Spring Practice Presser Transcript 3-22-12: Players Comment Count

Heiko March 23rd, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Denard Robinson

from file

How does it feel to be a senior?

“Man, college goes by fast, and right now I’m taking on a leadership role and trying to be the best quarterback I can be for the team and be the best leader I can be for the team. Right now just trying to get better at everything I can get better at: watching film, going in with teammates and throwing extra routes, whoever’s around me, if we’re lifting, trying to tell them ‘get better at this’ and ‘get better at that.’ These are the things that I’m trying to do as a leader and as the quarterback on the team.”

Borges said you’re holding more people accountable. Is that the next step of development for you as a leader?

“Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I wasn’t an outspoken person. I didn’t do a lot of yelling and telling people, patting them on the butt and doing stuff like that. That’s one of the things I need to start doing, and that’s what I’m taking on this spring. For practice right now, I’ve been pretty well lately and talking to people and telling them what they need to do. Russ [Bellomy] was with me yesterday when we had practice. I told him if he took his time he’d make a better, more accurate throw. Those were some things that I did.”

Do you have to be the bad guy sometimes?

“Oh yeah, sometimes you have to get up in them. Help them out, give them their encouragement, but you can’t always be nice to them. I can’t always have a smile on my face.”

Is that possible?

“Oh yeah that’s possible. It’s possible.”

What was this offseason like for you?

“Learning. I mean --”

I don’t even mean football. I mean the enormity of, kind of, everything.

“Oh. Everything. I am a student. I am a student-athlete. Student first. Being part of that student body was one of the best experiences I’ve ever experienced on this campus. I’ve been in the Maize Rage at the basketball games, I’ve been at a hockey game watching them play, I’ve been to track watching the girls run. That’s one of the things I could never stay away from. I love watching sports. I love watching people that I know do better.”

How many sporting events do you think you went to?

“Oh man.”

You were on TV for every single one of them.

“I don’t know. I just try to go to all of them. If I had the chance, if I had the time, I’d try to go.”

Are you trying to do anything different with your body in terms of weight and strength?

“Trying to gain weight … whatever happens happens with that. Hopefully I gain a little weight.”

Does Hoke want you to gain weight?

“No. They never tell me about gaining weight. I have to take it into my own hands to gain weight.”

How is it taking snaps from Ricky?

“I’ve been snapping with Ricky since Rich Rod was here. My freshman year I was snapping with Ricky. Ricky’s one of the guys from Florida, so we can relate to each other. When he makes a mistake I’m right on him and telling him, ‘Let’s go. I’m right behind you 100-percent.’ He stayed competing and all of us are competing right now and trying to get better at everything. We’ve got some growing to do.”

He speaks Florida?

“Oh yeah. He does speak it. He helps me a lot in the huddle. Sometimes he tells the other offensive linemen what the play is. When Molk and Patrick used to get on me all the time, Ricky would help me out.”

Has anything changed for you over the offseason with the Obama stuff, etc.?

“No, because I enjoy interacting with people. That’s one of the things that I always enjoy. I come from a big family. Meeting new people is not a problem for me. I would love to meet everybody. If I see anybody on the street, I want to say hi to you. My goal is to make somebody’s day everyday. Hopefully I can do that.”

Borges said one of the keys for you is to cut down on interceptions. What is the most important part of being able to accomplish that?

“I’m going to tell you this. I play quarterback, and the number one thing about the quarterback is always take care of the ball. That’s one of the things that I need to stop doing. Turnovers. I had 15 interceptions. That’s not acceptable as a quarterback and something that I need to work on. I was throwing off my back foot -- that’s one of the things that kind of got me in a lot of trouble and I need to stay away from that. Making the right reads is one of the things I need to work on, too. All offseason I’ve been watching film and seeing the reads I should have made and how many touchdowns I missed. This year hopefully I don’t have that many mistakes.”

Is Devin athletic enough to catch the ball?

“Right now … both of us just have the same mindset. Whatever it takes for the team to win, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

How are his hands?

“Both of us have good hands.”

What was meeting Obama like?

“Oh man. That’s one of the days that I’m going to sit down and tell my grandkids. I met the president. That’s one of the things I’ll always cherish. As soon as I got done meeting him I called my mom, my dad, my brothers, and I was just telling them, ‘I just met the president. I just met the president of the United States.”

