Rivals Judging the recruiting class
It starts by saying "How is recruiting going so far this year? The answer, I think, is not terribly well. Michigan's coaches dug themselves a huge hole to start, and are trying to climb out of it, and the question between now and signing day is how far back they can climb"
the rest is behind a pay wall, does anyone have access? Not terribly well, doesn't sound to good....
December 14th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
I think a not terribly good recruiting class is sortof expected this year in general. This year is when the horrors of 08 year will hit us hardest. That being said, we're hopefully filling a lot of holes and preparing for the future.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^
On one hand, Rivals still has us at around #14 - definitely not bad given RichRod's record at UM.
However, we currently have 5 four-star recruits. In the transition year between Carr and RichRod, we had 14. So compared to past years, I find it tough to get very excited about this class.
The one wild card so far is RichRod's talent evaluation. A lot of people are making the argument that "RichRod makes three-star players better than five-star players," and that RichRod "needs his type of players."
Quite frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Sure, each 3* that we pick up has one or two good attributes, but a 5*, on the other hand, would likely be a more complete player. In other words, I'm not entirely certain that I'm ready to completely disregard Rivals' rankings in favor of RichRod's judgment. I'm guessing RichRod got us a few underrated 3*, and probably a bunch more that won't be that good.
We'll see.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
The sky is falling.
Rivals seems to have done a bit or a reranking and Jerald Robinson dropped from 5.8 to 5.7
However, I think one interesting note is that Richrod sleepers like Tony Drake and Carvin Johnson move up from 5.5 to 5.7 Drake's now the #8 all-purpose above Austin White and Johnson's the #33 safety.
While I will say that I'd like a few higher rated players in the class, its interesting to see that perhaps Richrod and his assistants have a good eye for sleepers. We were some of the first people to offer Drake and Johnson and it looks like they have moved up the rankings after some solid senior years.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
What "rating" is necessary for a 4th star? Is it 5.8, as Jerald Robinson previously had?
I do feel like we're getting kind of ripped off on stars between him, Ricardo Miller, and Jeremy Jackson.
It would be interesting to see someone compile how many players moved up after a RichRod offer, and how many moved down, and then tallying that to see if there's a trend.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^
I've read and heard a bunch of M fans complaining about how we're getting shafted on recruiting rankings, and I personally don't understand it.
Without resorting to claims that recruiting rankings don't matter because Pat White or Mike Hart, being a 5.8 (as opposed to a 5.7 or 5.6 or whatever), will not make Ricardo Miller run faster, get more separation from a corner, etc.
While it is true that, generally, a 4 star is better than a 3 star, a 4 star Ricardo Miller is the exact same player as a 3 star Ricardo Miller. If we were all happy last year when he committed (when we all believed he was going to be a sure-fire 5 star prospect), I don't understand how anyone can be less excited now. He's the same guy either way
December 14th, 2009 at 5:59 PM ^
I'm not saying that I'd be more excited if these guys picked up a 4th star.
Instead, I'm saying "Yeah, based on the star rankings this class isn't that good, but I think it might be better than what you see on first glance because guys like Miller probably ought to have a 4th star."
December 14th, 2009 at 7:10 PM ^
i think i share your sentiment here. a few of three star guys such as White & Pace (you mentioned Drake) are in the top 10 players at their respective positions.
Overall i'm not too concerned. There are quite a few teams in the top 25 that don't draw in many 5 or even 4 star recruits. Without even mentioning any Big East teams, they include Iowa, Oregon, Virginia Tech, and basically every team ranked #16 - #25.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
I think it is certainly possible to build an offensive powerhouse with 3 star players, but defense is where ratings make more of a difference. The vast majority of star defensive players are 4 or higher out of high school. It is disappointing to me that Michigan has been unable to get 4 or 5 Top 100 defensive recruits this year.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^
Four or five top 100 defensive recruits?!?! Yeesh, man. I've heard of high expectations, but let's not get crazy here.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:39 PM ^
Is that really you Magnus?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
free the real Magnus.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:52 PM ^
its not like getting four players in the top 100 is that outrageous. The ability to start right away, instead of possibly being lost within the system has to be a big selling point. Especially in a year where the primary recruiting focus should be defense.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:42 PM ^
between saying that 4 players in the top 100 is not "that outrageous", and stating that you're disappointed that Michigan hasn't actually done it. It was the word "disappointed" that was puzzling. It seems akin to me saying, "I'm disappointed that Giselle Bundchen never wrote me back," and then following it up with, "Hey, it's not THAT outrageous that she'd call me back. I mean, I hear she has a thing for Michigan grads..."
December 15th, 2009 at 6:29 AM ^
It is pretty outrageous. You didn't just say you were disappointed that we haven't got several top 100 recruits - you said you were disappointed that we haven't got several top 100 DEFENSIVE recruits. So if we recruited offense and defense equally, you were expecting that we would get EIGHT top 100 recruits. In other words, you wanted a team that has gone 3-9 and 5-7 in the past two seasons to get 8% of the best 100 players in the country. That's nuts. There are 119 other teams out there.
