OT: Roy Finch to Oklahama will it effect B. Clay
This is interesting as Finch is basically Brennan Clay. Scout has Clay at 13 and Finch at 18 and Rivals has them as the # 2 & 3 all purpose backs. I wonder if this will open the door a little more for Tate to work some magic on Brennan if he takes his official to the EMU game?
I would want him more if I knew he welcomed the competition, a la TF.
and he would have it here. It's just unusual for two players that are near mirror images of each other to go to the same school the same year at one position.
IMHO, the only time a recruit is a lock is when he signs that LOI. Until then, anything is possible.
One of our biggest faults over the past months (or year?) regarding recruiting is letting the scouting services define our recruiting reality - when our reality is much different from theirs. Perhaps no team has had to deal so acutely with the fault in this approach like we have due to our dramatic transition from a traditional, pro-style system, which the services seem more geared toward, to the spread attack, which they are adjusting to. Our dependence on these services and the mismatch between their stars and what our coaches see is the genesis of much of our squabbling over recruits. Thus, while according to rivals and scout the two appear to be very similar, they might very well be, in the eyes of the coaches, quite different in how they fit a system. It still may affect (note the spelling for the OP's future reference) Clay, but whether we think they are the "same" or not should be interpreted through coach's eyes, not Scout's and Rival's. Rankings and stars do not define a person.
Who exactly is "letting the scouting services define our recruiting reality?" People on this board who whine about all the 3* recruits? Seems like RR is finding the pieces to fit his system, star rankings be damned.
Ummm, that is the point I was trying to make. Thank you for repeating it for me.
People here (inapplicable to RR) should not let rivals or scout define these recruits for us. Saying one recruit is the same as another due to their stars and rankings and saying that getting a bunch of 3 stars is bad are symptoms of the same problem - relying on scout and rivals instead of letting our coaches define the worth of recruits for us. If UM coaches have made an offer, that should mean far more than stars or ranking.
Not saying they are the same because of the ratings. They do the same things well. Builds and speed are similar to each other and yes they happen to be very close to each other in the scouting service rankings.
If you have seen any of my previous post especially when people were mad about Courtney Avery you would know I'm a film and personal evaluation type of guy. You don't play football in shorts and spikes like you do for most of the measurables that are given. The recruiting services can't measure heart, desire, drive, and love of the game of these kids. Nor can they measure football IQ and instincts.
I was going on statements in your topic post. I agree with all you said here and am glad to know, due to your more rounded approach to judging recruits, that they do in "actual reality" resemble one another. I hope this means something good for us.
among others, run the spread don't you? They have very highly ranked recruiting classes by those same services. So I'm not sure how Rivals and Scout are "geared toward the pro style system."
Our "transition" in recruiting (though it's correct that we look for different players than previously) has far more to do with 3-9 than it has to do with the system. The staff has in fact offered many highly ranked players by Rivals/Scout that have not been interested for whatever reason, Clay (so far) being the latest example. The fact that guys with meh offers are committing this year is not due to RR somehow preferring them to more highly ranked guys (in most cases) it is the staff dealing with the reality of a down year and negative recruiting.
With a good year this season, all of this discussion will go away, and you'll see more guys commit that are highly ranked by both the staff and the services.
Umm, yes, I have watched NCAA football once or twice, but thanks for the great question nonetheless. OK and FL are pulling in recruits that are ranked high regardless of the system. That is why they are ranked higher. You are right, they are pulling in the same recruits RR wants, but I would bet that one factor (key - one factor, not the only factor) is that they, at this time, are pulling in higher ranked recruits that can play in either pro or spread system. So, the real effect is not that scout and rivals have adjusted to spread players, but that OK and FL can pull in players that are ranked high regardless of system.
The slot ninjas (smaller and faster players) that RR (and FL and OK) seek out seem to be ranked lower than the recruits that can play in either system. Do you really deny that Scout and Rivals do not rank according to how they think a recruit will fare in the NFL draft? And last I checked, the NFL prefers pro-style folks, or at least people somewhat bigger than the typical slot ninja. FL and OK are ranked higher because they are able to get higher-ranked recruits, in addition to their share of the slot ninjas out there.
So, our points are complements - we are in a transition to recruiting some lower-ranked non-NFL type players, but we are also having some trouble due to our season pulling in the higher ranked players (regardless of system), but who offset the slot ninja effect on rankings.
I do agree that the slot guys (and the Vincent Smith sort as well) are generally somewhat lower ranked because the recruiting services do factor in NFL potential in the ratings. But IMO that is the only position group or type of player that your logic applies to. It doesn't apply to QB, the other receiver position, o-line, d-line, LB or d-backs, all of whom are not dreamt of in your philosophy (pretentious Shakespeare reference). There are 4 and 5 star guys that can play on our team and any team that we are not getting (so far) this year because IMO of 3-9. If we pull some in later this year, prior to the "adjustments" from Rivals/Scout that you believe are there, it would invalidate your point wouldn't it? But anyway, my opening question you responded to was in retrospect a bit snarky, so apologies there.
a lot of the "big guys" wait until signing day or until they at least take their officials. Can you blame a high schooler for wanting to take five free weekend visits?
Besides the slot ninja i would have to say our d-backer and spinner recruits may also get down graded a little because they are actually tweener position to some extent. Though the could easily be filled by 4 or 5 star guys.
If Henderson, Floyd, Luc, or Prater (it appears we'll get an official from at least the first three) commits then I suspect all the chatter about three stars will quiet down. Also, Rivals/Scout have reranks coming up and Rivals has already stated Pace will likely move up to 4. I have to believe Gardner will move up with everything he has done at camps.
No. Oklahoma needs running backs in this class and will take 2-3.
This is true. Brown, likely Murray, and possibly Madu off the top of my head are gone. They need depth, but more desperately than we do.
Just because Oklahoma needs/wants multiple backs doesn't mean two top backs will need/want to compete against each other for playing time.
Only one more RB for UM in the 2010 class, IMO, and that will be Austin White.
I think it will help us out. I had gut feeling he was going to de-committ anyway to reopen his recruiting. He doesn't seem like a shady kid to go from Oklahoma to Michigan in a day, he will do it the right thing saying "I made a decision to fast, I'm reopening my recruiting and will take officials to: ......" And either re-committ to Oklahoma or come here. I think he willl be uncommited until signing day and make a choice then.
And it's going to be funny because Tate will go to Clays press conference so if he doesn't go to Michigan he will have some words with him, "We'll see you in the championship clay, your going to regret it, sleezeball"
Dude, are you drunk? And this early in the day? If so, good for you!
Doesn't the "It's Five o'clock Somewhere" rule kick in on the weekends?
hahaa. You're a funny guy
Is it just me, or are there way more early commitments than in prior seasons? Not just with UM, but Texas, Oklahoma, and others.
Is this a trend thats becoming a recruiting strategy by coaching staffs? Or is it just an odd year with kids committing way early?
Listen, Michigan has ALWAYS had good running backs. Always. Worrying about any ONE running back coming to UM is rather useless. (Yeah, most of them did nothing in the pros to speak of, but they had successful college careers.) Even if we get neither of those recruits, Michigan will have good running backs.
So, will this help UM's chances with the other?
Doesn't really matter. Someone always steps up.
potato salad.
Since this has at least a little to do with M recruiting, I think the "OT" isn't needed.