Did it catch you off guard at all?

“Me and Patrick were just like, ‘What?’ Patrick was right next to me and he was like, ‘Oh my gosh, he just called your name.’ ”

Have you thought about what the expectations are going to be this fall?

“We already know our expectations. We’ve been working on that all offseason. We’re trying to get better. It starts now. Get prepared for September 1st. Our goal is to win the Big Ten every year. That’s one of the things we already said that’s set in stone. We just have to be ready to work for it and all offseason just keep working for it and working at it. Holding each other accountable. It’s right there. We have to take care of it.”

How does it change your mentality to actually know who your running back is this year?

“We don’t know anything. We don’t know who the quarterback’s going to be. I’m going to tell you this. We have to come out and compete every day. Every day. Nothing’s handed to you. And that’s better that you know that you have to compete every day.”

You really don’t think you’re going to be the quarterback this fall?

“We have to compete every day.”


Roy Roundtree

from file

Hoke has said you had a great attitude last year despite not getting as many catches or numbers. Can you talk about how you dealt with that and what you’re looking forward to this year moving outside?

“I was buying in, just listening to what the coaches were saying. I wasn’t going out there and looking at the numbers and stats each game. I was just going out there and competing. It played out well, going to the Sugar Bowl and winning it. That was a great season for us.”

Was it hard at all going through that transition?

“No, not at all, because any point in the game we can get the ball in and see the seniors doing well last year and leading this team. I was just looking up to them. Even though I probably had one catch a game, that one catch was made effective.”

Did you ever get frustrated not getting footballs thrown your way?

“No. Our goal during the season was knockdowns. Every game we were just trying to have more knockdowns than one another. We really weren’t worried about the ball because the quarterback is the one with the ball in his hand and he’s the one making the right decisions.”

Is there a transition in moving to flanker?

“More motion. We’ve been doing this since January. We always rotated Y’s in different formations last year. It’s something I’m used to now because the extra [work] that we’ve been putting in trying to learn new plays and new positions that everyone’s at. I’m getting comfortable with it. More motions and really have to stay in shape.”

Why is that?

“Oh man, because you’re moving around all the time. Lining up in the slot or lining up outside. Just something I’m taking in and learning through spring ball.”

Do you see any differences in Denard this spring?

“Yeah, yeah I do. The timing is there. He’s making better reads. Staying composed back there. Now he knows the offense. It’s fluid. Practice goes smoother. I don’t see him frustrated or anything. I really see that he’s composed.”

Is he more decisive?

“Yeah he’s reading the defenses well out there. Just taking his time. You can actually heard the play fluent in the huddle again. I talk about him all the time saying he’s so country you can barely hear him, but now we’ve been in the offense for a year, we like listening to him better.”

Last year he often threw balls that put you in a position to get crushed. Has there been less of that these days?

“I mean, he’s the quarterback. They’re going to have their ups and downs. The wide receivers, just know our time to make the plays. If it’s a low ball, go get the low ball. You can’t just blame everything on the quarterback because they might be getting rushed half the time while we’re coming out of our routes. You never know until you watch it on film. He’s really been fluid in his passing. Getting better. Seeing him healthy, seeing him composed back there just making things right.”

How has Brandon Moore been?

“Yeah, Brandon Moore’s my roommate. I just talk to him everyday and see how practice went because I’m only with them during skelly and team, not individually. Him being a senior. Leadership -- we always say that seniors have leadership. He’s been doing well. Catching the ball good and running great routes and blocking. This is his year, I feel like. If you go out there and practice and show the coaches you can be trusted out there, it’s really going to be an impact this season.”

What’s Brandon like off the field?

“Shy. Calm. Smart. He doesn’t really do anything. Half the time he’s playing with his dog. Big Doberman that he has.”

What’s its name?

“Kane. I don’t mess with dogs.”

Why’s that?

“I got bit when I was younger, so I don’t mess with them.”

How has Denard progressed off the field?

“Oh, just speaking. He’s been outgoing this year. Being a quarterback, that’s what it takes because everybody’s looking up to the quarterback. Just seeing him become a senior. Now he just said, man this went by so fast. Now everybody’s going to be looking up to him. All our seniors. We take real great impact in being a senior and having leadership, just like Team 132 seniors did, trying to accomplish something better.”

