a reason, but it still seems weird to me.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
The situation with Lucien still makes sense. At the time, we had like 6 receivers more than we needed for the new system. Even if Williamson leaves, we still have too many.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
I don't know about that. If Williamson leaves then we have just 4 underclassmen receivers, two of them of the slot ninja mold that may or may not work in a Borges system.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
I definitely think we'll be taking 2 WRs in this class, but we will still have a total of 8 WRs+2012 recruits on the roster going into next season. I doubt the coaches want to have more than 5-6 scholarship receivers on the roster at any time.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
You're probably right. We certainly don't need a dozen WRs on the roster like RR had. I'm just a little concerned with the breakdown right now. Upper class is very heavy both in numbers and IMO talent.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you in the camp of people who believe Michigan should be taking a QB every year? So, that would mean 4-5 players for one position. With that logic, Michigan should be taking a minimum of 2 WR every year, if not 3. So, that would put the number of guys on scholarship anywhere from 10-15. I realize that is the high side, but I don't know of many schools that are going to run a West Coast offense that are going to just run with 5-6 scholarship WR.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
The reason to take a QB every year isn't because they need 4 QBs on the roster at all times.......it's because QB is by far the most important position, and you cannot afford to be unprepared in any circumstance.
The new staff will also use TEs extensively in the passing game, so WRs won't be the only players catching passes anymore.
I don't recall Michigan having 4 scholarship QB's all that often. If a school gets down to their 4th QB, the difference between a freshman and 3rd or 4th year walk on isn't going to be all that much. It seems to make much more sense to use that scholarship elsewhere to provide depth at a position where the player is much more likely to leave early, get injured, or be a bust.
If a school gets down to their 4th QB, the difference between a freshman and 3rd or 4th year walk on isn't going to be all that much.
This is correct. It also misses the point.
That freshman scholarship QB may not be much of an upgrade now, but in a few years when the first and second string quarterbacks have graduated, he'll be the first or second string QB and actually have a few years experience. Also, you'll have more options if something happens to one of the QBs, unless you want to revisit the Mallett aftermath
I don't think it misses the point at all. That freshman QB isn't going to be getting into a game, so he won't have any real experience. If you space out the QBs coming in, they are more likely to come, in my opinion. It is extremely unlikely that Michigan is going to pull in a 4 or 5 star QB recruit every year. As a program, that is the caliber of QB they should be going after. If they can get one every other year they maintain depth, and can still take walkons to run the scout team and provide an emergency option without burning a redshirt.
I challenge anyone to find a school that keeps 4 QBs on scholarship that are also highly ranked recruits. It just doesn't happen, even at schools with less savory recruiting practices. There isn't enough time in practice to get them all the reps they would need. It is also nearly impossible to even get them to commit. These guys aren't like RBs who think they are going to show up on campus and oust the upperclassmen from their spots on the depth chart. Which is smart, because it rarely happens that a freshman QB comes in and does it. For the other skill positions it is a possibility. Those high school QBs know it, so they are going somewhere they have a chance to play in a year or two, and have more time as upperclassmen to establish themselves.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
There are now 13 scholarship WRs on the roster. In 2006, for example, Michigan had 8 scholarship WRs on the roster.
That's why Lucien wasn't in the 2011 class. Michigan needs more O and D linemen, and a couple more TEs, way more than it needed more WRs.
Thanks for the comparison to 2006. This makes more sense now looking back a few years.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
after listening to Borges in all the spring interviews, and watching the range of plays he has the offense practicing, I really don't understand why everyone keeps referring to what he will do as "the Borges System" as if it's a very specific strategic plan that needs a whole different set of resources than are on hand.
Is there something he prefers to run? perhaps. But should we all start believing that he's going to come up with something that best fits the talents that are around him now? yes we should.
Many posts have discussed Denard's lack of height, his need to practice his progression, and the possibility that he just will never have the touch to throw accurately in three dimensions. The best play calling to help that is the set of plays that ended up the bread and butter of the offense last year. Unfortunately they are not a complete enough set of plays to continue to surprise a defense later in the game, or teams later in the season.
