that is nice bonus change
So why didn't we want Tommy Schutt again?
I think he's referring to Willie Henry
We chose Pipkins over Schutt. Or at least Pipkins chose us before Schutt decided to go on his comit spree.
If so I really dont understand how. Tommy Schutt flipped from PSU to OSU in mid December and never seemed to waver. Michigan picked up Willy Henry the weekend before signing day after Reeves, Diamond, Kozan and Garnett went elsewhere. Unless I'm mistaken (totally possible), Schutt was interested in Michigan about the same time Pipkins comitted (August).
We also used our extra scholarship on Norfleet. Win.
my impression of his recruitment was not that we didn't want him but rather we wanted Pipkins more. there may have been some concern that taking schutt would jeopardize pipkins as a commit.
This would make sense. I kind of got the impression that they didn't take him because he only wanted to come to Michigan out of desperation, and they didn't think he'd stay committed.
At the time, I really wanted Michigan to take two 1-tech nose tackles, but now that I see what maybe the coaches have been seeing in Q-Wash all along, I understand why they only went after one.
Washington shouldn't have anything to do with the 2012 recruiting class. He's a redshirt junior this year, and the 2012 guys would be true freshman and perhaps redshirting. That means the kid has to sit behind Washington (potentially) for one, maybe two, years and then he gets to start for two or three years.
I wouldn't say it has no impact. Maybe not a huge one, but a big enough one to make a second NT a luxury instead of a need.
If Q-Wash couldn't play, then they'd need one of the 2012 NTs or Ash to be ready to start by next year. Banking on a true sophomore NT to be ready is risky, so taking two and hoping one of them pans out would be a good move.
With Q-Wash playing well, you don't have to count on the 2012 NTs until they're juniors, and (hopefully) much more dependable. And by then you'll also have any 2013 players (Hurst, I know they said they're looking at him as a 3, but I think there's a good chance he ends up at the 1) in their sophomore year as well.
This is probably loaded with hindsight bias, and not actually the thought process of the coaches, but hey, I like speculating.
Speculating, you say? Well, sir, I believe you have come to the right place!
1. Watch game.
2. Celebrate win for a very short amount of time.
3. Complain about the past.
This seems to be the agenda for 95% of posters.
Answer = #56
This is a bit premature
What a piece of poop thread.
The story of why we didn't recruit Hankins is more interesting. As Sam Webb tells it, he was dominating on first down, playing well on second down, too winded on third down and couldn't be found on fourth down for a while. They finally located him lying down in a field house or something like that. Credit to him and Ohio coaches for getting him to first-rounder status.
We recruited Hankins. We just didn't offer him early over the summer (when for whatever reason people assumed he was desperate for a UM offer and would supposedly commit instantly). No other big programs offered him early either. If anything, we did offer, just on the condition that he drop a few LBs, a condition he failed to meet.
Eventually he had offers from Florida, OSU, and Michigan. He made official visits to each of those schools in basically consecutive weeks. He chose OSU (at a time, pre sanctions, when they had basically spent a decade beating our ass consistently).
A guy picked another school. Just like David Dawson did, even though he actually got an early offer and actually made a verbal commitment to Michigan. It happens.
YOU COULD HAVE ENDED THIS.
YOU HAD THE POWER.
I really never understood passing on Schutt, either. I was very high on him during his recruitment.
And if we're really cooling on Treadwell --- I'll say the same thing.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I;ve heard some promising stuff about Willie Henry who should be ready to contribute next year at over 300 lbs. The future of our interior defense with Pipkins, Henry, Godin, Wormley, and Stroebel is in good shape.
Because the student section was only 1/2 full 30 minutes before the game....
"Tommy Schutt ate turf. He ate turf the whole time."
-Ondre Pipkins on Tommy Schutt
I don't usually post, "this board is going ot mlive level" type things, but I've had to neg more board posts than ever lately.
I have not been watching the ohio game, and there is not any game info or stats about Schutt in the post.
He had a pretty big hit on Wisconsin's QB. That's about all he did in today's game.
We should have taken schutt and Hankins fwiw.
Is this really as good as the posts get after a win over Iowa (the same Iowa that Michigan lost to last year, btw.)
Bad job, OP, but if you're going to bitch about the past why not start a dozen threads today about irrelevant past history:
1. Nick Sheridan - Why?
2. Steven Threet - RichRod should have coached him up better
3. ROJO didn't choose Michigan...discuss
4. Gerg or Scott Schaefer...who was worse?
5. The offensive line circa 2010...a look back
6. GERG's beaver
7. 4th and 1 on the 37 and Lloyd Punts
8. Lloyd Must Go - (or why 9 and 3 every year just wasn't good enough) - 2007 Revisited
9. The Horror
10. Recruiting versus Tressel (morality versus money)
11. Maurice F'N Clarett - Whatever happened to that Guy?
12. Four Straight Losses to Sparty - Where's the Threat?
Tommy would be nice to have, so would Pocic and so would Pharoah and many others that did not get UM hugs at the end of the day.
I am more worried about LaQuon and Derrick because WR and RB are singular roles & we have tremendous upside in these areas.
Football games are won in the trenches.
classes for the OL then losing Dawson or Pocic would be highly concerning. If we didn't have a good group of Jr-Fr and Poggi/Hurst/Taco for the DL, then Schutt would be alarming.
IMO, our OL talent will make us powerful and consistent. Adding a couple of explosive playmakers could make this offense powerful AND dynamic.
I'm really angry about Rich not recruiting Stanford's defensive front.