10ish Spots, any chance they take 8 more linemen?
Let's assume the rumored class size of 26 will be the final count. With 10 spots left and a bevy of linemen showing strong interest, is it possible they take 8 more linemen? Thinking 4 on each side . The QB and RB situation seem similar, with them targeting 1 or 2 elite guys with no plan to take anyone at these positions should those players go elsewhere. It seems WR is the only other absolute must in this class, and FS looks like it will be addressed (I can't wait to hear Jay North's voice in my head as I read, Helllooooooo Mr. Wilson!)
Big thanks to TomVH & Tim for what seems to be around-the-clock updates on all things recruiting.
Doubt the 8 more happens, but I wouldn't be surprised to see 6-7, though I think even that's pushing it.
I could see 5-6, but it seems like the coaches would like a WR, FB, DB and possibly a QB or RB.
I thought Williams might develop into another OL commit leaving room for Thompson at TE. So maybe they'll start with 7 and end up with 8 lineman in the class.
2 D-Lineman
4 O-Lineman
1 Safety
1 Running Back
1 Wide Reciever
1 Quarterback
This seems like the most realistic option at this point.
Love that breakdown and hope it shakes out that way.
This also seems the most realistic to me, except I would take one of a WR/FB/DT as opposed to another RB.
Are you saying 4 OL total or 4 OL more? With three on board and the possiblity of moving Williams to OL I sincerely doubt we take 4 more OL, giving us 7-8 OL total depending on how you see Williams.
The ten spots he outlines are in addition to our current class. We're going to have much more than 4 OL overall.
That is what I thought, but I was confused because I don't see us taking 4 more OL. 3 OL, yes, giving us the 6 Hoke wanted (and Williams), but as a poster below says, it is more likely we take 3 OL and 3 DL than 4 OL and 2 DL.
I agree that that looks likely, but the 2 more DL is kinda sad. Means we'll only get one of Shittu, Pipkins, and O'Brien, then either Wormley or Washington. (Right?)
2-deep, though. He likes to have (essentially) 2 sets of starters in college and lots of backups to cycle in. His idea on defense is similar to RR's on offense: Fast-fast-fast-pressure-pressure-pressure. He has an 85 kid roster to work with so he uses a 3 or 4 deep defense and cycles kids in to wear out offenses with fresh legs and multiple defensive fronts. Don't be surprised if walkons get playtime under Mattison.
Keeping that in mind, he would probably like more DTs in this class if he could get them. They aren't just getting starters in this class, they're building depth too. Ojemudia will play at OLB to begin so we have something like 5 LB's this year for 3 spots but they'll all play. There's still Brown and Wormley and Strobel and Godin who aren't too many at DE if he's building a 3 or 4 deep roster, so another DT like Shittu to add to Pipkins and OBrien isn't out of the question. The final shape of the class will come from who-pulls-when. If the coaches hear the right things from the extra DTs then we end up with the extra DT, if (for example) Banner and Garnett lean our way then they hold a spot open for the extra OL.
Not naming names, but with realistic expectations you can see up to 11 of RR's kids transferring or not being renewed. Some of his upperclassmen have yet to make any impact and continuously moved around under RR, and some of his underclassmen recruits just don't make any sense. So many of RR's kids have transferred even when RR was still here, 7-11 kids this year isn't a stretch for a big incoming class.
My problem is looking at who we're in on right now, I don't think that gets us the best available players. I also feel like RB and QB are purely optional this year. So if I could have my pick.
3 D-Linemen - Pipkins, O'Brien, Wormley (although I'd take Shittu in any of their places)
4 O-Linemen - Dream list: Peat, Banner, Kalis, Diamond (assume we'll lose a couple of those and pick up a couple others)
1 Safety - Jarrod Wilson
1 WR - Stanford or Burbridge
1 TE - Ron Thompson
Assume here that if we miss on any of these and can pickup Dunn, we absolutely do that. I say no QB unless it's Kiel or some other out-of-the-blue, top 5-10 type. If interest wanes from any of the top DL candidates, and we don't have elite RB/QB options, we go with Fatu at FB.
