2012 QB Recruiting
As it seems that Devin is injured and it's looking more and more likely that Shane will start in the BWW Bowl, it got me to think about how the staff didn't recruit a QB in the 2012 class.
If I remember correctly, even though we put out a couple of offers, the only QBs that it seemed that we were really heavily pursuing were Zeke Pike and Gunnar Kiel. We finished second for Pike (which seems like a good thing now) and Kiel seemed to cool on Michigan after Shane committed. I don't remember us going after anyone else or being close to signing anyone else. Am I missing anything? Did the staff just stop looking in that class after Shane committed?
It seemed like a bad decision then and is worse now given that Shane had to burn his RS and that our BWW QB lineup is a true FR backed up by a walk-on (Cleary) backed up by either another walk-on (Swieca) or a guy that just started practicing (Bellomy).
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:48 PM ^
You say that same thing for anyone that we didn't offer.
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^
And how does that help us NOW?
Having O'Conner doesn't make me any more comfortable than having Morris. In fact, I'd rather have Morris.
So try again.
Fact is Maty Mauk really seems like the only only BETTER option at this point. Sure those guys might develop into GREAT QBs, but at this point in time, I can't say that many are better than what we have.
...and that's what we're discussing.
December 23rd, 2013 at 8:02 PM ^
We don't actually know that Maty Mauk is any better than Shane; just that he has played significantly to this point. DG and all...
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:18 PM ^
And the excuses about OL recruiting from four years ago, which seem to be the latest and most prominent excuse for the team's regression since the Sugar Bowl, need to end. We're about to start year four of the Hoke/Borges(probably)/Funk era. Of course, for Borges, if it isn't RR to blame, it's the lack of "execution" on the players' part.
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:39 PM ^
The quibble I have with this is that it is calling something that does in fact affect the team as it stands today an excuse though. The way that recruiting seems to work - in my own estimation - is one of the things that makes transitions - particularly with coaches that have different philosophies than the previous staff - forever murky at the start and the need for some fans to blame something infuriating. In an ideal world perhaps (and perhaps I am wrong here), we would probably be relying a little more on offensive lineman from those 2009 and 2010 classes - more than Lewan and Schofield - if we had any other options from those classes. The depth issue is being mitigated through recruiting but has been there - remember that we had less than 10 scholarship offensive lineman when Hoke arrived. How much that matters may be debatable, but it is difficult to deny that it is an issue.
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
O-line depth has been an issue since 2007 in my veiw. I don't remember how many were on scholly in 2008 but I believe it was a little thin even then.
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^
thin in 2008, however the 2008 class included 5 OL. Unfortunately two transfered and one, Rocko Khoury didn't pan out. Net two
2009 was Q. Washington, Lewan, and Schofield.
2010 only Christian Pace
2011 Chris Bryant, Tony Posada, and Jack Miller
December 23rd, 2013 at 8:03 PM ^
Rather than try to re-invent the wheel, I'll simply link to this discussion from 2011 (in a Maty Mauk commitment thread), in which Magnus points out that having more than 3 scholarship athletes on your roster at the most important position is a good idea:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/maty-mauk-commits-missouri
Also, if I remember correctly, Michigan didn't even know whether Gardner would get a medical redshirt when they made the decision to forego taking a QB that class.
December 24th, 2013 at 3:45 AM ^
It is also important to have 3 scholarship-worthy athletes at QB. So far, the 2011 QB class has been underwhelming. What QB would you have taken that you would feel comfortable starting as a RS Fr? Would it help the 2013 team to take another Bellomy-level talent over a guy like Willie Henry/Dennis Norfleet(last minute guys who are major contributors)?
December 23rd, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^
Hammer the OL all you want but give the man credit for a well stocked QB cupboard. Denard and Devin are the only things (Mattison excepted) standing between hoke and a very Rodriguez like record.
Please explain how hoke would have achieved anything close to his current record without them.
December 23rd, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^
December 23rd, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^
This is where the season went wrong. We know our previous coach took a true soph qb recruited for his offense and turned him into an All American. If only borges could have shown us what he could do with a true soph qb recruited for his offense. What could have been if only Bellomy had not gone down.
