I am anxious to see if any UM football players decide to transfer this year. I consider it a very good sign regarding the program and Hoke's relationship with the kids if (almost) no one decides to transfer. Most of these kids were recruited by Hoke and should they decide to stick around even if they do not expect to see significant playing time, it will be significant positive signal for next year and the program.
Hoke& 2014: One sign to look for
I vaguely recalled Brian saying multiple times that Terry Richardson might transfer, given his lack of play time.
That would be fine with me. He's done nothing since showing up to campus and is still too skinny to even think about tackling a B1G running back.
But has he contributed in special teams much? I don't remember him making many tackles on kick-offs / punt returns, etc.
No one said special teams. He's referring to the scout team, a team to which TR may be an important contributor.
Theres a dick comment if I've ever seen one.
All members of the team provide vital roles whether they are starters or on the scout team.
Comments like that are why I'm glad points are back.
I am disappointed I can't neg this from the mobile. The kid showed up undersized...should we blame the parents? TRich has contributed on special teams and has time to develop.
It's been so long since we had depth perhaps you cannot recognize it any longer.
beyond ridiculous. The Jameis Winstons of the CFB world are few and far between, most kids don't start showing up until their 3rd year.
Give the kid a break, jesus christ.
exactly.. I remember waking up in college and watching michigan play under Carr in his last few years.. If we even had a freshman on the field it was all panic mode..
Now we look back at last year, and we started more freshman than ever before in program history.. My how times have changed.. Or our lack of depth we are still struggling to build up after RR years and all the guys that left from the 2009-2011 classes
Jeez, the kid's still an underclassman. And, anyway, he's just a college student, not a professional. How would you like it if random slobs were pissing all over your teenage son just because he isn't Charles Woodson?
I'm not asking him to be Charles Woodson, more pointing out the fact that he's not in the 3 deep.
GFY. You haven't got a goddamn clue how hard it is to play football, and have the kind of character it takes to stick it out, even if you don't crack the two deep. I'd like to see TR whip your dumbass.
I think that you are a little to riled up this Monday.
And I think you're a moron.
*too, by the way.
You aren't in the 3 deep either...
Maybe stated too harshly, my apologies. But the fact that we have seen Lewis, Hollowell, Stribling, and Thomas all play ahead of him, and guys like Hill, Dawson, and Peppers to compete with going forward, I don't see the odds of him being a real contributor being very high.
Long live the negbang!
Because of the personal attack nature of the last sentence. I think it's OK to say "he's not on the 3-deep and I don't think he's going to be a B1G starter" but it's not OK to imply he's not putting in the effort required in the weight room.
That I don't believe Richardson saw the field at all this year, meaning he may not have seen the field because they are redshirting him and giving him the chance to bulk up a bit rather than just throwing him in there. With a bit more depth this year, the coaches may have felt they had the opportunity to do it this year rather than last year, but if Richardson is only a RS So next year, does that change people's perception of where he is.
I didn't realize it, but you're right. He doesn't appear in the player participation sheets of any game this year.
I was also wondering if he redshirted this year (the rare non-freshman-year non-medical redshirt).
He still looks to be buried on the depth chart but with three(?) years of eligibility left who knows what could happen.
Damn it, Space Coyote, between this and your posts re: Borges during the season, I have had just enough of your rational explanations and insights. Some dude upthread said that he is too small, will never play and is just a total bust. Can't you just go with it?!?!
Leaving the players aside, I think Borges is certainly up for debate. Next year is not Year 1 no matter what definition you use. It is put up or shut up time for him next year. I hope Space Cayote and others are right about him but he will have to prove it next year. Those FEI charts just don't lie and show clear regression from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3.
I might be mistaken, but isn't it against board policy to speculate about who might be transferring?
I heard M-Wolverine won't be coming back.
I'm going back to the "Where is Herm?" thread
Now if you can only find the right thread, that would be saying something.
Obviously low attrition is good, but a little attrition is almost unavoidable, and can be healthy for both parties. I wouldn't read anything into a few guys leaving for various reasons (playing time, homesickness, general discontent, etc.). The levels of stability the team has had in the last couple of years are unrealistically and unsustainably low.
While low numbers are generally favorable I don't know if you can draw any definitive conclusions based solely on the raw number of transfers, for me it's the reason for the transfer that I look at more closely. "I'm leaving because I'm buried on the depth chart and the talent level coming in is so high I'm never going to see the field" is not a bad thing and pretty understandable. Also transfers resulting from a scheme change (say a new Defensive Coordinator) that doesnt fit the players particular skill sets or physical attributes arent always a bad thing either.
Players leaving because they arent having any fun (yes football is suppose to fun on at least some level) or because they feel they were mislead by the coaching staff during recruiting is a very bad thing. I'm not sure what's going on in Florida right now other than, as Magnus said in a different thread, they might be thinking "damn..... this offense is horrible and I still cant see the field...time to move on."
By the way OP - I love your avatar - Dr Strangelove is one of my absolute movie favorites of all time. There were so many little fantastic touches that Kubrick tossed in that you really don't notice until like the 10th time you watch it.
Edit: Can somebody explain why this post is getting hammered with down votes? Outside of the OP's "what I'm looking for" tone it's pretty tame and does raise an interesting point of discussion.
He had to preface the entire post by explaining that he is anxious.
If he was anxious about his health, I'd be sympathetic. To be anxious about unspecified and undefined transfers looks like an attempt to create needless drama.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm always interested in finding out why a particular comment that I find inouxious strikes others the wrong way. That explains it.
looking to find the slightest reason to complain. It's a good OP given all the long, positive posts, which I enjoy reading.
