so much for that
So...3 spots left?
January 24th, 2011 at 1:01 PM | 
Screw it.
Screw it.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:58 AM |
Agree that the panic button can be put away
Agree that the panic button can be put away
but let's wait and see what happens with Posada, Fisher, and Countess before we make an evaluation of the class.
Regardless, David Brandon put Hoke in a horrible spot recruiting-wise and nobody should form any final judgements on Hoke's recruiting prowess until 2012 at the very earliest. If nothing else, the hiring of Mattison certainly gives us a leg up on the defensive side of the ball. If RR had been smart enough to hire a guy like Mattison instead of Robinson, he might still be coach. A head coach is only as good as his assistants, and you've got to commend Hoke for bringing in Mattison, whose resume isn't littered with bad spots like Robinson's is.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:17 PM |
Final judgements
Final judgements
Logic says that you're correct--we shouldn't rush to hasty conclusions, yet I'm very encouraged by Hoke's intial efforts. I believe that you can learn something about a person's character when he is put in a tough situation. With Brady Hoke, all my impressions to date tell me that he gets stronger under pressure. I think you're right that Hoke's hiring Mattison was a great decision.
Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her person for the worse.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:19 PM |
posada
posada
reaffirmed his commitment. No worries there
I am become Tim Hardaway Jr. Destroyer of Worlds
January 24th, 2011 at 12:30 PM |
How much longer are we going to have to hear this?
How much longer are we going to have to hear this?
I agree with most of what you are saying Don, but am wondering how much longer we are going to have to hear about DB's failure to get a guy in here soon enough. That's a path that's been beaten to death IMO! Let's just wait and see what happens regardless of DB's handling of the hiring.
Someone in an earlier post talked about worrying about the players we "Do" have and not the players who are not at Michigan. In that same vein then, let's worry about the situation at hand and not the situation as we would have liked it to be. We all would have liked some more decisiveness, but that is not how it played out.
It's great to be a Michigan Wolverine
January 24th, 2011 at 1:36 PM |
I agree 100% Don.
I agree 100% Don.
I will be upfront and say I was blown away by the Hoke hire. In fact I was quite dismayed if I am being honest. However, I was far more disappointed in the way DB handled everything than I ever was with anything BH did.
After a couple days I got passed my disappointment and realized as a fan, I had to get behind Hoke regardless and give him a fair shot at bring UM back. DB would be another story, but as for BH, I was am now in his corner 100%.
In this limited timeframe he has given me reason to get excited with how well he has responded to the position that he was thrust into by the way DB mishandled this whole thing. He has given me reason to be quite optimistic for the future with the way he has handled himself since getting the job and I am more than a little ashamed in relation to my feelings about his hire intially.
I agree in part with your assertion that we can't really fault him for this years recruiting class, but we can praise him for it if it turns out better than expected (which it seems it may). If he can salvage this class with the limited time he has had it bodes very well for the future.
Anyway, that is my opinion and can say I am happy that I have to admit that I was wrong about BH.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:51 PM |
He has given me reason to be
He has given me reason to be
He has given me reason to be quite optimistic for the future with the way he has handled himself since getting the job and I am more than a little ashamed in relation to my feelings about his hire intially.
Firstly, you are not the only one to be not blown away by the hire and you should not be ashamed, many feel this way, it's human emotion. Hoke won me over when he thanked RR and his staff. I was even more pleased when he ripped people, even Michigan people for be divisive.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:58 AM |
Would think we could go higher
Would think we could go higher
to 21 or 22 if the right talent is truly interested. I feel we may lose a few players by the end of the school year. Their choice, not the teams. Just a feeling.
Brady Hoke - High quality recruits one or two at a time.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:59 AM |
original assumptions for the class
original assumptions for the class
wasn't there talk of taking 4-5 OL this class?
I know we have 2
January 24th, 2011 at 12:04 PM |
Fisher and Bryant are must
Fisher and Bryant are must
Fisher and Bryant are must gets. All Eggs. 1 Basket.
Class of '97: 4 Years -- 4 Four-loss seasons
January 24th, 2011 at 12:07 PM |
The original assumption was
The original assumption was
The original assumption was anywhere from four to six, actually.
Right now I think we'll only get 4.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:59 AM |
With losses, etc...
With losses, etc...
which are guaranteed to happen, we will likely have about 20 or so spots next year.
