Michigan 10, Georgia 1, Texas 1, South Carolina 0

Submitted by vulture on

Also FSU 3, Miami (YTM) 3.  Schools we lose recruiting battles to/states we recruit from.  Killing them on draft day.  Beating the combined effort of USC/UCLA, too.

Dailysportseditor

April 29th, 2017 at 3:39 PM ^

Utah has 6 draft picks so far, including 3 OL, which I believe leads the country.  They lost last year to Oregon, Cal, Colorado and Washington; barely beat Indiana in the bowl game.  Go figure.

reshp1

April 29th, 2017 at 3:43 PM ^

This is kinda dumb. Drafted by year fluctuates a ton. We had very few last year because we returned nearly everyone. This year is the opposite. Next year is probably another lean year.

schreibee

April 29th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^

Actually, when your school has more players drafted than some entire conferences, I don't think it's all that dumb to point out.

And now is the proper time to take a small moment to thank Brady Hoke for getting all these fantastic players and young men to come to Michigan...

reshp1

April 29th, 2017 at 5:05 PM ^

Is it really that hard to admit it's both? Butt, Peppers, and Lewis would have gotten drafted even if Harbaugh didn't come. The others were a combo of talent ID by the previous staff and development by Harbaugh and Co.

All the Michigan sells itself talk didn't really help RR, or the late Carr years for that matter. A top 4 class followed by a top 6 class after a down period is a hell of an accomplishment at any school. Hoke for all his numerous failures and faults was in fact a very good recruiter. It's ok to admit that even if you hate him.

TrueBlue2003

April 30th, 2017 at 12:06 AM ^

would have been just fine under the old defensive staff as well.  Mattison would have had Taco, Glasgow and Wormley being beasts.  Darboh and Chesson probably would have been drafted as well, but maybe not as highly.

Gedeon certainly benefitted a great deal from Don Brown and new coaching. And defensive backs like Hill and the second tier CBs probably benefitted hugely from Zordich.

Ironically, the two position groups Harbaugh and Drevno were best known for developing at Stanford are QB and OL and those have been our weakest position groups.  I do think they've gotten the most out of mediocre talent and it just hasn't been enough for great units yet.  Will be interesting to see how those units with their guys develop the next couple years.

JonnyHintz

April 30th, 2017 at 12:22 AM ^

2008: 11th
2009: 12th
2010: 17th (when he was fired)

Yeah.... the whole Michigan selling itself thing DID actually work out pretty well for Rich Rod. Rich Rod brought a lot of talent to Michigan as well. Problem was, their skills didn't translate to the NFL game and he didn't recruit certain positions enough. But yes. He brought in highly ranked classes too. So did late Carr. So did Hoke. And so is Harbaugh.

There's really no coach out there that can't come to Michigan and recruit top 15 classes with consistency. It's a blue blood program with great resources and history. Hoke doesn't get credit for bringing players to Michigan because he did nothing that anybody else couldn't do.

Does Michigan still get Jourdan Lewis out of Cass Tech if anybody other than Hoke is the coach? More than likely. Peppers grew up rooting for Michigan. It was his favorite team. Michigan likely pulls that out no matter the coaches too. Jake Butt... go look at his offer list as a recruit and tell me that it isn't a battle Michigan wins regardless of the coach.

Hoke was a good recruiter. But he didn't bring in guys that wouldn't have strongly considered Michigan anyway. Why does he deserve any credit for that?

TrueBlue2003

April 29th, 2017 at 11:57 PM ^

because Hoke's predessor couldn't get highly ranked guys to come here.  Every elite program in the country has had down cycles in recruiting in the last 20 years if they've had a period with even a mediocre recruiter as a coach (Michigan, ND, Nebraska, Alabama, Texas, Miami).  It's possible Florida, LSU, USC and OSU are somewhat immune to this because of so much in-state talent without enough competition for it, but that is it.  

Kids don't play for programs, they play for coaches.  And highly ranked kids wanted to come play for Hoke in his first two years.  As many as have wanted to play for Harbaugh, in fact.  Their first two recruiting classes are nearly identical in size, national rank and average player rank.  And this draft class is all the evidence that his classes were every bit as talented as the rankings.

JonnyHintz

April 30th, 2017 at 12:33 AM ^

No longer true?

11th, 12th, and 17th were Rich Rod's three classes. Rich Rod was HARDLY known as a great recruiter. STILL finished top 15 consistently. The Michigan name alone gets you in the door with top recruits.

Add in the Big House, top level academics, most wins all time, most Big Ten titles, 11 national championships, the most televised team in the NCAA, most consecutive drafts with a player drafted, largest alumni base.

