Recruiting: Need vs. Best Available
Michael Spath over at Rivals has a great article on how we finish the recruiting class at Michigan. (Link: http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1308899) He basically contrasts whether we recruit for areas of greatest need, or areas where the best athletes are available.
For details on who Spath recommends, go to the link. The one common element on both lists is Garnett. Regardless of whether we recruit for need or best available, Garnett is on the list.
Honestly, I would be thrilled to have ANY of the five athletes highlighted by Spath sign with Michigan, especially if headlined by Garnett.
I strongly agree with Spath that the OL needs to be a point of emphasis. These unsung heroes are the foundation of a successful offense. We are extremely fortunate on the (lack of) injuries this year.
If you do the math, we really should be recruiting five guys on the OL EVERY SINGLE YEAR. It may be ok to have 3 or 4 occasionally, especially if you know the quality one year is down, and you have a bumper crop the following year. However, having only two guys left in the class of 2013 and two left in the class of 2014 is potentially disastrous. Look at the depth chart! Not counting incoming freshmen, we have a total of eight guys on the offensive line, and one of those is Mealer, who has rarely, if ever, seen the field. We are just a couple key injuries away from an analagous situation to the decimated secondary of two years ago. Having five committed already, plus Williams at TE, is great. Having Garnett would be even better.
The other area I agree with as an area of need is receiver, whether WR or TE or both. We are a bit thin there, IMHE, and have to have another receiver.
There is one thing in Spath's analysis I find . . . intriguing. The prevailing wisdom is that Michigan will sign 28 in the incoming class of 2012. Spath only looks at three, which would give us a class of 26. Does Early Entry and losing Dunn to Ohio play havoc with signing 28?
December 19th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
Pretty much agree with him. WR, TE, and OL are needs, but it looks like Chesson is the only lock there. We're in on 2 TEs and plenty of OL, Garnett included. The last one in the class (and I'm pretty sure we're still set on 28) can be whoever is the most talented. Since we practically lead for Wright, and he is a 5 star, it seems like he will round out the class. Filling all needs and nabbing a pair of 5 stars with the last 4 spots is a fantastic finish in anybody's book, and it looks like we are headed that way.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^
Coaches should always go for the needs first, but try to pull in some of the best available at the same time.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^
I agree. Fill the need, then at the same time or right around that time get the best available or if the best is no longer available get the next best available that fills the need at that time.
Can someone pass this along to Coach?
December 20th, 2011 at 7:27 AM ^
December 20th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Chesson is not a lock.
December 24th, 2011 at 5:31 AM ^
Chesson locked, unless no one is locked til signing LOI.
1 down on needs, leaving only two solid needs, and a third lesser need:
- OL - Josh Garnett, Diamond, Kozan, outside chance for Dodson.
- TE - Sam Grant, Pharaoh Brown, and outside chance for McNamara.
- DB - Yuri Wright, Armani Reeves.
I definitely see a positive outlook for a commitment from at least one in each of these position groups.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
"If you do the math, we really should be recruiting five guys on the OL EVERY SINGLE YEAR."
If you do the math, you have 22 different positions with 4 years of eligibility. If you recruited one person at each position every year, that would give you 88 recruits after 4 years, just 3 over the scholarship limit. This doesn't take into account people leaving early, redshirts, or deficiencies in talent but, theoretically, your recruiting class should look very similar to a starting line up, i.e. 2OT, 2G, 1C, 1QB, 1.5 RB, .5 FB, 1.5 TE, 2.5 WR, 2 DT, 2DE, 3LB, 2 CB, 2 S.
Unless you are able to really maintain that level each and every year, it's probably not going to look exactly like that, but it should be something you look for in a recruiting class. IIRC, USC used to focus on one side of the ball each year, so they would double the numbers for defense in even years and offense in odd years. Of course, they would take blue chips on the other side, but it wasn't something they focused on. If you think about how that would work out, you'd see that you could almost expect one side of the ball to be dominant each year while the other was young. Then you'd graduate seniors on the strong side, and the young side would become the dominant side.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
Ok, here's how I did the math. I started with 5/22 (percentage of starters on the OL vs. the starters overall) multipled by 85 (number of scholarship players) divided by 4 (assuming a four year class.) This gives you 4.83. I rounded up to five, because you are always going to have a few injuries or duds. Of course, you could also take into account punters, place kickers, and other specialists.
