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.
Rivals Judging the recruiting class
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
Four or five top 100 defensive recruits?!?! Yeesh, man. I've heard of high expectations, but let's not get crazy here.
Is that really you Magnus?
free the real Magnus.
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..."
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
I think you make a good point - RichRod is making a strong effort to recruit to our needs, namely defensive back and defensive line.
why did I get negged? I'm not saying our class is bad...
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.
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
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?
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!?!
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.
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.
But they are an indication, and the lack of big time recruits is a little disheartening wouldn't you agree?
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!
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.
worried about basketball after Manny and Sims are gone. Please discuss.
slightly OT you think.
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).
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.
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.
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.
After they graduate.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
that you made a WoW reference, or that I understood it.
I guess since people can't much call for RichRod to be fired you have to go to recruiting.
The class is hardly terrible and it's not done yet with real potential for a number of 4 star players.
Rivals currently ranks the class at 15 and that's 3 back of Miami, 2 back of ND and ahead of Stanford (and St. Jim) 18, UCLA (the gambler Rick Neuheisel) 19, VA Tech 22 and Iowa 25.
The number won't be going down any with the new signings.
"The number won't be going down any with the new signings."
not true. we could be jumped by a lower rated team you mention.
lots of things are possible but I think the likelihood of us being under 15 is low given the names currently being tossed about as (alleged) silent commits
I would get excited every year by our stellar recruiting only to be disappointed year after year. Let's see how it plays out.
Article was written by Jon Chait, who tosses the bomb about us not doing well, but really provides no basis for that statement.
Here's another way of thinking about it:
-- How much should you worry when your low-ranked recruits in the class come from powerhouse football states, are highly regarded in their area, and are playing for state-champion quality teams?
-- Vinopal was all-state in Ohio at a position of dire need.
-- Carvin Johnson was about the same in Louisiana.
-- Dileo plays at a position that Rodriguez should know how to recruit as well as anyone, plays for a big-time program in Louisiana, and seems to be a high character guy.
-- Drake plays for one of the biggest programs in the biggest state for high school football, can play a couple of different positions, and plays a position I trust Rodriguez to recruit well.
I'd rather have 5-stars, but right now I want bodies who work hard, have a good head on their shoulders, and fit needs. I think this class does that at every position except OL and maybe MLB.
The problem is we really need depth right now. And while this class probably won't be remembered for churning out super-talent, it's going to be one of the most important classes if Rodriguez is to make it at Michigan.
The secondary depth is being addressed, and the defensive line is getting there. I'm still not happy with the lack of defensive tackles, but it's known that this is a down year - a reason why Jonathan Hankins is getting Florida/OSU offers - when he probably wouldn't normally.
I'd like to see some more athletic linebackers, a few offensive lineman, and a real speedy receiver, but I suppose we'll have to wait until signing day to see how it plays out.
ever hear of DJ Williamson. 10.6 100 not that far off of DRob, of course DJ benefits from tying his shoes. Is it the kids fault he played on a HS team that did't have a QB who could throw the ball.
Did Ricardo lose a star beause he got worse or because he came to Michigan and played with a poor QB. If he had stayed at Dr. Phillips would he have dropped - probably not.
If Josh Furman commits do you think we'll find a more athletic LB than his 4.37 electronically timed 40?
Finally, if a not good recruiting class is one that ends up in the 10-20 range after 3-9 and 5-7 years we should feel blessed.
DJ Williamson is tiny and is probably a couple years away from contributing, if he contributes at all. The most likely wideouts to contribute early are Jackson, Miller, and Robinson, none of whom is exceptionally fast.
I think Ricardo was a 3-star before the 2009 season began. I could be wrong, but if I'm right, then his 3-star status would have nothing to do with his quarterback.
As for DJ, he said we needed to recruit a speedy WR. I didn't see him say we needed a speedy WR that must start immediately. We have Stonum who will hopefully blossom this coming year. Stokes has good wheels and will have been in the system a year so there should be no need for DJ to play right away.
If you recruit a speedy wide receiver who isn't going to play much, does it matter? Williamson is a couple years away from contributing at the very least. It doesn't matter if he can run a 10.6 100 meters if he's standing on the sideline.
Mark Ingram according to many was a 3 star....
