November 18th, 2009 at 8:18 AM ^
Sounds good to me. He's typically not wrong about his strong gut feelings. Any TomVH confirmation?
November 18th, 2009 at 8:20 AM ^
Hopefully Jefferson, Baxter, and Sills join them.
If that happened, would our recruiting class ranking be top 10? I think we're around 15 currently and getting Christian + Furman + the 3 Cali boys that are visiting this Saturday I'm thinking would maybe even put us in the 5-7 range. That's just a guess though.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^
We can't afford to take Stills AND Baxter. That's two more offensive players when we need need need defense. The only way we could do it is if we lose the phone number of a wide receiver commit or two...
Baxter is a guy you take no matter what. That kid learned his moves from "NFL Street." But if we want Stills, Williamson or Jerald Robinson or somebody else has to hit the road.
Of course, this is probably inconsequential, since I doubt Baxter will decommit from USC.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^
Even with Gordon, Rogers and Jones all moving to defense? I think you take all three no questions asked.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
that Webb said today that both JRob and DJ play in the secondary at their HS. Some even project JRob higher as a safety than WR.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^
I'll file this one under: Nice Problems To Have
November 18th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
Keep in mind that if legit talent wants to come on board, the coaches may move away from some already committed guys.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:31 AM ^
The addition of Stills, Baxter, and Jefferson would almost certainly launch us into the top 10. But that would be the longest of long shots to get all three.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:49 AM ^
and I actually would be very surprised if we even got 1 of them.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:00 AM ^
Ok, I get what you're saying. (Must make room for and take someone the caliber of Baxter; no room for 2 more offensive players.) So here are my questions:
1) Brian has roundly criticized the strategy of Saban and Alabama (oversigning players, knowing you will have to lose someone.) But at what point is it worth the risk to allow 26 commitments, figuring that at least one will fail to qualify, or will sign elsewhere on signing day, etc.? There has been a fair amount of analysis in the last month about the disaster of having so much attrition in defense in the last several classes. I am starting to swing around to thinking that it is "reasonable" and even prudent to expect some attrition. I would almost think that in a class of 24 - 27 recruits, you tag 5 - 8 players who virtually "must" qualify, but let it go if you lose one of the rest.
2) On some level, I seem to recall that you want to take the best athletes available, rather than recruiting for the position. This only goes so far: recruits for the OL have a different skill set and body size/speed than a receiver. But don't the strongest teams usually take the best players available, even if it isn't your exact need? More specifically, even though it seems the last thing we need is yet another WR, don't you ALWAYS make room for a 5 star recruit?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:17 AM ^
I don't think the Big Ten allows teams to oversign like the SEC does. I know there are more restrictions, but I can't recall what the cutoff is.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
Big Ten teams may oversign by 2 (25+2).
November 18th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^
I think 27 can be exceeded if you count December enrollees to the previous year. Edit: Whoever's negging me please know that you're wrong. Players enrolling early this year can count back to the 2009 class. We don't know how many EEs can do that because they don't release how many EEs from the year before got counted back to the year before.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
Per TomVH, Baxter said they all would like to play together but this might not be able to happen at USC, but, if they found somewhere they could, well... It would at least be strongly considered. Who knows if that comment should be taken at face value, but, if it is, would tend to think it's an all-3-or-nothing prospect, and the long(er)shot would be just 1 or 2 of them committing.
I dunno though. I'm not a recruiting sleuth, but that's the impression I got from Tom's diary. (And I might be reading that w/ maize and blue colored glasses.)
November 18th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
but I also think somebody will get in their ear and say that going to the same school as your buddies shouldn't be a top determining factor as to where to play.
but maybe not or maybe they'll ignore them. their lives after all.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:53 AM ^
which lb position will furman play?
November 18th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
On who our offensive coordinators are those seasons.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
maybe the hybrid?
November 18th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
I sure as hell hope not. We have far too many players already lined up to play the Spinner or Quick. Too many DBs are dropping to the Spinner because they can't play safety and too many LB's are too slow to play OLB, so they move to the Quick. We need true linebackers.
Plus, with Death Roh at Quick, we really don't have as much to worry at that position as we do at all the LB positions.
Plus, with Death Roh at Quick, we really don't have as much to worry at that position as we do at all the LB positions.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^
Give him a year to bulk up and he can be a true OLB
November 18th, 2009 at 9:01 AM ^
I think Jefferson would be the most likely out of the three to come to Michigan but the TomVH interview with Baxter left a little hope. He said they all discussed playing at the same school but they don't have the same options except Michigan so they wanted to come see if they liked it. Plus, they all know Tate and are looking forward to seeing him. Baxter said he is looking to stay at) and slot and he thinks the offense here would fit him well.
Check out the interview. It is a good read. http://mgoblog.com/diaries/interview-dillon-baxter
November 18th, 2009 at 9:07 AM ^
1) I don't think it would be in Michigan's best interest to oversign. Yes, you should expect some attrition, but I think Rodriguez has received enough bad press. I don't know that he would want people yelling "He cut a guy for no reason to make room for a freshman!" like we did about Ray Ray McElrathbey (or however you spell his name) from Clemson.