Next year is a banner year, by the way...so keeping spots for next year is a key.
neoavatara.com/blog
January 24th, 2011 at 12:03 PM |
A good point
A good point
I've been wondering if they should bank a scholarship or two for next year given how loaded Ohio and Michigan apparently are.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
January 24th, 2011 at 12:31 PM |
Unless you're a team with
Unless you're a team with
Unless you're a team with TONS of talent at about every position (which we are not) I don't ever agree with banking scholarships on purpose. Now, I don't agree with offering just anyone to fill a scholarship, but I don't agree with passing on guys you think would be quality additions because you think the next year might be better.
If we save spots until NSD for guys who go elsewhere, then those schollies will be banked, but that's a different story. But I think the goal should always be to fill all of your spots.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:38 PM |
Thats fine but then we should
Thats fine but then we should
Thats fine but then we should be very selective next yr if we only have 15 to 17 to give out.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:10 PM |
Totally.
Totally.
Ideally, Michigan should always be very selective, we just haven't had the luxury lately. If we're performing on the field and we have a small class to fill, we should be extremely selective, especially at LB and DB since this class has so many.
Of course, that 15 will almost certainly be more like 18, maybe even 20 depending on how things shake out. If it's not, we're lucky because it means everyone qualified, and no one bailed for any reason other than graduation.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:54 PM |
There are a few younger
There are a few younger
There are a few younger players who will probably want to transfer after seeing their places on the depth chart. I wouldn't be surprised to see 2-3 guys transfer after Spring Practice.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:01 PM |
Rawls
Rawls
Between what Sam Webb has said about Michigan's interest in him (they want him if he can qualify), his interest in Michigan (it's his apparent dream school), and his decision to make is test score announcement a surprise, I'm inclined to put Rawls down as a member of this class...As I believe someone else on the board pointed out a day or so ago, it seems unlikely that Rawls will say, "Guess what everyone? I didn't qualify!"
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
January 24th, 2011 at 12:29 PM |
unlikely Rawls will say, "Guess what everyone? I didn't qualify!
unlikely Rawls will say, "Guess what everyone? I didn't qualify!
that would be an interesting press conference.... but your point is dead-on. Barring some sort of last-minute academic catastrophe, he's coming, and I think he's going to be a good one. I just hope his issues getting the test score don't presage horrible problems handling the academics once he gets here.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:01 PM |
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
Can't we just oversign? Everyone else is doing it! /s
Despite what the other guy calls himself, my name actually is Magnus.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:05 PM |
Ummm,
Ummm,
no, never, and NEVER. Please.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:07 PM |
Whatever the conclusion
Whatever the conclusion
Hoke has done an amazing job, finishing this recruiting class, under very tough circumstances.
Even in a time of elephantine vanity and greed, one never has to look far to see the campfires of gentle people.
Garrison Keillor
January 24th, 2011 at 12:19 PM |
Agree
Agree
He has indeed. Do I repeat myself? Yep.
Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her person for the worse.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:21 PM |
I don't think you folks can count
I don't think you folks can count
Even in the "worst case" mentioned above where we sign 15 players, including Rawls and another OP, we'd have more than 3 offensive players in the class. Hayes, Rawls, Miller, Posada (that's 4), plus an additional OP (we'll say Bryant) is 5. Plus, if Heitzman plays TE that'd be 6. Basically, they aren't recruiting WRs because we have so many (evidenced by what they did with Lucien and Flowers) so all the class would be missing from an offensive perspective, even in "worst case" is a QB. Nothing to worry about there.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:29 PM |
Slightly OT:
Slightly OT:
Are we going to cut Brendan Gibbons's scholarship? I know it's a dick thing to do, but he never really panned out at all and now we have 2 scholarship kickers on the roster. Also, IMO he's not better than Seth.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:37 PM |
No, we will not do that, for
No, we will not do that, for
No, we will not do that, for a number of reason.
1. What if Matt Wile isn't that good, or isn't that good right away? It's possible. We all thought Gibbons was a sure thing, remember? And what if Gibbons figures his shit out, or Wile gets hurt or violates team rules a la Hagerup for OSU? These things happen. After what happened this year, cutting a kicker would not be the right thing to do.
2. Yes it is a dick thing to do. If M gets a reputation for not benching, but cutting scholarship players just because we recruited a better player for their position, we will lose recruits. High school coaches pay attention to this stuff and they'll tell their players and parents.
