The Rawls Offer Question

Based on my interpretation of Sam Webb's analysis of Thomas, if he is able to gain admittance this is one player we do not want to miss out on.

T. Rawls....HELLO?

Is taking a slow approach on this.  If there is room, he certainly wants Rawls.  But if he can get a DE instead, which do you think he is going to choose?  If Rawls had qualified earlier, he would not have been in this position, he would have been in a long time ago. 

He plays a position that can make an early impact. TEs, LBs etc. take time to develop and contribute. Looking at this film and our need for an impact RB we need to take him and play him early. He and Hayes will be a great combo for years to come. 

I agree, I think Rawls is too good to pass up on. He's clearly underrated big time! His film makes your jaw drop. Def. One of best RBs in Midwest. If he had a 4* to his name I wonder how many ppl wouldn't even have this conversation and want him no matter what. Just my opinion

topping out we can give out 22 scholarships this year. that doesnt include the kids that will transfer and the kids who will lose their scholarships. needless to say we have plenty of room for rawls and i think hoke understands how underrated rawls is

...right now we have a certain number of priority position slots (Rodriquez's commitment from only 1 OL last year really forced us to recruits 4 this year, we need a DT in this class, etc.) combined with the stunning success of this year's class in terms of numbers has us in a position of having a "good problem to have" (at least for non-SEC schools who have...ways around this) in choosing between top priority guys and having to try to think of place for a guy we really want even though he's at a position where we do have talented guys (the footage I've seen of Rawls is really good...though Flint's all Red uniforms are kind of disturbing looking). 

UM's been giving him the slow hand all along. If he was such a "must have" guy, he would have an offer already. RB is not a position of need. We have another, much higher ranked one already committed. We just turned away Devin Lucien because we wanted to use him on defense. Why use a scholarship on Rawls when we have so many other more important needs and 2012 is supposed to be an up year for recruiting in the Midwest? It makes no sense.

If we have 6 scholarships to give for 7 players, I'll just say that Rawls is not the one I'd leave off the roster.

how hoke will handle Chris Rock..i heard rumbling about RR and co wanting to make him a DT. I wonder with Mattison and Hoke being former D line coaches if they feel he fits better at DE or DT. hmmmmmmmm

Hail

This incredibly odd statistic on scout:

"Final senior (5-4) stats: 1,585 yards rushing on 450 carries; 21 touchdowns"

Over 9 games he had 450 carries? Hard to believe. But the numbers:

50 carries per game

3.53 yards per carry

Hahahahahahahaha. What. http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=4867697

I would not let Rawls slip away. Why not offer to greyshirt him?

Durham looks more of a tailback, too.  I'm also wondering about Rawls.

But they would not have him officially visit during this critical week if they didn't want him.

I meant DT, not DE, in my initial post.

That said...I have seen Rawls in person, and he is awesome.  I hope he is in the class, one way or another.  I would like him over Durham definitely.

The question really isn't which names on that list should we strike off. The real question is how many of those names are going to reciprocate our interest. If you think we're going to get all those guys on board, I admire your optimism. Any of those recruits would be good for us. Let's hope we get five of them.

He reminds me a great deal, of Shaun Alexander, imo. I was really impressed in the one game I watched him play, he really has a nose for the end zone. He was clearly more talented than his competition, which hurts his overall ranking, so it's hard to get a gauge on how good he can be. He could be the bets pick up of this class, or he may be a washout.

Schollies are always a question of choosing one player over another, so the question is not whether UM would like to have Rawls but whether UM would like to have Rawls more than all of the other players who want to come to UM.

In the 2011 class, I would rather have Willingham, Fisher, Barnett, Cooper and Bryant than Rawls. And if at least four of those accept, I would bank the rest for 2012 since it is supposed to be an "up" year for recruiting in the Midwest and we will likely (again) have fewer than 25 scholarships available to give.

If Rawls is comparable to Ingram (as he has been by some) then he is a must IMO.

Don't forget the Fred Jackson - Fred Jackson, Jr. connection, which I think gives a fair amount of impetus to a Rawls offer.  Plus, the guy's film is ridiculous, so we would be nuts not to take this stud.  Yes, we have running backs.  But we have not had a dominant running back in a while, and the most likely candidate I have seen is Thomas Rawls.  I will be both shocked and dismayed if he is not offered, but he will be.