Some might be "anxious" to see seldom used Player X transfer so it opens up another spot. Some might be "anxious" to see if promising Player Y sticks around.
I'm just happy we can upvote/downvote again
Truthfully, some attrition is probably good for both the players transferring and the team.
Players who don't see a future on the field can transfer to a different school and potentially contribute there. Hoke and Co. then have extra scholarship slots open up for players who may be a better fit than the players who have left.
I can think of several players who this might apply to, but probably best not to name names.
A fairly positive post to death. All he was saying was that he hopes that there was no attrition. I would hope we all hope for little or no attrition but it is a daily occurence across the NCAA that people do make mistakes and move on, whether for playing time, home sickness, etc.
While the OP has a point, be careful what you wish for. Attrition is a necessary element of a vital, growing program. For example, the 2015 recruiting class, as it stands now, will be too small for comfort: in the 15-20 range, I believe. We sure could use a half-dozen more slots. And, since most players who transfer do so simply in order to receive more PT elsewhere, attrition is beneficial to them, too.
be looking for run-blocking. QED
Actually I believe the biggest sign will not be attrition - the biggest indicator is what jersey sales in Ohio are doing over the course of the next 12 months
Regarding this topic, Seth did a great edition of Hokepoints late last year regarding attrition rates of classes going back to the early 1990s (HERE). What is interesting about this - and I revisit this entry on occasion - is that it seems Michigan classes have been historically quite variable when it comes to attrition rates, but so far there has not been much under Hoke (there were some from the 2011 class).
Is development of the players this staff has recruited.
I think this staff has shown that they can go out and recruit with anyone and have shown they have the values and beliefs that line up with what parents and recruits want to see in a program. Whether some players leave following any given season won't detract from that and given what we have seen, it will almost certainly be related to their prospects of playingtime.
The issue that I see as a potential for turning recruits heads is the seeming lack of development we have seen over the course of the past couple of years. This year they have an excuse of sorts in that the team was very young (though I still think we should have seen more progress during the year). Next year, though we will still be young, the core of the 2 deep will have been here long enough that we should see significant improvement.
If a trend becomes evident where highly touted players come to UM but don't develop into NFL draft picks, players are going to start to question whether coming here is going to get them to the next level (which many of them aspire to do).
So for me, the number 1 thng I want to see from Hoke (and more specifically this staff as a whole) is that they have developed the players we have by showing us the results on the field. If they can't do that I am going to have to seriously question the long-temr viability of BH as the head coach of UM (which I haven't done to this point).
Clearly, transfers is not the best indicator of good coaching, but there certainly is no denying that it not only factors into the medica coverage and perception of the program, but it ensures the team keeps building depth and experience. Look at Florida and Michigan. Florida's transfers have to be absolutely killing their perception with the media and recruits. We of course all remember Michigan's situations, but the transfers without a doubt had a major impact in kililng depth and experience on the team under Rich Rod.
Can't say this is the biggest thing, but it is at least a positive thing to note.
Something positive related to UM football??? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
The program usually announces all the transfers and unrenewed 5th years at once, right? I imagine that'll happen a little while after the bowl game, after Hoke has a chance to talk with each player (and the player talks with their family over winter break).
They kind of seem to trickle out. There typically aren't any big announcements, but some media member will ask in the spring, "Has anyone transferred?" and Hoke will say "________ won't be coming back." Or the kid will announce it himself on Twitter. Something like that. The last newsworthy transfer out of Michigan was in 2008 when Mallett transferred to Arkansas. Otherwise, it's been mostly under-the-radar players and of course Tate Forcier, who got booted out of the school to expedite the process.
3% is too low.
7% too high.
5% just right.
So while our program builds back from the super-attrition that happened while this program went though 2 coaching searches in 3 years, we have had very little attrition. I could see this offseason being quiet, with next offseason being about normal.
Nothing wrong with attrition, I just hope the best for all these student athletes.
If there's one thing that Brady Hoke has a reputation for, it's being honest with players. If a player who isn't a good fit asks about playing time, I think Hole would be honest with him and tell him there probably won't be a lot, but that he is welcome to be a part of the program. Sometimes they stay, but sometimes they go where they can play.
That kind of transfer works for both sides, and isn't an indication that there is anything "wrong" with the program. Often, it can be an indication that the talent level in the program is increasing from the younger classes.
I really don't think it's necessary to find bogus excuses to bitch about Brady Hoke at this time. Wait until after his fifth year. Then, if there are reasons, they will be legitimate reasons and not excuses. Hoke has stabilized a terrible situation and is pulling in some nice recruiting classes.
I want to see how Brady Hoke does with a depth chart that is dominated by upperclassmen that he recruited before complaining about him.
I agree that a couple transfers wouldn't hurt. The (necessary) glut of o-line recruiting in the 2012 and 2013 classes has resulted in smaller o-line hauls in 2014 and probably 2015...it would be nice to get off this rollercoaster and get at least somewhat stabilized, lest the offensive line problems of the 2012-2013 seasons reappear circa 2018.
The only thing that threads like this do for me are make me glad that up and down voting has been properly returned to the blog. Straight to Bolivia with these people!
You must have all the insight to make this blog truly spectacular.
I hope T-Rich doesn't transfer. Like to see kids from Michigan contribute. Gotta be honest though, his (and Rawls, TBH) lack of Twitter activity has me concerned.