3. It's one scholarship, and we saw what happened when you don't have a kicker. We might decide that we don't want to rely on a true frosh and a walk-on who isn't very good. Having three options is better than two.
Look, if Wile takes over and Gibbons never sees the field, he might not get his 5th year, which is common. If that happens, Gibbons only takes a spot for two more years, one of which is Wile's frosh year. Cutting Gibbons will do little good and a lot of bad.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:42 PM |
Cutting Gibbons will do little good and a lot of bad.
Cutting Gibbons will do little good and a lot of bad.
100% agree. No scholarship should ever be yanked simply because a kid doesn't pan out athletically. As long as he's working hard like everybody else, isn't a problem in terms of attitude, and is keeping on course for his degree, he's a Wolverine. Permanently.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:44 PM |
Right. We don't and
Right. We don't and
Right. We don't and shouldn't cut people. I wish Gibbons at least could punt and back Hagerup up.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:47 PM |
I am not saying I disagree...
I am not saying I disagree...
I agree with what you are saying because of the rationale you are using. There could be very bad reprecussion if we started doing things of this nature to our scholarship athletes and we don't need anything else working against us at this point.
I do have a question, however. I am just looking at it from a students perspective. If a student receives an academic scholarship to a university and they fail to live up to their potential it isn't exactly uncommon for them to lose their scholarship (at least in Canada, perhaps it is different in the USA). Also, if a kid on an athletic scholarship doesn't perform academically he can lose his scholarship as well.
Why is it that if a kid doesn't pan out on the field (ie doesn't live up to his potential) that his scholarship can't be revoked without such negative reprecussions?
Again, this is just a genuine question in search of a response. I am not saying we should or shouldn't practice, just want to hear opinions why it is different?
January 24th, 2011 at 6:02 PM |
Because you can control how hard you work
Because you can control how hard you work
Academically, just like you can control how hard you work on the practice field. But you can't control how athletic you are. If I'm not as smart as the next guy, if I study a lot harder, I can make it up. You can get in better shape, and watch more film, but there are limits. No matter how much I work at it, I'm not going to be playing in the NFL. If you have a guy who's doing everything you ask of him, but just isn't good enough, that's on you for taking him, not the kid. And it's about what's best for the kid, not the program, as long as he's holding up his end of the bargain.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
January 24th, 2011 at 12:31 PM |
http://michigan.rivals.com/co
http://michigan.rivals.com/co
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1178859
Here is the breakdown. 15 spots for 2012, 13 if we sign enough that we decide not to give Watson and Williams a 5th yr. 20 is the number to max out this yr because they forgot Kovacs.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:07 PM |
Just to clarify, if we sign
Just to clarify, if we sign
Just to clarify, if we sign 20 this year, we have 15 for 2012, and if we don't give Watson and Williams a 5th year, we can take 22 this year, leaving us with 13 for 2012?
Did I understand that correctly?
January 24th, 2011 at 1:12 PM |
Correct. Which is why I am a
Correct. Which is why I am a
Correct. Which is why I am a little opposed to signing more than 20. I'd hate to have such a small number for 2012. We can assume it will grow by 2 or 3 but I'd still like to start at 15 at the least.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:26 PM |
Yeah, I think it depends on
Yeah, I think it depends on
Yeah, I think it depends on who they are if we sign more than 20. If we get 8 more guys, and those 8 are Bryant, Fisher, a 4 star TE, a good QB, Rawls, Willingham, Clark, and either one of the top DBs (McClure or Floyd) or a top DE/DT that we're looking at (Cooper?), I'd be OK with that.
It would lessen our needs for 2012, so we could be extra picky, almost ignore some position groups like LB and DB, and not need to go too crazy on OL and DL.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:57 PM |
The problem with this is that
The problem with this is that
The problem with this is that the 3 kids in the state of michigan we desire most play lb,lb and db...
January 24th, 2011 at 2:05 PM |
I disagree. From what I
I disagree. From what I
I disagree. From what I know, the three we desire most are Ross, O'Brien and Godin, or LB, NT, DT. If we get Willingham and Clark and they both play LB, that might be it for RJS, unfortunately. And the little CB from Cass Tech (Terry Richardson?) seems pretty highly touted, and we'll still take one CB in the next class at least, but it also sounds like Hoke and Co. like the bigger corners, which is not him.