I have no problem with your thinking, but I'd add that I think if you don't have Washington on your list, Stanford probably shouldn't be there either. At the end of the day, I also believe the evidence shows (and I am not expressing my opinion on it) that if we don't have a tailback, we will take a FB. Why else offer Hill when Fatu and other FB choices are still out there, and keen on us? I do believe, right or wrong, that we will see a new RB in the mix.
My point was that to get the best available talent, at the positions of highest need, we'd almost certainly have to pass on QB/RB unless Dunn or (by some miracle) Kiel wanted to join the class. I also agree with your Stanford comment, and I honestly don't think he's coming. I listed him because he's one of two high-end WR prospects on our board, and the other may not qualify. As much as we need a true outside WR, we may miss entirely on the top-ranked ones. If we do, you could probably look at Thompson as the "WR" recruit, and add in a RB/FB even if that's not an elite player. If you ask me what is actually going to happen with this class, it may look more like the list below. We could certainly land a higher rated player in some of these spots, though.
3 DL - Wormley, O'Brien, Pipkins
3 OL - Diamon, Olson, Keenan
RB - Alden Hill
TE - Ron Thompson
QB - Austin Appleby
S - Jarrod Wilson
For me, and I know I'm setting myself up for a beating, I would actually go without a QB this year. I know and agree with the "one every year" logic, but usually you don't have an elite prospect lined up for next year ahead of time. Anyone we get would be satisfied with being a footnote between the Robinson/Gardner years and the Shane Morris era, with Bellomy in the mix as a rival for back up. That kind of player isn't going to be a serious talent.
Barring serious injury to one of our stars this year, QB simply seems like a luxury we can't afford. I think we need to "draft talent" over need here, especially as so many other positions seem to BE greater needs.
Please...be gentle.
I don't think anyone is going to beat you up for this position. The issue is that it appears the coaching staff wants a QB in this class, not that the MGoPopulace does. My caveat is that if Kiel wants to go to Michigan, I will immediately deny ever saying that we didn't need a QB.
I would sign on with this decision in its entirety. I do know that some people feel dogmatically strong about the "one QB every year" position.
As you can see down one comment, I totally agree. I think it would be almost a waste to give a spot to a QB with Bellomy, Gardner, Robinson, and Morris.
Even if Denard gets hurt, we have a more than capable backup in Devin. If both get hurt (very unlikely), then we have Bellomy. If all three get hurt, then we should probably sacrifice someone to the Gods, because we're doing something wrong. Then Morris would come in the next year, and he's gonna be one heck of a player.
The concern is, what if one of those guys has a serious injury, that puts the 2012 season in doubt? Or what if Denard blows up this year as a pro prospect and leaves early (doubtful, but possible). Or what if Bellomy gets to campus and decides he doesn't like being so far from home and transfers?
I get the desire to have 4 scholarship guys on the roster. But, overall, I'm with you. You have at least two years with two guys on the roster who you are supremely confident in, so we're not looking to "find" a QB. Devin might have four years left, and he looks like he's going to be a good one. And if Devin doesn't get his fifth year, or gets injured in the 2013 season, you have "the next big thing" in Morris, waiting in the wings.
In conclusion, as everyone else says, if we get one of the elite QBs, fine, if not, lets not take a guy just so we have a QB in the class.
The coaches haven't offered any more qbs, and we are on the short list for so many talented kids. The real question is: we have a shot at kids who "you just don't say no to" but what if 8 of them say yes? Even in my wildest dreams I see us only taking a max of 5 of these top linemen this year but maybe more like 3 or 4. The coaches mapped out a rough plan for this class to follow in January, but by now they'll probably mix that plan up a bit. We don't need an extra WR like we need THE top lineman in the country, we also don't need 3 backup qb's (because a walkon was on our depth chart last year) or a 3rd decent TE or a 6th DE like we need Garnett and Banner or Kalis and Peat to go with Magnuson and Diamond.