Stars are way overrated. Look at a lot of the recruiting rankings of some of the best players over the past couple of years and you'll be surprised.
"Look at a lot of the recruiting rankings of some of the best players over the past couple of years and you'll be surprised."
No, we won't.
Gerhart and McCoy 3 stars, Ingram 3 or 4 depending on who you listen to, Suh 4 star, and in last place the only 5 star- Tebow.
OSU recruiting in 2005 built a future team around 3 stars- Hartline, Robiskie, Spitler, Jenkins, Laurenitis.
Clay Matthews who is having a great rookie year in GB was a walk-on. So maybe you need to swallow a little of that ego and admit that there are quite a few players that would surprise you over the last couple years. I could go on but this could get long.
Yes, it's easy to build with the higher rated guys, but to be so dismissive, no, we won't, is just wrong.
We all know this. That's why we won't be surprised.
In fact, weren't Mike Hart and Pat White underrated, too??
[takes cover and waits to Magnus rant]
Flaming Magnus is a thing of the past I think he's resigned to "Check the stats".
Okay, I gotta ask, why is it always Mike Hart and Pat White? Why doesn't Braylon ever get brought up in these cliche posts? Is it just that the average uninformed poster doesn't think back that far?
(Obviously, I realize this specific post is sarcasm.)
But the real question is why aren't all the three stars who end up underperforming compared to the five stars mentioned?
What would an "underperforming three-star" be? A guy kicked off the team?
I guess, based on his legendary status, now, most people, including myself, would have never thought to even look that up. If that's true, you make a great point.
Speaking of recent or current players whose daddies were standout UM running backs, Troy Woolfolk was a 3*, and I'd say he's become pretty indispensable.
3 star and #58 RB. The thread is about recruiting the article just happens to be from Rivals site.
Systems may be more important than the number of stars. A few weeks ago, I looked at Rivals rankings from 2006-2009 for Iowa, Cincinnati, Boise State and Wisconsin.
I would happily take the record any of these schools achieved this year. Yet, based upon Rivals rankings, you would think that none of these teams would have any chance at decent BCS rankings, yet all four of these programs had good (Wisconsin) or great years (the other three programs.
Would I rather have all four and five star players? Absolutely. Are highly ranked classes critical to achieve success? History suggests otherwise.
recruiting is so easy in NCAA 10
is using the wrong pitches!
I think he might be quick calling instead of hammering home the points the recruit likes.
is using the wrong pitches!
I think he might be quick calling instead of hammering home the points the recruit likes.
The three RR classes -- 2008, 2009 and pending 2010 -- have plenty of talent. Some of the players in the 2008 class might not have been perfect fits for the new system, and a number of the holdovers from previous classes (e.g., Boren, Clemons) clearly were unwilling or unable to adjust to RRs way of doing things and, therefore, needed to go. The unusually high turnover of better players along with the fact that RR was unable to land a real dual-threat QB prospect in the 2008 class (i.e., he effectively had to start over at the QB position in 2009 with Forcier and Robinson) has made the transition more challenging than many expected, but RR has been getting more talent at Michigan than he ever was able to get at WVU (if we are measuring talent based on rankings by recruiting services). With the talent RR got at WVU, he dominated the Big East after just a few years. He also kicked Georgia's ass in the 2006 Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma's ass in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl team was, in fact, one upset away from playing for a BCS title and almost certainly would have given LSU a better game than OSU. If RR fails at Michigan, it will not be for lack of talent.
Certainly RR has more talent over the three year period; the development of the team has been significantly limited by not having a legit dual threat qb until this year. One should expect improvement over the coming offseason as Tate develops and the RS players start to take on greater roles.
in the new Rivals rankings. In fact, the entire B10 seems to have been hit with an ugly stick.
Except for #4 Penn State.
Wonder what is up with OSU?
Well, not much new there, I suppose.
I'll take lower rated players that are here to play, can be coached, and think at the same speed as their fake 40 time. If they are defensive players and think raw meat is excellent training table fare, I would consider that a plus.
Odds of Becoming All-America By Star Level (Rivals Rank)
Five-Star 1 in 9
Four-Star 1 in 27
Three-Star 1 in 50
Two-Star or Lower 1 in 102