Denard hasn’t always been a real vocal guy. How has that transition been for him?

“He was a shy kid coming in, but now he’s mature more. Just taking it day by day, like how we work out. We’d be partners half the time just pushing each other. Just seeing that from ‘Lace. That’s giving him extra points because he wasn’t like that at first.”

Does it get the receivers fired up when you hear things like ‘What is Michigan going to do without Junior Hemingway’?

“(Roundtree talked about something that sounded like “croop thick” or “group think.” I have no idea, so I’m not going to transcribe it) … It doesn’t matter who’s out there. Being blessed to play here, playing for Michigan. Coach Heck always said that we lost some great wide receivers, but being a senior -- I’m the only senior up here going through the ups and downs and learning from each class -- most of them look at me because I’ve played the most. But I feel like we have a nice group of kids now. Everybody you haven’t heard about, but most of them you will.”

Have you taken to mentoring any of the younger receivers?

“Oh yeah. Half the time they ask me questions it’s like I’m a teacher out there. It’s weird because I did the same thing when I was a freshman, asking the upperclassmen. But now I’m just schooling them.”

What kinds of things do they ask you?

“Just like how you read the coverage on this route, how to get off press coverage. Just simple stuff because coach Heck does a great job coaching us in different steps in the offense.”

Any of the younger guys impress you?

“I know Joe Reynolds, I know J.J. (Jeremy Jackson). I see a lot of them and go like, wow made a great catch or did something. That’s what I expect to hear, so it’s not like I haven’t seen it before.”

Do you talk to Junior about playing his position?

“Yeah I talk to Junior all the time. Me and Junior are still close friends. He just said stay in shape, you’re going to have a lot of motions and reading the defense. Something I was already used to, reading it from the slot position. I feel like I’m not back at slot, but it seems like I am because of all the motions and getting closer to the inside and whatnot. He just said just stay in shape.”


Jordan Kovacs

from file

Does being a leader come naturally now for you?

“After being four years in the defense and on this team, I think it’s something that’s starting to come naturally. I think we have a lot of seniors that are stepping into that role, and that’s going to be huge for us this fall. Our senior leadership is going to be huge.”

Have you seen more consistency out of Will Campbell?

“Yeah, no doubt. It’s not just on the field. It’s off the field. He’s holding meetings for the defensive linemen to get in and watch film. He’s helping them out. We’ve got a lot of young guys on the defensive line, and he understands that and he understands he’s a senior and he has to be a leader. He’s really stepping into that role and filling that role nicely for us.”

How does Jarrod Wilson look?

“Good. I think he’s going to be a good ball player. At the same time, we’re only four practices in, only two in pads. He’s been impressive so far as have the other underclassmen. We’re going to need those guys to continue to get better.”

How does he compare with how you remember other freshman safeties playing in the past?

“He’s made quite a few plays so far. He’s had the opportunity because we’ve been somewhat thin at safety, so he’s been getting a good look and he’s been taking advantage of it. Like I said, he still has a ways to go. He’s still young. He’s got a bright future here. He’s going to get better in the spring and in the fall I look forward to how he can play.”

Is it weird returning so many guys in the secondary? That’s never happened for you before.

“Well I think what’s weird is I’m going to have the same defense for two years in a row. I don’t think I’ve ever had that in my four years here. I think that that’s something that’s going to help us a lot. We’re getting comfortable with the playcalling and with the different plays. We bring a lot of defensive players back. We bring a lot of seniors back. That’s going to be huge for us. It’s nice to be comfortable with the guys you’re out there with and the plays.”

Have you been able to sit back and marvel at how much better the defense got between 2010 and 2011?

“A little bit, but at the same time we’re already on to the next year and we’re looking forward to getting even better.”

Hoke talked about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in practice. Is that new to this spring or has he done that before?

“We’ve been competing since he’s gotten here in everything that we do. That’s something he brought with him, whether it’s in the weight room or out on the practice field in spring practice or even in fall camp. There’s winners and losers. Competition’s important and we thrive in that. That environment is important for us to be successful.”

What happens when you lose?

“Gassers or some sort of punishment.”



