Re-ranking the 2012 Recruiting Class

Submitted by alum96 on

Another season is nearly in the books and it's a good time to take a look back at prior classes that make up the bedrock of the 2015 Wolverines.   We all get excited about 'crooting!!! and the 2012 class was supposed to be the base of a team that was going to take out Bama ...what with an incredible array of OL and LBs.  Not so much.  In fact, those were 2 of the 4 position groups along with rb and QB that have mostly haunted UM the past few yrs.

Below I have the 2012 recruiting class shown by original rank per 247 compositive (which rolls together all the services into 1 measure) and then a re-rank I did on how those players actually should have been ranked.   This is a good time to analyze them as many will run of eligibility in a month, and 1 already was an early entry so we have a great body of work for them all.

This was Brady Hoke's first full class and came on the heels of the class that shall never be mentioned again (2010), and the hybrid class of 2011 that was part rr and part hoke. 

Image result for class of 2012

2012's class was light years ahead of 2010 and quite a bit ahead of 2011 but certainly did not live up to its billing as #6 national rank.  There were a lot of the usual misses any class will have but where UM really missed out in this class is finding a good group of guys who challenged for conference honors.  When laid out side by side with OSU's similarly ranked class and MSU's lesser class (sigh) you see the differences in stark contrast.

Here are my more granular designations as I did not want to just stick to generic "4 star" or "3 star"  because a high level 4 star ranked #75 should add more value than a borderline 4 star near #300.  Just the same as a high end 3 star ranked #400 should be able to add more to a team than someone ranked #850.

Starz     Example       Production
5 = top 35     Braylon Edwards, Jake Long       Nationally elite, top 3 at position in nation
High 4 = top 150, excluding top 35     Mike Martin, Jake Ryan       1st/2nd team Big 10, top end multi year starter
Low 4 = 151 - 350     Ryan Van Bergen       Borderline conf honors candidate, very good multi year starter
High 3 = 351-500     Fitz Toussaint       Competent Big 10 player who starts at least a year 
Low 3 = 501-1000     Will Campbell       A contributor in 2 deep, maybe some starts
2 = >1000     Just a guy       Special teams only / gets garbage time vs MAC teams
1     Most of 2010 class!       "Bust"

 

Image result for rankings

Original Ranking out of HS

Pos Name * Ntl Rnk
OG Kyle Kalis 4H 49
DT Ondre Pipkins 4H 60
ILB Joe Bolden 4H 75
OT Erik Magnuson 4H 83
ILB James Ross 4H 115
SDE Chris Wormley 4H 128
OLB Royce Jenkins-Stone 4H 139
CB Terry Richardson 4H 140
WDE Tom Strobel 4L 179
ATH Dennis Norfleet 4L 194
WR Amara Darboh 4L 221
S Jarrod Wilson 4L 237
WDE Mario Ojedmudia 4L 251
TE Devin Funchess 4L 260
TE AJ Williams 4L 331
SDE Matt Godin 3H 373
ILB Kaleb Ringer 3H 424
OT Ben Braden 3H 427
S Jeremy Clark 3L 572
WR Jehu Chesson 3L 639
OT Blake Bars 3L 643
FB Sione Houma 3L 705
ATH Allen Gant 3L 852
RB Drake Johnson 3L 938
DT Willie Henry 3L 947

 

Image result for on second thought

Re-Ranking

Name Adj * HS * +/-
Devin Funchess 4H 4L +
Willie Henry 4H 3L +++
Chris Wormley* 4L 4H -
Jarrod Wilson 4L 4L flat
Jehu Chesson* 3H 3L +
Amara Darboh 3H 4L -
Joe Bolden 3H 4H --
James Ross 3H 4H --
Kyle Kalis 3H 4H --
Ben Braden 3H 3H flat
Mario Ojedmudia 3H 4L -
Erik Magnuson 3H 4H --
Jeremy Clark* 3H 3L +
Royce Jenkins-Stone 3L 4H ---
Drake Johnson 3L 3L flat
Matt Godin 3L 3H -
Ondre Pipkins 3L 4H ---
Dennis Norfleet 3L 4L --
Sione Houma 3L 3L flat
AJ Williams 3L 4L --
Allen Gant 2 3L -
Blake Bars 1 3L --
Terry Richardson 1 4H -----
Tom Strobel 1 4L ----
Kaleb Ringer** 1 3H ---

Note - Column 4 is how many "steps" above or below a player was from their HS rank upon re-rank.  For example if a player was ranked out of HS as a "high 4" but in reality is a "high 3" he gets two dashes meaning he was 2 levels below expectation.  And the opposite for vice versa - if ranked "high 3" out of HS but plays like a "high" 4 he gets two +.

* I believe these players have a strong chance to upgrade their ranking with a strong rs sr year.

** Left program early

Caveat - yes, every reader won't agree with me on every ranking so countless "you ranked Desmond Morgan too low!!!" comments won't add much to the discussion.

 

Image result for peer review

Discussion Points - talk of peers

First let's give Brady Hoke credit for one thing - player retention.  It is rare to have a class with this many players and have only 1 (Kaleb Ringer) leave the program early.  It will be very different in the Jim Harbaugh era.  We also didn't have any career ending injuries in this group so that's another positive - Hoke could recruit generally healthy people?  So yeah we have that.

Before we get into individual player discussion let me put a framework out there on why UM is lagging its peers at a granular level using a position group.  Forget the OL guys which are obvious - we had two top 100 HS OL which rather than being stars are "servicable"...including "THE MOST college ready guard we've seen in a decade!!".   But let's talk linebackers which I think is a more nuanced discussion and where the gap between MSU/OSU player development and UM's (up until this year lies).