(And even if you didn't count on recruiting offensive players at an equal rate, you're still talking about 8% of the defensive players in the top 100, assuming the top 100 is split evenly between offense and defense.)
December 14th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^
again; i feel that there are quite a few teams who have serviceable-to-good defense built on lower-rated recruits. Iowa & Wisconsin serve as good examples, and Michigan out-recruits both of them even on a bad year. Throw in Nebraska & TCU as a few more examples and I think it becomes evident that while star ratings usually equal better players; better individual players do not necessarily always make a better defense.
note to G-Rob: Synergize.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
That's where coaching comes in. You take players with a high upside but not as complete and you make them just as complete. And as I am sure we have all seen a year or two into the system really helps. Also some players learn quicker than others which are usually the "system ready" players. I might just be optimistic but I see a few "system ready" players in this class.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^
that sites rip this recruiting class. there have not been any epic fails or decommitments that 'dug a hole.' the coaches saw a range of players they wanted and offered them. as of now there has not been any reports of a 4-5* being scared off by coaching commentary or the commitment of others. the school pulled one of the top qb prospects in the country despite going 5-7.
this article seems symptomatic of the "bad season = articles of gloom and doom" in hopes of carrying the mentality of disappointed fans into the writing. it's a good class that lacks a shiny coin here and there but is made up of hard-working, determined players who say things like "i'm going to show all those fans who are concerned just how hard i will work to be the best."
i am perfectly happy with this class, as should anyone who is willing to go with the flow. this is not a program that merely reloads skill - it develops and progresses. the more low-star kids who want to work to the level of players perhaps with more natural skill than them the better. a healthy mix, which is what this class has, is a great class IMO.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
I understand the affinity for "underdog recruits" who lack a high rating but try to make up for it with hard work. For example, everyone got excited when Feagin said he would try to beat out Pryor.
However, who is to say that the higher ranked recruits don't work hard? At a program like USC, they have to work hard by default, because of the depth of the competition. Additionally, the 5* kids may have NFL aspirations, which also require hard work.
And, even if the kid is lazy, I'll bet a guy like Barwis could whip some work ethic into them.
So really, positive attitude may only be able to get you so far...
December 14th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^
we were doing pretty good, I had hoped for better ranked players, but I thought we were filling needs on D. I kind think that RR is used to recruiting a certain level of player, and doesnt get that he should be able to get better at Michigan. I don't know.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
I think you make a good point - RichRod is making a strong effort to recruit to our needs, namely defensive back and defensive line.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
why did I get negged? I'm not saying our class is bad...
December 14th, 2009 at 4:17 PM ^
Most likely because you said that Rich Rod doesn't know that now that he is at Michigan he can recruit better players than he is used to recruiting. If you stop and think about it for a minute, you'll most likely come to the conclusion that that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
it doesn't sound that ridiculous to me, it sounds like a theory, it may be far fetched, but the class is full of 0-3 star talent, not saying they are good players, I'm just saying our classes shouldn't look like they could be WV classes. That being said I am pretty happy with where our class is and was shocked at the rivals lead in, that is why I posted it, to see what everyone thought
December 14th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
or fully make excuses for the record of dear leader
or you will get negbombed.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:05 PM ^
suck at commenting, or just suck in general, you will get neg-bombed.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
I would venture to say that you have gotten your answer re "what everyone thought."
December 14th, 2009 at 8:02 PM ^
so, you're saying he doesn't know that he should be able to get better quality players at Michigan...but you do...on a board, at MGoBlog...
So, basically, RichRod is unable to draw inference.
Why didn't you post sooner?
December 14th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
OH NO
THEY DON'T HAVE SO MANY STARS AS AT OHIO STATE
WE SHOULD DROP THEM AND GET NEW ONES
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?!?!?!?!?1111!?!
December 14th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
Ugh, while I don't disagree with your assessment, I do disagree with your caps.
Boo, yuck and uncalled for. Please apologize to my eyes.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
Personally, I think this is a solid class, all things considered. Coach Rod is addressing glaring needs, and to be honest, we're not done recruiting. Rankings are more for the fans to brag about, and I think we should wait until these guys see meaningful snaps before we consider the class a let down.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
..my bad
December 14th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
But they are an indication, and the lack of big time recruits is a little disheartening wouldn't you agree?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
it only matters up until game day, at which point, the only thing matters is winning or losing.
Right now, RR's record is such that if it belonged to Dantonio we'd never stop making fun of little brother. As it is, we keep our mouths shut.
This will radically change in the 2010 season or (wait for it) he'll be gone. Football is simply too important to the university to have Tommy Amaker the second.
Don't worry about the recruiting class. If RR wins big next year, we won't even think about it. If not, it won't matter.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
All it talks about are the differences of building a team in the NFL vs. college. It does touch on how Michigan set out to sign 3 DTs last year and only ended up with one thanks to our late signing period southern defections. Other than that the article is quite uninformative, go figure!
