Sam (kind of) has a gut feeling that Ron Thompson will commit to Michigan this week
Sam Webb said on WTKA this morning that TE Ron Thompson from East Detroit HS said that he would annouce his decision this week. Sam seemed a little unconvinced that the announcement would really go forward but Sam said he had a gut feeling that Thompson would pick U of M if it does.
Sam's podcast:
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=12012
Thompson's Scout profile:
http://michigan.scout.com/a.z?s=162&p=8&c=1&nid=4825348
April 11th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
The coaches have said they want 6 offensive linemen, yeah.
I think it's possible that we take more TE's than WR's, but not necessarily likely. I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 TE's and 2 WR's once the class expands a little bit.
April 11th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
could it be that the TEs req'd for manball need more time to beef up whereas WRs can often play as freshmen? so perhaps it is more urgent to get more TEs sooner.
I think it's possible, but my view on tight ends is that your third and fourth tight end don't have to be fully developed. If you keep a steady cycle of tight ends coming through, it's okay if #3 on the depth chart is, say, a redshirt freshman, as long as #1 and #2 have 3-4 years in the program. Ideally, I think TE is a position where you should take 1 every single year...
...which is why the TE position is screwy right now, because Rodriguez largely ignored it.
we have something like 12 receivers on the roster right now. Obviously we don't want the cupboard to go dry between years, but it seems like WR wouldn't warrant 2 schollies for this upcoming draft class. Of course, it is a skilled position and you always want to be bringing in the best at a skilled position. Just wondering if our current roster really warrants 2 schollies for this year at the WR position.
It's a worthwhile debate to have regarding how many WR's we want to take. We have solid numbers right now with 12 (13 if Miller moves back to WR). That said, more then half the receivers are upperclassmen, four of them graduating this year. And I forget the exact number but I believe the underclassmen have only 9 career catches.
I'm not sure there's room to take 2 WRs in this class, but then again I also felt we made a mistake not taking 1 last year, so 2 would be fine in my book. If we take 1 or *eep* 0, WR will be to next year's class what OL is to this year's class.
My feeling is that we could go this cycle without taking a WR if the class size remains at 16, but #17 and #18 should be wideouts as soon as a couple more spots open up (which they almost certainly will).
April 11th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
Could be a very busy week. Thompson, Ringer, and Bolden?
April 11th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
I hate 4 stars!!!!
April 11th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
3 is a possibility since Barnett and Moore are the only 'true' TEs on the roster next year and Moore would be a 5th year senior.
April 11th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
Based on need at the TE position, I understand why 3 makes sense, but based on need everywhere else and available spots, I can't see 3 happening without a lot of attrition.
The real need (besides OL and TE) is 1 QB, and some DL. You can debate talent level, but in terms of having bodies, all the other positions are adequate.
In other words, I have no problem with 5 OL, 2 true TE, and a maybe a 'blocking TE' that could end up at tackle. Add a QB, RB, WR, 3 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB. 18 guys, with a couple more scholarships probably coming open too. That doesn't present any immediate problems for the roster.
I'd rather take a 4th DL than a 3rd TE too, but I don't necessiraly think thats the tradeoff on the table. More likely its a 3rd TE, a 2nd RB, 4th LB or some other luxury, since the class will probably be at least 20.
Some people are adament that a 3rd TE is too much, but Borges describes himself as 'a TE guy' and wants to use 2-TE sets. Which is pretty hard to do if all you have is converted WR, freshman, and a 5th year senior who has never been more than a 3rd stringer. The depth might be OK, but if Borges really wants 2 guys he can use, he might want to take 3 guys and hope at least one of them is ready to play right away.
So, I wouldn't rule it out. We've seen both RR and Hoke aggressively pursue (and arguably over-pursue) positions where they see significant need and TE seems to be identified that way for the '12 class.
We will probably never have a freshman, a converted WR and a 5th year senior as our only TE's. While Ricardo is learning and Barnett is a frosh, we'll still have Koger and Steve Watson with Brandon Moore, who will likely be the #2.
Then next fall we'll have Moore, Ricardo Miller who will be in his 3rd year in the program and second at TE, Chris Barnett as a sophomore (likely with some playing experience) and the freshmen. If we get 2 and they are both relatively highly rated guys (which they will be based on who's interested) at least one of them can come in and be the #4 guy.
Don't forget that we have a few walk-on TEs who will be upperclassmen after Koger and Watson leave who could see the field as a second TE in a blocking situation. Not all of the walk-ons, but whichever one or two of them are the best will come in at certain points.