March 25th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^

It's confusing because dictionaries are starting to give in to the incorrect usage, enormity does not mean enormousness. If someone just looks up the word, he'll sometimes find enormousness in one of the later definitions. But this is not supported by the weight of experts. It's one of those examples of people being wrong so many times that the word starts to change.

Still, it's early enough with this word that lexicographers hold to the true definition because the word may still be revived. Respected institutions do not use enormity for enormousness, only wickedness. The interviewer should have known that.

The interviewer should have used immensity or vastness.


March 25th, 2012 at 3:43 PM ^

Throw away the standard and we have ineffective communication.
We can say expecially, axe a question, luxuriant riches, or climatic story lines, and at a certain point we would just be misunderstood or look plain stupid.
Word meanings are important so use can have meaning.


March 26th, 2012 at 12:04 PM ^

Except we don't have ineffective communication in this instance. We have a use of the word "enormity" that was clear enough to anyone interested in understanding the intention rather than being pedantic. In fact, the use of the word was obvious enough even to the pedantic, who were so confident that they understood the intention behind the use that they could confidently assert it was wrongly used.

Use is meaning, but use is collective, just as communication is collective. Inefficient or confusing uses of a term won't wind up being repeated (because they won't perform their intended function), which means they won't make their way into common use.

The panties of grammarians can confidently remain unbunched.


March 23rd, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^

From my American Heritage Dictionary/Third Edition, 1994:

Enormity: 1. Excessive wickedness or outrageousness. 2. A monstrous offense or evil; outrage. 3. Informal. Great size; immensity.

I'd say that the first two definitions are meant far less often than the informal meaning.


March 25th, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

It still means wickedness. The mistaken definition hasn't been supported by experts yet, although you are right, after enough time of being misused the definition could change. Which is a shame. It's a perfectly good word with a poignant meaning. Lose that and the word becomes mush. What does enormity meaning enormousness actually gain, when one could just use enormousness?

We should try to hang onto meanings of words so they actually mean something.


March 24th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

the Oxford English Dictionary has a definition of enormity as "Excess in magnitude; hugeness, vastness", with this meaning of the word attested as early as the late 18th century. Nor is this usage incorrect. Enormity comes from Latin enormitas (from the adjective ēnormis), a compound from ē (out) and norma (mason's square). So as early as the 16th century (according to the OED) the adjective means both "abnormal" and "very large", just as it does in Latin (per Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary). 

So basically using enormous/enormity to mean very large is etymologically correct and has a history of half a millennium in English, and two millennia in English and Latin.

PS I should have added that there is a Latin word enormitas, which like English enormity means both "irregularity" and "hugeness" -- both meanings are attested in the 1st century AD.


March 24th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^

the 'primary' meaning is also etymologically correct, insofar as the meaning of "norm" is ethical (as in "normative" in its prescriptive sense) rather than statistical (as in "normal" in the sense of "usual")

but this is a cool thread. i never knew about the primary meaning of "enormity" before. i'd have noticed if it used the greek-derived negation and was written and pronounced "anormity" but the latin negation slipped right by. only on mgoblog, eh?


March 25th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^

 The Latin which enormity is derived from is enormitatem. It means "a divergence from standards." This is referring to ethics, morals. Enormity is not related to the word enormous but normitivity, which is morals or standards.

In your example of the mason's square, that is a tool used for exactness. If something is "out" of the "mason's square" it is off, wrong, "abnormal" as you say. There is no basis for removing the inherency of the "standard" and no presence of "very large" in that. Simply, the origin you reference for enormity, which is its true origin, is "off the standard." That's why it has always historically referred to morality and meant wickedness.

I will not argue that eventually words change because of misuses. However, this is a word with a specific meaning. Its history started with wickedness and has later, through centuries of misuse and adaptation, become a large ill or something of immense misfortune.

Nowhere, however, can the negative connotation of the word be removed. It does not mean largeness without the sense of negative proportions, even if one budges on the original meaning of merely wickedness. 


March 25th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^

Enormitatem is the accusative, enormitas  is the nominative. And enormitas (or enormitatem, if you prefer) means "largeness" in Latin, as early as the 1st century AD. Unless you think Seneca the Younger's Latin was crap?

Sorry, man, but you don't know Latin.

