Pull the trigger! Love the kid.
As for Olson...maybe I missed this, but will Michigan take him before all the other prospect, regardless? They like him that much, huh?
Pull the trigger! Love the kid.
As for Olson...maybe I missed this, but will Michigan take him before all the other prospect, regardless? They like him that much, huh?
This was discussed yesterday but from what it sounds like, Olson would have received many more offers but he is really striving for academics first.
It would be really interesting to see what schools he turned down offers from.
I have no specific knowledge, but when the subject of football powers in the east with marginal academics comes up, West Virginia springs to mind; so does Florida State. Also in contention: South Florida, Louisville, Cinci, and any number of MAC and Con.-USA schools.
I don't believe the coaches are relying on what Scout/Rivals/ESPN says about a prospect in order to offer a kid. When the coaches offer kids who happen to be ranked high, we as a fan base trust that they are evaluating talent appropriately by interviewing the kid and looking at game/camp film and not be naive to only offer a kid because he's a 4 star per Rivals, correct? So why is that any different with Olson? Clearly the coaching staff likes him and if that means they accept his commitment, I’ll trust it. We won’t know if this was a sound move or not until 2015 I would guess. I just hate seeing our fan base downing a kid or the staff when we don’t have the resources and knowledge of the kid’s ability or the staff’s intuition. I know faith is hard but let’s get it together folks.
Yes. Thank you. The coaches will not accept someone this early if they don't think he is good. Stars shouldn't matter to the coaches.
are independently -- and pretty strongly -- correlated with success as a college player. The sites are quite good at what they do, enough so that, absent strong reasons to think the sites missed on a kid (growth spurt, played at a school that wasn't scouted, etc.) I would prefer that the sites always take the consensus highest ranked kids.
Maybe so, but the one place where 2 star and NR prospects routinely turn out to be studly manbearpigs, it's the offensive line. See: Wisconsin.
OL recruiting is fuzzier than pretty much any other position. But I don't think that's a problem exclusive to the recruiting sites (i.e., I'd guess coaches have a lot of the same difficulties in figuring out which 6'6 guy bulldozing 5'9 5.2 40 high school DEs is best equipped to bulldoze 6'3 4.6 40 college DEs).
The Oline is one of the toughest positions to scout for. There is a diary here that shows that stars dont matter as much for oline recruits compared to other positions.
If it is any consolation for you. Josh Hemholdt of Rivals said that Olson had the best feet he has seen out of an OL this year.
I understand what you are saying. But their has to be a very good reason why the coaches like him. If the recruiting services don't then I would trust our coaches even of they may be wrong. But with 3 ol, the coaches know they have to be more selective. I just hate it for any kid to read that the fanbase does not want him at this moment.
from criticizing Olson as a prospect in any way. I'm flat-out not qualified to judge whether he's a good prospect or not, and I haven't heard anyone suggest he's a bad prospect in any way. I don't even question the idea of taking his commitment. I'm just surprised at the timeline when the OL board is littered with so many huge talents. I'd like to see us go slowly with pretty much all OL prospects at the moment.
Didnt mean you. Just saying about others on the board. We know recruits and their parents check this board,
But of course, taking his commitment now suggests that the coaches like him as much or more than the top OLs our board is littered with. So the real issue remains that you'd prefer our recruiting strategy to match something resembling taking the consensus highest ranked kids by the recruiting sites barring special circumstances (small school, kid avoided camps, etc.) - not that I think you mean teams shouldn't also scout. I think that's a fair summary of your posts above - if it's not, feel free to clarify.
The issue is that it assumes the consensus of 4 or so scouts employed by recruiting websites is better than the consensus of the 4 or so scouts employed by Michigan (or some other school) if that school pursues 3 star guys over 4 stars. While I don't doubt the frequent correlation of star rating to success, and agree that the sites are pretty good at what they do, you see major variation among the sites all the time. And even in the NFL draft, where you have FAR more data to consider, media scouts often vary wildly in their assessments from pro scouts and from each other. It's not news that scouting is not a science, nor that Miami crumbled when it started relying on the recruiting sites instead of scouting, but just the same.
So in a situation like this, where many guru-approved guys remain on the board for limited spots and the coaches go after a 3* hard, I think it's reasonable to believe they see something others may have missed. I'd argue the most important thing in recruiting is that the staff gets guys they really want. You still keep an eye on ratings to get a sense of "Do these guys have no idea what they're doing, or do they see something special in some specific cases?" In this case, it seems Olsen is a relatively rare case of Hoke butting heads with the ratings, and I think that's (perhaps paradoxically) a really good sign.
in a nutshell: I agree that recruiting services are an inexact science and often err. I don't think they're gospel at all.
