My Concern About This Year's Recruiting Class...
I admit, pretty much everything I know about recruiting I know from this board, but I see a big red flag in this year's class. Brian says that we should take around 3 O-Linemen in a class. Right now, we have one, and I don't see any others on the recruiting board.
Remember in 2008, how the offensive line was piss terrible with Angry Michigan Offensive Lineman Hating God? Remember? I am worried that maybe a repeat on a smaller scale could happen some time down the road if we only take one O-Linemen in this class.
What do you guys think?
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Don't you mean Fat man? (sarcasM)
Ala Charlie Weiss and Mangino
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^
why you got negged on this. I found it actually pretty funny and quick!
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
but i would say it's because
1) it's a tired joke
2) it's Weis, not Weiss
But maybe not.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
I agree, it's probably less than ideal. Hopefully next year will be more fruitful for O-lineman. It's sort of an unusual situation, because the need for DBs is so huge this year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
We have a raft of young offensive lineman from the last two classes. Taking a year off OL recruiting to concentrate on the defense is a good idea IMO.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^
Keep in mind that Wermers and O'Neill are gone from the 2008 class. We did take 6 guys that year, but over three classes (2008-2010), there will only be 8 offensive linemen.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
Thats still only 1 shy of an average three year span, which would be 9 if you're taking 3 a year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
Three per year is not necessarily ideal. If they all stay for five years, then sure, that gives you 15 OL on the roster consistently. But when you suffer attrition like we have, it becomes a problem. We'll only have 13 scholarship offensive linemen on the roster this year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
Yes but 8 of those 13 will be freshmen or sophomores. Isn't the real reason you want to have a steady stream of good OL recruits coming in so that when some graduate, the others can step right in and a team wouldn't have to play freshmen? We don't really have to worry about that if next year's class has some good OLine prospects.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Yes, but that's the point - at some juncture in the future, we will have to play younger guys due to the small class this year. It won't hurt us in 2010 or 2011, but maybe 2012 or 2013. That's why you need a steady stream of offensive linemen every year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
It really shouldn't be an issue until 2013 if at all. The 2012 team should have 7 guys in their fourth year or better in the program. I think the coaches like this current young group and don't expect much if any further attrition. It also looks like a pretty talented group and they should have a good indication as far as how they rate the players at this point (and I'm guessing they rate them pretty highly if they aren't in a rush to add more o-line bodies).
By 2013 (when the Schofield, Lewan, Washington class are 5th year seniors), we will have added three more full recruiting classes and two of those will have a year or better on campus. Pulling in four guys a year over the next two classes we'll end up with 12 guys who have spent at least a year on campus. Assuming reasonable attrition, you are still looking at 9-10 solid recruits to play five spots along with any in case of emergency contribution from true freshmen.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:57 PM ^
Not every recruit at OL will turn out to be a competent starter at the college level. Should a few linemen not develop well, we could very well be screwed.
That said, I do agree that the situation isn't particularly bad considering that we have a larger number of freshman and sophomores than usual, at least as compared to a normal year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^
I guess my point is that the coaching staff probably has a good feel for what the current group of 7 freshmen/sophomores will be able to do going forward and it seems like they are confident that that group plus Pace (eight guys for five spots) can lead a solid unit in 2012. If that group (bolstered by another recruiting class or two) doesn't turn into a good unit I think it will have more to do with injuries, poor scouting, or poor development (things I don't expect to happen) than a lack of numbers.
By the time that group starts losing guys to graduation (going into 2013 season) I think we'll have plenty of time to get the overall numbers up to a level where the risk is still minimal. That is why I accounted for 2-3 guys leaving the program and even with that you would have 9-10 guys to choose from with a year or more in the program and hope you bat .500 (or that you have an awesome true freshman class).
At the end of the day, I'd like to haul in tons of o-linemen every year, but I think if it is ever excusable not to then this would be the year (massive needs on defense, lack of prospects the staff wanted to offer, large/talented young group on campus).
January 24th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
You can't rely on every OL recruit becoming a competent starter, but the same is true for every other position.
