Question about allure of PT with Def players
I have been mulling over this for some time, so I figured I would ask the board (especially posters who are knowledgeable about recruiting) for some fresh perspective.
For the past couple of years, it's been a pretty consistent argument that defensive players will want to go to UM, in part, because of the availability of immediate playing time at key positions. The thinking is that a young player will see walk-ons and overmatched graduates on the two-deep and figure they can step onto the field as freshmen and compete for a starting spot from day one, as opposed to being buried behind a couple of experienced players. This makes sense intuitively, since it is obviously hard for a kid to go from being a star on his HS team to being a backup for 2-3 years, so the allure of immediately PT should be very enticing to stud defensive players.
Now, while I agree with this outlook to an extent, do people think the cratering of this defense the past few years might actually be working against defensive recruiting because good players don't want to be on a unit that is one of the worst statistically in college football, and has been a disappointment under RR? Beyond the obvious "good players like to play with other good players" argument, it seems even more important for defensive players to play on a good unit as opposed to offensive players - e.g. Calvin Johnson had a horrible QB, but he still gained recognition because one-on-one plays are "easier" for an offensive player than a defensive player. There are fewer one-on-one situations for defensive players (outside of DB in man coverage and maybe edge rushers), so a breakdown in the defense may lead to a players looking beaten on a play when in reality that is not true. And from a pure ego standpoint, why would a top-notch recruit want to come to a team that will give up 450+ yards a game and be subjected to criticism all the time, or want to play for a DC who might be gone in a year or two?
In this scenario, having early PT means you are also going to be thrown out there with a bunch of guys in similar situations (inexperienced and/or less-talented), and for the next 12-13 games you are going to be constantly highlighted as the weak link, chasing down guys on broken plays, etc. I'm not saying this is an insurmountable barrier for recruits - they might see this as an opportunity to turn the program around, to be the guys who brought back a great UM defense - but do people think it will have (or has had) an effect on the quality of defensive recruits?
In no way am I trying to question RR or his recruiting, but I am just wondering.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
A top-notch recruit should know that he can be part of something big, something special, by coming to Michigan and turning the defense into a unit as fearsome as the offense. It's easy to go to Bama or OSU or some place with traditionally (and by that I mean last 5 years, since recruits are so young and short memories) good defenses, get plugged into the system, get exposure, and potentially get drafted. But to come to Michigan when the D is currently struggling and turn it into an advantage for the team, that has to be appealing to some of these high-level recruits. It would be to me. We've seen the exposure the team gets when it's doing well (offense, that is). There are plenty of defensive highlights and great plays made by CB's and safeties etc.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
I don't see what playing time has to do with pass interference.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
is very alluring is what he's saying.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
The "I" is very close to the "T" on the keyboard.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
so I'll let it slip this time.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
t'll lei ii sltp ihis iime.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
10 yards away from the receiver when he catches the ball, to be eligible for a "past" interference penalty?
October 13th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
That's what happens when you type without your glasses. I made the correction.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
I think PI is only important to the math majors on the team :-)
Oh, assuming you mean PT, then I understand your point but BG has no trouble getting recognition as a great player on a bad defensive unit. Similarly, Martin is proving to be a great player on another bad unit. Recruits should understand if they play well and MAKE PLAYS, they will get noticed. Even Mouton has received some buzz for playing OK to good on a bad unit.
I think the bigger concern (as TomVH hinted) is that our YOUNG defense could be limiting recruiting b/c those young starters are likely to be returning starters for several years. To me the opportunity to seize a starting position should override that but at least that concern makes some sense to me.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
TomVH asked a high profile recruit this very question and he said that he looks at it as a positive and a negative for the reasons that you listed.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
No offense to you bronxblue but stuff like this has been talked about so much in the last few weeks that it is getting annoying. I am not trying to be an ass to you and your post, but seriously? Can we please just move on from this do defensive recruits want to play for UM crap? If we keep winning and doing well recruits will come to UM. Yes, it is a bittersweet situation for any recruit. Early PT because of lack of depth and experience (I don't believe in the lack of talent), but also playing on a below average to horrible defense is no fun for anyone.
Lets just move on and see what happens the rest of the season. If we finish less than 7-5, then yes we can all freak out and wonder if we will ever be normal again. But trust me, 8-4 is at least where we finish in the regular season, and we get some major recruits coming in next year and 2012 recruiting will be amazing.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
if you're getting annoyed with people who apparently spend WAY too much time on MGoBlog and attack anyone who brings up something that apparently has been discussed before.
Hey regulars: chill the fuck out. Not all of us camp out here 24-7.
If the post looks like something that you've already seen then MOVE ALONG!
Is it that freaking hard to ignore a goddamn post?
October 13th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
both e-hands up
October 13th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Posting "This has already been posted..." is infinitely ironic.
Who's annoying who if no one made you click? Just a thought...