What I saw in the Spring game were coaches running plays that they knew needed work, with a small sprinkling of the plays they know will always succeed.
In Borges own words he called the QB run on the first play because he knew it would work and he wanted to get Denard pumped up to start the day.
I think the worst we can expect is an offensive campaign just like last years, where the low talent teams get "surprised" by Denard's speed, and the high talent teams keep him contained.
I'm more concerned with a running back finally emerging as a threat, than I am worrying about Hemingway being the only field stretching/go up for the ball over a corner WR we have.
actually if Denard could just improve throwing to a running back, that would be a huge added element over last year. And that is something I think Vincent Smith could excel at, or at least I saw one play like that in the Spring Game.
If Denard ends up as both Running Back and QB again, then we are going to need a really strong defense in there when we meet the talented competition at the end of the season.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
between what offense Borges will run in the short term and what he will run in the long term.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
I concur with that. And the point I was more making when mentioning "system" is that I'm not so sure guys like Drew Dileo and Jeremy Gallon would be recruited by the staff going forward. Not to take anything away from them, you just can't teach height. You look at our offer list, we've offered 16 WRs, the shortest of which is 6'0". That says something.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
where we are going to play all the LBs.
In that a LB might be seen as someone who can bulk up, and be an end in the Woodley/Graham mode, or (less often) athletic enough to play Safety. And sometimes even fullback. A WR can switch to TE, or jump to the other side of the ball (which can work, but is generally hated in these parts, and numbers aren't really the problem in the secondary, this post aside...it's healthy, TALENTED bodies that are the problem). And the only successful college QB move I've seen is to TE. So there's a bit more versatility. But it's a valid point.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Eh, this isn't surprising at all. I just hope we still have the horses to compete with Alabama for that 2012 game.
By "horses" do you mean WR's?
April 21st, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^
It's to be expected though with five other freshmen coming in to the secondary and being so low already on the depth chart. Williamson probably won't be a huge loss though, and I still expect a few more. Is it wrong to hope for Gibbons? I feel bad for saying that, but at the same time, he's painful to watch.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
If he can't kick here, he can't kick anywhere else. He should stay and get a UM degree.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
This is very true, I was more looking at it from a numbers perspective I guess. Which was probably wrong of me.
April 21st, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
April 21st, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
But Pawwwwwl, I can help free up some space with medical hardshipsss.
I have no problem with this mindset. At all. The dude was given a schollie based on the premise that he can kick. He can't. Why should UM be forced to continue to give him a schollie if he's not holding up his end?
Compare this to academic scholarships, most of which require a minimum college GPA (i.e. the expectation that the student will continue to perform at the high level that initially earned them the scholarship). If a kid has a 4.0 in HS, gets a full ride, then fucks up and gets poor grades, he gets his schollie yanked.
Why should it be any different for an athlete like Gibbons that is a flat out abject failuare at what he was given a schollie to do?
The difference is that when you accept an academic scholarship, you are told in advance what "your end of the bargain" is. If they told you your end was something higher than you thought you could achieve, you might not go there. Or, for example, if two schools you liked equally had vastly different criteria for keeping your schollie, you'd probably pick the school where it was easiest to keep the free money.
Point being, you can't change Gibbons end of the bargain once he got here, since I bet no one given a scholarship to play football at Michigan is told they need to hit a certain level on the field in order to keep their spot on the team. Any player, no matter the position, gets to keep his scholarship for four years if he shows up to practice, does well in class, and works hard to better himself as a player.
Under your logic, should BWC have lost his scholarship after two years? What about JB Fitzgerald, should he have his taken away? Those guys are also far short of where their recruiting hype projected them, but that's just how it works sometimes. If you start kicking kids off the team just because they aren't as good as you thought they would/should be, you'll be losing a lot of recruits in future classes.
Comments