I just don't get why that same logic doesn't also apply to the coaches. With a guy like Olson, we're essentially being told, "ignore both the recruiting sites and coaches from other teams who have decided not to offer (and for those saying he's self-selecting away from bad academic schools, I'll note that neither Stanford nor ND have offered), the coaches have decided that he's worthy of an offer, and that's good enough."
But coaches also screw up in evaluating players. I believe that, in most circumstances, the opinions of the recruiting sites, along with the opinions of other coaches as expressed in offer lists, will be a better predictor of success than the opinion of Michigan's coaches. That's not a knock on Michigan's coaches in any way; I think they're doing a very good job on the recruiting trail. I'm just uncomfortable being told that we should accept the coaches' verdict of a player over all the other indicators. Our coaches aren't perfect either.
I agree that it sounds quite odd that he's cutting schools off from offering because of academics, but there's no ND or Stanford offer. And that coaches screw up too, and especially that offer lists are the best guide we've got.
I just think when for 90% of the guys so far, both the offer lists and star rankings have been in agreement with Hoke, and the coaches are now pursuing a particular guy hard in the face of a guru-approved board, you have some cause to be optimistic that they think they've got something special.
I want Banner, Diamond, Peat, Garnett, Kalis, etc. as much as anyone but I look at our 2012 Offer List and I don't see a lot of middling prospects on there. That makes me think that the coaches are going after the best early on, including guys flying under the radar of the recruiting sites for any number of reasons. It's possible that someone on staff got wind of Olson somehow and the coaches then did extensive diligence on him. Plus, after everything that's happened at osu and pryor, a high character guy that is actually turning down schools for not meeting his academic standards (who is also 6'6" 270 and sports a badass mohawk) sounds good to me. I'll be happy if he goes blue.
No doubt that on a large sample size, the recruiting sites are pretty accurate, however there are a handful of areas where they're less so:
Offensive Line. OL is the hardest position group to evaluate, so if there was ever a kid you'd be happy with taking at a lower ranking, it would be OL.
Region. Olson is from a part of the country that isn't nearly as highly recruited as most others. If he played for a big HS in OH or FL or something, he might have more stars.
And the offer issue which has been mentioned a million times. The services put weight into which other coaches decided to offer (which I think is a good metric). But in this case, Olson essentially turned down offers before they were given.
All we can go on are the coaches of the schools he was interested in, and it sounds like they all like him, including ours.
I share some of your concerns about rankings and Olson but as others have poibted out his strong emphasis on academics has caused him to turn down offers and that in turn i would think keeps a lid on his recruiting profile to the scouting sites.
It appears to me that Hoke and co. have decided to offer a lot of players that they want on the team and that whoever commits first gets the spot- placing an emphasis on both the players talent level and their passion to play for Michigan, with both of those attributes being near equally important in the coaches eyes. I believe there will be a couple spots left open after all the team position needs have been met for special talents that are taking their time.
Note that in positions we only have one open spot for, or in which there is no "need" (ie. quarterback), the coaches are being very selective.
I think this is correct. I'm also suspect more and more that his policy on the trail mirrors the spirit he is trying to foster in the team: a competitive atmosphere. To some degree, perhaps this is gamesmanship. Perhaps offering a solid player like Olson (that I assume Hoke would be pleased to have) who might well snatch his spot at the table is meant to pressure the A list talent into coming early if they think they want to come at all.
But...perhaps it is more reflective of the competitive spirit Hoke seems to emphasize: "You WILL come early, or someone else will. The Team is ALL, and you get what you earn, when you've earned it. If you don't like the deal, someone else I want will." This kind of attitude drives home that getting onto the team is bigger than the player, rather than allowing players to think they're gracing the team with their presence. Maybe he thinks kids like Olson, who are solid and will jump at the chance to be here, will never back down, or transfer because they aren't starters as true freshmen, or slack off in training, all because they're honored to be here.
I'm not saying this is so. It's just something I've been thinking about as this unfolds.
Tom any "good feelings" on either of them?
As always, thanks for the info Tom! I had one question: How did the Greg Garmon visit go? I know that he was in last week, but haven't heard anything. Any info you could provide would be greatly appreciated!
I've had some scheduling issues trying to get some time with him to talk about it. He obviously didn't commit, I'll try to have more with him soon.
Also with Olson, remember he still might visit Stanford but I'm not sure that he's made that decision yet.