OSU is our peer in recruiting so the first discussion point revolves around them.  They have 3 absolute studs in their LB core all coming from different parts of the recruiting ranks.  McMillan is a top 35 player, a 5 star - he is developing as expected ala Peppers rather than "busting" or performing well below expectationa ala Pipkins... or borderline 5 stars such as Green and Kalis.  So you get a 5 star and he delivers - a nice concept.  I think we should follow this philosophy of OSU.

The other 2 guys are more interesting.   Joshua Perry is in this same 2012 class - he was ranked 131 in the nation, well behind Bolden... and bookmarked by James Ross and Royce Jenkins-Stone.  Basically you could throw those 4 in a bottle, shake it around, and you should in 4 years have 4 quite similar players coming out the other end.  Not so much. 

Perry is about to be a very highly drafted NFL player.  Meanwhile we have 3 guys in the same class with similar rank out of HS that are eh...."competent Big 10 starters, with a hope of being a UDFA or 7th round pick type for some of them".  One of those 3 barely played his first 3 years and only as a reclamation project under Harbaugh had any contribution.  Now you do not expect to go 3/3 necessarily but we had three top 150 LBs and none matched Joshua Perry.  I think we should follow the philosophy of OSU where top 150 recruits are college stars.

Then you go to Darron Lee.  Lee was ranked #633 in the nation.  He is a "Peppers level" talent who if he declares early after his rs so year is going to be drafted mid to late in the 1st round per many mock drafts.  So it goes without saying the Buckeyes "lucked out" here or just did a great job with this guy. 

But comparing those 3 vs our 3 and you have 3 "sideline to sideline guys" who wreck havoc and are athletes of high level.  And we had the same sort of guys out of HS.... if not better on average.

As for MSU LBs (which probably will be the best crew in 2016 in the Big 10)  it's the normal low to mid 3 star guys who look like world beaters often (not always this year as they had a shit DB core to compensate for).   Ed Davis?  Detroit kid - ranked #587.  A beast last year (and every year he played UM) and was projecting to be their best LB. Darien Harris - ranked #619.  A beast this year.  These 2 guys flow to the ball well, and get there with violence.  Bullough?  ranked #570.  Not as good as his bro but a good effective MLB.   So that would have been your starting 3 for MSU if healthy - a bunch of mid 3 stars who "feel" a lot more rangy, fast, and violent than our 3 LBs who came out of HS vastly more regarded and top 150.  Even reschke who was ranked near #200 and is a youngin feels more effective than our guys right now.  He has really popped the last 4-5 games this year incl v UM.  It was startling to see how fast MSUs LBs were vs OSU (and yes the excellent MSU DL helped) compared to our guys.  And how well they wrapped up and physically whomped on OSU.  This has become a regular routine now at MSU, rinse wash repeat in development of those defensive players and I look forward to the upcoming time we can say the same.

Speaking of rankings our best LB is probably Desmond Morgan who was a sub 1000 recruit and has played way over his level.  But our big 3 LBs in 2012 were "misses" insofar as being the type of players OSU and MSU has.    This should have been a stellar crew of LBs that was the strength of the D based on HS ranks.  Of course this was a chronic situation across the board in the Hoke era. Which we are still trying to escape the gravitational pull of.

I write this section not to fellate our 2 peers but to give a comparison ....and also to frame why certain players are a "3H" in my rerank and not "4L" or "4H" which those with maize glasses on will feel I graded too low.

 

Image result for about us

Discussion Points - About Us

At a 40K point of view this class was "solid" in terms of putting out players to get UM to be a competitive team but lacking enough of the high end stars to get UM past "competitive".  These stars would be re-ranked 4H (high 4s) while conference stalwarts - what I deem 4L (low 4s) - are also lacking.  Out of 25 players, we had four who I'd put into those 2 categories.  That's bad.   Especially when 15 players out of HS were in those 2 categories of "top 350" nationally.  Even accounting for the normal losses of player to attrition, bust, injuries you should get 8-9+ top end players out of 15 ranked so high.  That didn't happen in this class. 

Further the far right column tells the tale ... the more "++" you get the more you outperformed your HS rank.  The more "--" you get the more you underperformed.  Flat means you came in as expected.  UM had way way way too many "----" in 2012.

I did asterisk 3 players in particular as I could see them jumping 1 category with a big 2016 - Chesson, Clark, and Wormley.  So still TBD on those guys in particular.

Sidebar: "How could you rate Wormley so low!???!"  Again what is a 4H?  That's a 1st/2nd team All Big 10 who is a bonafide conf star.  Wormely flashes that but is not consistent.  Wormley is not quite there - some games he looks like a "5" and others you barely hear from him.  Joshua Perry is a 4H, Wormley is not there yet.  But he should be in a year.

Similarly I see Chesson potentially getting to the 4 star level based on how he ended this  year - until mid season this year he was a blocking demon who could not track long balls well but was fast - so nice potential but production lagging.  Now more recently, he is looking like a potential #1 next year if he can extrapolate those last 3-4 games.   Darboh on the other hand I see as a possession type wr with generally good hands although he muffed a few vs OSU; I don't see the same ceiling there.

So again, for a lot of these players their grade is complete as they graduate.  But a few can still improve.  Even with said improvement this was not the #6 class ...nor near it.

 

Let's look at the top of the re-rank board. 