If you're an optimist about Moore, Miller, Barnett, then I agree that 3 recruits seems irrationally high for TE. But if we're being optimists, then I'll look at the 4-stars that Roh, Beyer, Black, Wilkins, Ash, Campbell, and Washington got plus consider how loaded DL recruiting looks for '12 and say we'll be just fine with using Talbott, Heitzman, and Rock as rotation players behind all those experienced studs by next season.
Being more of a pessimist/realist about our TE's - none are at all proven.
Moore will be a 5th year career backup, and (not saying I expect this, but...) if he fails to impress may not be invited back. Maybe they perfer to have the scholarship then bring back a career 3rd stringer, even at a position of need.
Miller - I don't care if he's been a TE for one year or two, he's still, barring miraculous growth, going to be small for a TE and will therefore always be more of an H-back type than a TE. He was 6'2 208 and now is listed a 6'4 (if you believe that...) and 215, still 35 pounds shy at least of where you want a TE to be at. I'm sure they can use him, but he's far off prototypical size and can't be your backup TE, let alone your starter.
Who knows what'll happen with Barnett. Probably a red-shirt. The guy hasn't even started classes and you're going to count on him on your depth chart. Maybe...but lets see what we have first.
Listen, if Moore, Miller and Barnett all look like good players in the fall, I agree with you - 2 recruits should be enough. But if none of them (or even only one of them) look like starter material Hoke may be forced to use a bigger net to find another player who can contribute right away. Instant contributers at TE aren't always easy to find.
The first and second team All-America tight ends in 2010 were 240 (Michael Egnew) and 241 (Lance Kendricks) pounds, respectively. Miller doesn't need to put on 35 pounds (which would make him 250) to be an effective TE. SDSU's starter was pretty effective in 2010, and he was only 229 (albeit in a weaker conference).
Just said he doesn't fit the profile. Its kind of like your argument about CBs and RBs. Ideal size isn't mandatory, but the profile exists for a reason.
All-american TEs will tend towards pass catchers, which favors receiving TEs - which Miller shouldn't theoretically do pretty well.
The issue is can he be THE GUY at TE if you want to rely on a power running game. I'd hypothesize that Hoke and co. don't think so.
You literally said that Miller can't even be the backup tight end.
So Miller could possibly be an effective tight end...
...but he can't be the backup tight end.
Yeah, that makes sense.
April 11th, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^
A backup TE has to be ready to step-in to be an every down player in case of an injury. I don't think Miller will ever be that kind of player. I think he'll be a weapon as a 2nd TE in 2-TE formations (aka an H-back) but not as an in-line guy who can power block on 1st down or 3rd and short.
April 11th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Possible but even if we only take 2 this year, we still have 4 true TE's on the roster next year. That's workable and you can just take 1-2 more the next class. 3 in this class could happen but I think it's more likely we grab 2. You take 3 and all of a sudden half the class is TE's and OL.
April 11th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
Well, Ricardo Miller is listed as a TE on the Spring Roster so that makes 3 TEs, 2 true TEs.
April 11th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
It is nice to see attachments (x2). Well done...and thanks for posting.
April 11th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
he is a beast. go blue ron!
April 11th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
We'd love to have you, Ron! Michigan is a special place.
April 11th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
I have a gut feeling that I'm gonna pewp soon
That would be a huge and much needed wideout to come here. Thompson and Ricardo Miller I have a feeling will be huge players for us in the future.
So Ringer is still announcing on the 15th, correct? That'd be a hell of a way to end the week.
So yeah, Michigan really needs some more tight ends for 2012 class.
Would be a nice pickup for the Wolverines, and boy won't Sparty be pissed...
Did sparty ever have a chance at landing him?
i'd rather take 4 LB's (ringer, bolden, james, royce jenkins) than taking 3 TE's.
chris brunett and frank clark seem like solid TE's and i believe ricardo miller can be a good one once he gains some weight.
we need more defense!
And Clark is coming in as a linebacker.
April 11th, 2011 at 10:23 PM ^
the team hasnt been practicing long, but i fully expect lots of attrition coming up.... at least three players..... maybe not until summer, but i think it is irrrational to think that everyone will stick around. so adjust your recruiting openings....
and to those of you with lots of mgopoints who think you have more credibility or say.... dont bother with your predictable "what makes you say that?..." crap as a reflex. if you have any perspective, then its quite obvious... there will be several players leaving the team prior to the fall, due to the new style of play, tough practices, projected playing time, etc.....
.....as you were..............
April 11th, 2011 at 11:11 PM ^
Three players doesn't qualify as "lots of attrition." If the number is only three, I will be very happy. Five or six seems about right to me. I won't start to stress until the number is higher than six: as long as Denard and Devin stay.