DISCUSS Man

July 2nd, 2013 at 10:36 PM ^

Kind of had the feeling he wouldn't be coming here when Canteen committed.

Who is left for WRs in the class in terms of targets?

Joined: 12/08/2010

MGoPoints: 2640

Mr. Yost

July 3rd, 2013 at 8:22 AM ^

Pretty impressive. I've have to pat myself on the back for that one.

Anyway, I think the only way we open up another spot at WR is if we have 1 spot available in January, we've filled our needs and it's a "best player available" situation.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

gwkrlghl

July 2nd, 2013 at 10:38 PM ^

Clemson's had some great, highly visible receivers lately whereas most people only remember Michigan for some Denard arm punts. Good luck to him

Joined: 04/13/2012

MGoPoints: 72

gwkrlghl

July 2nd, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^

I'm just saying, think of what your average high schooler (not mgoblogger) probably remembers of each schools offense recently. For Clemson, I remember highlights of Tajh Boyd flinging the ball around to guys like Watkins and Hopkins. For Michigan, you probably remember a lot of highlights of Denard rushing for 200 yds and passing at like 7/16 for 180 yds or something. From an outsiders perspective, I can definitely see why Clemson would be more attractive than Michigan (for now)

Joined: 04/13/2012

MGoPoints: 72

Michael

July 2nd, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^

1) We aren't dealing with average high school kids; we're dealing with elite athletes who have unique decision models when it comes to making an epically important decision. To assume their decision comes down to ESPN highlight reels of the most recent two seasons is ridiculous.

2) The change in offense hasn't hampered this coaching staff when it comes to recruiting at literally every position. We've at this point landed elite talent at every position on offense.

3) You assume that a recruit is making a decision based on a highlight reel they've composed in their mind over the past season or two. This is patently absurd. The elite ones especially have a lot of people in their ear.

4) Artavis Scott isn't exactly an "outsider" like you claim since he's been in direct conversation with the coaching staff. This means you've not only mischaracterized his role in the recruiting process, but you you also think you're some kind of "insider" having followed this football program. 

5) Clemson and Michigan run different systems on offense, so the role of a WR in each is quite different. Unless you think Scott is a moron, he understands this.

6) When Michigan was running the offense Denard was recruited for, and which Clemson runs presently, Denard was an ALL AMERICAN. I don't think this is lost on high school recruits, and I certainly don't think they are under the impression the offense they saw the last two seasons is going to be the way forward. 

The next time you're "just saying" something in a post, you might want to put a modicum of thought into it. Scott just felt more comfortable at Clemson, so that's where he will go. The recruiting results under Hoke would seem to indicate that the majority of the elite athletes we recruit end up putting on the helmet. 

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

TheGhostofFerbert

July 3rd, 2013 at 12:02 AM ^

This post sucks.

1)  Any evidence for the fact that higher ranked kids have unique decision models?  No?  Didn't think so.

2).  Yes, it has. See WR.  Drake Harris is good, but he doesn't instantly fix our WR recruiting problems.  We've had one arguably elite WR recruit since Hoke has been here.  That's disappointing at best.

3)  Patently absurd?  Do you what the word "patently" means?  Every big time recruit has a lot of people in his ear.  That doesn't mean he isn't looking to the recent success of each program for his position.

4)  He never claimed he was an insider, and I'm not sure how you even got that from his post.

5)   Are you suggesting that WRs in the Clemson offense somehow have more exposure than the West Coast offense?   Have you followed Borges at all during his career?

6) Clemson doesn't presently run the offense that Denard was recruited for.  Not really that close either.  I don't feel like taking 15 minutes to explain it, but it's pretty clear you don't know much about offensive sets, or college football in general.  Btw, do you remember at what position Denard was selected to be an All-American?  I didn't think so.

Joined: 06/09/2013

MGoPoints: 99

Michael

July 3rd, 2013 at 12:22 AM ^

EDIT: Apparently Ferbert got banned. I will now prepare to experience the full brunt of the TL;DR crowd.

Since you and I appear to be continually negged anyway, I see no reason not to respond. 

1) Since each recruit is a different human being, their decision models are unique. I think that about clears that up.

2) I don't see much difference in WR recruiting under Hoke when compared to RR or even late Carr. Sure, we had some great receivers under Carr but their rankings as recruits weren't much different than what we're getting now. I will concede that WR recruiting is a concern of mine, but I think it's too early. My argument that we've landed elite talent under Hoke still stands (Harris, Darboh, even Funchess and Butt would count here considering the system change).

