RR confirms potential move for Campbell to OG
Another forum post on this earlier, but RR confirms.
Sigh. This doesn't sound like a motivating tactic. And we're pretty well stacked at OG. Not good, don't see how he can move like he'd need to in our OL zone blocking scheme. And we are not stacked at NG behind Martin. Bye-Bye dreams of Roh-Martin-RVB-Campbell line of Death and Destruction in 2011.
EDIT: Bonus speculation on who's moving from OG to OT, and switching safety positions.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
I read about Coach Rod pulling Ezeh off as well, in an earlier thread. If that was the case, then I am beginning to worry about GERG. It troubled me that Demens was taken out on the 3rd series.
Your theory sounds interesting. If true, I would be a bit worried about GERG and the defensive coaches. I don't think you should send any messages thru the media to either players or coaches especially. This means that there is a communication breakdown and Coach Rod may be losing faith in GERG. Now, it's pretty late wat work, so I may not be reading you correct. Please correct if so.
Edit : really weird double post.
October 19th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic (and I'm fairly certain this point has come up in the 70+ post below), but I guess I read RR's statement as more of a possibility in the short term/auxiliary than some permanent move. If he honestly thinks WC should be on the offensive side of the ball, then either Campbell has been incredibly disappointing in practice (not out of question), has shown some great ability as a guard, or RR feels that Martin and Paterson are not going to relinquish their spots soon enough for Campbell to see the field. Personally, I want to think that Campbell is just growing into his body and the learning curve is simply longer than you would like, but that he will be a force next year. Moving him to guard would seem to be a waste of a perfectly fine tackle prospect - if nothing else, I'm sure Campbell could be taught to just run forward and occupy blockers.
October 19th, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
apparently the best way to create depth on the D is to strengthen the offense. cant you see?
October 19th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
If he can kick a football more than a few feet high, maybe he should get a shot at FGs.
October 19th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
I'm not looking through almost 200 comments, so I'm sure this has been said. Campbell is pretty much a bust. This one is on the coaches. He looks like he doesn't even know how to play. How is that possible?
October 19th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
I'm sure someone has a way to blame someone else (Lloyd perhaps?).
October 19th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
I couldn't tell if this was a primary source of consternation but there's like a 1% chance Mike Martin forgoes his senior season
October 19th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Don't understand how he can have conditioning issues with a guy like Barwis in charge and all the resources he can take advantage of. (By "resources" I don't mean Pizza House.)
You see him interviewed and he really seems to say all the right things about working harder. Damn it.
You got two plus seasons Will. You can do it.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^
this is not a good sign. 5-star sophomore DT moving over to OG, a position that has plenty of depth already for Michigan. That's crazy.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
say im not overly impressed with the coaching on this one. You have a 5 star recruit that alot of great programs wanted at DT and he hasnt seen the field all that much and now a potential pos. change. Coach Tall isnt impressing me!
Hail
October 19th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
Woo for taking 5 wide receivers and not Jonathon Hankins last year. If Martin gets hurt next year or leaves for the pros just shoot me.
October 20th, 2010 at 4:17 AM ^
Yeah, Jonathon Hankins. We were watching him the whole time. Coaches didn't like his conditioning after his Junior year and told him to get in shape. By the time the coaches saw he was much better conditioned they went after him hard but it was too late. The coaches clearly believe strong work ethic is important to succeed here, that's why several of our players have washed out.
So I don't think it's a good idea to take a flier on guy who was low 3 star to Rivals and #48 DT to Scout if he has/had poor work ethic or weight issues. Sorry Chop, can't blame the coaches here. We struck out on a lot of DT's last year and it didn't seem like a lack of trying. I'm hoping TT or Ash will step up in the next few years.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:26 AM ^
It wouldn't have been a flier. He had Florida and OSU offers. He's on OSU's 2 deep already by the way, and I think he's played every game. He's been generating a lot of buzz. http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2010/08/defensive_lineman_johnathan_ha.html
The coaches flat out screwed this up.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
I agree with Chop on this one. The problems with Hankins didn't have anything to do with his innate talent, they concerned conditioning/weight issues. Instead of refusing to tender an offer until it was too late, RR & Co would have been far better advised to extend a conditional offer to Hankins. I.E., we'd love to see you in a winged helmet and are extending you this offer, but it is contingent on you working hard on your conditioning and weight. If you follow through, welcome to Michigan. If you don't, then we will pull the offer.
What's especially puzzling about it is that we've offered plenty of other players who are readily acknowledged by the Michigan staff to need large quantities of time with Barwis before they're really ready to play. Why was Hankins so incredibly different? Hell, they've even extended and/or honored offers to defensive players who sustained serious knee injuries before coming to Michigan, who then subsequently left the program over playing time issues. But we couldn't offer a guy with great talent at a position of need simply because as a 17-yr old he wasn't in true D1A shape yet? As they say, you never really know what's going to happen in recruiting, and that applies to coaching staffs as well as players.
I wonder if they would have handled Hankins differently had they known that Campbell wasn't going to progress very rapidly.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
I wonder if they would have handled Hankins differently had they known that Campbell wasn't going to progress very rapidly.
How much damage can be done in 10 or so months? It seems to me either Campbell should be salvagable as a NT or that there would have been seriously worrying signs before signing day.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
October 20th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
If you said this, congrats! You are a moron.
The D line has been the strength of our defense for the past 3 years. BG came in good and left a dominant first-rounder. Mike Martin is a freaking beast even when playing slightly out of position at NT and will play in the NFL. RVB has been solid to good. Banks has been making some plays. Sagesse and Patterson have been serviceable and sometimes good backups. Roh and Black came in as undersized true freshman and were above average pass-rushers with some pretty good technique. In short, an area with perenially thin depth has been a source of all of our defensive strength.
But one DL hasn't panned out by his true sophomore year? FIRE TALL!! HIM NOT UNDERSTAND RIVALRY
You guys are clowns, plain and simple.
October 21st, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
5 star rankings are justified........he obviously dominated in H.S., but relied too much on physical size and not enough on technique......let's hope he gets it together and plays solid football wherever they put him.