Positions most difficult to recruit
Over the past few years (read the RichRod era) and that is when I enrolled and graduated out of Michigan, we have excelled in bringing in talented offensive and skill position players while screwing up our defensive recruiting.
This year we are looking like a more balanced class. This may have multiple factors like attrition, coaching changes and need based recruiting behind it.
However, I'd love to hear opinions or if someone has some epic research on which positions are tradionally the most difficult to recruit for at Michigan?
From my observations over the past 3ish years - Defensive Line, Safeties
These three were great! Messner, Harris and Hammerstein. If I recall Messner was the highest rated coming out of High School. But they all three played exceptionally well together along the line. It was also great having a dominating MLB in Mike Mallory!
I hope we see a return in having 3 or 4 dominating DL!
but i cannot create my own thread. Does anyone know if Michigan will be featured on the 'Roundtable" segment they currently are running at espn.com? I don't know if it is strictly a pre-season top 25 thing or most big programs?
They never have anything new to say anyways
If you are using the past 3 years as a benchmark, then clearly kicker is the most difficult position to recruit successfully.
I miss KC Lopata
That guy nailed the FGs pretty consistently
it really hasn't come to this.
Lopata wasn't bad, but suffered from streakiness. I would argue that Olesnavage was superior.
I think Rivas is underappreciated to an extremely high degree as well.
I'll always have a spot in my heart for Epstein, mostly because it seemed like that guy played for the better part of a decade.
LoPata was terrific in 2007 (11-12 overall). It's a shame we didn't use him against App State. But in '08 he went 5-5 in the Metrodome and 5-10 outdoors, including the killer miss against Toledo.
Olesnavage and Lopata were both walk-ons. And, yeah, kicker is the most difficult to recruit.
Agree with with kicker. You only want to sign one every four years and you don't know how they will kick off the grass or whether they will melt in front of 110,000 fans.
I always forget about the kicker. Then someone has to go and be all insightful and stuff and bring it up, now I'm sad. Thanks a lot DutchWolverine, thanks a lot. Sigh...
But yes, clearly kicker has been hard to project, given UM's current situation.
Its hard for a kid to learn to kick off the ground instead of a tee that they've been using their whole life. Then put 110,000 people watching instead of the few hundred or thousand people depending on the size of the high school they went to. Plus if the kick is to win the game.........Can you say pressure.
I don't remember what game it was last season, but Michigan attempted (and missed) a field goal. Spielman went off about how Rodriguez was bringing in psychologists to help with the kickers' constant caving under pressure, how that was a huge waste of time, and said something like "don't bother with psychologists, just get a kicker who can kick, what's so hard about that?" That really pissed me off, I almost called my OSU alum dad to yell at him about how stupid his fellow alumni are.
Of course just get a kicker who could kick! It's not like Michigan didn't have two kickers on scholarship plus a walk-on already. They clearly were recruiting kickers specifically for their inability to make field goals.
[Edit: This is a ramble drafted across several conference calls so bear with me.]
Seem's to me that WRs, LBs and DTs are where Rich and his staff were most challenged. (They managed to get LOIs from DBs. They just didn't make it to campus, or Never Forget happened.)
I am wondering how much the offensive scheme probably hampered WR recruiting, and the defensive scheme hampered DT recruiting. I am thinking back to Arrington and Manningham departing (which they should have by the way as their NFL stock was highest then), and how the WR recruits seemed to go to ND or USC, etc. (i.e., WR recruits want to play in pro-set or passing spread because that best develops them for the NFL.) Then there are the two committed DTs who dropped us in that 2008 recruiting class. (i.e., a 3-4 defense uses 1 DT, who is likely to spend thier life double teamed, and won't show as well from an NFL draft-ability perspective.)
My point: it is much harder to recruit certain types of players for certain schemes, because the top players want to get into a situation where they are most likely develop and showcase well for the NFL.
This by the way was my biggest concern when Rodriguez came in. We just had seen what a pro-set team can do to a spread team when they (you know) actually go hog wild and put their mind to it. /s With Rodriguez coming in, I was happy we'd be getting this excitingly fast and inventive spread thing (like Florida and Oregon), but at the same time I was going to miss the NFL quarterback and WR pipeline we had been.
So, I get that Brian is depressed we are going back to manball, and really wanted to stick to the spread. But the way I see it, manball can be successful - it just has to be really aggressive (versus conservative Carr and Tressel) manball. Think USC in the 2nd half of the Rose Bowl in 2007 or Michigan in the Cap One Bowl 2008. If Hoke / Borgess can do that, then recruiting improves even more.
Kicker.
Finding a dominant big man is basketball seems to be the largest obstacle in recruiting for any sport.
I would think that special teams players are the hardest to recruit
DT how many kids are good DTs in high shool b/c they are so much bigger than the OG/C they are lined up against
It seems to me over the years finding an elite Running Back has been the toughest position to nail. And by "elite" I'm talking about a Running Back that is productive in both college and then at the next level. Just once in my lifetime I'd like to see Michigan land an Adrian Peterson type back. Just ONCE! Is that too much to ask for?