Beacuse #1 is earned while sportin' wings on thy helmet, not beforehand.
UPDATE: Laquon Treadwell Not Visiting Ann Arbor this Weekend
That's not been true. In fact, the only one who's ever had to earn it is Braylon. Not Terrell. Not Carter. Not McMurtry, or Alexander, or Butterfield. Or anyone else.
If it's not used as a recruiting tool, then there's no point in having these numbers. Might as well go back to retiring them. It wasn't a helmet sticker. It was to go to a talented receiver. If this is the most talented receiver we've recruited since Manningham, it sounds like a good bet to get the number 1.
Wow, I did not know that. I just been school'd. I always thought that once they were a standout soph, junior or senior they got the #1.
He has maintained throughout the process he was going to take his official visits, and I expect he is going to follow through on that. Another visit to Michigan though is probably a good sign we are in the driver's seat. I think we have been spoiled by all the early commits this year and forget that some (actually most) kids need the summer and early fall (official visits) to confirm where they want to go to school. Although early commits are a new trend, they are definitely not the norm.
I hope people don't get too worked up expecting a commit this weekend.
Does Hoke have a different policy toward silent commits - than previous HCs? I've noticed that Sam Webb doesn't seem to have as many gut feelings about guys (though he hasn't had a ton of lead time on the 2013 class.)
Considering the Wayne Morgan saga from last year, the coaches seem to think "If you're not willing to go public with it, then you're obviously not solidly committed. Therefore, we don't accept and we'll keep pursuing other guys to take your spot."
Given that...I choose to buckle up... I don't understand the reticence of top flight WRs to sign on at this point.
I like LT... but the staff should and is looking around...we need deep threats now...
The future is so bright Hoke has got to be wearing shades...
Wasn't Godin a silent commit last year? I thought that he committed but still had a planned visit to Wiconsin that he took before he announced his commitment.
Just tweeted that he is not visiting Ann Arbor this weekend anymore.
Thanks for the heads up.
Treadwell no longer visiting according to his twitter.
Well that was fun while it lasted. Come on Shane...Work your magic
I know that Rivals or whoever has been saying we'll take 3, but those kinds of things can change.
- Two recruits already and two more in the previous class.
- Six receivers returning when these recruits hit campus. Add the 2 recruits and that's 8 total - a number that was typical under Carr.
- Six(!) scholarship TEs, several of which are 'receiving' TEs. There's been talk of two distinct TE positions - this reduces the use of 3-wide sets.
- Finally, we're allocating a 2 or 3 more scholarships to FBs (again, indicating fewer 3-wide sets.)
- Kids like Norfleet or Hayes can be used as depth at slot WR.
If this offense is moving to more power football, we simply don't need that many WRs.
"Six receivers returning when these recruits hit campus" massages the facts a bit. There will be three SR receivers in Gallon, Dileo, and Jackson. Redshirt JR Jerald Robinson, and two Sophomores in Darboh and Chesson.
The following year, you're looking at a senior Robinson, JRs Darboh and Chesson, 2 redshirt freshmen, and one sophomore. That's only 6 receivers TOTAL, with 5 of them underclassmen.
They're not going to start all four years - I'd be terrified if they were. We are currently being forced to play people young because we lack depth at the position. If anything, this is a year we should take 4 WR instead of just 3.
You can't ignore 2014 recruits. I'd advocate taking 2/year, so that would give you Robinson, Darboh, Chesson, the 2 recruits we already have (from the '13 class)....plus two 2014 recruits. That's 7 people for 2 WR spots. Which is fine, those are typical numbers. Looking at CB or S and you get similar numbers at those position groups. Compare to TE or RB/FB. 7 or 8 is about right. Especially considering people from other positions (e.g., Hayes, Norfleet, Funchess) can contribute there in a pinch.
I'm not saying Michigan CAN'T take another guy, I'm saying they don't need to. I'm a guy who'd like to see Michigan get back to a little more balance and consistency in terms of year-to-year numbers.
I'm confused when you say "We are currently being forced to play people young". We've had plenty of WR depth over the last few years (to the point that Hoke passed on taking a '11 WR just to balance things out a little.) Jerald Robinson red-shirted even though he was supposedly one of the more talented players. Guys like Odoms and Roundtree have been able to come off the bench. DeAnthony Arnett was turned away...WR depth hasn't been a problem.
Applying your logic to other positions in 2014 - there will be only 2 QBs. 6 TEs. 6 CBs. 6 safeties. 7 RB/FBs. Given that WR is a position where freshman can contribute quickly, 5 current WRs isn't any reason to worry. We could use one more...or not.
Yes, more MANBAWLL. But also, more of a West-coast offense, and Borges' more varied varieties of offense. Even power offenses these days have multiple sets for multiple receivers. Besides, I think Treadwell is the type of player we just don't turn away regardless of how many WRs are on the roster.
When I think of west-coast I think of using TEs and 2-back sets...not more WR.
I'm not saying turn Treadwell away. I'm saying getting another WR isn't a priority. IMO, Michigan can take whichever players it wants right now - a good position to be in. The only remaining NEED I see is another NT.
I still think we take a 3rd just because we could use a quicker run after the catch type of guy. I like the receivers we have, but when the 2013 guys hit campus the only remotely shifty guy will be Gallon and he'll be a senior. I think it's necessary so that you can keep your offense varied.
I'm pretty sure Norfleet, Hayes, Lewis, York and Chesson could all be classified as shifty.
All this talk about us needing a "burner" for a WR in terms of speed gives me the feeling that some people are under estimating Chesson's speed. Doesn't the kid run track?
But so what? Any D1 WR should probably be fast enough to run track. He's being compared to other D1 WRs, not his classmates in Missouri ( or wherever.)
The issue isn't if you're objectively fast, it's if you can get open against people like Terry Richardson, Blake Countess, and Jourdan Lewis.
I think the need for speed comes from Borges' expressed desire to add vertical spread.
If you have speed the secondary needs to account for that ... and that helps. Who is going to burn down the other sideline? You can't coach speed - so much. York may have speed as well...
said next weekend or this. guess we will see.
And your edits.