Yes, the coaches really like Olson. I've said this a couple times but he turned down some schools from even offering because they didn't meet his academic standards. His offer lit is what he wanted it to be based on academics and football.
We've heard about Olson turning down schools that didn't meet his academic qualifications. Any idea which schools those were?
Probably because he's the kind of guy that doesn't need an ego boost..
Not saying he's cocky, but he just doesn't need to feel like "Oh yeah I'm a good football player because these schools want me." he probably already knows he's good, and doesn't want to waste his own time or the school's time
Big weekend in AA coming up.
Any surprises, any tweets /posts we need to look for Sat night or Sun?
What are you hearing about Dunn or Shittu? Is the Gunner camp still on lock down?
and inside info!
I always trust the coaches...Hoke now, RR before. If you don't trust them, why are they your coach?
I don't know much about Olson, but I believe Tom when he says they love him. It does speak volumes when so many other big name guys are out there.
As for Wilson...TSIO fans are still confused why he wasn't offered down there, and so am I. The guy is clearly the best S in Ohio. I would LOVE to have him.
and they screw up. Rich Rod hired GERG. Ron English (I think it was Ron) became absolutely enamored with Johnny Sears. Trusting the coaches doesn't mean assuming that they're infallible.
I'm glad other people are making this point. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one and I become a broken record.
Lloyd Carr won a national championship, and a bunch of people around here criticize him almost on a daily basis. I don't see people saying "Trust the coaches" or "You don't know more than the coaches" about stupid things that happened in the past, only when some of us try to make predictions or voice opinions about the future.
Carr was a better coach than Rodriguez, and there's a good chance that he was better than Hoke will be. So if Carr's open for criticism, then Rodriguez and Hoke should be, too.
"Carr was a better coach than Rodriguez"
It is great to hear someone with as much clout around here as you say this in such a straight forward manner.
And, I agree that ALL coaches are open to criticism. Lloyd was sometimes deserving of criticism when his tendency to be conservative cost us a game (which happened far less frequently than the number of times that his conservative nature protected a lead that a more aggressive coach may have squandered). RR was deserving of criticism for some of his staffing choices and player management. And as much as I love Hoke, I am sure that there will be moments when I scream at my TV, "come on Hoke, why wouldn't you go for it on 4th in this situation."
I agree, coaches are human and will make mistakes. But bad decisions are judged based on outcomes. Hoke is open to criticism, but when some folks on the board go after him for offering a kid solely because he isn't ranked by scout and without seeing the kid play a down for UM yet is not worthy criticism, just my take
We're all practicing our prognosticating skills. That's what fans do. It's one of the reasons why the NFL Draft is so fun to follow and watch. Everyone says "Great pick!" or "That pick sucked!" but nobody really knows for sure until 5 or 10 years down the road.
Whose opinion are you going to trust more?
Person A: Says "That pick sucked!" during the NFL Draft. And after five years says "I told you that guy would suck" because the player did indeed fail in the NFL.
Person B: Keeps his mouth shut during the NFL Draft. Five years later, he says "I knew that guy would suck, but I didn't want to say it."
I'm going to lend a little more weight to Person A, whereas Person B . . . well . . . for all I know, he could be lying.
People don't say "trust the coaches" about things that happened in the past because hindsight is 20-20: we have results on which to base judgements, rather than deferring to someone who is devoting more time (and expertise) than we are.
Jarrod Wilson: Yes, please.
Eric Olson: ........
Personally, I think it's about time the coaches slow down on taking some of these commitments. I know a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, but there are lots of birds in the bush right now...
Totally agree with your statement
I get the impression (which may be wrong) that the coaches are looking to wrap this class up as soon as possible. If that's true, I'm not sure I understand it. Yeah, it'll give them a head start on 2013 recruiting, and it's nice not to be scrambling to fill your class in December. But a lot of top prospects decide really late in the process, and if we're insisting on having the class full before the all-star games, then we're eliminating the possibility that we can get any kids who choose on signing day, and lots of really, really awesome football players decide at all-star games or on signing day. Off the top of my head, if Michigan hadn't kept spots open until December or later in the past, it would have missed out on Alan Branch, Woodley, Jamison, Schilling, Mouton, Warren, Crable, Mundy, Burgess, Denard, Roundtree, Quinton Washington, etc. It's mid-June, and I wouldn't hate to see us be patient. At this rate, we're not even going to have spots open for the guys planning on visiting for the ND game.
Yeah, from what Josh Helmholdt at Rivals said, the coaches want to finish the 2012 class by the end of the regular season in November, and then get to work on the 2013 class.
