With the recent blitz of offers that have gone out to football recruits, how are we feeling about the prospects/targeting? There are offers to some big names and lesser well known names covering the midwest, east coast, Florida, Texas, California, etc which should give us a good first proxy for the types of kids the new staff is going after. Granted, we are very, very early in the process and many things will happen between now and next Feb when ink is on paper, but where is your confidence level right now? Are you more or less confident in our talent selection than with the last staff?
So how do we feel about the offer gun now?
I feel pretty good. Prettay, prettay, prettay, prettay good.
No idea if the strategy is any good or not. Part (a big on imo) of the formula for success is how the team does on the field this fall.
love the Curb your Enthusiasm reference
we are very, very early in the process and many things will happen between now and next Feb when ink is on paper
This. Noone will have any genuine input into this approach until it's February 2012. There are no favorite lists and final fives yet, let alone rejections and commitments.
I think it's much more appropriate to argue whether Rich Rod or Borges will be the better developer of Denard over the long run.
On reflection, however, it's worth mentioning this: when you run a spread offense and a 3-3-5 base defense, you instantaneously rule yourself out of the running for hundreds of top recruits nationally who are skeptics as to whether those styles of ball are (rightly or wrongly) good preparation for the NFL. That is to Hoke's advantage with this first round of 100 or so offers - he can shoot high with a pro-style and 4-3 defense, and work from there.
What evidence do you have of that? Stop with that tired argument. Can we just call RR's recruiting an incomplete and call it a day? Hard to judge when rumors of being fired and NCAA investigations are hanging over your head. I'm sure RR would have got plenty of top kids had he been given an extension and won 9-10 games.
I have confidence Hoke will get a good class I'm not worried about the many offers.
I just want to hear from all the guys that said RR was an idiot for sending out so many offers and how we were going to get back to the LLoyd strategy of only sending out a few offers. Doh.
How about WR Arnett wanting to play in a pro offense and going to Tennessee instead of Michigan?
That was Toney Clemons thinking as well. That didn't really work out for him.
I'm really not sure of why you care about yelling at people into the abyss of the Internet about scholarship offering strategies (your last paragraph).
My evidence is the actual words of Lawrence Thomas, who didn't want to play in a 3-3-5. Same with Tim Jernigan - although there were a million reasons why he would never be at Michigan, he mentioned that changing to the 4-3 under Mattison would give him a moment of pause, and he mentioned earlier in the process he did not like the 3-3-5.
As for the spread - Russell Bellomy said he didn't consider Michigan before Hoke because of the type of spread RR ran. DeAnthony Arnett said that he didn't feel he'd catch enough passes in RR's spread. Nick Hill was passed over for Austin White (good choice there). Obviously, fullbacks were never offered and now are an option for Michigan. Also, how successful was Rich Rod in recruiting tight ends? I think he got the grand total of Brandon Moore to commit to MICH in a three year period, as Koger was a Carr commit.
I don't approve or disapprove of the decisions in the prior paragraph. They just....happened. If you don't think they did, well, you're ignoring evidence in the record.
And sorry, RR's recruiting record is not an incomplete. It doesn't need to be re-hashed, but his entire term's record on getting defensive linemen, his early term record on getting and retaining defensive backs, and his late term record on offensive linemen, is not good at all. But hey - 15% of the roster's scholarships are taken on wideouts, so we're good.
Sure there are guys that didn't want to come because of the offense, but that does not mean elite level players did not want to come because of the spread. It means some guys like some styles and some don't. D. Hart wanted to play for RR's scheme specifically. Ever hear of D. Gardner?
We can go back and forth all day so I'll just say a couple of words and end the argument.
Texas (05-10) Florida(06-10) Auburn, These teams seemed to really struggle with recruiting elite talent. End of discussion.
As for the defense I'm sure some guys do not like 3 man lines just like some don't like 4 man lines. Considering our situation it was going to be difficult to convince a Jernigan to come here, but do you really think if we looked like West Virginia last year elite guys wouldn't come? South Carolina and Florida ran versions of the 3-3-5 in previous years under C. Strong and got elite kids.
I am sure that if we were to comb through the top 250 recruits in each of the past few years, there would be a number of them - whether that is a small number or a large number, I have no idea - who would say "I only want to play in a pro style offense." This makes sense. It would never make sense for a 6'6" kid with a cannot arm and less mobility - think Ryan Mallett - to come to a school running the spread. Ditto a slower-moving, but enormously and strong OL.
But, I don't view this is a criticism of RR's recruiting, any more than it would be have been a criticism of Urban Meyer's recruiting (and while you can call him an ass, you can't criticize Meyer's recruiting ability). It is simply a statement that a spread offense is a somewhat stylized offense, and while some kids will thrive in it, there are others who will not see their skill set maximized.
As I said down thread, while I am certain that there are kids who will only come to a pro-style offense, I am equally certain that there are kids who only want to play in a spread. I believe that Forcier even made comments about wanting to go to a spread team, as he ran it in high school.