I wouldn't mind taking Rawls in this class.  I know he is not at a position of need, but if he truly is as dominate as his highlight film shows, how can we not take him.  I know we need OL, DT's and TE's.  I think the staff feels as though once they get in and begin to evaluate some of the talent at RB, they will find that there is a lack of power, and that is what this staff prides itself on.  IF Rawls is the beast along with Hopkins, then the future will be bright for the rest of the RB's in the future, as the guys open gapping holes for them to run through.

Our coaches have consistently talked about toughness since they day Hoke et all walked through the door.  But I  would be careful about underestimating their willingness to use undersized running backs.  The last RB he had at SDSU was Ronnie Hillman who was 5 ft 10 and weighed 175 lbs.  He put up net 1500+ yards.  He was also a freshman.

Based off what I know I assume Rawls has a Michigan offer in hand already and this is why I am so sure. He just took his test and got high enough scores to make himself eligible, yet he keeps it quiet and tells no one what they are. Now as far as I know he only has one other offer and that is to CMU. I would have to think if I were him and I became eligible I would shout it to the mountain tops in order to get more offers. He has done none of this so in my opinion he has an offer from Michigan.

That's my prediction. They're not going to offer or not offer a guy based on whether some silly recruiting service gives him 3 or 4 stars. Those are just scouting reports and consensus views, they are hardly scientific. It's not like kids go on to perform based on their spot on those lists. How hard they work, their mental makeup, a lot of things carry them further along or see them plateau.

People associate great recruiters with being persuasive. That is only part of it. The most important part is talent evaluation -- is the kid's best football ahead of him or behind him? There are a zillion instances in which a coach's evaluation has a kid higher or lower than he appears on a list. The guess here is they like Rawls' talent. I like what Hoke is doing in terms of evaluating upside and taking players who will excel as they physically mature. It is not true that only the guys with Big Ten-ready bodies in high school go on to be big stars in college.

The All-Big Ten lists are filled with guys who were 3-star recruits.

They also expect some attrition, so the current scholarship number is not a hard cap. We're going to lose a few players after this year, it's inevitable.

It also is true that our biggest needs left in this class our, in this order: Defensive tackle, offensive line, tight end and then an RB.

That assumes we get Willingham. Michigan needs LBs who can come in and compete for playing time.

If we land Bryant and Fisher, and then get Cooper at DT, it's a strong class. Add Clark, Barnett and Rawls on top of that, it's an excellent class. Personally, I think Barnett will be tough to land, but given Hoke's performance so far, don't count him out. I think we will get Clark, which is a great get and a takeaway from State, which already is counting him out after his U-M visit.

We can't afford to pass on a talent like this if he's qualified. Rawls would be the best back on our roster from DAY 1.

is just not paying attention, for these reasons:

• His coach is Fred Jackson's son. Fred Jr. has been very vocal in his support and promotion of Rawls, and it would make absolutely ZERO sense for Hoke to bring back Fred Sr. and then ignore the advice of Fred's son.

• Hoke has made it very clear that he intends to hit the state of Michigan very hard in recruiting.

• Most importantly, the talent of Rawls himself. This is from an MLive article last November:

"(Mark) Ingram set a city record with 1,699 yards on 195 carries in 2007, rushing for 23 touchdowns. He set a city record with 377 yards at Bay City Western. He was the Saginaw Valley Conference MVP and an All-State selection.

Rawls gained 1,585 yards on 150 carries, running for 19 touchdowns, limited by injuries to the equivalent of only six full games. He broke the city and Flint-area record with 396 yards at Bay City Central. He was the Valley MVP and an All-State pick."

Anybody who compares this favorably with Mark Ingram is worth a scholarship. Does Brady Hoke want to risk seeing Rawls picked up on signing day by another Big Ten team? I would bet that the reason Rawls hasn't received more offers is due to his test score issues, but if he qualifies, it's highly likely that his offer list will expand beyond UM and CMU.

5'-10"/214 lbs?  Yes, please.

how beautiful would it be if we could get V.Smith to transer, on his own voliton and then sign Rawls with that slot?

As soon as I am able to vote again, you are getting negged. This post is merely setting myself a reminder.

Rawls is awesome. Michigan has probaly offered him just in secret because they can not offer him if he has not qualified yet. We def. need him, smith was not amazing and plus him and hayes switching off in the backfield would be deadly.

he said it was us versus cmu i think we have that chance.