Magnus, do you believe Josh?
I don't know why he would lie about something like that, so I guess the answer would be "yes."
Has he been right about other things. I know he was right about rippy not coming here. It seems to me that to finish off 2012 to start off on the next year is out there. I mean they can still recruit a couple of guys for next year. Our recruiting class is pretty close to being done.
I generally find Helmholdt to be a pretty solid guy and to have good information. I cannot say the same thing for Chris Balas. It's kind of like Sam Webb at Scout . . . and Tom Beaver at Scout.
Ok thanks. I still can't believe that beaver is saying for Kiel it's between us and Indiana
The timeline for this recruiting class is incredible. We hadn't calmed down from the excitement of the 2011 recuiting when jumped right into 2012. It is like we skipped the season in between entirely. I am already getting excited about seeing these new kids and have almost forgotten that all of the kids that signed in Feb. haven't even gotten their wings yet. I can't wait until fall practices start up and I can get my bearings straight again.
It would seem that if they get the majority of the recuriting done for the 2012 class before this season starts, then they can devote a large majority of their attention on actual football on the field for this season.
"a bird in the and is worth two in the bush"
That is most definitely not...what she said.
I think generally when you offer someone you don't refuse him until the class fills up. You could say that you're done at his position, which is fair. However, if you do that, you better not add anyone else at that position.
I think Magnuson's commitment opens up the door for us to say "Sorry, we can't take your commitment right now because we have our eye on other guys."
We just did that with defensive backs (Wayne Morgan, Armani Reeves), so I don't know why it wouldn't apply to linemen.
Armani Reeves and Wayne Morgan may have been told that we are looking for a "true safety" as well, which is different from saying we would prefer to wait on a better talent at your position. It seemed to me that they were dragging their feet while Standifer ran past them and took the last cb position, another player that is not as highly rated but accepted as a commit.
"It seemed to me that they were dragging their feet while Standifer ran past them and took the last CB position."
Yes . . . which is essentially what happened with Magnuson committing last Friday. Now the coaches are looking for a free safety (which Morgan could play), but they've got their eyes on Jarrod Wilson. And now the coaches could reasonably claim to have their eyes on Jordan Diamond, Andrus Peat, Kyle Kalis, or whoever.
I'm not saying the coaches DO like these other guys more than Olson, because I don't know. I do know that I would prefer several other guys before Olson and that plenty of shadier things have happened in recruiting beyond "We offered you a while ago, another guy committed who can play your position, and we'd like you to hold off to see how things play out." I don't really see a problem with that.
That's not really what happened with the DBs.
With Morgan, he wanted to be committed and take visits. The coaches basically said you can't be committed and visit other schools and since it's highly unlikely his spot will be available after your visits, they just decided to part ways.
Same with Reeves - he wanted to wait, the coaches wanted to close out DB commits, so they went their separate ways.
Time tables just didn't match up - but they wanted both commits.
It's ok for coaches to slow down on OL, but they didn't really do that with the DBs.
I don't see how this is different.
"You want to take visits but stay committed? Well, we're going to keep recruiting other guys. Oh, look . . . somebody just took your spot. Bye."
"Sorry, we can't take your commitment right now because we have our eye on other guys."
Probably not a wise thing to say to someone you have given an offer. Just my opinion, of course. As that is yours.
all the time.
(I hope that's not what she said).
just based on offer lists alone, but Eric Olson has a great rating considering he's been telling schools "no thanks" and only has around 9 offers. 247 and Scout haven't given him any consideration but maybe they will when he commits, they don't even have a picture of him yet. Rivals rates him a 5.6 even with so few offers, could grow during his senior year to the coveted 5.8. ESPN gives him their 78 which puts him up there with Strobel, Ringer, and Stacey in their eyes. If he plays as well during his senior year and commits to Michigan he'll have to get adequate attention, Scout still has him unrated for goodness sakes.
that he has a good rating for someone with his offer sheet.
The issue is that there are a number of offensive line prospects who have amazing ratings for any offer sheet. I don't think it's super likely that we get Kalis, Peat, Garnett or Banner, but they're all considering us, and they're all planning on taking visits (except Kalis, but his recruitment doesn't seem like it's actually over).