The word (in its various guises) has meant "largeness" for 2000 years. Your view is prescriptivism ad absurdum.

PS I didn't realize that masonry was a moral pursuit.


March 25th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^

I know they are the same word. That's why I used your example to show my point.

The mason's square is a tool for exact measurement. If the mason is off in his measurement he makes a mistake.

That is the idea behind enormity. It is a mistake that has consequences. It has always been used to refer to a standard and been applied morally, one might say metaphorically. Please show a basis for being off the exact measurement in some other way than moral in its historical use.

Another modern day example is the word sin, which means to miss the mark (in archery).

Both have been used as metaphors for ethics and morals, as I indicated from the word's relationship to normitivity.

I was not debating your latin, only your conclusions from the latin and a mason's square. Has it been used historically in another context of exactness other than morality? 

Edit: I may have overstated my position against the idea of largeness. However, my point is that there are not two separate definitions that are exclusive, wickedness and largeness. The overriding definition of the word points to exactness, a standard, wherein being off it is the meaning, which is where the definition of wickedness comes from. The connotation of largeness is applied to it, but not separate from the main "sense" of the word.

BTW: I didn't flame you; I'm here for discussion.


March 25th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

Lewis and Short have Latin enormitas meaning (1) irregularity and (2) largeness.

For (1) they cite Quintilian 9.4.27, who writes that "just as in the case of unhewn stones their very irregularity (enormitas) is the means of suggesting what other stones they will best fit..." So here there is no notion of amorality -- it is a very literal application of the norma as a mason's square. I think we would agree here.

For (2) they reference a number of passages, including one of Seneca where he talkes about the enormitatem pedum of Caesar -- the enormity of his feet. I guess you could translate it in moral terms (monstrousness of his feet) rather than merely physical (largeness of his feet). Certainly Seneca is not complimenting Caesar here. The other passages cited are pretty obscure authors.

The adjective enormis can also mean (1) irregular or (2) large. For instance, Pliny says that the shadows of cherry and laurel trees are enormes (and Lewis and Short think he means 'immense' or 'large', as opposed to 'irregular').

So sure, I think enormis-words can be moral, but I don't think that they HAVE to be. Certainly they seem to be at home in describing the natural world in fairly neutral (morally) terms.

We'd have to take a close look at the OED to see about the English history of enormity... but I have papers to grade.

PS I assume that Latin enormis and enormitas gets the meaning 'immense' in a similar fashion to our expression 'off the charts'. It's not an exact parallel, but how else do we explain it?


March 25th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^

Well, we don't know how gross those feet really were...

In all seriousness, I see your point. It does seem clear where Lewis and Short stand, as far as plurality. I guess we'll agree to disagree about whether irregularity and largeness are tied up together or may be used separately.

Since there are no usages of enormity in English that I am aware of that imply irregularity without morality, I believe that is the only application that has carried over to English, much as with sin. However, it's interesting to see a Latin example of it.

When it comes to English words, I'm more conservative in holding to historical definitions, not for pedantry, but because I don't see many useful new definitions. Like awesome losing "awe" and becoming "cool," they often add ambiguity and dilute meaning. But that's a conversation too long and involved for the last day of a weekend. Good luck with the papers.


March 25th, 2012 at 10:29 PM ^

Seriously, though, I looked in the OED a bit more and in some French dictionaries. It's interesting, actually... you'd expect enormity to enter English via French, but it looks like French énormité primarily means "largeness" and secondarily "moral transgression" (http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/%C3%A9normit%C3%A9, confirmed by my copy of Le Robert Micro).

But in English the sense of "abnormal" (morally or otherwise) is primary, the sense of "largeness" secondary.  (For the sense of "abnormal" without moral connotation: 1647   H. More Philos. Poems. ii. iii. iii. lxx,   The strange absurd enormity Of staggering motions in the azure skie.)


March 23rd, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^

Interesting he kept referring to how good HIS hands were too. There are going to be some very interesting wrinkles in the Offense this year. I just hope they don't worry too much about trick plays and focus more on getting these guys ultra confident in the base plays.