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
Suffers from that rare syndrome, the symptoms of which can be described thusly: "People think you're good just because you are a Michigan recruit"
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
I think it is easy to say we would be in a better place for this one game had we taken a QB in 2012. However unless that recruit was a phenom I am doubtful it would have had much effect on the season as a whole. Given the limited number of scholarships and the shifts in personel to fit the new system I think there was an appropriate focus on the more foundational positions like the O-line and D-line, and roles where we needed depth or frankly did not have talent. An extra scholarship spent there would yield a greater return on your investment as they would see more playing time versus a QB riding the pine. QBs are important, and I would not up a 5 star that is interesed, but you don't need to recruit a QB every year, and in 2012 the staff had bigger fish to fry.
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
Some people just can't be happy. If this question could ever be addressed, something else will bug them until they are unhappy about it.
December 23rd, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:30 PM ^
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^
...never materialized.
However, Taco-Butt looks promising.
December 23rd, 2013 at 7:29 PM ^
December 23rd, 2013 at 7:21 PM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
Sometimes circumstances dictate that things will not pan out the way we want them to. This is pure speculation here (like insulating that the coaches CHOSE not to take a QB in 2012) but I would most likely say that, given how the staff has said since they were hired that they want one QB in every class, no one wanted to commit to Michigan to be a backup to a five star QB coming in the next class. Devin was a WR, Denard was a senior, and Russ was a lightly recruited QB. Once Shane committed, it was pretty clear *at the time* who the staff was planning to lead the team in 2013.
*edit to clarify
December 23rd, 2013 at 10:29 PM ^
This is kind of pointless. We have Devin next year and Shane the two years after that. What's the problem again? Let it go.
December 23rd, 2013 at 11:04 PM ^
We're sweating out the back-up situation. Just like the O-line this year, we seem to be bereft (in some people's opinion) of a solid option in case the starter goes down. I'm not worried, neither now, with Shane starting in the bowl game, nor in the future, even after Gardner leaves after 2014.
December 23rd, 2013 at 11:11 PM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
Are we worried about who is going to start the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, or who is going to be the starting quarterback 4 years from now.
If we're arguing about rather not picking up a quaterback just for the sake of picking up a quarterback in 2012 paid off or not, I think the general fact that this is the conversation we're having says somthing.
We could easily be complaining about how Gardner was injured before week 2 in a freak accident while crossing the street on the way to a Social Work class and we had to play a true freshman the entire year, or move a linebacker under center, or something silly like that. Seeing how that's not the case, and instead we're worried about a more or less meaningless bowl game and who's going to still be on campus four years from now, I think we'll be alright.
December 24th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think this is a meaningless bowl game. I think it would be more meaningless if it were the difference between a 10-win and and 11-win season. In other words, if we were 10-2 going into this game, that's still a pretty darn good season. This is the difference between 7-6 and 8-5. To me being 3 games over .500 looks a lot better than being 1 game over .500.
December 24th, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^
December 25th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
"Rather we are 8-5 or 7-6 Sunday morning nothing will change for this team."
What does that even mean? You don't think the kids would feel better about themselves by winning a bowl game than if they lost? No offense, but that's silly.
December 24th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^
Re: rather have Morris over Cook comment...not sure I agree, Morris is untested, inexperienced and no proof what so ever he will be a successful Big Ten QB. Morris has potential, yet that potential is based on not one shred of evidence. He could be very good or he could go the other direction. Cook on the other hand has steadly improved with each game he started and ended the season as a Red Shirt Freshman 2nd Team ALL B1G Ten B.
December 24th, 2013 at 7:03 PM ^
Even without the bowl game, Shane Morris has thrown for more yards as a redshirt freshman than Connor Cook did.
December 25th, 2013 at 2:10 AM ^
Cook is not a RS FR this year, my fault, I misspoke. As far as QB receiving yards are concerned:
Freshman Year: Morris 5 for 9 65 yards
RS Freshman Year: Cook 9-17 94 yards
These stats are totals for each one playing in 4 games I think.
My premiss still stand though, I'd rather have a SO, second team All B1G Ten player then an unproven Freshman QB for the next 2 years.