Mike Lantry, 1972
Dan Samuelson, Nebraska OL Commit, to decide between Nebraska and Michigan on 14th
Hunt is visiting this weekend. Basically they are giving Hunt first option.
ADEQUATE NUMBERS ON THE OFFENSIVE LINNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
Seriously, if "Manball" means "more than 7 scholarship offensive linemen on the roster," Manball wins every day of the week.
It's a secret, but we're going to run Wisconsin's barge formation.
I believe Reon Dawson is also visiting too. Buckling up may be prudent?
Reon is an awesome first name. It makes me smile every time I read it. I see an intergallactic Leon, but maybe I have an overactive imagination.
I thought I remember hearing that Hunt still had other visits set up next week. If that's the case I wonder when his decision will be made as compared to Samuelson. Has the ship sailed on the Tennessee commit who is 6'10" too?
Skipper said Michigan is in his top five.
I always had a thing for Marianne...
Yesterday on the recruiting roundup Sam Webb seemed to feel that there was a decent chance that Michigan could sign up to 7 linemen in this class so I wouldn't assume that one commit means they are done with o linemen.
I admit I know nothing, but 7 seems crazy pants. Almost like the coaches are anticipating someone moving to the d-line. But who would that be?
Here are your scholarship offensive linemen for 2013:
if one or more gets injured (which happens almost every year save Michigan 2012), walk-ons are playing.
Michigan needs to recruit seven since it only has three that remain from the 2009-11 classes, and those are the classes you'd expect to populate the top ends of the depth chart right now
But we have 5 already in this class, that you're failing to include in your scholarship lineman list.
"We" don't have anything yet. Those guys haven't signed. But for the sake of argument, that means the 2014 offensive linemen are:
Bryant, Miller, Bars, Kalis, Magnuson, Braden, Dawson, Fox, LTT, Bosch, Kugler
One with an ACL tear, one coming off a broken leg who was 330 before said break, and
with any relevant playing experience at Michigan.
The coaches are simply patching over the 10 linemen that were NOT recruited between 2009-2011 that should be on the roster right now. Go have a look at other teams' rosters - they normally have about 15 scholarship offensive linemen each year. Michigan is simply catching up.
Agree on the problem, but there are two ways of addressing it. You can load up in one class, but that just creates the same problem when these guys graduate.
The other way is to take 2-3 years and have slightly large classes each year to spread out the sholarships. That way you don't have the same problem in 4-5 years.
Each method has pitfalls, but it isn't crazy to prefer the second method, and people suggesting we go that route are not stupid.
Exactly. I simply prefer to take 4 OL each season rather than 7 one year, 2 another, lather, rinse, repeat. Having 7 OL in one class would likely increase the possibility of some of those guys getting frustated with the log jam on the OL and leaving.
We should be taking 4 OLs every year (with maybe an occassional year where we only take 3), whether we have a depth problem or not. Last year we only took 4 (despite ridiculous lack of depth) and according to those in the know we would have taken 7 if Garnett, diamond and Kozan all wanted in. We really needed to get at least one of those guys. In any event taking 6 (or perhaps 7 although I don't see that happening) makes perfect sense, you're sort of ignoring your second sentence, the liklihood is that the weakest of the 6 or 7 will leave and the logjam will resolve itself.
I prefer not to over-recruit and hope for attrition as it can have negative consquences if the team APR (which is adversely affected by transfers) drops low enough.
the reality is if you take 6 or 7, its quite likely that not all of them are around 5 years from now, the "problem" likely never occurs.
but aren't you setting yourself up to have this happen again by overloading your classes? if you want 15 total and 7 are from 1 class, that only leaves 8 for 3 other classes, which means that you get some classes with only 2 or 3 linemen, which, given attrition and injuries and washouts and transfers and guys taking redshirts is pretty bad odds. seems like 6 is the most you would take, 4 is the least per class.
The easy way to address the "problem" of 7 OL is:
Have Bosch and one other (Kugler?) play and only take 4 in the 2014 class.
It is hard to anticipate who will need a redshirt and who will not. Raise your hand if you thought Kalis would redshirt....
I'll raise my hand. Playing freshmen linemen typically means doom. Look at Taylor Lewan in 2010, he was a redshirt freshman and still had issues, namely in the form of drive killing penalties. He evolved into a dominate force, but he didn't really hit his stride until 2010 IMHO. I would have been happy with Lewan spending his first two years sipping gatorade and watching some upper classman dominate at LT.
As for 6 or 7 in a class, lineman has a high washout rate and you can't assume that all 7 are leaving en masse. If say one guy doesn't redshirt that puts him a year ahead of the others, if two guys wash out, and then a fourth guy declares for the draft early, suddenly you don't have a large glob of guys leaving at the same time. Every class we've ever recruited is smaller by the time it graduates.
...how much of Lewan's getting better was from getting a year older and how much of it was from experience on the field? I'd speculate about 75% from the experience.
