Borges' WRs
I was curious to see what you mgobloggers think of the direction we are headed with recievers. It is very clear that Borges has a type when it comes to reciever recruiting: nearly every one is 6-3 or above, and speed is a secondary priority to catching ability. This is in sharp contrast to RR's short & speedy WRs, and even Lloyd's policy of best WR available (as it seemed to me). So, what do you think about this type of WR? They fit different schemes, but which do you prefer in general? Personally, I would like a bit more priority on speed, but I think our passing offense with Shane and a plethora of tall recievers will be easily as effective as RR's passing offense would be at its best, and coupled with a hopefully effective power run game we should have one hell of an offense.
February 11th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
Both were recruited as running backs. The coaches said they might help in the slot, but we have yet to see a running back other than Vincent Smith line up in the slot, IIRC...and that was rare this season. And Norfleet was mainly recruited to be a special teamer.
February 11th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^
I just find it hard to believe that at least one of them doesn't end up in the slot. I wouldn't worry about Borges being inflexible in WR recruiting until:
- There is evidence that none of the slot-type RB recruits don't end up as slots; and
- the cupboard of slot ninjas/mountain goats is bare and slot-type guys are still not being offered.
February 11th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^
I'm not worried.
February 11th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^
Marquise Walker was part of the Mega Class, arguably Michigan's best class ever. Epstein, Terrell, Henson, Walker etc. Not sure if he was a 4 or 5 star though but he was up there.
If WR's were so easy to find I imagine the NE Pats would have a couple on their squad by now.
I don't think Michigan has had much speed on the outside for a while now, I guess Stonum had some deceptive speed like Toomer but was the best pass catcher.
A bigger WR just presents more problems, even Stonum and JR turned short routes into TD's and first downs by a stiff arm and falling forward because they were such a load to take down. Michigan isn't the only team with short CB's, they make them in more places than Cass Tech!!
February 11th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
Walker and Terrell were both 5-star guys, as was Henson and Justin Fargas. That class was amazing on the offensive side of the ball.
February 11th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
February 11th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
An effective downfield passing game is what keeps the safeties back. It doesn't necessarily have to involve fast WRs - just guys who can catch the ball downfield (and a QB that can throw it to them accurately). Hemingway was our best deep threat, despite not being very fast. The bigger problem was that Denard just wasn't very accurate on the deep ball most of the year, so defenses didn't respect it.
February 11th, 2012 at 11:53 AM ^
February 11th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^
receiver of all time Mr.Jerry Rice was not considered a "burner".Average speed,percision routes and an unbelievable work ethic.Not positive on his height 6'3'?
February 11th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
Really what matters most is which reciever wants it the most, after that its catching ability and route running. Then after those you get into height and speed, but truthfully neither is the make or break quality of a reciever
February 11th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^
It's been mentioned above, but I do think the optimal assortment of WR's would blend the different types being discussed (downfield, mid, short-possession). That being said, unless a specific WR simply becomes a downfield/long ball threat, I think that route running is the single most important characteristic. A "burner" is great, but if he cannot run tight/crisp routes and gain separation from his defender it will limit the offense's ability to vary the play calling and associated routes. As a poster mentioned above, I also believe a player's shuttle time is an underrated and under-used metric to help answer these questions.