Question about allure of PT with Def players

is very alluring is what he's saying.

The "I" is very close to the "T" on the keyboard.

10 yards away from the receiver when he catches the ball, to be eligible for a "past" interference penalty?

That's what happens when you type without your glasses.  I made the correction.

Wouldn't these recruits have to compete in the future with the current freshman/sophomore starters for playing time even if the freshman/sophomore starters weren't starting this year (i.e. they were behind a junior or senior on the depth chart)?  These freshmen/sophomores are only starting because of the series of unfortunate events that led to our "Decimated Defense".

RR has shown that (1) the best player will play regardless of graduating class (Huyge being replaced by Lewan even though Huyge is older and played well enough to be a starter), and (2) a starting position last year is no guarantee of a starting position this year (e.g. Tate) regardless of who you are.

Not to knock a recruit, but it sounds to me like this recruit either doesn't want to compete or that he is being a little naive in believing another coach when he tells the recruit that he will start as soon as "current starter X" graduates/leaves. 

I think the purpose of MGoBlog is to share information.  If someone has a question that others might be able to answer, and if that question is not completely off-the-wall or inappropriate, I think it makes sense to hash things out.  As someone who has been out of college for some years now, I find it interesting to learn what recruits these days think about and look at in a school.  And if playing time is a big consideration, I think its interesting to read the discussion about whether a bad defense with a chance for immediate playing time is attractive, a negative, or neither/nor.

I'm a regular from way back, am on MGoBlog at least ten times per day, and I 100% cosign caup's statement.

The beauty of the internet is that the user has a keyboard and a mouse, and is not forced to read stuff they aren't interested in. People need to take advantage of that interactive feature.

Posting "This has already been posted..." is infinitely ironic.

Who's annoying who if no one made you click?  Just a thought...

Caup, you are right. I apologize for freaking out in my earlier post. It just gets to be a little frustrating when everyone has their opinion on the same topic and have to post a new thread when they could just post it in a thread that is already established. It clutters the board and gets annoying. 

Anyways, I will agree with you that if you don't like a topic that was posted, just move on.

I agree to an extent, but I feel like defensive linemen (like BG last yer) have an easier chance to stand out because their play is less predicated on schemes or how the rest of the defense plays.  A lineman may have to flow out into coverage or cut across the line on certain plays, but most often they line up with the idea of "see ball, tackle ballcarrier/QB"  It is certainly not a simplistic job, but there are less opportunities for things to go wrond compared to, say, LB or Safety who are expected to keep guys in front of them, help in zone coverage, etc.  I'm robably showing my football ignorance because I know linemen are expected to maintain gap coverage and the like, but a good lineman will shine because the position relies so heavily on athleticism that it is difficult for them to look "bad" compared to other players on the field.  I also think the same is true for CBs on man-coverage teams, since that is another position where athleticism and one-on-one skills are essential to success.

the comment was made that if there were 11 Mike Martins on the team that it would be a great defense.  So, yes any player who's physically/mentally ready to play right out of high school will definitely help the team at no detriment to the player.

If we had 11 freshman Mike Martins, I don't think we would have a good defense.  Playing Mike Martin regularly his freshman year was more of a function of our lack of experienced depth at DT in 2008.  Playing Roh last year was necessitated by our overall lack of experienced depth on our DL.  We are playing Black this year because of our lack of experienced depth at DE.

Obviously Martin and Roh played well for true freshman, and Black is playing well for a true freshman.  I can't, however, say that their performance their freshman years, from a totally objective "I don't care what class they are" perspective, was/is anything more than average for Martin and slightly below average in the case of Roh and Black.

I wish all three of these guys would have redshirted their freshman years b/c there was somebody older on the depth chart who was better at the time.  Obviously if we find that we have a Mike Hart/Adrian Peterson/Charles Woodson type player, then we play them their freshman year because they are special players early in their careers.  Martin, Roh and Black, while either great players (Martin), good players (Roh) or potentially good/great players (Black) did/do not fit that description as special players their true freshman year.

and I've thought something similar, but a real problem is that RR:

A) doesn't have the luxury of making a defensive staff overhaul right now because he needs to win NOW. The assumption here is that an overhaul will temporarily make the defense even worse. But that's not a given. See Illinois this year with their defensive staff overhaul.

B) is personal friends with many of the defensive staff.  RR is either going to win or lose with his buddies. I just hope his friendships don't end up getting him fired.  Carr's friendship with Debord pretty much screwed him over, so cronyism isn't new or isolated.

"High profile recruits are going to see Michigan as a place where their potential might not get developed enough for the NFL"  and "A poor defense is too much ingrained in Michigan's current identity."

Says who?  Based on what?  There is absolutely nothing to back up these kinds of statements.  You're looking at the results of the recruiting classes being down, and trying to guess at the reasons, which is specious.  I'd bet that by far the biggest reason we've had down recruiting years:  3-9 two years ago, and 5-7 last year.   And despite that, in that time we've still attracted plenty of top tier talent. Maybe not enough to satisfy unreasonable M fans with delusions about what Michigan's expectations should be, but pretty solid recruiting classes considering the circumstances.

If we continue losing for another 3 years, then at that point those ideas MIGHT start to stick to Michigan (maybe).  And you know the best way to guarantee that we're mediocre over the next 2-3 years?  Bring in an all new coaching staff.

So what you are saying is that it will take some time to rebuild the defense and isn't just a matter of changing the scheme a little?