December 14th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^
Misleading article title. It talks more about the differences between college and pros for building a team. Essentially, college teams need recruiting to build successful teams and meet needs and pros use the draft, trades and free agency. Shocking! I had no idea about that. I thought the only difference between the pros and college is the pros are paid and it's strongly frowned upon to pay college kids to play.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
worried about basketball after Manny and Sims are gone. Please discuss.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
slightly OT you think.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^
maybe you should have been worried about last year's loss of two walk-ons, CJ Lee and David Merritt. So much for star rankings (lmao).
December 14th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
It's hard to recruit well after going 8-16 in the past two seasons. Once Michigan starts winning more, they will get better recruits. Simple as that.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
Look back at our 05,06 classes and look at all the 4* and 5* players that were either busts or are no longer on the team. Rankings are nice but I'll take on field performance from a good 3* anyday.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
But that begs the question - what are we getting?
Really the only way to know is to wait until September (and even then, not many freshmen will play). Personally, I'm getting impatient - I wish we could fast forward to September.
This is why we need a bowl game, any bowl game, to keep us busy in December.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
The only thing keeping our new crop of 2* and 3* recruits from being "busts" is that not much is expected of them. I'll take good on-field performance from anyone...2* or 5*. I imagine, though, that the chance of a 2* becoming a stud is lower than that of a 5*. In any event, as long as we can sign all the high * recruits (or recruits drooled over by other schools regardless of star ranking) that want us, I don't mind the 2*s.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
After they graduate.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
When I think about what it takes to make a "GOOD" recruiting class I think of the following:
1. Talent - You may not NEED 5* recruits, but they sure do help!
2. Need - If you take a class full of highly ranked skill players will it matter if you have no one in the trenches? Probably! (Ask the Lions how the last few years have worked out when they neglected the trenches.)
3. Quantity - Would you rather have a small class with star ratings or a deep class with slightly lower ratings? Depends.
4. Work Ethic - Many HS players rely on the fact that they're more talented than their opponent. How do they react when they aren't?
5. Character - Impossible to define, but this covers things like adapting well to adversity, time management, decision making, etc.
When a site like Rivals ranks classes, they focus on the first point mostly and maybe the next two a little. So take what it from you will. Our class isn't great, but I think it is going to be good. Look at it this way:
-- In 2005 and 2006 Michigan signed a TOTAL of THREE viable DB recruits (counting Stevie Brown as a DB but not Mouton). In two years Michigan didn't even recruit enough people to field a full secondary regardless of skill level or attrition.
-- The 2005 class was ranked #6 and the 2006 class was ranked #13. The lack of quantity, let alone quality didn't affect those rankings yet it is one of the biggest problems we've had the past two years on defense.
In 2010 we're going to recruit the biggest secondary class I can ever remember. We're going to have some stars (Robinson, Christian), some speed, some depth, and some risk (Vinopal, Johnson). I'm thrilled with the secondary recruiting - Rivals probably won't be.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
I find it odd that Rodriguez is given so much latitude with regard to his recruiting. The argument that he identifies specific players and goes out and gets them is disingenuous.
For instance: does anyone think Pace was RR's #1 Ol target? Would RR rather have him than Henderson or Taurian Wilson? Would RR rather have DJ Williamson than Kenny Shaw?
I see a lot of the guys in this class as at best Plan B. Not saying that's bad--but really, when you offer guys like Kinnard, Dileo, Williamson, J Robinson, and Drake (who had zero offers before)--they're gonna jump. Does that mean they are the types of talent that Rodriguez is so adept at finding?
I don't buy it. The funniest par is that those who argue in favor of RR's recruiting say "Don't judge it!"--but then they go and pronounce his recruiting a complete success--the guy just knows how to spot talent!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
I may not be representative of the greater MGoBlog community, but I personally give RR latitude for 2 reasons. The first is because nobody is going to know how good most of these kids are for another year or two (at the earliest). While I don't believe that RR is infallible, I realize that he knows more about football than I ever will, so I trust his evaluations. Secondly, it seems difficult to fault RR for relatively bad (by M standards) recruiting classes during the historically-bad last two seasons. Without getting into whose fault it is that the football program is where it is right now, 5-stars don't typically go to teams who haven't been bowling for 2 years
December 14th, 2009 at 6:23 PM ^
The staff identifies players who they think they can win with. Once they offer, they do take into consideration that they might commit. If you remember, they also offered Travis Williams, and he too wanted to commit the next day, but was told by the coaches to wait. And we had zero CB commits at that time. THAT was a plan B. Sure the coaches might prefer Kenny Shaw, but rather than wait on him and watch him sign with Florida State, they will gladly get D.J.. I'm not saying I'm excited about every commit we have at this point, but I will reserve judgment until they are juniors.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
FWIW, per Rivals, Travis Williams committed to Miami (OH) on 12/10. Sounds like he really wanted to come up north. Best of luck to him. With all the other options we have at CB, he knew AA was not going to be his home for the next four years.
I'm not worried about our secondary in the coming years. We'll do well with all the depth we're building with this class. It will just take a couple of years to develop the kids.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:42 PM ^
and I find no exception here. Though I do like the reference to Taurian Wilson, Torrian's meatier half-brother. I'm not sure whether he lives in a Greek labyrinth or Thunder Bluff, but we need him on our side.