Funchess was a potential stud who was left out to dry with a PTSD QB and his own reported lack of "go get em".  Scary to think what he could do in a Pac 12 or Big 12 offense.  Still he was enough of a physical freak to compensate and had 1.5 great yrs at a very high level.  He'd be a guy ranked 50-75 out of HS if we could do it all over again.  (original #260)

Henry was the only massive outlier in this class ala in Jake ryan mode.  He was the lowest rated recruit in the class at #944.  That is borderline 2/3 star.  If memory serves he was also a guy who committed in the last week of signing period.  Thankfully.  He looked quite good in 2014 with some serious flashes but injuries and lack of consistency hurt him.  This year he started relative quietly but was working thru a bit of a position switch and the back 2/3rds of the year was the 1st or 2nd best DL guy along with Glasgow.

Wormley (discussed above - potential to be a 4H next year) and Wilson round out our guys that are borderline all conference candidates at this point IMO.  Jarrod Wilson is not an athletic freak and doesn't make many wow plays as Brian says but unless you are Ed reed I don't want to notice my safeties much.  He is a guy I imagine we won't realize what he contributed until we see some busted plays next year down the middle.  I have him as a low 4 and that's what his recruiting pedigree would project him to be.

But those are our 4 "really good"  players in this class - again the #6 class in the country.  We fell short in many places.

 

Image result for up to expectations

Let's talk guys who more or less did what was expected.

Outside of Wilson I have Ben Braden, Drake Johnson, and (thanks to Harbaugh) Sione Houma in this category of matching HS ranking.  Braden was a high 3 star player and you expect to get solid if not spectacular production out of that rank including at least a year starting - Ben is giving us that.  He was an athletic marvel who needed polish; thankfully Drevno has some Pledge(tm).  Drake has been injured often but was a low ranked recruit at least in a Michigan world at #936.  Much like Henry that is borderline 2/3 star.  All you ask is for a contributor at 2 deep with that rank and we got it.  Houma was probably a "2" in the re-rank at this time last year as a special teams guy who was parked behind Kerridge, a walk on.  But "The Flow" has picked it up this year, especially the back half of it and sort of is a Will Campbell type in terms of coming on late in his career to be a solid citizen.

Let's talk about guys outperforming HS rank a bit.

I really only have 2 guys here - Chesson and Clark.  And both could improve on that more next year.  Both were in the 500 to 600 range or the top end of the "low 3" star range.   Chesson should be a low 4 next year or..... if all falls correctly might sneak into high 4 if he can truly put it all together with a QB that finds him enough.  As for Clark I like him maybe more than the Mgo community seems to.  Yes he doesnt turn his head around enough but you rarely see him get depanted and he always seems to be near where he should be.  It's a new position for him and experience will only help at this very difficult spot on the field. A year ago at this time he was a 1 or 2 star in my re-rank - a safety who basically plays against App State and then gets  benched.  He has been one of the few massive reclamation projects in this class and if he improves on that next year could really be a boon to the defense.

 

Image result for sad face

Let's talk about the 8 guys ranked in the top 150 out of HS.

By and large this was a disappointing group relative to expectation.  This should be an area littered with future 2nd thru 4th round NFL draft picks, and 1st/2nd team All Conference players.  Even accounting for busts & injuries there should have been 5 very high level players here - frankly I only count Wormley as projecting to be that.

The 2 OL were discussed above but "THE MOST college ready guard in decades" is a guy who struggles often in year 3 of starting - yes it's been 3 years.  (2013/2014/2015)  Has he made some improvement ?  Yes.  But if he played for Illinois you wouldn't be surprised or see him as an outlier on that team.   I have Kalis as a "competent Big 10 player" aka a high 3.  Instead of being #49 in the country he is more like that generic guy in the 400s.

Magnuson has had some injury issues (2014) but likewise started on that awful 2013 line for long periods and is starting in 2015.   He doesn't stand out in any way.  Again coming in at #83 in the country he should be tracking for conf honors and be a stalwart.  Instead - like Kalis - he is a guy if we re-ranked today would be a generic decent OL guy in the 400s.  Both these guys - as a floor - should be "Michael Schofield types".

Ondre Pipkins to me was the Dennis Norfleet of MGoboard - far too adored relative to production.  I never saw "it" from him even when he was healthy.  Now I don't expect the world out of a true freshman DT but when Mone played in a similar role I noticed Mone - I rarely noticed Ondre his freshman year.  Then when he was healthy at the start of his SO year - he was "just a guy" to me.  Probably if healthy he was a competent plugger type but difficult to tell - I felt like he would have been passed by both Mone and Glasgow and been 3rd string and marginalized even if healthy.  Hence the low 3 star (which is a wide range between 500 and 1000) - a huge variance from him #60 HS rank.  If only he played as well as he impersonated Brady Hoke.

Bolden is Bolden man.  "It is what it is" is the trademark of his legacy.  On paper this guy is everything you want in terms of attitude but it is just not there on the field.  Seeing him hit and bounce off Elliott last Saturday repeatedly just said it all.  He is a decent Big 10 player but again should be found on the roster of an Illinois rather than Michigan.  Nowhere near his top 100 rank.

The story of one James Ross is a confusing tale.  He shot out of the cannon as an undersized true freshman and was an immediate starter who piled up tons of stats.  You sit there and think "put on 15 lbs, come back as a SO and we have ourselves a prime time 1st team Big 10 player in 2 years".  It just never worked out from there.  Production fell off as a SO, weight gain didn't come easy and then he was marginalized by the Mattison crew as a Jr as UM went mostly to a 2 LB lineup with Jake and Bolden.   He did finally put on some lbs as a Senior but once again was sort of marginalized with a lot of 5 DB sets.  If you had asked me post freshman year I'd have a high 4 projection on Ross in due time, but in the end I could only give him a high 3 - well below par for the 115th ranked player in the nation.

