Would your rather sign a three star recruit this year and red-shirt him for a year of development or sign a four/five star recruit next year that could contribute as a true freshman?
Since 3* to develop were what was best option for us this year, I am glad that they did that.
Next year, I want to see more of the 4* and 5* recruits in the class.
Look for that coming from Hoke too.
i would prefer both. Why waste one year on eligiblity while they don't see the field. I like 19/20 year old freshman with 4 years left. more developed and stronger.
4* 5* will create competiion in the practices and that would be great. being a senior isn't a birth right to start. I don't care if hes 22. If there is a freshman who is physically ready to play will be more productive I'll take him. hopefully 4* and 5* will have a higher ceiling for potiental, but not always true.
Ideal would be to go back to recruiting at our typical level, pre-smurf -- averaging solid 4 -- then to give them some modern-day coaching and fitness. That's all we ever needed to do. Tweak the coaching, not the recruiting.
If it's a DT, I'll take the 3* this year. Anywhere else, I'll take the 4-5* next year.
I will have to agree with you on this one, I think if it was a 3* DT, or even another OL then yes we need him now, and redshirt him. If it was any other position, I would much rather hold off for Hoke and Co to prove their recruiting worth and grab some huge 4and 5* recruits next year, that can contribute immediately if need be.
I would say it depends on the position. Some players are able to come in and contribute right away (kickers, RBs, WR for examples). But some need that year to develop and gain weight / muscle (OL, LB, DB). It just depends, IMO.
I'd rather get the players that could be useful in their 4-5 years and redshirt them if they either need a year to develop or are not reasonably going to contribute as a freshman.
So, under this hypothetical, either way, the player would not play this year, correct (b/c you assume a redshirt). So, the question is would we prefer in 2012 to have a true frosh 4/5* or a redshirt frosh 3*?
All things being equal, the 4/5* is the option because there is a ton more upside. Also, hopefully neither of these kids would play in 2012. As we rebuild our team depth, I would hope to get back to a situation where the majority of the starters are 3rd, 4th and 5th year guys, where true frosh, rs frosh and sophs only see the field in situations of (1) injury or (2) superior talent that is too good to leave on the bench.
Toughness matters. Sign him if he's tough. Don't sign him if he's not tough.
ive heard rumblings of offers already being exchanged. does anyone have a running list? i know i know, its 1 day after NSD, but im just curious....
Next week's Wednesday Recruitin' post will run down the list of offers that Michigan has extended for the 2012 class.
In an ideal season we will be recruiting high 3, 4, and 5 star kids and they will be red-shirting anyways ( barring them being a phenom ) because we will have juniors and seniors starting. I know that is not the case right now but hopefully it will come to fruition sooner rather than later.
you forgot about development under Greg Mattison
It is all on a player-by-player basis.
an OL. There are only so many Steve Hutchinson type players out there.
Depends if we're talking Mike Hart/Braylon Edwards or a Coone
If we were in the SEC it wouldn't matter and we could have both!
Any team needs a combination of great players and role players. While many five-stars lead on the field, some of the best off-the-field leadership comes from those three-stars who have to work their asses off for everything they get. It's all a matter of balance.