I agree with you that you rarely have EXACTLY five in a class. Which is why I said that 3 or 4 coming in would be ok. But you just can't have two in 2013 and two in 2014. That is less than half what is needed, and I stand by my assertion that we are just a few injuries away from disaster.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
I was agreeing with you, I was just expanding on your thoughts.
December 20th, 2011 at 3:36 AM ^
One thing you guys need to add in though is redshirts. Linemen typically redshirt so that should change the numbers a bit.
December 20th, 2011 at 7:11 AM ^
If you look at my comment below, I took that into account. The counter to that point, though, is that we also don't take into account anyone leaving early including those who transfer, violate team rules, or leave for the draft early. I said below that you would probably shoot for 21/year in an idea situation, but with people leaving, it's probably more like 22 or 23 once you account for specialists, unexpected blue chips, and replacements for those that leave.
Another thing that I just thought of is that you could alternate player styles each year, e.g. recruit a pocket passer one year, and a running QB the next. That would allow you to continuously recruit top prospects as they wouldn't really be competing directly with each other. They might compete for playing time, but they'd likely both see the field unless one was head-and-shoulders above the other.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:29 PM ^
removed / fail.
Forgot that kickers / punters weren't part of the equation to get to 88. They'd put you at 90, though, if you assumed 1 each.
You couldn't really recruit 5 OL in each class. 4 is no problem, though.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^
Linemen are one position where you expect them to redshirt, so that changes the equation a bit. If you want to keep the same number of OL on the roster, you probably want 4 OL that stay for 5 years instead of 4 that stay for 5. That's 21 per year, or 84 scholarships at any given point.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
With the groundwork they've laid, the early early start they've gotten, and the hype surrounding their great first season, the coaches have a real chance of bettering this years recruiting class with the 2013 class (if next years class isn't too much smaller.) At this point we only really need another reciever either wide or as an end. I'd prefer another TE just because of the height advantage they have over the middle and in the Red Zone, and the speed advantage over the average linebacker playing zone coverage. I say either give the last 4 spots to top 100 kids, or hold them for next year.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
Based on our remaining needs as well as our position with some other top recruits, I don't think we can afford to hold on to scholarships. The coaches need to get their players, so to speak, in their system since this is their first full recruiting cycle. They should take the players they can in this class because they don't know where they're going to be at with recruiting this time next year.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
When we have a lot of depth, we can afford to be more choosy. Honestly, given our lack of depth, I consider Michigan EXTREMELY fortunate to have this good of a class already, with the opportunity to still improve.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
I definitely agree on your principal, I feel the same way, but now I'm starting to think they already have gotten their guys, or at least as many as they need to in 1 year by the time we get to 25 or so. Part of why I'm starting to think this is we're only projecting a class of under 20 next year if we push to 28 in 2012, another is the example that we have a solid crop of young DB's from RR's tenure, then Hoke took 4 DB's last year, and is looking to take 5 or 6 more this year. While we can certainly use all these great kids, we might not really need so many, and I think it's possible the coaches can be in a better position with top recruits next year if the class has more room and there aren't 18-20 kids already on scholarship for the spots they're recruiting. Of course inevitable, regular attrition will grow the size of next years class too. Also I do think the coaches will do great when they have a solid foundation of time and recruiting under them, but we already challenged for the B1G Championship in this first season and made a BCS Bowl with essentially last years team, and likely would have beaten Sparty and Iowa playing at the level we finished the season at. Unless we're in with the top kids in the country I just don't see a real advantage to maxing out the class.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^
You never intentionally bank scholarships for next year. Who knows what will happen with attrition until then, and we have more open spots that we can take? A class of 20 can certainly grow to 25+. Plus, we don't know who will pan out and who won't. Frank Clark was the next to last guy in our class last year and he's exceeded expectations. Chris Barnett was the last, and a guy we all thought was a can't-miss TE, and he's not on the team anymore.
