Simplified Recruiting Board (for those not that into recruiting)
Right now, we're sitting at twenty-two commitments. If Sam Webb is right about the new rule changes, then we have three scholarships left to give out. Here is a list of the recruits we're still in on, in rough order of our chances to land them:
CB: Grimes - probably.
DE: Murphy - probably.
SLB: Furman - maybe?/probably.
NT: Beachum - maybe?
SB: Baxter - maybe?
SS: Knight - maybe?
SR: Shaw - maybe?
SS: Parker - maybe?
SS: Vinopal - maybe?
DT: Ash - maybe?/probably not
DT: Thornton - maybe?/probably not
LB: Cornelius - maybe?/probably not
LB: Nealy - maybe?/probably not
SLB: Jefferson - probably not.
WR: Stills - probably not.
QB: Gardner
SB: White
FB: Hopkins
WR: Robinson, Williamson
WR: Miller
SR: Drake
SR: Dileo
TE: Jackson
LT:
LG:
C: Pace
RG:
RT:
NT:
DT: Talbott
DE: Wilkins, MURPHY?
Q: Paskorz, Kinnard
MLB:
WLB:
SLB: FURMAN?
FS: Robinson
SS: Jones, Johnson
CB: Christian, Avery, Witty
CB: GRIMES? Talbott
P: Hagerup
If this is how the class ends up, then how do we evaluate it? There are a handful of studs, but for the most part, it seems like sort of a depth class. Gardner could end up winning the heisman trophy. Christian could be a 3/4 year starter/all-american type. M. Robinson could be an immediate impact guy at FS. J. Robinson could end up being a great WR. Wilkins could end up being a great DE. But aside from them, its really just a bunch of depth guys/potential sleepers, isn't it?
November 26th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
I don't know enough about any 1 of them to write them off as nothing more than depth at this point.
just sayin'
November 26th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
what I'm trying to say is this...there are a lot of guys in this class that I am hoping will be solid starters...and only a few that I am hoping will be superstars.
white, hopkins, miller, williamson, jackson, pace, talbott, murphy, paskorz, kinnard, johnson, grimes, avery, talbott, witty...etc...i'll just say that i'm not writing many of these guys in as all big 10.
furman, and c. jones are a couple of guys i think have a ton of potential though?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^
Hey man, like all of us, you don't have a lot to go on. Vincent Smith was one of our lowest rated recruits who got ZERO buzz before he got to campus and now he could be our starter as a true soph with a ton of potential. Similar situation for Omameh, he was our lowest rated recruit in his class. A lot of people bitched about picking up the tiny 3-star named Martavious Odoms and then he lead our team in receiving as a true freshman.
All I'm saying is that you do not have enough info to determine that you think some guys in this class will or will not be starters or all big ten types. Let's at least wait until they get on campus and play against each other before we make these kinds of statements.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^
hey now, omameh was just a late bloomer. he got an osu offer down the stretch. i for one was plenty excited about him.
you make some excellent points...but guys like vincent smith are probably more of an exception than the rule.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
Good to have you back.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
Thanks Tom. FYI I was relying on your twitter for the CC commit, you came through, just as I expected.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
That's what I'm here for.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^
is there a way to look at ur page without signing up for twitter? I waste enough time on facebook as it is.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^
yea especially on a previous post someone mentioned how OSU had a dominating defense with only one all-big 10! those lower rated guys just suck and those 5*-4*'s that OSU gets are great right? lol. 1 thing to remember when evaluating our recruits and looking at stars, is that the evaluation sites are mostly set up to evaluate more of a pro style play. so the smaller fast OL and SR that we get will never, i repeat, never get the rankings a bruising OL that doesn't have the speed and athleticism to be in our system.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^
than the collective deviation.
Odoms and Smith were high-end three stars (RR=5.7). Their respective UM classes didn't dip below the 5.7 level until player #21 and #19, respectively. As the 2010 class presently stands, you only have to go down to the #10 player in the UM class before you hit the 5.6 level. The 2007 and 2006 classes didn't hit that level until players #14 & #13, respectively, and that is costing us. (The 2006 class was more top-heavy than the 07, especially once you take out Mallett.)
November 26th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^
It's helpful for me.
I meant to type "targets", but "targers" seemed more endearing once I had made teh typo.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
you don't know what your talking about man. No classes are filled with all 4 and 5 star kids. Especially about ricardo miller. he's gonna be a star.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
double post.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^
I appreciate your efforts to comprehensively determine every portion of Michigan's future. I've seen you do 2010 depth charts for each part of the defense, as well as predict recruits' future positions in the past few days. It's ambitious on your part, to say the least, since there is absolutely no way to predict much of anything regarding the 2010 Michigan football team until September 4, 2010 at about noon EST.
As for 2010 recruiting, please refer to this board's recruiting information, and save yourself a lot of replication:
http://mgoblog.com/content/2010-michigan-football-recruiting-board
November 26th, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
You must be obsessed or something
November 26th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^
with organization, simplicity, and michigan football...yes.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
We only have 21 commits
November 26th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
Adrian Witty counts towards our scholarship amount this year, so you could count him as a recruit this year if you want to.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:51 PM ^
Are you counting Witty? It looks like he will count towards this next class.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:47 PM ^
Josh Helmholdt on rivals.com said something about Witty being able to count towards last year, does anyone know anything about this?
November 26th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
I like the enthusiasm but your obsession is getting more annoying than TomHagan's pessimism.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
We going to Notre Dame then home against Massachusetts. We're going to Indiana then back home against Michigan State and Iowa. We're going to Penn State then coming back home to play Illinois. And then we're going to Purdue before coming home to beat Wisconsin, and then we’re going to Columbus, to take back the House!
Byah!!!
November 26th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
I didn't know we had middle school girls on MGoBlog. Ease up on the gel pen.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
I'm afraid RR and staff will begin the cold shoulder treatment on a few of the lower ranked guys to make room for some last minute studs. I don't like that one bit.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:43 AM ^
I like it just fine if it makes us a better team. Half of these recruits would decommit in a second if they felt they had a better offer.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
I could see the staff starting to give the cold shoulder treatment soon. On one hand, I can see RichRod giving the spiel about how a recruit's ranking doesn't matter, and how they fit his system and that's all that matters. But on the flip side, we really need defensive depth. We could use a little more OL depth.
So regardless of how much RichRod likes his track athlete recruits, there comes a point where we need to focus on other positions. I think RichRod probably feels the same way - if someone like Big Tex wants to come onboard, I'm sure RichRod makes room for him.
I don't like it, either, but it beats watching our team lack depth, doesn't it?
November 26th, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
RichRod recruited most of these guys for the sole purpose of them being depth and benchwarmers. Why else would you recruit a guy outside of the top 100, right?
Dumbass.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:54 PM ^
right, we got our first choice at every single position.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:04 PM ^
Chart.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:15 PM ^
cuz we all know how much depth sucks!
November 26th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
This is a legitimate question, and I'm not trying to be a dick about it:
But are you OCD by any chance?
You seem to type out a depth chart on the majority of your posts, and you've mentioned several times that you like things to be organized and whatnot. Honestly, like I said, I mean no offense, and having some sort of personality "disorder" or whatever you want to call it isn't a big deal. I'm not trying to make fun of you. It would just explain a lot.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:34 AM ^
The OP likes organization but that list is not easy to read. Maybe a few less ?, maybe, probably etc.? Not trying to be overly critical but some true organization would help - avoid the subjective and maybe quantify?