So, this cuts both ways. On balance, because the NFL is the goal of so many of these kids, I would expect that more kids want to play a pro-style offense. It is hard for a spread QB to transition to the pro-style (yes, some do), so it could scare off QBs. Similarly, a stud RB might not want to share 1/2 of the carries with a speedy QB like Denard. But, again, this is not a knock on RR's recruiting ability.
I hadn't thought of that, but I assume that this is true. I do, however, assume that the opposite also holds true - that there are kids who ONLY want to play in a spread.
On balance, I think that there is more upside on this than downside.
To be fair, and I am obviously not a RR fan, but his offense also ruled him in on several recruits who would not have been interested had we been running a "pro-style" offense. You can argue that the style he was recruiting for was suspect, but I think he was a pretty good recruiter who was bringing in a lot of the guys he wanted to bring in.
I agree with you. Unfortunately for Rich Rod, too many of the guys he wanted to bring in either couldn't get into Michigan, or couldn't stay at Michigan, or wanted to leave Michigan because of RR. Ultimately, that (and I'm thinking a lack of D-linemen and the void at defensive back in particular) is what did RR in.
As a disclaimer, I fall into the RR-critic camp. But, I have never criticized his recruiting ability. Too much other crap surrounding the program for him to have a real shot at it.
But, you are correct that there was a large % of RR's recruits who either didn't get in or didn't stay. I posted on this a while ago but if you strip out the non-admits and transfers from RR's 3 classes, those classes are almost entirely composed of lower 3* kids. Any 5* and almost all 4* talent either didn't get in or simply left.
Yeah. If you look at the 2010 class and remove the guys who didn't make it, it's worse than the final 2011 class. Such are the effects of 3-9, 5-7, NCAA stuff, media stuff, and then a new coach.
get all hung up on 2012 recruiting. Yes, I hope we get a great class. Yes. I am confident that this staff knows how to recruit. But, I prefer not to follow some 200+ recruits all year long only to see 20-25 of them end up in the winged helmet. But, that is just me.
Official written offers cannot be made until August. I wonder how many of the offers we are hearing about are "We plan on making an official offer in August" compared to "We promise 100% that you are getting an official offer in August".
I imagine that there are @30 offers that are the latter and the former are better described as heavy interest.
The lexicon has not changed even thought the offer-format has. In actuality, pre-August offers do not exist. Maybe it is better suited to call them "intent to offer" offers.
Either way, we won't know what actual offers exist until August
To be honest I'm not really impressed with tons of offers issued all over the country. That's not new to Michigan football. FL, TX and CA are places that Michigan SHOULD be recruiting like a crazed banshee anyway.
I am slightly disappointed that there are zero commits for UM so far, while our juggernaut nemesis Ohio State already has 5 (four of them are 4-star players).
It's still early I guess.
I certainly wouldn't let TSIO's early success affect my perception of Michigan. Besides, it's a lot easier to get them to commit early when you can offer cars, escorts, "tutors," and "golden handshakes" with no fear of consequences.
Michigan will be fine and they will do it the right way, as they always have. At least in football.
Is it bad that I'm getting antsy for a at least one kid to commit in this class? We usually have at least one Greg Brown who commits during the fall of their Junior year....
Shooting aint hiting. I could ask out the following women on dates......It don't make me a player.
Dude, you're a man's man because you post semi-nude pics of women on the Internet, including your wife.
I think there are 4 different things at work here.
1. Re-establishing the Michigan name: As stated in an earlier thread by someone else, I think part of this is the new staff trying to get the Michigan name out there again - even on kids already comitted elsewhere - particularly on the top 250 level kids. (Plus given the Mattison sp? recruiting legend apparently any kid we can get on campus is going to have a hard time saying no.)
2. Rebuilding Michigan as an Elite destination: As much as I would love to give out fewer offers ala Texas (and some school named after a nut) the only recent glory memory tied to U of M football for most non-local kids is the Tebow beat-down bowl. Once the current staff (hopefully) get us back to confernece championship contention on a regular basis - or can find magic in a bottle ala Auburn 2010 - we will be in a position to be more selective on offers. (Note: the Denard phenomenon would have / can help with this if wins follow.)
3. West Coast Residual: With the (major of the) new staff's established recruiting ties to Jrs and Srs in CA they are in a position to offer more kids in that region - at least in the short term - than we have traditionally = more offers
4. Staff learning curve re: recruiting to a major school: This one may not apply as most of these offers are to very highly rated kids. However, we definitely saw this in the RR era - where mid-range kids that would have been a small % chance at WVU wanted to immediately accept the Michigan offer - leading to a few embarassing situations (ime). Hoke knows Michigan but many of his staff do not. I would say the jury is out on this item but I thought it belonged on the list.
Have we really offered a lot of players? I was just looking through the Scout sites. I know the lists aren't up to day because michigan is only showing 65 or so offers, but Alabama is already showing close ot 90. It looks like a lot of teams are giving out early offers, not just Michigan. I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of it.
Then we are proportional to Alabama as they will sign a class of 35. If we land any 20 of the players offered so far we will easily have a top 10 class.
Not sure the reason for the difference.