It's not hard to sell Michigan to top players. At all. Especially in our own region, which is what Hoke specialized in.

MGoStrength

April 29th, 2017 at 3:44 PM ^

Is it fair to say we lose recruiting battles to them?  Maybe we lose more recruiting battles to guys from FLA against FSU or guys from CA to USC, but do we lose kids from the Midwest to them?  I'd guess they'd all take guys DPJ, Bredeson, Peters, Onwenu, Cole, Harris, Marshall, Ferns, etc. (and every other top 300 midwest guys we've landed in recent years).

TrueBlue2003

April 29th, 2017 at 4:01 PM ^

in 2013 when most of these players signed.  We had the number 4 class in the country behind Bama, OSU and Florida (who have all had more picks the last two drafts). 

Oh, and we were also 6th in recruiting in 2012 when the rest of them were signed (Wormley, Darboh, Chesson and Kalis and Mags if they go).

Last year, we were in danger of not having anyone selected.  So, it's cyclical and highly correlated with your incoming class 4-5 years prior.  Which means this coming year is probably going to be a lean one for us in the draft, probably the following year too.

The point you're trying to make is not well made.

 

othernel

April 29th, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^

Us when we send almost no one to the NFL for nearly 7 years:

  • "Whatever. This has nothing to do with talent" 

Us when OSU sends most of their team to the NFL:

  • "Whatever. This has nothing to do with talent. They're going to have so much talent to replace." 

Us when we send 10+ players to the NFL:

  • "HOLY FUCK! We are the greatest university ever! Georgia only sent one! Why do they even have a formal team?!!?!? We're going to win 30 national championships next year! WE'RE GOING TO LIVE FOREVER!!"

B-Nut-GoBlue

April 29th, 2017 at 6:03 PM ^

Well, peeps need to be called on their shit!

No you have a point, but its an annoying part of sports (well, life) when everyone thinks they know everything or are always on the "right" side of things, when in reality they certainly don't and are just bandwagoning, respectively. But when they do strike a lucky guess or meaningful opinion they're all of a sudden a scholar.

ThadMattasagoblin

April 29th, 2017 at 4:10 PM ^

We'll probably get a recruiting bump even if we're going to only have like 3 drafted next year. We can now go to guys like Tyler Friday and say that we had two defensive linemen drafted in the first three rounds. Before we were selling hope there.

vulture

April 29th, 2017 at 5:25 PM ^

and those schools usually get the cream of the crop for their respective states. To me, this draft day means our coaches can tell a recruit from TX or GA or CA that they have a better chance of making it to the NFL by choosing Michigan.

Mr. Yost

April 29th, 2017 at 6:23 PM ^

Now I'm even more confused.

You posted teams...not states.

Michigan had 10 (now 11) guys, but I'm not sure how many players there were from the state of Michigan who were drafted.

Sure Michigan can recruit to the number of guys they put in the NFL, but that's just dumb when you're comparing elite programs. We had one of the best recruiting classes in recent memory last year...how many NFL players did we have to point to for that class?

This is Michigan, not USF. This has no bearing on recruiting. You honestly think if a kid picks Michigan over Texas or Georgia he has a better shot at the NFL?

If you can get a scholarship to Michigan, Texas, Georgia, etc. - you can get to the NFL if you develop and produce. 

TrueBlue2003

April 30th, 2017 at 12:27 AM ^

he's trying to make the point that this is evidence that you will develop and produce better under Michigan's staff than under Texas' or Georgia's.  It's certainly a selling point and they probably will speak to it.

Like you said though, it probably has a negligible impact in the whole scheme of things, especially when both those programs switched coaches in the last year. They were cherry picked by the OP as two down programs, who have since made changes to correct what was down, and should recruit just fine (in fact, are recruiting great) even with these draft results, just like we did last year.

vulture

April 30th, 2017 at 11:30 AM ^

The recruiter is like a salesman and the recruit and his family are like customers.  The same customers UM pursues are probably going to be pursued by UTX/UGA/SCAR, etc...

The recruiter should probably start by ascertaining the customers' needs.  

If one of the needs is to play for a coach that will help the recruit eventually play for a pay check, the recruiter should point to the 19 kids (including Norfleet) who will be playing for a pay check next season.  The recruiter should say that this Michigan coaching staff is responsible and that they can do for the recruit what they did for the 19.

When the recruit asks UGA/UTX/SCAR the same thing, the numbers they quote will be smaller and I do think that it will have some bearing.

 

Alumnus93

April 29th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^

Watch it be Kali's who needs to be drafted to break the all time record, and then not get drafted, as a typical letdown from him.