Why no offer on Josh Gordon?
Just looking at our current list of prospects and since we only have 2 true WR in this class and 2 possibly next year, why not offer this kid 6'4 210lbs soft hands good speed and vert? something wrong with him? I know we got Jackson and Miller coming in next year but why snag as many as we can?
Also any word on Stallworths recruitment? it's getting ever so close to signing day.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:19 AM ^
Well, we shouldn't "snag as many as we can", because for next year we'll have Matthews, Stonum, Hemingway, Clemons, and Savoy all returning with experience, Cameron Gordon arriving, and potentially a guy like Jeron Stokes or Willie Haulstead coming in - that's 6 or 7 players for 2 spots. The following year, we'll have all those guys, minus Matthews, plus Miller and Jackson - that's 7 or 8 players. Rightfully, the staff is more interested in finding a 5th guy for a position at which we play 3 people often (CB) or a LB of some sort. There are only so many scholarships, and so many people you can bring in every year.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:52 AM ^
There is a new NCAA rule on how many Gordon's one team can have. Michigan is planning to have Cameron Gordon and Thomas Gordon in the 09 class. A third Gordon would be recruiting violation. Michigan can sign another Gordon in 2011.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
how do we stand with 4-star DB Gordon Gordon?
January 19th, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
Also don't forget Roundtree, Robinson,Gallon, Odoms and Rogers. We have more WR's than the know what to do with. Yeah sure if a 5 star guy wants to come I wouldn't care if a few of them get disgruntled. But a 2 star guy? Um, no. Frankly I'd give up like 3 of those guys we have for a stud OLB right now.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
Yeah, I tried to include only "outside" guys, not slots.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
For a more traditional set with three receivers (2 outside, 1 slot), we certainly have the potential. I think as the quarterbacking gets better, we'll start to see more 4 and 5 receiver sets. In that case, it would be nice to have some depth.
That said, I would prefer to avoid giving scholarships just to fill up spaces. With the likes of Stokes and Stallworth possibly committing, I don't see a reason to offer this kid.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^
1-as mentioned, we have other positions of need, besides, if one goes unused, with all the early enrollies we are getting these days, there is a chance to use it on a guy coming in next winter (they can count against either year's limit)
2-too much depth would be result in someone languishing on the bench (either him, or another schollie athlete) - which is bad for morale
3-if the guy really wanted to go to UM, I am sure they would love to have him walk on, and he could earn a schollie if he really warranted one