October 13th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
I have been reading the board pretty diligently and saw a couple of people's opinions, but I figured I would ask in a formal thread. Yes, some recruits will say it is a positive and a negative, but that doesn't really say much. And yeah, it's Wednesday morning and I figured nobody would care. But no offense taken about the earlier post.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
Yeah, it is going to be hard to gauge a recruit's thought on our defense without coming right out and asking him. But then he may not really tell you anything. Unfortunately, the best answer is to just wait it out and see what the recruit's decision is in the end. Just keep winning and showing improvement, that's the best solution to bring in these big time recruits on offense and defense.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
Where he said that at MICHIGAN we keep kids even if they don't pan out like we hoped they would. We don't run kids off just because they aren't producing on the field. MICHIGAN's assumption is that nobody wants to succeed on the field more than that particular kid, and it is cruel and unfair to run them off if they simply aren't playing the game up to our expectations.
MICHIGAN says that as long as you are earnestly putting in the necessary time and effort, day in and day out, then your scholarship is still good.
Bravo, MICHIGAN. Bravo.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
seemed to me like he may have been taking a small shot at bama...me likes this
October 13th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
let's look at a guy like Mike Martin. He never redshirted because he was physically and mentally ready as a true frosh. He's played well, and is perhaps the best player on the defense. And even though the defense as a whole has been near the bottom of the FBS in some areas, all you hear is how well Mike Martin is playing. So, yes a player who is ready can contribute, play well, and can be individually graded highly on a poor team defense. Hell, 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.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
High profile recruits are going to see Michigan as a place where their potential might not get developed enough for the NFL. They see Michigan as a risk. Low profile recruits will see Michigan as a place they will get a chance to play, and to show off potential they think they have that others dont see (latent potential). They see Michigan as an opportunity. Middle of the road recruits go either way.
The situation would change dramatically if we had a coaching staff that almost assures maximum development of potential. This will only occur with a coaching change. A poor defense is too much ingrained in Michigan's current identity. The defense will not improve to the point where it becomes a selling point instead of a liability for at least a year, perhaps two The problem is that recruiting is happening now. By the time this defense catches up with recruiting, we will have two or three poor defensive recruiting classes. The only thing to do is import a coaching staff that is a selling point rather than a liability in recruiting.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
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.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^
"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.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
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'm sorry, I forgot to outline my research methods in which I, in the hour after reading the OP, took a random survey of all recruits this year with a return rate of 95% (N = 300) to get a significance level of .00000000000001 that allowed me to make my scientific statement.
You are aware that these are the internets and people speculate on the internet, right? Get some perspective. Or just do this:
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.
Oh My God!!! How can you say such a thing??? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!!!!
October 13th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
I thought this was a serious comment.
Even though a lot of people use the internet to shout things as if they're true and see if they stick without any factual support, the reason I like this community is that it's usually a place where you can have reasoned, analytical intelligent discussions with people, even if they have differeing viewpoints.
I had just assumed this was the case with your commentary, so that is on me.
By the way, my evidence for my statement is the 3 years its taken Rodriguez to have even a semblance of the proven offense he ran at WVU, the difficulties guys like Brian Kelly, Randy Shannon, Ron Zook, have had in the first years at new jobs in places where the talent level was higher than here, the 3 years it took Jim Harbaugh (the odds-on favorite next choice if a change were to be made) to take Stanford to over .500, the fact that he runs a completely different offensive scheme and the change in personnel required.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
October 13th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
My fear is that recruits see this horrible Michigan defense and wonder if they will get the coaching and competition in practice to be their best. Because thats what the best of the best want- to be challenged. Or if the coaches will put them in a position (schemes) to succeed.
I would think there's lots of negative recruiting going on- I can see coaches on other teams pointing out our last in FBS, or near it, defense and saying something like- you want to be a part of that??
So there is a down-side, regarding recruiting, to having a thin and weak depth-chart IME, in addition to what Tom spoke of yesterday. I'd be crazy to think this situation can be turned around quickly. It won't. I just hope Denard's next 2 years aren't wasted by this incompetance of our defensive staff. RR hopes so too, because he knows he won't be here when the dust settles. That urgency gives me hope we will bring in a proven DC next year who CAN turn this around. Some improvement is all thats needed. We keep getting worse.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^
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?
October 13th, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^
This conversation isn't happening if Woolfolk doesn't get hurt. It really isn't happening if Woolfolk doesn't get hurt and just one of the highly touted secondary players that left recently had become a solid Big 10 starter--not a superstar, just a solid starter.
That said, I think top guys generally want some combination of reputation, PT, and proximity to home. Michigan certainly provides the possibility of early PT, and now can sell the idea of playing opposite a potentially devastating offense.
I've seen Brian and several other posters mention that current year success or failure doesn't seem to affect the current class all that much, but really affects the next season's class. This is probably less true in Michigan's case this year as some recruits need to be convinced that the staff will be retained after the season.