Redshirt a handful of them, play the few that have real promise to start as freshmen and the set yourself up for only needing 4-5 for the following years after that. When UM gets in a position that it can afford to RS an entire class of incoming linemen, then we're doing well. Right now, can't do that. We'll HAVE to play some true freshmen, but needing them now and stocking up is not a bad thing if 2/3 of them are red shirting. Bottom line, I don't have a problem with 7 if we only play 2, max 3, next year.
Didn't we just do that?
15 isnt set in stone, if you get up to 17-18 in a given year so be it.
This year or next. I'd rather we save the scholly for a lineman next year to spread things out.
Anyone have further info on Graham Glasgow? He was a OL walk-on in 2011 with several offers elsewhere and was supposedly doing well according to comments last season by Lewan, however, I never noticed him on the field.
He's a backup at center right now.
Watching him pull in the spring was ugly. I don't think he's really a viable option if we want to have a good offensive line.
*shakes fist in the general direction of Tuscon, AZ*
They prolly plan on not redshirting 1 or 2.
Seven? That seems really excessive. Personally, I would prefer that they stick with just the five that they have right now.
Positions I feel are in greater need of another recruit before OL:
RB, WR, SDE, LB, CB
For some reason, however, the staff has not bothered to consult with me on this matter. Odd...
Running back has Rawls, Hayes, Johnson, Smith, Shallman and maybe Green for one spot.
WR has Gallon, Dileo, Jackson, Darboh, Chesson, Dever and three more (maybe 4) coming in.
SDE ? Are you serious?
CB has Countess, Taylor, Avery, Hollowell, Richardson and three options incoming.
So, Michigan has 1 returning starter on the O-line and only 7-8 scholarship linemen for 5 positions and you think OTHER spots need more numbers? Shamone.
Did you really need to be an ass in your response? Disagree? Fine, list your reasons for doing so but try to be a little more respectful in the future, please.
My reasoning for stating my opinion: UM landed 4 very good OL in the 2012 class and currently has 5 highly rated OL in the 2013 class. They are very likely going to be able to field their entire starting 5 OL from the 9 guys currently in the 2012-2013 classes and those guys will probably be good to excellent.
Meanwhile, the players UM currently has on the roster or are in the 2013 class at RB, WR and CB do not inspire me with a lot of confidence. There are rumors that a couple of the recent LB commits may have career ending injuries and UM has no one in the 2013 class to fill the SDE position unless the coaches are lying to Shallman and intend to play him at SDE.
He's always been an ass but what he posted was dead on. You need to grow a pair and defend your opinion in the future instead of whining.
Forreals. That was a pretty benign and accurate response.
Did you fail to read the rest of my response? I did supply my reasoning for my original post and you are just as much of an ass as he is based on your response.
Are you people this rude in real life or are you just "internet tough guys"? I would think anyone who behaves in such an uncivil manner would routinely get their ass whipped if they ever "grew a pair" and talked to people like this face-to-face.
Relax man. We're all in your corner.
Rumor is we could be losing 2 linebackers to injury. Then mike jones, Hawthorne maybe cam Gordon. That leaves Ryan, Morgan, Ross, bolden and Rjs as the only returning players with exp. plus 2 incoming frosh. Also jake Ryan could be gone after next season. IMO it would be wise to take 1 more and plan for the worst
RJS doesn't really have experience. I don't really count special teams as actual experience.
I think there's something to be said for being out on the field and getting a sense for how hard people hit, how fast they run, getting the butterflies out, etc. It's obviously not the same as lining up at middle linebacker, making the read, taking on a fullback, etc., but it's something.
If you sgn one more linemen it isn't like they are going to play as a true freshman. Even Kyle Kalis the most "college" ready guy was not going to play. A walkon would be more likely to play than a true freshman. All signing 7 linemen set you up to do is having 11 Oline leaving within 2 years of each other four years from now. I don't see how signing an extra linemen is relevant when discussing next years depth.
But, I get the need to correct for the paucity of linemen recruited in the RR era.
More than that, here's what I think could be happening. Line positions are notoriously difficult to project. But with some of the skill positions, you have a better sense of what you're getting. If Michigan had the chance to sign Treadwell, or Green, or Rueben Foster, I would take them ahead of another lineman. But if Michigan can add another four star lineman instead of a CB or RB or LB they're somewhat "meh" about, I'd go with the lineman.
To put this another way: at this point, take the best athlete available. The tweak on this is that you don't fully know who will pan out to be the best linemen, so until we are at a full complement (14 - 16 linemen on the roster,) it makes sense to over-recruit. Especially because, again, you can't be sure who is really going to work out on the line.
that's a lot of beef for one year. I would imagine there comes a point where there is a little over kill.
"Seven linemen twirling on a branch, eating lots of sunflowers on my uncles ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea!"
If there taking seven than they may no something we don't yet.
6 is the number.