You never know what will happen, so you fill them all and see how it shakes out.
December 20th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
Agree. And I'd add that unlike the NFL, where you can bank draft picks and improve your roster through free agency and trades, you have no ability to add to your roster except through recruiting (and walk-ons I guess, but Jordan Kovacs and Will Heninger are rare birds). This is also a reason to always recruit for need before best available player. That's a legit debate in the NFL, when you can trade away your excess depth to shore up other positions. But in college football, you don't win many games with 6 awesome wide receivers and half an offensive line.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
If you recruit 4 OL a year, successfully, you would be pretty good. Problem was RR did not do a good job on this.
As for this years class, I think Chesson is ours. I think we will get one at least out of Yuri Wright and Reeves, probably Yuri. If we don't get Garnett (and his interview today didn't sound that great), I think we will get one of the other guys (Diamond/Dodson/Kozan).
So that is 3/4 spots. I think TE would be great...still hope we go back to Pharoah Brown, but that ship may have sailed. I like him better than the other guys we are recruiting, though they are all solid.
As for next year's class...it will definitely be smaller...in the range of 20 or so.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
I just went back and looked at the OL in our past few recruiting classes. Holy hell is that scary. 2 last year with Posada already gone. Christian Pace was the only 2010 recruit and he's gone. Before that, we had 3, but Quinton Washington is on the DL now. That means after next season, it's basically Lewan, Schofield, Bryant, and our recruits from this year and next. We might be able to get by next year by rotating in a few freshmen, but we are going to be YOUNG in 2013.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
In the future, there are (for good reason) going to be more than a handful of threads on this site skewering RichRod for his recruiting in that area. It's one of the few places even his biggest fans will have to agree with his detractors.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Rich Rod still has fans left after this season? I did not know that. CUPBOARD WAS BARE! CUPBOARD WAS BARE! I can still hear the faint screams....
December 19th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^
I purposefully avoided skewering RR. I loved RR, think he got the shaft, but am thrilled Hoke is here. Regardless of what happened, we are in world of hurt with OL depth, and are so very, very fortunate to have 5 - 7 guys coming in (recruits, plus Williams at TE, plus hopefully one more, whether Garnett, Diamond, Kozan, or yet someone else.) I want depth. Given (as said above) that you always have some guys who flame out, it is critical to fill each class and not save spots. Between injuries, and attrition, and unrenewed 5th years, you ALWAYS are going to have more spots.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
in and make and make an impact. When you don't have different names for the L and R position on the 2-Deep, things can get ugly fast. On the plus side, Lewan is on record as not planning on coming out of a game unless he can't stand up, or something is sticking out. Gotta love those guys.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
The best available spot can be for Zach Banner
December 19th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
Garnett is regarded higher than Banner and that would fill the OL need. Regardless, Banner is never going to happen and Garnett looks like hes favoring Stanford. Best avaliable spot is for Wright or Reeves.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
Wide receiver is the only real need, but a tight end would certainly be helpful with AJ Williams' position up in the air. Every other position is that relative sort of need where you take talent.
That kinda matches up nicely since Chesson and Grant seem like are most likely commits at this point.
At this point I'm kinda happy all the other positions are more luxury than need, because when I look at this list: Garnett, Kozan, Dodson, Wright, Reeves, Payton, Daimond, I start to think filling all three spots is tough. That is seriously aiming high.