Royce Jenkins-Stone was a re-ranked 1 star bust a year ago at this time.   Thankfully #Harbaugh and we have a Will Campbell type player now who did nearly nothing for 3 years and then came on to have a functional senior year.  Now if Mario had been healthy he might have still fallen to a 2 as he would  not have played much injuries gave him an opportunity at a new position and mostly did a solid job from all accounts.  Not a game changer but not someone who kills you when he is out there.  Enough to move him from a 1 to a low 3.  But again way below expectation (#139) as he and Ross were expected to be book end OLB stars for this program.

We end this group with Terry Richardson.  Look every class has a bust or three so not going to hate on Hoke for this - it happens. While undersized I don't find that an excuse - you see some bad ass small corners who at least contribute in some fashion (Ty Mathieu, Will Likely, that short dude from OSU 15 years ago who had a long NFL career whose name I can't recall off top of head).  This was the biggest bust in the class ..."he had a Bama offer!!"

Image result for 4 stars

Talking the low 4s out of HS

Generally I think the guys in this group and the guys in the high 3s are what marks the difference between top programs with elite development vs the masses.   This is where guys like Dantonio ply his trade.  UM had a mixed bag in this class with Funchess popping out to the upside and Tom Strobel being the big miss.  The rest of the group is generally ok-ish but again - not the type of upside development you need to be a top tier program.  Multiple guys in this group should be significant "plus players".

Norfleet - I am not going to get into that deep.  I was surprised at his ranking actually considering his lack of speed and lack of a college position.  Maybe HS evaluators thought he was a slower Sproles or could be a slot wr.  I don't know - I never saw it with this guy but I know he is loved by some segments of the fanbase due to "always just "missing breaking one all the way!!!"  If re-ranked no way this is 1 of the top 200 players in the country - I have him in the 500 to 1000 range as a low 3 star.

Darboh was touched on above.  He is a solid #2 wr I suppose but I'd like to see him make make the regular catches more often.  He has some spectacular grabs but not only in the OSU game but a few others he had some misses that were pretty routine catches.  He is not an elite athlete so he can be your possession type guy.  He was probably ranked 100-150 spots too high out of HS but is a competent Big 10 starter.

I would have liked to see a full year out of Mario.  We won't ever know what he could have been this year but with so much attention on Henry, Glasgow, and Wormley I imagine he would have benefited from a lot of 1 v 1s.    Hard to judge him as he was a backup behind an above average guy in Clark for years but I had him as a high 3 star in the re-rank.

AJ Williams was on the way to bust category until #Harbaugh.  He was probably the exact opposite of Norfleet a year ago - one of the least liked UM players by the Mgo community.  Hands of stone ...1 catch in his career, etc.  While not a guy who knocks your socks off now and still quite overrated out of HS, he became a competent Big 10 player his senior year.  Just nowhere near HS expectation.

Strobel was the 2nd big miss in this class and again - it is going to happen.   This one was a head scratcher as he was listed as a DT most of his career despite seeming undersized.  Maybe it was very apparent to the staff(s) he did not have the edge explosion you want in an end early in his career but for coaches who had Keith Heitzman as an edge rusher you'd think Strobel could at least get a try on the outside D-line as a backup guy.  Instead he was just a non contributor.  Until our 8th nose tackle got hurt this yr he was playing backup OL somehow ...until getting a chance vs Indiana and being obliterated. 

 

Image result for sundry

Misc and Sundry Dudes

A few guys left here.  Godin is Godin.  A decent backup Big 10 player; 3rd string for us - probably could be 2nd string for some lower end Big 10 teams.  He was ranked a bit too high out of HS as a top 400 player IMO but is a solid backup type who I have as a low 3 star in rerank (again thats a vast range btw 500 and 1000 and he probably would sit somewhere in the 500-700 range).   Ringer transferred out early and best as I can tell has not had much impact at lower levels of football - so he was very overrated at #424 out of HS.  Blake Bars is in the Strobel category - from all accounts a nice guy (often see him visiting kids at the hospital) but just never found a way to even get into the 2 deep even during the hell of the 2013 OL.  I gave Gant a re-rank of 2 stars instead of 1 because I *think* he gets some play on special teams?  If I am wrong on that he goes to a 1.   I would be surprised if Bars and Gant (along with a few others higher on the page) are here for their 5th year as they seem destined for Heitzman treatment.

And there it is.

 

The end.

We'll take a look at the 2013 class (#4 in the nation) a year from now but my early preview from a curosry scan is it will look a lot like this class - a few stars in Butt and Lewis and a whole lot of disappointment mixed in with decent Big 10 performers but not the type that gets you to within 2 iterations of OSU.   These 2 classes - 2012 & 2013 - were supposed to be the base of NC contending teams.  "It is what is is."

Comments

Mr Miggle

November 30th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

our classes underperforming their recruiting rankings. For example, you consider All Big-Ten 1st or second team a condition for being a high 4*. We get far more players ranked in that range than could attain that status. There's 8 in this class alone. They're not only competing with players from 13 other teams but with four other classes. 

The same is true for low 4 meaning a multi-year starter. The numbers will never add up. We sign too many 4* recruits.