Anyone we get would be satisfied with being a footnote between the Robinson/Gardner years and the Shane Morris eraWhoa. Shane Morris era? That kid can't even sign a letter of intent for another 19 months. There is no guarantee Morris will ever suit up for us, much less be a surefire star. If you're a coach, you always cover your bases. If we're counting on a kid who has two more years of high school to go to be our savior, we could end up getting burned.
there will be more attrition... not gonna name names but i would expect a few slot wrs and a center along with a few defensive players, all recruited by RR, will be transferring this summer... and i dont think godin is gonna be there at the end. leaving us with 13 more...
lets say 28 total, so 13 more..
4 DL WASHINGTON, WORMLEY, PIPKINS, O'BRIEN
4 OL DIAMOND, KALIS, BARS, one of (Banner, Peat, Garnett)
RB DUNN
FB FATU
QB APPLEBY
WR BURBRIDGE
S WILSON
The Michigan program is all about the trenches, and until it is re-stocked in the Michigan way, then FB or WR are not nearly as important. And besides... guys like Desmond Morgan can move to FB.
Where did you hear that a center will be transferring. I don't think we can take mire hits to our OL.
We haven't technically offered Hill yet, IIRC. It's probably coming today, but I agree that we will either take a RB or FB.
Personally, I would rather not take a QB and give that spot to a lineman, but for some reason y'all are keen on taking one even with Devin probably getting a RS and Morris in for 2013 already.
But I thought Tom mentioned that Hill was told by the coaches to call them on Wednesday.
Its not that most of us want another QB: I would rather we passed on the position and it looks like most other people are indifferent or don't want one. Thing is that the coaches really seem to want one (can't exactly blame them) even if it isn't an elite guy. Lots of talk about Mauk or Appelby getting an offer. With Alden Hill looking like he is going to get an offer, I think the coaches really want to lock up most of the class so they can focus on the next one. They don't seem willing to wait on a couple of positions (QB and RB) where we have depth and talent already. Personally, I would say if no Dunn/Garmon/etc. and no Kiel, then don't take a RB or QB. Personally, I would prefer 2 WR over a RB or QB, especially if they are 3 star guys.
He doesn't have an offer yet, but he really wants one and he will probably camp for an offer (I think)
Correct. Not sure if he's made it to camp yet but he was planning to as the coaches want to see him in person before offering. I imagine that if they like him, they'll still hold off and see what happens with Mauk and Kiel before moving to Appleby.
I like you list, but I would put Garnett on your dream list and drop anyone but Peat off. Garnett would be a great pickup for us, and I think he has the second-most upside of all our linemen we are after. Also, I would drop Ron Thompson and allow for a miscellaneous elite recruit like: Bri'onte Dunn, Aldolphus Washington, Yuri Wright, Aziz Shittu, Noah Spence, etc. Then, if we are unable to pick up any of them, we can either fill it with someone else who has potential or honestly just leave it open for next year.
I love Garnett too. I picked Peat because, obviously. Kalis lets me simultaneously revel in a 5-star recruit and OSU schadenfreude. Diamond is a stud and seems to be the most Michigan-leaning of the elite O-linemen. If we got Garnett in with these three, I'd do happy dances in my underwear-only basement.
As for Thompson, I really like the kid's game, but he's another I waivered on a bit. I ultimately went for him as a hybrid pick between my dream class and what I expect from reality. I figured he would commit ahead of the wild-card 5-star and get the slot in our current first come, first served strategy.
have expressed a desire to play together in college, similar to Magnuson and Seumalo. If Garnett is on a list then make sure there's room for Banner, and don't rule Seumalo out because he doesn't have an offer, the coaches hadn't looked at him at all until Magnuson committed, but he's very much a top lineman.
Garnett would work, if only his arms were a little bigger ;-) (pic taken from $ article at Scout)
I would take away one O-Line slot there and slide it over to D-Line: even if we get O'Brien, which I'm not saying is happening, I don't believe they'll back off Pipkins. And I warrant you, I think we've all come to assum, Wormley will be ours.
