Michigan didn't recruit a DL named "Miller" in 2011. Nor did they recruit a DL named "Poggie" in 2013.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
Michigan didn't recruit a DL named "Miller" in 2011. Nor did they recruit a DL named "Poggie" in 2013.
I just went off Rivals data:
But do you use any common sense? You know Jack Miller has never been a defensive lineman.
I also believe the OP did not list Frank Clark as a D-lineman recruit.
Well originally everyone thought he was a LB and when Miller was being recruited some people thought he was a DL.
Your research and general knowledge of the team is subpar.
But it's not like you went back decades. All of these players are of recent vintage, so the idea of Frank Clark not being a lineman, for example, is silly. Also, Miller was, at best, a two-way linemen.
For future reference, just look up this site's "Hello" posts for your position breakdowns.
I think the DL recruiting is fine, it just hasn't shown it's dividends yet because Hoke has been on the job for less than two years. OL and DL takes time to develop. These recruits won't come in and take over right away. Give them a couple more years and M has the makings of an elite program.
Hoke is doing great with DL recruiting . For large DT's and what your talking about, he took pipkins last year and is taking hurst this year.
Weird that you included Jack Miller on the DL, but left off Frank Clark. Also weird that you included an ND player who is no longer there, and another (Springmann) who is an OL. You can't rely solely on Rivals for all of your info.
He had a sack against MSU.
Kenny Hayes also transferred
We also have 2 other coaches that know the D-line.
So as far as recruiting D-linemen, I'm not worried about star ratings. I trust these 3 guys know what they're looking for.
The problem is we have depth holes everywhere on the roster. What positions do/did you not not want the staff to recruit heavily their first two classes (2012/2013)? We had, and to some extent are still hurting at, DB, absolutely no OL, no quality LB depth, WRs and RBs that didn't fit the style the coaches want to do. There is an icredible numbers and depth gap the coahces are/were trying to to make up from the ridiculous attrition during the RR years.
And as far as the lower rankings of the DL, well what did we expect the first few classes? We just came off one of the worst stretches in our history while our regional rivals saw resurgance. I would say the coaches are far out-pacing expectations at this point. I agree that DL (and OL) needs to be a major point of emphasis for any winning program, but I don't feel like the coaches have been neglecting it either considering everywhere else they need to get bodies.
Kenny Hayes I believe is no longer with Ohio State.
Aaron Lynch has left Notre Dame.
Your information is frankly terrible.
No, Kenny Hayes is not with OSU anymore. He transfered to MSU.
Just another case that I hate we can't take JUCOs or transfers. That's really helping MSU fill holes lately.
Hayes transferred to Toledo, not MSU.
Well, a quick internet search reveals you are correct. Last I heard he was heading to MSU, but turns out that fell through. Hooray! But bigger point about MSU still stands.
Keep in mind as well that we're the early favorite for Malik McDowell in 2014, and have a punchers chance for DeShawn Hand as well. I agree we should always recruit good DL classes, but not time to freak out yet.
Overreact much? Hokes first full recruiting class is 3 games into their freshman year.
Our d-line recruiting with Hoke, Mattison and Montgomery looks great to excellent. I don't know why you would even point out RR unless you want to weaken our argument by saying the current coaching staff started with less. So, in a nutshell, you're saying:
"I prefer the players Rivals ranked to the players the coaches preferred most."
Fine, if that's what you want, but it's not supporting an actual argument that we'll be bad if we don't change how we're recruiting. Plus, if you want to get into individual players - who should we have gone after instead of the guys we got:
Who we didn't get and OSU/ND did:
Who we didn't get:
We have 1 five star and 16 four stars out of 23 in this class based on rivals. I don't even know if I have a question other than what the hell else do you want besides "ALL THE RIVALS FIVE STARS"?
All I have to say is wow. I may even love you, no homo of course. I don't think this could have been typed out any better.
Your first and second sentences are the best though. Well said.
Someone who pays more attention to their team could be more specific (and they apparently don't post player participation on their website), but I'm pretty sure Washington, Schutt, and I believe another freshman DL were in the game for OSU on Saturday, late in a very close game against Cal.
At the same time, Michigan is redshirting 4 DL and will only graduate BWC and Roh from this year's group (I believe we've played 11 guys, which doesn't include 4-star RS soph. Ken Wilkins).
I think we're in pretty fantastic shape now and going forward.
Agreed. I'm definitely not commenting above on this year's depth, but I think our overall outlook is strong going forward. I really hope Willie Henry and Maurice Hurst work out as solid inside guys to go along with Pipkins.
Also, my dog is named Maurice so I'm especially rooting for Hurst to be good.
caliber D-linemen don't exactly grow on trees.
2013 is/was very weak for DT in the MidWest IIRC so we did the best we could with what was local and who we could lure from out of the area - I would give the staff an "A" for pulling Poggi and Hurst from outside our region.
All that said - we would be screwed if we had ended up whiffing on PeeWee in 2012. I hope to see some "Day-like" performances from him before the year is over.