The needs this season are much greater at other positions than they are at OL. Such is life.
January 24th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
The offensive line positions are notoriously hard to predict, more so than any other position. There's a higher rate of washouts on the offensive line than anywhere else.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^
Absolutely agree with you on the desire to keep a steady stream of O-linemen but I can also understand a "defer the pain" strategy on RR's part- deal with the most critical bleeding now even if it will cause some bleeding down the road. He's got to win this year and two top flight safeties, even as freshman, help that goal more than 2 freshman OL that won't see the field.
January 24th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
Okay, but why recruit 6 wide receivers then? DJ Williamson isn't going to help in 2010. Tony Drake isn't/wasn't, either.
It's fine if defense is your top priority. It just doesn't jive with how things played out.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 PM ^
Something to remember about RichRod is he believes in building a robust walkon program. Last year he brought in five walkon o-linemen:
Tom Lindley
Jareth Glanda
Adam Barker
Christian Brandt
Erik Gunderson
The most intriguing is Lindley, one of the top OL in New York last year.
"First Team All-Long Island: TOM LINDLEY FLOYD, OL, 6-3, 300, Sr. A second-team All-Long Island choice last year, Lindley was a three-year standout lineman for a team that won 31 straight before a loss to Lindenhurst in the playoffs this year. The 2008 Zellner Award winner as Suffolk’s top lineman, Lindley, a guard, 'turned our spread offense into a power offense because of his pulling ability,' according to coach Paul Longo. Lindley also played defense in short-yardage situations." Source - http://michigan.scout.com/2/841094.html
I realize we don't want to rely on walkons to populate our team, but lineman are often the most difficult to judge in high school since they are so impacted by scheme. Not to mention the challenge of projected growth once in a college training program.
I am pleased that we will invite so many walkon linemen to supplement our depth and I expect we will see a few more in this year's class.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
great post
January 24th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^
Like you said, it's probably not a good idea to count on walk-ons to contribute. Walk-ons who can beat out scholarship players are great stories, but chances are slim.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^
I believe that there are quite a few guys that were freshman last year that will have more experience this year adding depth to line. It would be nice to have others this year, but the secondary is much more of a concern than the OL at present.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
I'd like to see a couple more come in to space out our recruiting, but last year's class was huge. I don't think we'll be hurt too bad by only having one in this class.
Edit: Personally I'm more interested in adding a DT than an OL. We've got three listed DTs, and one of those is Martin, who I somewhat see as more of a DT/DE hybrid - not quite the size of a DT but capable of playing the position solidly. That's not a very deep set there.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
If Martin is a tweener, it's between NT and DT, not DT and DE.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^
I stand corrected.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
Recruiting only one offensive lineman in any class isn't a good thing. We only offered 15 offensive linemen in this class while we offered about 44 defensive linemen. This won't hurt us next year, but it could be a bad thing 3 or 4 years down the road. It also puts a squeeze on next year's class, which is going to be small, and maybe 1/4 of our 2011 class will have to be offensive linemen.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
I agree that if it hurts us it will be 3 years down the road and not next year. We have 7 Olinemen with 3 or more years of eligibility left, not including soon to be incoming freshman Pace - so if we get some solid recruits for 2011 I think we'll be fine.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
I favor recruiting tons of bodies on both lines (you win in the trenches), but I'm not too worried since we signed good o-line classes the last two years. Next year we'll have eight guys who are either freshmen or sophomores eligibility wise on the roster. Assuming we bring in normal-to-big o-line hauls the next couple of years we should be fine.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^
I mentioned it earlier last week...but this year was a great, great year for OL in the midwest. There's really no good excuse to come away with one lineman.
Four OL in two classes is terrible.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
I am not a recruiting guy but agree with you. Seems you would want to average about 4 OL per year. Next year should be easy to sell to OL, they sit 2 years and have a good shot at PT over the next 3 years.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
This is really two points:
1) I read this and just looked very briefly through Rivals. tUoOS only has one OL commit, USC only has one OL commit, UF only has one OL commit and Alabama only has two. Seems like a lot of schools are below average in OL recruiting so far.