Let's see what kind of interest we have across the country in about April and we'll know more. RJS might make the cut, but he also might not. If it's because we have better LBs interested and we only want to take two, I'm OK with that.
January 24th, 2011 at 3:44 PM |
It's way too early to project
It's way too early to project
It's way too early to project what positions we'll need at LB next year. We don't know who we'll get in the class of 2011, and the coaches have yet to move around their guys (will Jake Ryan play ILB or OLB? Will Jordan Paskorz play OLB or DE? Etc.). You also never know if a guy buried on the bench (Isaiah Bell or Brandin Hawthorne, for example) might transfer or something.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:03 PM |
I don't think McClure or
I don't think McClure or
I don't think McClure or Raven are coming and Rawls would be nice but not critical. I hope we see Barnett, Bryant, Fisher and Cooper if we have 21 spots. If not then I guess we drop Barnett. It's hard to turn down a TE that's 6'6" and 245lbs though.
"True loyalty is that quality of service that grows under adversity and expands in defeat. Any street urchin can shout applause in victory, but it takes character to stand fast in defeat. One is nois
January 24th, 2011 at 1:26 PM |
McClure reminds me Of
McClure reminds me Of
Leon Hall and he was a great Corner back
Also out of the same high school i believe...
GO BLUE!!
I am drunk, or I wouldn't be talking to you.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:11 PM |
Looks pretty good. Ideally,
Looks pretty good. Ideally,
Looks pretty good. Ideally, in my dreams, it would be great if Hoke could snake-oil one -- just one -- kid away from one of the tip-top programs. We aren't at that level yet. If and when Hoke starts beating out Bama, OSU or Texas, we'll know we're on our way.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:18 PM |
Mcclure has a relationship
Mcclure has a relationship
Mcclure has a relationship with Hall actually.
I think we take 20, maybe 21 in this class. We have some holes to fill and we want to get guys into the program. Its possible a guy like Leach won't get a 5th year out of the deal, but we'll have to see. I don't wish it on him, but sometimes its reality. I think we are better off landing a full class this year and going with 15-18 next year. Its a quality class and we won't need depth too badly. We should be able to get a really elite class even if small. We'll probably redshirt a bunch of guys this year, so they'll be frosh next year anyways. We want to get them in the program though. Get some vets in the mix who can set the standard.
As far as WR, the new offense makes for a lot of changes. A). We will use less WRs, which we all know, but B). We will use bigger WRs in the WCO. That could mean 2 guys go to WR that aren't there now and I'm talking about Ricardo Miller(rumored to TE of course) and Cam Gordon(look how many LBs we have signed). Cam would probably best used as a possession WR type. He could be a starter for his last 2 years here after all the vets leave next year. He can refine his game and get back into WR mode, learn the WCO etc. this year. Playing D should give him a nasty disposition that will be nice to see in a possession WR. Miller could be either, but even if he's a TE, he'll probably be on the field with another TE at the same time, so it will still negate the need for an extra WR often times. That would leave us with Jackson,Stokes,Williamson,Dileo,Robinson,Gallon(could be a good one, maybe Harvin lite type) plus Gordon and Miller. Add a guy or 2 next year and I have to think we'd be ok. I do think, if we have a scholly left at the end, we might take a guy like Lucien at the last minute no NSD
Though I'd never oversign or cut guys just to do it, in my fantasy world V.Smith,Dileo,Gibbons and Leach would be gone. V.Smith can probably go start for 2 years at a school like Appalachian or another FCS spread school. His career is over at UM for the most part, so its in his best interest. Open up a few scholles, dump a few RR offense guys, an extra K and a 5th year 2 star LB who has no value to us. Again, i'm not this cruel in real life, haha.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:23 PM |
Rawls
Rawls
We need a back like Rawls...he can be the next great UM rb. I'm just hoping he can qualify
If I say a duck can pull a truck, shut up and hook the sucka up!
January 24th, 2011 at 2:41 PM |
This year, in
This year, in
This year, in particular, we can be a little flexible re the numbers. Not in the SEC way, but because the cc will produce additional attrition. It's inevitable. Certain players will decide that they don't fit with the new coaches or schemes. Happens every year, to some degree (especially with RR). But the cc increases the odds significantly. So if the coaches covet an extra recruit or two, it shouldn't be problem.
Let's just oversign 'em
M'Dog