It's June. If we're not even going to give Zach Banner time to get on campus then I will question our recruiting strategy.
that if the coaches are taking 5 or 6 OLinemen that they don't want to take 5 or 6 guaranteed starters who'll all compete with each other and our current players for the same job. If we get Eric Magnuson, Jordan Diamond, and (theoretically) a borderline 5 star kid like Kalis at the end or Peat then this is an incredible OLine class, if we also get 2 or more other top tackles like Banner and Muller and Thurston and Seumalo then we'll have kids potentially transferring from this class, or decommitting. Strange to say, but you can't take 5 or 6-top linemen in one class. You also have to go after depth guys, or impact players. Not just for this year, but for next as well. If the coaches want to go after the #1 overall lineman next year like we all know they will there has to be a spot for him. The only problem with outsiders like us watching is that the high 3star and low 4star guys typically commit first, and most 5 star guys typically commit last. So we think the coaches are insane for picking Caleb Stacey over Andrus Peat or Zach Banner, but Andrus Peat isn't going to commit until January and Banner only just narrowed his list down to 9 schools.
You really think Brady Hoke is sitting in his office saying "lets let this kid take this scholarship, because we don't want that many offensive lineman competing for the starting job." Thats the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Half of these 4 star guranteed starters won't ever start a game, coach wants every player he takes to be an all american starter.
our coaches are thinking "we need to get some mediocre guys, because having too many good OL recruits is a problem."
Olson is rated an 85 by 247 Sports, which places him in the three-star category. You are right though that he doesn't have a rating from Scout as of yet.
is a bit of a token rating, though, other services have him in the middle of our class as a borderline 4 star with kids like Strobel and Ringer, while 247 rates him just above Gant and doesn't have his picture or offer sheet. If/once he commits and after his senior year they should give him a second look because he's better than an 85.
which is not a borderline 4 star. He would be only the 2nd 5.6 in this class.
Come on down!
Little side note...my buddy from Bama told me Gunner is there today for an unofficial so the rumor of it being between us and Indiana seems to be more and more unlikely
Do we know whether the coaches ultimately see Olson as an OT or an interior lineman? Recruiting rankings generally seem sloppy for OGs and Cs.
Did you open every letter and return every phone call from college admissions offices when you were a junior or senior in high school? I know there were plenty of calls I never returned and letters I threw directly into the garbage because I just wasn't interested in their school.
Very good point. I'm actually surprised more high school athletes don't do the same. If you don't tell them no, they will call and contact you as much as they'd like. It's the same reason a ton of guys commit early so they don't have to deal with the overwhelming stress of the recruiting process.
Kids get offers without ever showing any interest in a school. Aziz Shittu could get a phone call from Toledo and say, "You know what, coach? Thanks for the call, but don't bother offering, because I'm not interested in being a Rocket." What's the point of "letting" them offer if you know your answer is going to be no?
Let's say an ugly, smelly girl walks up to you at a bar and tries to hit on you. Are you going to accept her number and tell her that you might call (even though you won't)? Or are you going to politely turn her down because you've got your eyes on better looking girls?
I guess there are some people who would take the ugly girl's number and toss it in the trash (or prank call her later), but politely turning her down isn't a bad thing.
I think you overestimate my standards.. Ugly, smelly girls are pretty good pickups in my eyes
I think everyone here can read between the lines pretty clearly.
You've been that ugly-prank-called-girl. I know it hurts, but it's nothing to be ashamed of.
I just want you to know that we're here for you man, if you ever want to talk.
Is the ugly girl DTF? I'll take what I can get in this economy
Someone emailed me asking if I'm sure that Jordan Diamond was on campus this morning…..110% sure. He was there, confirmed with Jordan and someone else.
For some reason, the coaches seem high on him. Hoke looks at butts and hips and all sorts of other things that perhaps the recruiting guys are not into.
Also, O-line is the position where rankings matter the least. Most important things for an O-line are size, speed and desire to hit hard. The rest is all about technique, which, when we have depth (forgot what that feels like) he will have plenty of time to learn while he rides the bench for his first two years.
I see you don't have a signature line. Might I make a recommendation?
Hoke looks at butts and hips and all sorts of other things
Looks like...well two
You have to remember that with Magnuson committed and Diamond very likely to commit getting a big tackle for depth isn't a bad thing....I hate to break it to you, but it isn't realistic to think you are going to get three or four of the elite tackles....
I don't understand why everyone thinks this. Texas fills their class with four- and five-stars every single year. Same with USC, Alabama, etc. Good players don't mind when other good recruits are committed. I'd think most of them want to be on good teams. Honestly, they're not going to be like "oh, all these guys are better than me, I better go somewhere else". Most of us tend to think we're very good at what we do (whether it's accurate or not).
Did you just say they have guns in Alabama!
We will land Eric Olson. He and Magnuson will make a terrific duo on the O line for years to come. If Olson commits elsewhere ... I will be shocked