December 19th, 2011 at 7:54 PM ^
Rivals has an article on that 2013 CB that is committing in January. Looks like WV is his leader but he does have good things to say about Mich and we are in his top 3.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
Mason (the Whitmer play-by-play guy who was giving me the Wormley updates) announced a basketball game with Jayme's dad recently. Apparently Michigan is recruiting (hasn't offered) Thompson as a corner, but he prefers to play safety at the next level. His dad is telling him not to worry about it, but that might be playing a factor in his recruitment and Michigan's place in it.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
Agreed 100%. I think we need another OL in this class even if it appears at (first blush) that there is a log jam for playing time for all of the incoming linemen. It is absoluetly inexcusable to have 8 OL on scholarship. I'm praying we somehow land Granett (unliekely as that may seem). Diamond would be a nice consolation prize but I'm not holding my breath on that one. As for WR, this is another area of absolute need. Hopefully that will be addrssed this week if and when Chesson commoits. It's too bad we closed the book on Diggs. I would have held a spot open for him as well since it seems we haven't had a true gamebreaking receiver here since Mario Mannigham left...
December 19th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
We closed the book on Diggs? He closed the book on himself when we came to his high school and he was off visiting some other school.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
To take a full class this year just because we can. We can take a smaller class this year and have more room available for better talent next year.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
spots free up all the time.
Especially during a coaching change.
December 19th, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^
Well, mostly don't agree. If Garnett, or Diamond (or Dodson, or Kozan), want to sign, and Chesson, or Diggs, or Payton, or Madaris, and Pharaoh Brown, or Grant, and Yuri Wright, or Armani Reeves, that would give us:
- OL
- WR
- TE
- DB
The lowest in that group is 3 star Grant (or 3 star Chesson.)
They are rated as follows:
- Diggs - *****
- Garnett - *****
- Diamond - *****
- Wright - ****
- Reeves - ****
- Payton - ****
- Dodson - ****
- Madaris - ****
- Brown - ***
- Kozan - ***
- Grant - ***
- Chesson - ***
These dozen average out at 4 stars. It would be absolute lunacy NOT to accept ANY five of these guys, provided you got at least one each at OL, WR, TE, & DB.
Now, if we were dipping into 2 stars, or guys the coaches were pretty meh about, well, I'd agree with you. But if Chesson is the lowest ranked of the lot, I would take ANY of them, provided there was room.
December 20th, 2011 at 3:42 AM ^
take that. I didn't really make it clear in my post but I'm thinking along the same lines as you. Take a full class of the people we're going after and if we strike out on a few, we don't necessarily need to offer a bunch of lower ranked kids just to fill the class up.
December 19th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
We only signed six offensive linemen between 2009 and last year's class. One (Posada) has already left and Quinton Washington is now a DT.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:18 PM ^
How is this guy only a 3* on Scout and 247Sports?
Offers from LSU, Auburn, Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Iowa, amongst other BCS schools. That's a very impressive list.
December 20th, 2011 at 1:28 AM ^
Sometimes, you don't worry about the stars. I feel like we're obsessed with stars sometimes and don't focus on the offer sheet. You're right. A guy of that offer sheet should be more highly valued, but the thing is, he's valued by the people who matter most in recruiting: the coaches of top schools.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Just shocked by his awesome offer sheet.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^
I am guessing that the OP knew how much that sounds like an NFL draft.
Which is really scary, for college football.
I don't know how the trajectory in BCS-level college football can continue. Then again, I don't see what would stop it.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
I would say if you cant pull the elite kids for the remaining spots this year then save them for next year cuz 2013, the ohio talent is LOADED and Ohio cant take them all and since the self imposed schollie reduction, thats good for us.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^
Sadly Garnett & Wright are Irish and Payton is Cal bound.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
I've heard that it is down to Stanford, Michigan and ND for Garnett. And I've often heard that Payton is likely going to Cal. But Wright to ND is new to me. Any sources on these three assertions?
December 23rd, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
* rivalsmike Mike Farrell
Pretty good day for #NotreDame stuff. Shepard and Greenberry 100%, hearing Elijah Shumate and Yuri Wright both favor #Irish as well
December 20th, 2011 at 1:53 AM ^
When Michigan used to be receiver U starting in 1998 - 2007?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Anthony Carter, Desmond Howard, Amani Toomer and Tai Streets