2) It is good to take the best athletes when you have a plethora of talent. Michigan does not. Michigan can't afford to load up on offensive talent when the depth on the defensive side of the ball is so deficient. We're short at almost every position group on defense, and the one group with arguably the most depth (linebacker) is the one that apparently lacks the most talent, because they haven't been able to get their jobs done.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^
You're right that RR can't afford more bad press. However, I would assume the staff knows exactly how many players they can take without oversigning and having to cut. IIRC, I think they were highly suspicious last year that one or two of the verbal commitments wouldn't "stick." They may have that same sense about some of our current commitments.
Obviously, we absolutely need defense. And I don't know how good Stills really is, but a 5-star rating (via Scout) always catches your eye. Specifically, I always thought you could shift a fast receiver with meh hands over to corner or safety. One or three of the WR corps coming in with the next class might shift to defense anyway, unbeknownst to fandom.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
between signing 28 players and still being under the scholarship limit (which we would be) and doing what nick saban does. i expect michigan would sign around 28 players as the big ten allows you to oversign by 3. more importantly though (last i checked) we would still be under the scholarship limit of 85.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^
So I would expect UM to make room for virtually every 4 - 5 star who wants to come here in the next class.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
A school can only bring in 25 max per class, if a full class of 25 leaves the program under 85 then the school will have to sit with less than 85 scholarship players. This is unfortunate for Michigan considering they are well under 85.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
can early enrollment change the 25/27/whatever number? like if 4 guys enrolled early, can they be counted to the 2009 class, and you can still sign 25 more for 2010?
November 18th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
Can't early enrollees be applied to either this years class (in terms of the 25+2 number) or next years so hypothetically you could have a class over the 27 number with early enrollees being divided between this year (up to the max) and next year.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
The rule has been changed.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:07 PM ^
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the early enrollees this year, if there are any, count towards last year's totals anyways?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
In my opinion, Furman would play ILB (probably WILL). He currently plays OLB in a 50 defense, so he might make a good Quick. But with all the other guys we have to play that position in this class (Kinard, Wilkins, Paskorz), I find it hard to believe that they'd be recruiting another one, unless they plan to move Paskorz and/or Wilkins to DE.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
I was under the impression that Furman was being recruited to take over at Stevie Brown's spot.
Personally, I don't care what position he plays. If his 40 time is REALLY as fast as it has been reported to be (4.4), I just want him on the field...that is assuming that he can actually tackle people after he zips up to them at light speed.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
OLB in a 5-2 or 4-4 would equate to the Spinner position
November 18th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
First of all, there is no "spinner" position. Greg Robinson said so himself.
Now...if you're talking about Steve Brown's position, an OLB in a 5-2 is not the same thing. Steve Brown covers slot receivers in man coverage. Lamarr Woodley, DeMarcus Ware, etc. are not going to have man coverage on a slot receiver.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:25 PM ^
First, I used "Spinner" so everyone would know what I mean. You and I both know he's the Sam.
And, yes, an OLB in a 5-2 can be a player like Furman, depending on how the coach wants to use the scheme. And run the spread against a 5-2. Now blitz both ILBs and a safety (which I've seen done). Who is responsible for the slot not taken by the other safety? The OLBs. And if you're playing zone behind the 5-2 against the spread, who is responsible for re-routing the slots and taking away the quick seam? The OLBs.
True, you wouldn't probably run a 5-2 against spread, and in a 5-2 against more traditional formations the "OLBs" are more like DEs. But it has been done different ways by different guys. There are no hard and fast rules.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
insider to the program?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
Sam Webb is easily the most reasonable of any of the characters making these predictions - that gives this credibility in my book.
It think it is unlikely but taking a recruit from USC would be huge for appearances sake.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^
What's a 50 defense magnus?..(serious question)
November 18th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
Nice pull
November 18th, 2009 at 9:07 PM ^
Nice diagram of outside veer triple option (as opposed to inside veer).
November 18th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^
A 50 defense is a defense with 5 lineman 2 DE's 2 DT's and a NT.
My team played one except ours had the 2DE's play almost like OLB's so it was close to a 3-4.
Below is a Fifty Two defense
TE OT G C G OT
DE DT NT DT DE
LB1 LB2
Since a lot of HS teams run a lot this is a typical (or was) high school Defense
November 18th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
Imagine a 50 defense as the Pittsburgh Steelers, with three down linemen and two OLB/DE hybrids on the outside.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
Gotcha magnus.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
Does Sam have any "gut" feelings on Beachum? We could sure use him.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
Oh if Webb's gut feeling could work on Saturday (A win might help too).
November 18th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
But that applies to most of us. Unfortunately, my gut feeling is normally just hunger...
November 18th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
Rogers only has one more year and hasn't played significantly whether on offense or defense over three years. Jones is an unproven commodity. Gordon is currently a WR. So no, I'm not counting on those guys.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
simply want to see the Michigan-OSU game, nothing more. It's a fun weekend to a historic venue watching the most storied rivalry in all of college football; what 18-yr-old kid wouldn't jump at the chance to do that? They're not coming here, and aside from Baxter, we need to devote our remaining scholarships to defense anyhow.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^
Sadly, this is probably true.
Anything can happen if we get them on campus though.