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

I agree - we sign far too many 4 stars and need to cut back. :)

Here is a list of OSU's similarly ranked players in the 2012 by the way:

  • Noah Spence
  • Adolphus Washington
  • Tommy Schutt
  • SeVon Pittman
  • Brionte Dunn
  • Armani reeves
  • Joshua Perry
  • Camren Williams
  • Taylor Decker (just outside top 150 at #164)

I think that is more typical of how those top 150ish players should be shaking out.  A few high profile misses littered in with a bevy of high NFL draft picks with all conference players.  5 of those 9 guys are meet or exceed high 4 star. (Spence had his issues of course off the field but was a bad ass on it when not being dumb)

That's the difference there btw what we have been doing with top players and what should be happening.   Again you WILL have complete whiffs (as did OSU) but no, it's not accurate that a majority of your high 4 stars can't be getting all conference.

p.s. There are multiple all Conf teams (media + coaches) so extra spots.

===================

Probably a bit of a high bar for the 4 stars but dont agree on degree of difficulty being outlandish as these 4 stars are spread across many classes and wont all be competing at once due to differences in age.  Say you have twelve 4 stars in every class (which is a lot) ...that is 48 guys on the roster in every class i.e Brian Cole is not expected to be a starter now - but he is a 4 star, same for Wheatley etc.  Vying for 22 spots. 

20-25% usually wash out due to injuries or just not good enough leaving you about 36 guys.  The ones that wash out are obviously underperformers.

Those 36  guys are spread out over 5 classes (if you redshirt) That leaves about 8 guys out of every class competing for those 22 spots.  No reason they many (not all) can find starting positions...remember some of these guys will be true freshman or rs freshman while others will be juniors and seniors.

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^

Just to self check how many 4 stars on are on the roster at any typical time here are the classes of late:

  • 2009: 11
  • 2010: 7
  • 2011: 6
  • 2012: 15
  • 2013: 15
  • 2014: 8
  • 2015: 6

(2011 / 2015 were coaching change years)

2012/2013 were big outliers, big class with a ton of 4 stars - not the usual haul.  Since those classes were so huge we had to take much smaller classes immediately after in 14 and 15.  And a lot less 4 stars then.

The above averages to 10 a year over 7 yrs.  Mostly with Hoke "a great recruiter".

So I'll stick with my 10-11 average of 4* per class over the long haul.  You get your normal attrition, injuries, and busts and it leaves you with about 7-8 a class competing for starting roles by the time they are redshirt sophomores.  Some years a bit more, some years a bit less. 

Think its fair to say if you are one of the top 350 players in the country you should be a starting player in the Big 10.   Maybe I'd redact "borderline" all conference because not all can be I agree!

 

Mr Miggle

November 30th, 2015 at 2:00 PM ^

We had 15, 4* recruits in that class. Maybe we will average 12, but I expect that is going up. Let's use 12 and assume they average 2.5 years starting apiece. I think's there a fair approximation for our multi-year starters. That means every year we're bringing in 30 seasons of starters for 22 spots, just from those 12 players. Then, to be a high 3 in your system, you need to start for a minimum of 1 year. Going further, you have numerous multi-year starters still as only 3 stars in your list. Some of them have eligibility remaining too.

Those numbers will never add up. Sorry, but your math was very poor. You can't total up the recruits from 4 classes (48) and then calculate how many starts they get over 5 years. 75-80% of 12 is not 6 or 7. It's 9-10.

 

 

 

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 2:32 PM ^

If you think we get 13-14 a year indefinitely (which you state you expect imptovement on) I agree you can't do the math. Reality is that would mean 60% of the roster is 4* which didn't happen under hoke or Carr. It's a bit "aggressive" to expect that.

I remember looking at our ENTIRE roster about a yr ago with all those 2012 and 2013 4* on the roster and we had more 3* overall of the 85 then 4*.

Again we will have a huge class this yr because we had a tiny one last yr but some yrs we are going to only have 18 kids...if you think 14 of those 18 will be 4* even in those yrs to average 14 4* indefinitely it will be something we have never seen here.

I stick by my math with the way hoke recruited a ton of 4* and limitations of scholarship #s. Even urban has a good # if 3*s on his roster and in his classes.

Mr Miggle

November 30th, 2015 at 2:58 PM ^

4*s per year. But my math was done with 12 and it's not close to working. It doesn't work with 10 either. It doesn't even work with 8.

Let's say we average 8, 4*+ recruits a class. Add 8 high 3* and 4 low 3*/2*. You expect to get 8 multi-year starters at a high level and 8 more starters for at least a single season. Let's assume each muti-year starter starts exactly 2 years, an unreasonably low assumption, and each of the other starters start for no more than 1 year, also unreasonably low. That's 24 with an average of 22 available for each class. That's not counting transfers and walkons. So that's close with 8 4*s, but not very realistic.

Probably this whole exercise would be better if you waited a year. You're allowing for rankings to change for 3 players. I think that's conservative. We have a lot of RS SRs slated to start.

 

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^

PS I think we are getting a bit lost in the weeds here. The main point was this was not the #6 class or near it...nor was 2013 #4. Each individual player can be debated up or down 1 slot but generally speaking you did not see the results on field that this sort of class could given you.

I will concede my parameter for the 4s might be a bit tough so that we can have a broader discussion rather than focus on that 1 bulletpoint.

Teams with a lot of 4 stars will "miss" more than those that do not. Utah for example would look great in this analysis as would MSU. But we have been missing more like a Tennessee rather than missing like Ohio state or LSU or whomever is similar. That's the thrust of the piece and then the individual player discussion is so there is specific data points on why other than "oh no we sucked with that class mostly."