3) My argument here is that he is inappropriately implying that Artavis Scott isn't able to sort out the signal from the noise. The poster explicitly compares his own individual memories as a Michigan fan to what he assumes Scott is looking at in making his selection of school. I am saying that you should give the recruit the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume he's a moron. 

4) I was perhaps a bit unclear here. I'm simply saying that any recruit has a much better understanding of how their own life will be impacted than any fan could. I don't think that we as fans can claim to have any "inside" knowledge when it comes to this stuff. EIther way, this isn't really that important of a point.

5) My argument here really isn't about exposure or touches, but about the way each WR position is conceptualized in the offenses. I think it's obvious that the coaches sell the role of the position very differently, but the skillset may not be all that different. Either way, my point is that receivers coming out of high school can be sold in different ways on this. 

6) Don't worry, there's no need to spend 15 minutes to explain the difference. I presume the reason why you have such a bad reputation around here is that you start talking to people personally and not about what they're arguing. I'll ignore that whole part. 

I'm not sure what your argument is. I said in response that WR recruits will not be looking at our offense over the past 2 years, or even Denard's performance under Hoke. I referenced the 2010 season as the most comparable offense to Clemson merely to show that there really isn't a comparison that any recruit should make; essentially I am arguing that Denard's performance under Hoke is not only irrellevant, but also that no recruit would even consider it as such.

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

Michael

July 3rd, 2013 at 12:57 AM ^

I'm afraid not. I've been around these parts since the haloscan days making the same arguments. Frankly, I don't even know who that dude is except that he's apparently been banned a few times. 

EDIT: Now I get it. It's the "Ghost of..." dude. Clearly my <500 points since day zero on this site indicate my level of awareness. 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1623

gwkrlghl

July 3rd, 2013 at 12:58 AM ^


1) We aren't dealing with average high school kids; we're dealing with elite athletes who have unique decision models when it comes to making an epically important decision. To assume their decision comes down to ESPN highlight reels of the most recent two seasons is ridiculous.

If I'm a WR, there's no way Clemson's offense isn't way more attractive than how Michigan's has looked lately

2) The change in offense hasn't hampered this coaching staff when it comes to recruiting at literally every position. We've at this point landed elite talent at every position on offense.

Ok?

3) You assume that a recruit is making a decision based on a highlight reel they've composed in their mind over the past season or two. This is patently absurd. The elite ones especially have a lot of people in their ear.

Again, if I'm a WR, Clemson's offense is really attractive. People don't go to schools just because people are 'in their ear'

4) Artavis Scott isn't exactly an "outsider" like you claim since he's been in direct conversation with the coaching staff. This means you've not only mischaracterized his role in the recruiting process, but you you also think you're some kind of "insider" having followed this football program.

I'm an "insider" in that I visit mgoblog like 10 times a day and read everything I can on Michigan football. Artavis Scott is probably not intimately aware of how Borges' ran his offense with Jason Campbell, unlike many of us here

5) Clemson and Michigan run different systems on offense, so the role of a WR in each is quite different. Unless you think Scott is a moron, he understands this.

Right, which is why Clemson's offense looks more attractive for a WR

6) When Michigan was running the offense Denard was recruited for, and which Clemson runs presently, Denard was an ALL AMERICAN. I don't think this is lost on high school recruits, and I certainly don't think they are under the impression the offense they saw the last two seasons is going to be the way forward.

 don't know what that has to do with it. Denard was an All-American because he could run like crazy. Denard was a pretty terrible passer.

Anyway, that's TL;DR. Unfortunately, none of your points really do anything to refute the idea that Clemson's offense looks way more attractive to a WR right now. We can write diaries all day long about how great Borges' can run his offense, but the reality is that non-Michigan fans just remember Michigan's offense as a decidely mediocre passing attack with Denard running everywhere

Joined: 04/13/2012

MGoPoints: 72

MGoStrength

July 2nd, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^

But, I also feel no need to wish a guy good luck.  He made his decision and we should accept it graciously, but I don't feel any need to wish him good luck.  Maybe that's just me.  I hope he is happy, healthy, and all that stuff, but I don't particularly want guys that didn't decide to come to UM have great sports careers either. 

Joined: 07/29/2010

MGoPoints: 20002