Had we not gotten PeeWee, we were also in excellent shape for Schutt and Day also if IIRC. Schutt was turned down from visiting once Pipkins dropped, but I think we could've had a really good shot at him if the coaches would have put the press on, even before his Penn St commitment.
I think you hit ctrl-v instead of ctrl-z.
Is this only a topic of discussion because that's where we've had "poor play" as of late?
I seem to think that is the only reason this topic is being discussed. We have NO Idea where we truly stand as a D-Line yet... We played manhandling Alabama's O-Line for our first game, then an offense that is generally successful with smaller bodies (Triple- Option), THEN we played a team that is a bottom barrel of whom we can't really measure much off of because, let's face it, EVERYONE knew we'd win and therefore I feel the effort was not 100% there. I've been saying for 2-3 weeks that we won't know what we TRULY have until we play Notre Dame... Which I feel will be a much better game than what ND @ Sparty was.
I expect our DL will be fine next year with the combination of Beyer/Strobel...Pipkins...Black/Washington...Clark/Wormley
I'm more worried about what will the post-Denard offense look like...
I am worried about OL depth for next year. We have many promising recruits from the 2012 and 2013 classes, but the youth is going to be scary. It will be interesting to see what happens next year. Hopefully we don't need to burn too many red shirts this year on the OL.
I feel Lewan may be coming back if we don't win a Big Ten championship- so I hope he leaves!
You never mentioned Schofield. He'll still be here and will obviously start somewhere, unless our young guys are just incredible in which case good problem to have.
FWIW, this would have qualified for moderation under the BiSB "Snowflake Rule" had you not included statistics in your post. Opinion threads are like a--holes . . . everyone's got them and they all stink.
I read somewhere that if it appeards on the internets, its true. So there's that.
Plus, its always good fun to debunk sh-tty information/statistics.
is rather skewed. Mike Martin and Brandon Graham were the two best Michigan DL in the past twenty years, yet you pick Alan Branch (who was very good, but overrated by M fans) and Ondre Pipkins (who has yet to see meaningful time and IS A FRESHMAN) as your shining examples?
This, plus your woefully inaccurate information, leads me to conclude that it is currently amateur hour. Try harder next time.
Lamar Woodley says "Oh Hai Guys" as well. Absolute freak of nature, and a consensus 5 star out of Saginaw. Would say Woodley or Graham as being the top 2, MM a not-so-distant 3rd.
Certainly no offense to MM at all, but he's a pretty distant third behind those two. Woodley and BG were among the best in the country as seniors, MM was among the best in the conference.
Woodley was fantastic at Michigan as well, but I feel statistics play an important role here.
Martin had 64 tackles as a NOSE TACKLE and a bunch of TFLs his senior season. At the very least, he sets the standard for nose tackle play despite the undersized rabblerabblerabble.
...based on star count is absurd.
Ugh. Not again!
This thread was dumb. DL is not a worry long term.
humans in the written word is someone worthy of a neg-bang.
Looks like he's leaning toward Boise State.
But I am pretty certain our one and only coach Hoke referred to one of the players (not sure which) as a "cat" in his last presser. So I suggest you get in sync with our cool cat of a coach.
You're concerned about the depth there? We might have more depth on the DL than any other position, save maybe LB. We only lose two guys after this year, bring in three, and get four more coming off of a redshirt. We will probably be three deep at all four spots next fall, without the incoming freshmen.
85 bears on down? To the 01 ravens? What other defenses won championships? Probably best not to include the NFL in a college discussion since QBs dominate the NFL.
Hoke recruited 6 defensive linemen in the last class, and has taken 12 overall since coming to MIchigan, including 3 4-stars, and 2 of the top 100 prospects nationally. 6 of them are good enough to already be playing on the team. What more do you want?
Edit: Ironically, if you're looking for more "Alan Branch types" Hoke is currently recruiting his younger brother, 2014 D-Tackle/End prospect Desmond Branch.
OK, but saying only one would start for an elite team isn't much of an insult since only 2 start on any team.
Also - you don't know how those guys are going to look next year. Pipkins-Black or QW-Black could be a nasty NT-DT combo next to each other. Wilkins is done, but don't count out Henry, Glasgow or Godin (who you didn't mention) just yet since they are true frosh. No one knew anything about RVB when he was a true frosh either.
If next fall we have Pipkins and QW rotating at the nose and Black and Ash rotating at the 3-tech with 1 or 2 other guys from that group stepping up and getting sporadic reps, that could very well be a talented, experienced, deep DL interior.
I decided to go through historical data at Rivals, trying to see where the OP was going with this. It turns out that over the past 12 recruiting classes, Michigan averages about 4 defensive lineman per class, with that component of the class averaging 3.6 stars. Compared to what many schools pull in, that's actually really good. Individual classes have been as low as 3 and as high as 4, with the trend over the last three classes being 3.25, 3.5 and 3.67 with the 2013 class to date. Even if you only went with these, they should perhaps tell you that things are pretty good now talentwise and still improving. There's no need to fret about the future even with the Rivals data.