Drometh

November 30th, 2015 at 2:27 PM ^

Nationally, you're looking at about 44 spots * 5 Power conferences--220 spots.  Compared to ~600 players at top 150 in their class (assume the same number of redshirts and 5th years), and yes it looks like the expectation for these players is too high.  But if you're assuming year over year improvement, you expect maybe half of the conference honors to go to RS JRs or SRs; so 110 spots, against 150 players.  That's close enough to be a reasonable classification.

bronxblue

November 30th, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^

I agree that the metric may be a bit harsh, but the teams UM is trying compete with are able to produce better results out of similar (in OSU's case) or (slightly) less prominent (in MSU's case) classes.  Even looking at just the 4* kids the schools recruited, it does seem like UM whiffed on more than the others, especially at certain positions (LB jumps out, but so were the defensive line recruits generally - Wormley has potential, but RJS and Pipkins underperformed compared to rankings).  And in general, it's just not a great class.  But you look at OSU and their top kids turned out better, on average, than UM's.  And that, I think, was the point here.  

gjking

November 30th, 2015 at 4:50 PM ^

Yeah, this analysis is totally off the mark because of this issue. Even a 5 star who turns into Jehu Chesson, I would say that guy lived up to the ranking. People get way too overboard with expecting every 5 star to be a 1st round NFL draft pick and every 4 star to be all conference. Here are my guidelines. 

5 star = Exceed if all conference or better, average if mid-line starter 2+ years, below expectations if never starter or only started a little (i.e. Will Campell, Pipkins).

4 star = Exceed if mutli-year starter or major contributor (Darboh, Chesson), average if significant rotation or 1 year starter. 

3 star = Exceed if starter at all or rotation significant. Disappointing if never see the field at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 8:57 PM ^

There are only ~35 five* in the nation each year.  Spread evenly in each P5 conf that is 5 a conference.

Until 30 days ago Chesson wasas a blocking wr who had about 20 catches for the year.  Now he is a guy who has had 1 good month of catching the ball in his career.  Cmon be realistic - Laquon Treadwell is a 5* wr. 

You want to argue Gallon or Funchess I am game and can play the gymnastics.  Chesson wouldnt even be top 5 at his position - at current level - in Big 10. Forget top 5 at any position in conf. 

Elliott, Fournette, Bosa,  Boykin, Conklin, Decker, Garrett, Hargreaves, Henry, Doctson, McCaffery, Lewis - its like the HOF in baseball - first ballet guys you don't need to think about saying "damn they are the best".

EGD

November 30th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^

For perspective, I decided to apply your methodology to re-rank our 1998 recruiting class, IMO the best class M ever signed:
 
Evan Coleman  LB  -- 2
Walter Cross  RB -- 3L
Julius Curry SS -- 3H
Joe Denay  OL -- 3H
Deitan Dubuc TE --3L
Hayden Epstein  PK/P -- 4H
Larry Foote  ILB -- 4H
Victor Hobson  OLB -- 4H
Todd Howard  CB -- 4L
Bennie Joppru TE -- 4H
Cato June  FS -- 4L
Shawn Lazarus DE -- 3H
Dave Petruziello OL -- 3H
Dan Rumishek  DL -- 3H
Marquise Walker WR -- 4H
Dave Armstrong FB -- 2
Justin Fargas  RB -- 3H at M, 4H including USC
Drew Henson QB -- 5
Dave Terrell  WR -- 5
 
Out of 19 guys, that's two 5s, six 4Hs (including Fargas), two 4 Ls, and five 3Hs -- or 15/18 recruits contributing at a high level.  
 
According to your rankings, the 2012 class has just 13 (of 25) players performing at least to the 3H level, and comparably few players at the highest levels, though with some players having another year of eligibility remaining (personally I think Wormley, Darboh, and Chesson will grade out higher by the end of their careers than you have them right now, but that's probably about it).
 
 

EGD

November 30th, 2015 at 3:32 PM ^

Denay only started two games?  Didn't realize that--I thought he was more of a regular contributor on the offensive line.  

Joppru may have only started as a senior but he had a great senior season and was a regular throughout his career before that (played in 8 games as a freshman, 11 games as a soph, 11 games as a junior, and 13 as a senior).  So, I think my 4H is appropriate but could see a case for 4L.

Dubuc was a role player but appeared in games regularly for 2.5 seasons (6 games as a soph., 11 as a junior, 13 as a senior).  I went with 3L; I guess you could call him a 2 but that seems harsh for a guy who actually played a fair number of snaps.  

Mr Miggle

November 30th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^

are on a different scale than Alum96's. You're also waiting for their careers to finish. That makes a difference. Eight players from that 2012 class are likely favorites to start next season and that's when they should make their biggest impact. 

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^

Thanks that is interesting and 15 of 18 is an incredible hit rate.

For me its not about the washouts...every class has those. But your high 4s that DO hit have to be very good.. And your low 4s and high 3s have to have more stars at the college level than what we have done.

EGD

November 30th, 2015 at 3:39 PM ^

Agreed.  A typical M recruiting class in the Carr era would have about 18-22 players.  Now it seems like a typical class has 25+ guys in it.  The only way you do that is if more guys are cycling out of the program on the back end--but that's life these days, especially with the graduate transfer rule.  So you can afford to have more washouts at the bottom, as long as you are getting your half-dozen stars and ~10 more solid contributors per class.

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 4:14 PM ^

I wonder if we redshirted more back then to account for lower #s in each class.

Or kids didnt transfer out so quickly.

p.s. just looked at OSU's last 3 classes and its frightening. Holy crap.  They somehow also crammed 31 people into the 2014 class.  But the # of top 100 players they have every year is Bama-ish.