2) Penn State has 5 but they aren't from the midwest. Where did everyone end up if this was such a bumper crop?
I didn't see your earlier post on the OL quality. Was it on your genuinelysarcastic blog?
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
1) OSU is still right in it for Henderson and James. USC's in it for Henderson and Chaz Green, Florida's in it for Green, Alabama's in it for James Stone and Arie Kouandijo. Point is, those schools still have bigtime players still on the board. UM's board is empty. USC also lost an OL (maybe two) when Carroll left.
2) PSU's recruiting base isn't the midwest. They focus on Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey/New York and Virginia. Their 5 OL commitments are from PA (3), NY and VA.
And my earlier post on OL was in some similar topic here. It didn't really contain anything I haven't restated in this topic.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
the last two years which would average out to three a year even with 0 this year I would guess we will be OK. I know two left, but even if we don't get anymore this year that is still 8 over three years which is pretty close to the three per year.
With a depleted D RR and staff really needed to concentrate on that side of the ball this year. I would suspect the Oline recruiting to get back to normal next year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
Two of those nine are already gone (Wermers, O'Neill).
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
But you have to admit that most of those other 7 are looking to be very solid prospects who can all contribute soon.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
I wasn't a huge fan of Schofield or Khoury when they were coming out of high school. But yes, I think Omameh, Barnum, Lewan, Washington, and possibly Mealer are going to be good.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
That's a risky proposition, though. The reason you want to take 4-5 OL in every single class is because OL evaluation is such an inexact science. Nobody bats 1.000 when it comes to OL recruiting. Taylor Lewan, Michael Schofield, Quinton Washington and Christian Pace all look like great prospects - but history and the odds say that the chances of all four panning out into solid players is slim. Down the line, when guys like Barnum and Mealer are gone, and the four we've taken over the past two years are upperclassmen, if any of them are gone or haven't panned out, we're going to be a precarious spot, having to rely on really young guys to be ready to play, possibly before they're ready.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
In a quick review of the recruiting classes from 2002-2006, there were 20 offensive linemen recruited. Only 9 of them finished playing all 4-5 years or had a significant impact. The other 11 either quit/transferred early or sat on the sidelines for virtually their entire careers.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
Didn't Lewan, Washington, and Schofield all red shirt? If so, they have 4 years left and that is sort of buffers up only taking 1 OLineman this year if we do well next year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
that are either Freshman or Sophomore. So OL is not a huge concern because of the huge haul last year.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
we've signed seven offensive lineman who are currently either Freshmen or Sophomores this year and that this reduces your anxiety about the small haul this year?
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
I blame my old computer and slow internet connection.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
Fixed the triple post for you.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
thank you
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
I share the concern regarding the small OL class. Perhaps RR is intentionally bringing in larger OL classes every other season so that they get a chance to play together and gel as a unit? Given how important well-timed and cohesive OL play is to the offense, maybe RR WANTS to bring in big classes all together and just recruit top-shelf guys (talent-wise or system-fit) on "off" years.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^
I doubt it. I'm guessing the strategy is more like "Uhhh...we really, really, really need some defensive players this year."
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^
I would have liked one or two more OL in this class, but we covered a lot of other needs in this class. We got tons of DB's, WR's, 2 QB's, quite a few DE/OLB types, and 2 RB's. Next year, we don't need much on offense other than OL and a TE. On D we still need DT's and LB's, but this class did a good job taking care of needs. If we get 3 OL next year, we're fine.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
It's a legit concern. Until last week I wasn't bothered b/c I though T. Wilson was UM bound. Wrong.
With two 5th years graduating, I'd like to bring in two freshman. We "only" lose three guys next year in Ferrera, Schilling and Dorrestein... so next year's class means we'll need four (which is manageable) to keep the 14-15 scholarship players on the roster.
But getting one more this year would allow us to take 3 or 4 in 2011... less risk of reaching when you aren't forced to add for math reasons only
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
Did he not move to the o-line last year?
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
He moved to the OL two years ago. Regardless, he'll graduate after this year.