RR: Five spots left in recruiting class-aargh

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

In his radio show yesterday RR addressed recruiting with that comment. Given our severe shortage on defense I was hoping there was a way to add one or two more somehow, but it seems not. I'm at the point of hoping for an offensive de-commitment from someone just so we can bring another defender in.

Mr. Maize

November 20th, 2009 at 8:23 AM ^

I'm going to take a guess and say you've never seen him play (Rivals highlights aside) and are only judging him by his 'rating.' That's not fair to the kid. He wants to come here, RR wants him to come here, so accept him as a Wolverine now. You will love him when he's not knee-punching punts all over hell's half acre.

Mr. Maize

November 20th, 2009 at 8:39 AM ^

You're right it's not. But hoping someone decommits just is a risky strategy. No recruit is a guarantee. But I agree with your intent. Defense has to be priority #1 and I think we will be happy with how RR closes this class. I'd say it's more than likely we get Christian, Grimes, Murphy, Big Tex, and possibly Furman and I still think Dior ends up here. Just a hunch. Don't quote Charlie Fupa or anything.

spider

November 20th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^

RR has already stated that he will be reevaluating all positions and some(if not many) will be moving to defense.

It has already been well documented that some of the receivers will move to linebacker and safety.

If we can get five more defensive recruits, we will be set!

B

November 20th, 2009 at 8:20 AM ^

Have you seen our punt return game? There are guys that I do not see fitting in this offense (Jackson especially), but the Dileo recruitment makes a lot of sense. If he could not fumble and improve the return game by just a couple of yards, he would be a success.

Tater

November 20th, 2009 at 8:20 AM ^

RR isn't mentioning attrition, but I'm sure another scholly or two will "miraculously" open up if they are truly needed. Also, it seems that every year, each school loses one or two commits on signing day to "snake oil," but gains one or two the same way. RR knows better than we do that a commit isn't a commit until he either enrolls early or signs his LOI. There is the possibility that RR is mentioning this to inspire urgency in the minds of those he is still recruiting, too.

At any rate, I'm sure the class will look a little bit different by signing day. Hopefully, most of the changes are positive.

MWW6T7

November 20th, 2009 at 8:48 AM ^

UMHERO posted a very informative diary on some of the faq's about recruiting and roster spots yesterday and it discusses ee's.

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/ncaa-scholarship-limit-review

Technically an ee can choose not to commit and go elsewhere as long as he hasn't signed his loi yet. I am not sure if it has ever happened and don't think a kid would have the cojones to do so but you never know these days. So the only way to be %100 sure is on signing day.

ijohnb

November 20th, 2009 at 8:29 AM ^

is that one or more of the 6-2/195 "wide receiver" recruits may be tested on the other side of the ball. Oh wait, flashback of David Terrell in man to man coverage against Plaxico Burress...AHHHHH

ijohnb

November 20th, 2009 at 8:44 AM ^

watched that game on Classic the other day. It really looked like coaching staff looked around and said "alright, who the
f$#k can play corner, Terrell, can you play corner? Take Burress, you'll be fine."

MWW6T7

November 20th, 2009 at 9:04 AM ^

I had the same thoughts. I can't look for the post because I am on my phone but agree with you 100 % that a move to TE would be better suited unless the coaches know something I don't which is a good bet since I am posting on here and well uh, they are the coaches.

Lutha

November 20th, 2009 at 8:38 AM ^

In Terrell's defense, Plaxico was torching everyone in college football that year. He abused Lito Sheppard and single-handedly beat Florida in the Citrus Bowl.

I seem to remember Terrell doing fine as a nickelback against Purdue.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 20th, 2009 at 8:31 AM ^

So let's go get Christian, Furman, Beachum, Jefferson, and maybe Mathis. There ya go: Five defensive prospects giving us 13 on defense and 12 on offense, and that's assuming Conelius and either Williamson or J. Robinson don't switch.

chitownblue2

November 20th, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^

It's not as dire as you make out. First, 5 defensive commits at this point would give us a heavier class on defense than offense, if we believe the positions listed. Second, there has been wide speculation with 4 players who are listed at offensive positions (DJ Williamson, Jerald Robinson, Steven Hopkins, Co(r)nelius Jones) that they may switch to defense. Hopkins and Williamson are both high school defensive backs, and Steven Hopkins suddenly decided to take up LB this year on his HS team - I wonder why that may be?

I'm not worried about CB depth really at all: We have maybe Warren, Woolfolk, Floyd, Turner, Avery, Witty, Teric Jones, and Talbott already in the fold for next year. Obviously, we'd take Cullen Christian, and if someone like Tony Jefferson decided to ditch UCLA and come, we wouldn't stop him. But that's a LOT of players, especially in 2 classes.

At DT, we have Martin, Banks, Campbell, Sagesse, and Talbott incoming (maybe Beachum?). I'm not counting RVB because it seems entirely possible that we see him at Graham's position next year.

LB and S are our two desperate places. Marvin Robinson seems made for Stevie Brown's position, and I supposed we have Isaiah Bell waiting in the wings for an ILB spot, and possibly Camercn Gordon as well. But we badly need more ILB (why Furman is so important) and super badly need safeties - as we don't have a single reliable one on the roster. As I said - it's entirely possible that Robinson, Williamson, or Jones show up as safeties, but two of those aren't that well thought of.

Todd Plate's n…

November 20th, 2009 at 9:10 AM ^

any chance RR publicly says 5 to put it in the recruits' heads that there are limited spots and get them focused a little more on a decision?

if it's the right 5 it will be hard to complain.

jamiemac

November 20th, 2009 at 9:10 AM ^

Do you guys know we have 17 kids from the 2008/09 classes working out on defense. Most have not seen the field yet. 11 of those kids have been working out at LB or DB all fall. Plus, this recruiting class of 5-8 defensive players, perhaps more if there are posistion switches.

That's about 2 dozen players, most will have 3-5 years of eligibility left when August camp opens up for the defense. Is it ideal? Maybe not. But, its not like there is nothing there. There's a lot to work with.

And, the future of the program's success rests with the coaching staff cobbling together an adequate defense out of those kids.

rickiew04

November 20th, 2009 at 9:14 AM ^

Can someone explain why Michigan is only allowed 25 recruits, when every year, Alabama, Notre Dame, or UNC last year finish with 30 or more commitments. Why are they allowed to have over 25 but we are not?

Double Nickel BG

November 20th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^

has a 27 or 28 limit on recruiting classes. I believe alot of conferences are leaning towards having limits if they don't already. Alabama was a disgrace because they signed 32? I believe and then had to weed through their current roster and a few of the incoming recruits to make it to the 85 scholarship limit.

KidA2112

November 20th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^

Doesn't a kid that comes in Jan count against last year? That would free up some spaces. Senior who don't take their 5th yr.
Not worried about running out of room.