Mr Miggle

November 30th, 2015 at 5:06 PM ^

The last two were 14 and 16. We seem to stuck cycling through big and small classes lately. The coaching transitions have led to greater roster turnover, but our average still isn't much different than under Carr.

EGD

November 30th, 2015 at 7:29 PM ^

I guess I was thinking the low numbers for 2014 and 2015 were more related to the wheels coming off and then JH having a short period of time to sign people last winter than classes being small by design.  But then Hoke didn't seem too interested in roster management, whereas Harbaugh has been aggressive about it.

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^

We are stuck in some sort of wicked purgatory that we cant seem to escape with big/big/small/small classes cycling.  It's been like 8 years it feels like.  So we have donut holes in the depth chart constantly like we are about to see on defense.   The entire defense ...in 14 months.  Esp DT and DBs.

We need to be something more like 21-23 a class rather than 28/28/13/15. 

That said 2015 was a good class to be in the ebb in the cycle due to the coaching change but at some point we need to get out of this cycle.

wolverinebutt

November 30th, 2015 at 2:23 PM ^

I think the misses on the OL are the most painful to me.  The Hoke days of recruits in pairs, Manball and OL University were never fulfilled.  

Lets hope for the OL shuffle for next season to be very sucessful.  We lose an excellent center and I expect one of this years starters to lose his job.  So I see two new starters next year.    

BG Wolverine

November 30th, 2015 at 3:53 PM ^

That whole list just screams player development, or lack there of, to me.  The HS ratings are based in part on how a kid should turn out with typical college coaching I would assume.  So without good coaching, you see the regression.  At MSU, they have kids over achieving due to real good coaching.  At OSU kids perform at about the rating level or above due to good coaching.

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 4:22 PM ^

Yep that's the general thrust.  High end schools with high end recruits who do well develop at a better rate and maximize talent while the TCU MSU cabal has the development thing in full swing.  We need to be somewhere at worst in between those 2 groups, and preferably with the former group. 

Was just trying to itemize it - I think we all know this to be true at the 40,000 foot look but going into the weeds we can see they why player by player.   PSU is going thru the same stuff now as is TN.

What is pleasing is the early returns on AJ Williams, Jenkins-Stone, and Clark in particular.  Those were 3 'throw away' players in the Hoke era who were set to drift and do nothing and then leave but new staff found utility in them.

I think we'll get our share of stars as we always do even in some of the darkest days - its what heights you can take the large bulk of players who make up a class that top end programs get in the "150-400 range" \that I think really differentiates you from competitive to championship levels.  This batch e was mostly uninspiring outside a few guys.  And then the top 150 guys were very meh as a group.

bluebyyou

November 30th, 2015 at 4:30 PM ^

IMO, the lack of good coaching was the travesty of the Hoke era and we will feel its effect for some time to come.  How does a school like Michigan end up with a guy coaching defensive backs where the coach never played the position or coached the position. I'm not into Hoke bashing but his coaching shortcomings, as things play out and you see what Harbaugh and his people are able to accomplish with largely the same players, really make your eyes roll.

AC1997

November 30th, 2015 at 6:03 PM ^

The only thing on your list that actually jumped out at me as odd was Strobel.  The other guys on your "1" list never played meaningful downs (Richardson, Bars, etc.).  Gant got a 2 for some special teams appearances and a couple of downs on D.  Strobel played both O and D in meaningful games this year and had some cameos in the past.  That says 2 to me.....for whatever that's worth.

 

I think what this list also underscores is what happens with depth.  OSU or Bama lose a few players to injuries?  There are highly touted and developed guys behind them.  Damien Harris is probably our starting RB this year and he gets 1-2 carries for Bama.  

alum96

November 30th, 2015 at 8:46 PM ^

Strobel only played in IND and PSU out of sheer emergency.  Brian's UFr had him as a disaster.  Guy went in as a backup OL out of all places the week before in garbage time.

As we were playing OSU they were tweeting (UM peeps) that Henry Charlton and Wormley were playing almost all the downs. (not sure why Hurst wasnt)  That and the 3-3-5 I imagine is a reaction to how little they wanted to play Strobel.

I dont think he saw the field once in the Hoke era or if he did it was in MAC-ACTION on the  last drive.  I dont think heh would have seen the field this year either if not for the injuries post Glasgow. 

I actually kept my eye on him all these years because he was a quite well ranked recruit and I was boggled he was never getting playing time and boggled he was always listed as a DT a his weight.

I guess he could be 1.5 but literally 2 games in 4 years for Strobel - I think richardson saw similar time but earlier in his career.

-------------

I agree on depth and I think part of November sag - aside from playing some offenses that hit us in the wrong spots - was lack of depth.  And there is dropoff (as there always is) but significant amounts btw 1 and 2.   Guy like Hand would have been playing for us as a freshman ...he doesnt see the field for Bama.

StoneRoses

November 30th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^

Man , I remember how excited I was when we signed this class. I guess in hindsight it was a good but not great recruiting hual.

An Angelo's Addict

November 30th, 2015 at 6:34 PM ^

Nice write up. I started really "following" recurring in 2010 and this class is basically what made me rethink my expectations of getting so involved in recruiting rankings etc. tons of unmet expectations that I kept waiting to come true

Moonlight Graham

November 30th, 2015 at 10:10 PM ^

"supposed to be the base for a NC, but it is what it is." 

