% Under 200 LBs (pounds) Recruiting Class Historical Perspective
I have yet to make any conclusions from the following data, but I thought I'd dig it up and let the board opine on my findings. The reason I thought of this is because so far Hoke's 2012 class has 0/7 players under 200 lbs. Anyway, here's the data from Rivals (note, players 200lb even are not counted as below 200lb, obviously):
2002 - 24% CARR
2003 - 35% CARR
2004 - 27% CARR
2005 - 35% CARR
2006 - 16% CARR
2007 - 40% CARR
2008 - 38% CARR - rodriguez
2009 - 55% RODRIGUEZ
2010 - 56% RODRIGUEZ
2011 - 35% RODRIGUEZ - hoke
I will state that it is obvious that RR recruited a lot more players under 200 lbs than Carr, and what looks to be like Hoke. I suppose this is because the spread requires the slot position. Any other ideas? Will we be back to the Carr % just by switching slots to TE's?
is over 200 lbs! lol. jk. I think it has more to do with the positions that we've recieved commitments from this year. I mean most Te's, offensive or defensive linemen and LB's are over 200 lbs. I am however still waiting for the 7'2" 300 lb kicker I created in NCAA 11 to commit to MI so I can drop 80 yd fg's on the buckeyes. lol.
Maybe I'm the only one who was confused, but I thought you were taking about linebacker recruits only. The whole LB vs. LB thing... Might want to clarify.
Fixing it, Thanks
I was also on the "what the hell" train.
...mistaken inference from the title and all of the LBs Michigan has recently signed. As others have stated, until more "skill positions" players are signed, this analysis is probably premature. Something to watch, however.
Makes sense. RR liked a lot of those smaller athletes/tweeners on both offense and defense.
not enough data to get any real trends....it would need to include position breakdowns. RR had to take a huge number of players at the skilled positions, more than the typical amount per class. My gut tells me that RR players will be slightly smaller, but not by the huge amount this data shows.
plus a different style of QB would make this obvious. Changing slots to TEs and recruiting bigger QBs will change that percentage back.
I think this data will just lead to grumbling. There are too many variables unless you are talking about the same number of each position each year.
I think the only major differences are slot WRs are under 200, RR QBs were usually under 200 where older and future qbs may not.
Numbers of lighter guys were up for a few years because of necessity. We needed some RBs, mobile QBs, slot WRs and DBs.
As others have suggested, I hope gremlin (the OP) or someone else "goes granular" and takes a closer position-by-position look when the dust settles. I'm sure we'll find that LBs and WRs will be smaller.
Also, it's nice that this has been up for two hours and no idiotic duhtoosmallduh remarks have been made.
is why is the 2006 class so damn fat?
Boren enrolled Jan '06.