March 23rd, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^

I really think Roy is going to have a big year  and be one of the top B1G receivers, He just has the skills to be a good go-to option, even if Devin may get more targets in the red zone, Roundtree will probably lead the team in catches and receiving yards

Also, like the Kovacs mention of Big Will leading the Dline meetings and looking good, I'm confident that whatever problems we may have post-RVB/Martin/Heininger, it won't be for lack of effort by anyone

Tha Quiet Storm

March 23rd, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^

Damn it. Isn't there some way we can keep Denard around for longer? Like a loophole retroactive redshirt or maybe giving him a pair of those novelty glasses with the nose and mustache and changing his name and number (Renard Dobinson, #61).


March 23rd, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

I think you may be on to something. If he puts on enough weight while maintaining his current speed, all he needs to do is run for a really really long time and he may be able to reverse the rotation of the earth, thus turning back time. Or some shit.


March 23rd, 2012 at 6:39 PM ^

Same defense two years in a row. Should make a huge difference. Guys can stop thinking and fly to the ball. I look forward to seeing the improvement in the secondary and with the LBs. Defensive continiuty is a wonderful thing.


March 23rd, 2012 at 6:45 PM ^

Why the fuck are these guys all in the same class?!! It's gonna be tough seeing them go all at once like that :'(. Then again, it was painful last year too. 

UofM Die Hard …

March 23rd, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^

Denard is one of my all time favs and it will be sucky to watch games without 16 out there.   I hope he has a ridiculous year and goes out as one of the bext QBs Michigan has seen, thats a send off fitting for him.

Alright, enough sappy stuff, get big, strong, fast and mean this offseason boys and get ready to beat the hell out of some Bama bitches



March 23rd, 2012 at 7:02 PM ^

I bet Roy said "crew thick," like he enjoys hearing about all of the many Michigan Men including Junior. And I like Denard's voice, especially when he says, "Oh yeah. Oh yeah." His Florida speak sounds cool to me. I just love these guys. Football season can't start soon enough.  

Class of 1817

March 23rd, 2012 at 8:00 PM ^

I think Denard may end up being my favorite Michigan QB of all time.

...and I could probably name 25 Meeeeeechigan qbs off the top of my head.

Something about his humility, saying the perfect thing, and still coming off as focused, likeable, and relaxed.

Tremendous kid.


March 23rd, 2012 at 8:10 PM ^

With my apologies to teams 132 and 134, it looks like we will have the best chance to win the Big 10 championship with team 133. Yes, there is a big d line hole to fill with the departure of 3 seniors. However, we have possibly the greatest trio of d line coaches in the country, possibly better than some NFL teams. We also have all our starting lb's & db's returning, plus one of the best defensive side recruiting classes coming in to provide depth. Add another year of experience with Mattison's defensive schemes, plus the benefits of practicing against an offense that can equally show pro-style and spread offensive looks. Then add an experienced kicking game. If we can just develop a successful punt return game to regularly give the offense decent field position, we will be very thought to beat. Because the coaches will have more confidence in the experienced defense, they will take more chances with blitzes (both run & pass) and less chances with the offense ( in order to avoid costly turnovers, especially against ranked teams). Things look great for Pasadena, and a BCS championship berth rides on the Alabama game.


March 23rd, 2012 at 10:23 PM ^

I haven't listened to the audio or anything but I imagine what he's saying is "crew thick", signifying that he is happy for all the wide recievers because they look at it as a group effort. They really don't care about individual stats as they've all said multiple times. I don't get why it continues to be an issue. Some players put the team first. Do I need a Bo quote on this?

Also the term "crew thick" does not just include current players. He means every player to come through the University of Michigan fergodsakes.

rob f

March 24th, 2012 at 7:06 PM ^

Is there a resource somewhere for a list of U of M walk-ons over the years?  Besides the interview with Jordon Kovacs (one of my favorite Michigan walk-ons ever), the mention by Roundtree of current walk-on WR Joe Reynolds, and with all the news recently about preferred walk-ons being added to the 2012 class, it's gotten me a-wondering who are considered the greatest walk-ons in Michigan Football History. 

I know, as I post this, that a lot of things  have changed over the 133 years of Michigan Football, such as  recruiting, scholarship limits, platoon vs. 2-way players, etc., etc., so I guess I would have to try to arbitrarily draw a line somewhere to limit such a list of walk-ons to what is considered "modern football", as I'm sure that back in the late 1800's, everybody was a "walk-on".