Are you saying that next year's loaded team is definitively NOT at least a fringe NC contender next season? Under Hoke and without a QB, no. With Harbaugh and O'Korn, yes? 

Henry, Wormley, Chesson, Darboh, Kalis, Braden, Mags, Clark and Drake Johnson (and Ryan Glasgow) are not a murderer's row but will make a respectable nucleus of seniors.

One has to like our chances for at least an NY6 bowl next year. If Harbaugh and staff can pull these two classes out of the dustbin and produce 10-3 and 11-2 seasons out of their upperclassman years that will be pretty remarkable.  

alum96

December 1st, 2015 at 7:55 AM ^

Yes I am talking this as the basis of a Hoke championship which is the idea of the class - "you gonna be so good we are competing with Bama types." 

 With Hoke, Shane Morris or Wilton Speight would be leading this team to that goal next year.  Green as your "feature" back I guess. 

And are we are a "fringe contender"next year?  I guess the same way Iowa would be - if we hhad a schedule avoiding MSU, OSU, played in the West and whose only tough tests were teams of the level of Wisconsin and Pitt.

I do happen to think we might be favored in the B10 next year but that solely rests on Harbaugh + staff plus transfer QB plus miracle improvement in LB and OL and big losses in personnel at OSU and MSU. 

I dont see the OL guys you mmention as champion level players (MSU and OSU DL dominated them), and as much as I like Drake I hope this year was a case of "1st year back from ACL" as he lost a lot of his explosion and speed.

I mean here is a preview of 2013's top part of the class so when I say the 2012 and 2013 players form the basis of a NC run I am putting them together.  By 2016 a bunch of the 2012s are already gone:

  • Green
  • Kugler
  • Thomas
  • Morris
  • Bosch
  • Dawson
  • Fox
  • Lewis
  • Poggi
  • Charlton
  • LTT
  • Butt

Those are all our players in the top 200 of the 2013 class...12 of them.  You yielded 2 stars in Lewis and Butt, 2 decents guys who are just now figuring it out in Charlton and Thomas (and Thomas looked lost under Hoke's staff)- 4 contributors with 2 of them being stars.  And a whole bunch of busts, transfers, future transfers, and OL guys who cant beat out some pretty average OL ahead of them.  

Here is OSU's 2013 top 12 guys by comparison - I mean you have a defensive national POY candidate, an offensive national POY/Heisman candidate, a starting QB who had Heisman talk last year, multiple front line starters who are all conference types along with the normal busts. 

  • Bell
  • Marshall
  • Bosa
  • Apple
  • Mitchell
  • Burrows
  • Elliott
  • Wilson
  • Lisle
  • Baugh
  • Johnson
  • Barrett

On top of their 2012 guys I listed above.

Jevablue

December 1st, 2015 at 4:49 AM ^

I'm sure "Sports Science" could do a multi-parametric analysis of the physical attributes of the top 1000 athletes (40yd dash, vertical leap, bench press, whatever) and put this all in some kind of order that would be extremely interesting.  Perhaps some mental tests on dynamic spatial recognition (made that up) could also be brought to bear.  IMO if you can play football at a competitive power 5 school you already are or have the potential to be an elite athlete.

So my point is that at some point they are all pretty much good enough,  The "proof" of a great class is validated by development.  Few great athletes can survive and or overcome crap coaching.  And conversely watching MSU turn alledged mutts into show dogs year after year is the point.   It has even been enough to overcome OSU's obvious (by the ratings) recruiting advantage.

The saviour ain't coming from "out there".  Its got to be a coach(es).  Study that.

 

Eye of the Tiger

December 1st, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^

...whether the '12 and '13 classes are underperformaing relative to expectations, but whether that's because the Hoke staff was: (a) not good at talent evaluation; (b) not good at developing raw talent; or (c) some combination of the two, and possibly some other factors.

It can't solely be (a), given how most of the disappointments and busts had big time offer sheets. Kalis, for example, had offers from OSU, PSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, ND, Florida and Alabama. Strobel had offers from MSU, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin and Stanfard (!). If Hoke overrated these players, then so did all the other schools. 

...which brings us to (b). I don't know enough about what goes into this in order to judge, but I have noticed a massive gap between how the DL and secondary developed and pretty much every other position.

I'd also note that 2011 and 2014 were the only years in which the OL got better as the year went on. Why? My guess is that in 2011, after Iowa, Borges accepted that he had a spread-to-run team and started calling more plays that played to those strengths, while in 2014 it was because Hoke finally allowed his OL coach to actually coach the system he knew (inside zone). 

Then you also have to factor in the cost of transitioning--on offense, first from a zone-based, spread-to-run to a spread-to-run system with more power blocking, then to a drop-back scheme with mostly power blocking, then to a drop-back system with mostly zone-blocking (and now to a drop-back system with a mix of power and zone blocking); and on defense, from zone to press coverage. Even if I think we've finally found a system that works and which we can make work in a sustainable way, there are always costs involved in terms of player development. 

Thus my conclusion is that, while I'm sure the staff made some poor choices of who to take over whom, it's much more likely that our underperformance results from poor development of raw talent, while "executive mismanagement" (i.e. not playing to your strengths) is also likely a factor. 

 

CoachBP6

December 1st, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^

Apparently you haven't watched Jehu Chesson much this season. Chesson is easily our best offensive player. Chesson is a great blocker, a much improved route runner, a phenomenal teammate with excellent effort, and a very solid special teams player.

I agree with virtually every ranking you have, minus Jehu. I personally think, if Jehu has a QB with deep ball capabilities next year, he could have an all American type season.

Thanks for the good work.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad