Michigan is 2-0. There is a game this weekend. 2009 season and all. Just sayin'
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
Michigan is 2-0. There is a game this weekend. 2009 season and all. Just sayin'
What does that have to do with anything I wrote? I understand that. i will be just like the rest of us sitting in my living room in my usually michigan game day clothing rooting for the boys in blue. I am very happy with what we are doing this year. I am just expressing my concerns about the lack of depth which seems to be a recurring topic on this forum.
Don't you think the coaches know that? Numerous times Coach Rod has mentioned that our depth isn't that great, especially on the defensive side of the ball. We went 3-9 season; I'm sorry, but it's going to be very difficult to pull top recruits when you have such a shitty season the year before. The coaches are working on it; stop with the incessant whining of defensive recruiting.
should help defensive player recruitment, IMHO. I couldn't agree more with the points in your post, WTB.
Winning only helps us with recruiting. Let's keep it going.
Believe me, this is not a bad response for Dex.
He's just saying enjoy the season we're having so far.
Man, maybe Tressel is right. There are too many people in each team's fanbase that will never be happy. They're always miserable. They're always finding something to bitch about.
Signing day isn't until February. We will prolly sign another 7-8 prospects. Maybe we'll take another OL (Henderson, plz, thanks) and a blue chip RB, but that's it unless a super recruit wants to play. All signs are pointing toward remaining schollies going to defensive players.
CB - Chrisitan, Mathis or Grimes
Safetys - Flowers, Parker, Swigert
LB - A. Olaniyan, Furman
DE - Easley, C. Olaniyan
DT - S. Floyd, Thornton
Jesus, can't some people enjoy the fact that we're 2-0 and the entire nation is buzzing about how Michigan is doing good?
I feel that you should understand that offensive skill position players in high school can be converted to very quality defensive players in college, I feel.
You feel better? I do.
Don't worry about recruiting and let the coaches do their thing and you'll be happier in the long run.
I used to pay for recruiting info, but the ups and downs of recruiting made for a very bumpy ride. If recruits like your school, facilities and program, they'll come; if they don't, they won't. If there are too many guys on offense, the ones who want to see the field will cross over to defense. The coaches have been dealing with these same issues since they were playing, and it's their full-time job, they know how to do it.
Enjoy 2-0, and get ready for RE and Eastern.
Commitments are a two-way street. Sometimes we have to "slow-play" a kid who wants to come here but isn't our top priority. That's just how it goes.
To answer the question you posed, all offers have verbage that has restrictions contingent on space, for example going over the 25 signing limit etc. And just as a player can de-commit, teams can make players feel less than welcome by ignoring them.
That being said, wow, seriously? Please take this line of commentary back to the Scout boards. We actually like football around here. Don't worry about recruiting when there is actual football to be played.
I love football as much as the next guy. I just feel that this is the time where we also need to make our biggest impressions to all of our recruits.
Being new here, you obviously missed the endless discussion on this in the offseason.
There was a LOT of discussion about this, so I'm not going to be able to list it all, and I'm not trying to be a dick when I say this.
However, I suggest you use the search feature at the top and search for posts on "recruiting" "decommit" "OMG RRod is recruiting way too many offensive players!!!!" and "Why all the 3 star recruits?"
I could care less about start rating. I think all the kids have talent im just worried that they wont see the field when we are putting so much in slots and running backs. lets face it there is only 2 running backs and maybe 2 slots on the field (at the very most) at once.
Right and in this class there are only 2 RB's (White, Hopkins) and 2 slots (Drake, Dileo). That seems like the right distribution especially when UM graduates it's top 2 RB's.
But back to Dex's point, the recruiting will come, just enjoy the season UM is having right now.
we have 4 slots already on the roster (5 if stokes plays there too) and were adding two more. I just think thats a little much.
Chill. Fuck. Out.
yeah, well, we have 6 QBs on the roster. i hope you're not worried that bringing in devin and cornelius will be a little much as well.
I did bring this up a few months ago, and several posters noted that we'd be using 2 slots alot more in our 4-5 WR sets, so it does make sense that we'll need a good stock of slot receivers to keep 'em all fresh and be able to substitute. Last year it was just Odoms and T-Rob, and with T-Rob being out all last year, Odoms was all we had. Roundtree redshirted because he was way too small.
do realize that RR wants to have 8 or so guys at the slot that can go in at any point and contribute. When you are chasing around 4 slot ninjas on the start of the drive, then to have to chase around another 4 ninjas at the end, you'll usually end up with a tired defense chasing fast/quick recievers that can take it to the house at any point.
Rich Rod doesn't care what you think...
When a guy raises questions is he automatically tagged as "miserable" or as an unhappy fan?
It's pretty obvious our linebacker recruiting has fallen off in the last several yars, and the Witherspoon Ordeal didn't help. Obi Ezeh, in fact, is a onverted fullback, IIRC. I'd say, looking to the future, this is one area that certainly needs some shoring up.
One thing about this class that even I am beginning to understand, though, is the impact of last season and all the off-field BS.
Some solutions that may present themselves as early as next year could be:
JB Fitzgerald and Kenny Demens. Based on practice reports, these guys have been coming along pretty well. At least from Maizeman's opinion, JB needs to get a little bigger and stronger. As for Demens, again based on what Maizeman says, he is fast and is a good presence. It seems both just may need another year of spot duty and Barwis??? But there has to be something keeping Ezeh on the field ahead of them. Loyalty? Is Ezeh our best option?
1) Isaiah Bell, Mike jones, and Brandon Hawthorne. These guys were getting some good press from Maizeman on Scout, and since no one is expecting a serious run at the BCS, a redshirt year will help them more than anything.
2) Marvin Robinson: Recruited as a safety, many people think he is too big already and may grow into linebacker size naturally. Once he gets in on the chocolate milk, who knows.
3) Brandon Smith: recruited as a DB, word from Socut is that he has been moved to LB--still a work in progress.
4) Cameron Gordon: There has been some talk that he has already moved to LB, but Blue Sam says, "Not so fast, Butkus breath!"--but my feeling is this IS where he'll end up. He's apparently BIG (big hands and feet and all), and a physical specimen to behold. He has always gotten better reviews on the defensive side, but apparently does well at receiver, also. With 933 receivers in tow for 2010, Gordon might not have a choice.
It is going to boil down to player development. If RR and Barwis are as good as advertized, and can convince guys to make the moves they want them to (with enthusiasm), all the sudden we seem to be pretty deep, and the defense isn't as big a worry (for the back 7).
I'd like to see, though, 2 more DB, 2 more LB, and 2 more DL in this class.
article on Rivals today indicates he's already been targeted as the Stevie Brown OLB rather than SS. This is based on his comments.
I don't disagree that we need better defensive recruiting. In fact I think most people agree with that.
I think most of the regular readers here remember this debate from all summer long, and would rather focus on the season now that it's finally here.
understand also that "lack of depth" can mean "lack of experienced players". we have a fair number of young defensive players (turner, hawthorne, emilien, teric jones, cam gordon, demens, isaiah bell, mike jones, mike martin, big will, death roh, lalota, et al). young players + time = old players. it'll be okay.
If things and players pan out, this is exactly where we are.
I didn't read any of this, allz I know is I'm like so totally not frustrated right now
I think everyone here would agree that our defensive depth is a concern, now and for the future. However, there is a difference between RECRUITING defensive players and SIGNING them. We are recruiting many players at positions of need, and we have solid recruiting coaches at Michigan. I think it would be a concern for a potential recruit to realize that Michigan is on its third defensive coordinator in three years and that last year's defense was the school's worst in a long time, perhaps ever.
We need defensive ends, cornerbacks, and inside linebackers. There are plenty of offers out there and plenty of uncommitted prospects. We just have to hope that we can reel in some of those guys.
I think our down year is causing the so-called expert services to rate our recruits lower than we might like. I am not trying to open up the three star four star debate. However, the coaches recruit needs and appear to be excellent judges of talent. Many of these recruits may be under the radar commits from UM Camps. Some may be kids we have been familiar with for a while and when offered committed immediately without fanfare.
It is funny how the 2009 UM Class was ranked by rivals 10 or 12 or something like that. Witty does not qualify and we move UP to six.....Come on, Rivals underestimated and underevaluated our Freshman esp Tate and Denard.
Have Faith. I Fear No Evil, ROD and Thy Staff comfort me. -Psalm 23
I think you have a very Michigan-centric view if you think Rivals and Scout are taking away a star from or giving lower grades to Michigan commits. Rivals and Scout don't give a damn where these kids are committed, and both Ken Wilkins and Cornelius Jones (and perhaps others) have gained stars since they committed to Michigan.
Also, how do you know Rivals underestimated and/or underevaluated Tate and Denard? Tate was the #5 dual-threat quarterback to Rivals. The other guys above him (Shepard, Newsome, Eugene Smith, Rollison) all went to schools where they had upperclassmen to run QB. Forcier stepped into a void at the position.
Robinson has taken about 15-20 snaps so far and completed 2 passes for 18 yards. He's a man without a position - different schools wanted him as a QB, WR, and CB. But never mind, completing 2/4 passes and scoring a TD on a broken play is proof positive that Rivals has no idea what they're doing. Meanwhile, several people ranked ahead of Robinson have actually, you know, earned starting jobs...
Also also, I forgot to respond to this particular point.
Originally, after National Signing Day, Michigan's class was ranked #7 by Rivals. After a few weeks (when more LOIs came rolling in), Michigan dropped a spot to #8 and remained there. Therefore, a jump from #8 to #6 was not a giant leap, and it certainly wasn't a leap from #10 or #12 to #6.
My words were carefully chosen and apparently misunderstood by you. Please reread. Simply stating an observation. A recent post contained that we actually moved up 5-6 spots on Rivals after losing Witty. I find that curious. Discuss that. (I'm sure you will site to Over Offering) Rivals posts our jump after 2 games, after losing Witty.
Please reread my epinion "I think" "not trying to reopen 3-4 Star Debate" "It Appears" "May" "May" You make the leap from those comments to "How do you know". (I reread my post, I did make a grammatical error, I intended to put a question mark after Tate and Denard comment, I guess I understand your comment relative to that sentence?) I did not state that I know anything. Apparently according to your opinion, I know nothing based on an observation.
I am thinking maybe you were offended by something else. I concede I a love UM, bleed blue, and am biased toward UM. A homer? Hell yeah. Why else would I be on this site?
From what I understand, the re-rank of the Rivals lists was about kids who didn't reach campus. Kids weren't assigned new numerical values or star rankings. Every other recruit's "value" to the recruiting class remained the same except Witty, who was removed for failing to qualify.
I never said you don't know anything. I said your comments sounded like those of a homer, meaning you're overly biased based on your allegiance to the University of Michigan. You said Rivals underrated our players (Forcier and Robinson), but who's to say that someone like Tyrik Rollison or Eugene Smith wouldn't be doing the exact same thing that Forcier has done? He's the #5 dual-threat QB and a 4-star, not some unranked guy or the #35 guy at his position.
And even if he was/they were undervalued, that's not something you can determine after two games. What if Rollison and Smith win the NC while Shepard and Newsome go on to win Heismans? I admit that's not likely, but claiming some kind of Rivals bias against Michigan seems far-fetched.
I wasn't upset by anything else. I was responding directly to your comment. That's great if you're a Michigan fan, but if your analysis is biased because of your fandom, then expect others to take it with a grain of salt.
Perhaps it was ignorance by me on rivals. Perhaps they simply subtracted the guys that never made it to campus from the calculus of their analysis. Then simply recalculated. If that's the case, then I retract the case. If not, I think it is curious.