That's what I was thinking as well
I could see 7, but only if Washington or Spence want to go Blue down the road. 2-3 OL (3 if a top guy like Garnett, Banner, or Kalis wants to jump on board later), 2 DTs (combination of Pipkins, Obrien, Day, Shittu, and maybe Johnson if we miss out above targets), and 1 DE (Wormley). If Washington or Spence want to join later, I can't really see the coaches saying no.
Then 1 WR, 1 FB/RB, and 1 FS, with the possibility of a QB being slotted in (lots of talk about potential guys getting offers if Kiel goes elsewhere, which seems more likely than not). I don't think the coaches necessarily want to wait for an elite RB/FB by the noise from some guys lately, which confuses me because of all the positions we can afford to wait on and strike out at it is RB (I don't see FB as that big of a priority, but hey im not the coach).
Also, this assumes we get to 26.
To be honest doesn't it seem like it all depends on who drops when? For instance if Wormley commits ,as there is some speculation he might soon, then O'brien follows quickly then Pipkins feels the heat and does the same, I see no reason why they wouldn't take that comination. Conversely if Olsen, Bars, Diamond commit and suddenly Kalis and Banner or whatever other top OL commit wants in I don't think the would shy from take more OL either.
6 to 7 total. With Pipkens, Wormley, Diamond, being the front runners.M GO BLUE
Congrats Mr. Lidstrom!
It is my great pleasure to present 
Go Blue!
Also, it could be observed we might go without a WR. I don't think it wise, but none of the scenarios above describe Washington, and I think that rules out Stanford. I don't think we're going to give Burbridge's place to someone else, so if Burbridge doesn't qualify, we might miss out on that. Not a tantalizing scenario, but I would rather roll the dice on Burbridge, who is apparently turning into a phenom, than give the place to any other player we have a noted shot at less than Stanford, who, again, seems increasingly unlikely.
Hi!
<br>@Belisarius,
<br>Yes I do think we should take Burbridge no matter what his status academically is, this kid looks like a game-changer and he'd look good w/ Big Blue. #winningallthetime. Brady: Don't let the academic advisors get involved, focus on FOOTBALL!
<br>Thanks
...seriously? Grades are a huge deal. Demar Dorsey ring a bell? Academics are ALWAYS before football, in HS and in college (at least at Michigan.. same cannot probably be said for some schools down here in the south).
We will not accept him if we don't know that he'll be in good shape.
Not sure if you were serious or not...
Yea Dorsey does ring a bell, it's just too bad he never had the opportunity to enroll and prove himself like every other student. Be honest, these kids are here to play FOOTBALL, and getting an education is just a possible byproduct.
<br>Thanks!
You can't be serious. Do you realize the vast majority of these players don't go pro, and their college degree ends up their greatest asset?
Yeah so why should the academic department be meddling with who gets in? They're going to be getting their dergrees anyways (not that hard to do school work when there is literally a 1: 2 staff to player, including tutors and the whole shabang. Let Burbridge play and earn his degree. Is U of M going to be all high and mighty and say he's ineligible with an 18 on his ACT (hypothetically) and someone else with a 19 is just a wonderful addition to the university community and will be a great STUDENT athlete?
<br>Thanks
<br>~~Chet~~
I really can't tell if you're just trolling or what, but it's not UofM that would say he's inelgible.. it's the NCAA. Let's see if we can break this down:
To play college football, he needs good grades in high school.
Once he gets to play college football, he has to maintain good grades to keep playing.
Once he's done playing college football, he might not be good enough to go pro, and those good grades and a michigan degree will help him get a good job.
Hoke has already stressed this a lot, and it can never be understated:
ACADEMICS > FOOTBALL
"opportunity to enroll and prove himself like every other student"
I didn't realize that UM allowed anyone who wanted to attend to come and prove themselves other than Demar Dorsey....I think there are probably many people each year that gets turned down by UM. DD isn't the first and won't be the last. It sucks for him, but education has to be a priority for student-athletes as well as the sport.