The major confounding factor in such an analysis, of course, is that several of these players did not end up at the position that they were recruited to play. Carson Butler (went from DE to TE in 2008, I think), Patrick Omameh (originally recruited to play DE) and a few others stand out. Still, we've done OK here if the OP insists on looking at just these numbers.
Alabama landed 23 dlineman in the previous 4 classes... Michigan landed 12 and more then half of them are no longer on roster.....that should explain where the current status and difference is.......Also, the same with olineman, Alabama landed 24 olinemin in 4 classes Michigan 14 I believe and half of the olineman are gone....
You win being strong in the trenches, taking care of the football and athletes that can make things happen with the ball and on defense!
Alabama also had 103 commits from 2009-12...handy to build offensive, defensive line depth.
That helps tremendously, especially when the majority of kids are 4-5 stars. More room for error.
Perhaps I am lacking them. If we landed 12 d-linemen in the last 4 classes and more than 1/2 left, then how many d-linemen do we have? My answer doesn't square with the roster or the fact that we've rotated 11 players on the DL so far this season.
I think you are just making crap up. Prove me wrong. You can start by naming those 7+ players no longer on the roster?
Sounds catchy. But is it true?
I’m not questioning whether defense is important. And I do appreciate your dilligent research on the topic.l. But the last I heard, you’ve gotta score some points, too. So, I wonder, what does the saying “Defense wins championships” really mean?
I wonder if it is like many other catchy but vaguely stated truisms that can be false: eg:
"Whoever said 'winning isn't everything' never won anything".
(who never won ANYTHING?)
“That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.”
(so I can tear my ACL and still play next week?).
“You get what you pay for.”
“Less is more.”
(so, UMass actually won by scoring 50 fewer points?)
“What goes around comes around.”
(so if you plan to die in five minutes, don’t cheat on your taxes or the IRS will follow you)
"Experience is the best teacher."
(As Benjamin Franklin put it: "Experience is a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other.")
So, how about “Defense wins championships” (and your suggestion that UM cannot win because of its poor DL recruiting). Let’s for the moment ignore the factual inaccuracies. Let’s forget that UM’s first year coach went 11-2 last year and won a BCS bowl championship.
Let’s look at your thesis that, the defensive determines winners, the DL is most important, and we had poor DL recruiting, relative to ND and Ohio.
1. ND lose to us three yrs in row?
2. Ohio finish 6-7 last year?
in fact, doesn’t Ohio even lack a recorded victory vs. UM in nearly 2 years and ten months?
(Maybe you want to argue that it’s because they got penalized for cheating. Yet, the main reason they developed a false reputation during the tressel decade and thus had some recruiting success is that allowed players to be paid. So, you think we should have been more competitive---what’s the point? Maybe we should have cheated too?)
In any case, your thesis that defense wins championships can hardly be challenged in the tunnel visioned time warp focused on “Da Bears” more than a quarter of a century ago. But, if you want to look at the NFL super bowl champs, maybe you should look at teams during the current millennium. For them, how important has defensive success been relative to offensive success? As noted in the link below, a number of the NFL super bowl champs had mediocre defenses and allowed a lot of points.
you know, instead of reflexively being dicks, you could offer the guy some constructive criticism.
I was put off by what I took to be the implication that the OP knows more than Coach Hoke and that Coach Hoke hasn't made DL recruiting a priority. But - and I'm not being sarcastic - what you suggest would have been better than a number of the replies above, mine included.
It's tough to go against learned behavior for some folks.
what did the OP do other than complain that we need higher rated recruits on the DL? I didn't comment on his post, but I think a lot of negs were inevitable.
Ok I'll take a stab at it.
OP - You are speaking to an increadibly knowledgable classroom of Michigan fans who pride themselves on their knowledge of the team, the players and our upcoming recruiting class. If you are going to post something that suggests the coaching staff is moving in the wrong direction and you feel strongly enough about it to support your supposition with a fairly detailed chart then your facts better be right. Because the "class" will spot any errors in your fact sheet and will blow up your arguement quickly. And when you're proven wrong it's best to simply admit your error and either change your original hypothosis (case in point I argued strongly for RR to be given a contract extension before the Wisconsin game in 2010) or see if you can find facts that do support your arguement.
Me? I just post pictures of the coaching staff and my family taken at our tailgate after the game.
You mean Trent Dilfer didn't win that Superbowl for the Ravens?
but loosely related to the OP is something that bothered the hell out of me in the Alabama game. The announcers were slobbering over the SEC as usual, constantly stating that "Alabama wouldn't be tested until they played a string SEC team like Arkansas".
It drove me nuts all game as I was pretty convinced before the season that Alabama had the best team in the nation by a fairly wide margin and thought UM did pretty good considering who they were up against.
Fast forward to the Arkansas game and what was the score...58-0. So in their last four games counting last seasons national championship game the only team to put points up against Ala. was us.
Anyway, I read the SEc crap inthe post and hear it constantly in the media and think it is complete BS. Ala and LSU have superior talent, but the rest of the SEC is not better than any other major conference in the country. Two teams don't make a conference and I wish the media would give that crap up!