Holmes Onwukaife Commitment Change.....to Michigan?
I saw this buried on the bottom of a recruiting topic on the Mgoboard so I thought I would bring it out into the open and see if anyone knows anything more. Rumor has it that Holmes decided to switch his commitment to the Maize and Blue because of Bowden leaving FSU (per FSN). Does anyone have any further info on this or a confirmation from anyone other than FSN? This would be a head-scratcher to say the least as it relates to our commitment numbers and what is speculated to be our last couple open spots.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:38 AM ^
No, I already talked to him about this. It was a mistake by FSN. He's not switching to Michigan, and is still committed to FSU.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
Thanks you kindly sir
December 20th, 2009 at 12:55 AM ^
When it came down to this kid and jordan paskorz i would rather have had holmes onwukaife. i dont know if anyone else felt that way.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:14 AM ^
to go with the commit comparison here? It reflects a negative onto Paskorz. You could have just said..."I really hoped we got this commit" and avoided the whole negative implication to the other player.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:25 AM ^
Maybe he didn't understand it when Tom, Brian, and maybe Tim mentioned on seperate occasions that we are making some recruits feel unwelcome with such bullshit.
We should really be above this kind of shit as a board. All it does is make UM a less friendly place for perspective recruits. Do we really need to do this? Is there any way we can at least keep negative opinions to ourselves until the players actually step on the field?
It's not like RR assesses football players for a living or anything.......
December 20th, 2009 at 2:08 PM ^
When it came down to you and anybody else for admission to Michigan, and I heard that the other guy made it in, I was pumped, but it turns out they let you in instead. I would rather have had anybody else. I don't know if anyone else feels that way.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:18 AM ^
Every single guy we've recruited is gonna help our team, and our coaching staff is recruiting guys they want. These guys are WANTED. I don't give a flying f&#$ if you wanted guys who haven't committed to us. I want the guys who commit to Michigan. It means they're smart enough to recognize what they're gonna be a part of, and know that if (and when) they contribute to this turn-around it's gonna mean that much more, and they're gonna get plenty of recognition. Bring on our recruits and forget about those that don't come to Michigan, let alone stay and be champions.
December 20th, 2009 at 6:16 AM ^
Can we please stop with the censorship? It's ridiculous.
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE ONWUKAIFE BECAUSE THAT MIGHT HURT PASKORZ'S FEELINGS BRIAN SAID SO.
The guy didn't say anything negative about Paskorz. He said he would rather have another player instead. If Paskorz is such a pansy that he gets bent out of shape that Random Message Board Guy wants Onwukaife instead, then Paskorz is destined to be a failure at life.
In summary:
I would rather have Player X than Player Y = fine
Player Y sucks OMG he's a worthless piece of poo = not fine
censoring a message board from these comments = ridiculously stupid
December 20th, 2009 at 7:13 AM ^
it is not ridiculously stupid if it is what is wanted by those who run this board...also...it has not been censored so i fail to see what you are talking about
December 20th, 2009 at 7:56 AM ^
But you are perfectly willing to tell all what is fine and not? That = ridiculously stupid.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
People can give their comments.
It's just that some of them are stupid.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:39 AM ^
I'm not sure you know what "censorship" is.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:47 AM ^
I love Andre the Giant
December 20th, 2009 at 9:27 AM ^
I was just about to rant about this myself.
This thread is perhaps the epitome of sanctimonious self-censorship on this blog. Treating Paskorz like he's a five-year-old with confidence problems is actually more insulting that saying "my layman's prediction was that Onwukaife woulda been better."
It's a fucking message board. It's not a support group for football recruits.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
which SEC school did you say you were alumni?
Sure, no need to support incoming commits at all...
December 20th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
It's certainly your right to take a backhanded shot at a recruit if you choose, but if you're a Michigan fan it doesn't really serve any positive purpose. And while it's certainly accepted in the fan culture, it's still acting a jerk, and I'd personally rather not act that way in reference to these kids at least.
Also, saying that if a person gets upset at this that he is therefore a failure at life is about the most ridiculous abuse of logic I can think of. It's similar to saying if I drive 1 mph over the speed limit I deserve it I get broadsided by a semi.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
It's not a "backhanded shot."
Is it a backhanded shot to say that you would rather have Devin Gardner than Conelius Jones?
Is it a backhanded shot to say that you would rather have Jerry Rice than Steve Smith?
Is it a backhanded shot to say that you would rather have chicken than pork?
It's a preference. Clarkiefromcanada is basically saying that we shouldn't voice preferences, which is preposterous and silly.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
Magnus,
A couple of thoughts...is there a difference between commits and recruits? Paskorz a commit and Holmes O. a recruit. Just a thought.
Your continued misinterpretation of my "preference" above is pretty funny. Also, apparently I should not have voiced my "preference" in the matter?
December 20th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
Holmes WAS a commit. How do you know the OP didn't prefer Onwukaife over Paskorz back then, too? Regardless, no, there's no difference between a commit and a recruit. Both are football players that haven't signed letters of intent. Like I said, if Paskorz is sensitive enough that the OP will make him sad, he's destined to fail.
You CAN voice your preference. It's just a stupid preference. The OP's is not.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
So we got to a place where you can't rationally go anywhere with my argument on preference as you defined and just go with the "it's stupid" blast.
It's over guy, we're not going to agree. I can't much respond to the "it's stupid" take, now can I?
December 20th, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^
You already said it was over, so I didn't respond. Is it over or isn't it? Make up your mind.
I can rationally go somewhere with your preference argument. Your preference is that we don't say anything negative about a poor, sensitive recruit because he might be saddened into decommitting and going somewhere else where the fans won't ever say anything negative about him.
So basically you only want us to say nice, friendly things about all these recruits. That way their parents will think that Michigan fans are all warm and cuddly. You don't want any actual football analysis about these recruits, because any honest analysis would include some negatives/weaknesses about each recruit.
Your preference is to neuter analysis in favor of coddling a guy who will slam into 300 lb. offensive linemen over and over again in front of 110,000 people, get screamed at by coaches every day of his life, and puke his guts out in workouts. If he can do all that, I think he can handle Random Internet Message Board Guy saying "I'd rather have Player X."
Therefore, your preference is stupid. Just because you're allowed to have a preference doesn't mean that it's logical or realistic.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
is that the U of M is based on class and integrity and we can treat incoming 18 year old commits with some of that...oh, and some respect, I imagine. No more than you or I would want for our kids.
I am certain that there is a real difference between rational analysis of a player's potential and the "I'd prefer recruit x over commit y" that started this whole thing before you got all censorship tangential. That is my preference (I can't be much more clear).
btw. It *was* over until you went with the weak "stupid" blast earlier but thanks for trying to clear that up. Just because you went that way doesn't take away my respect for your other work which I find mostly interesting.
Best wishes.
It's over for me.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
"my preference is that the U of M is based on class and integrity and we can treat incoming 18 year old commits with some of that...oh, and some respect, I imagine."
It's not disrespectful to say that you'd prefer another recruit. If I said I'd rather have Michael Jordan on my team than Bill Cartwright, should Cartwright take offense? Absolutely not. Preferences exist, and they will forever be expressed.
"I am certain that there is a real difference between rational analysis of a player's potential and the "I'd prefer recruit x over commit y" that started this whole thing before you got all censorship tangential."
I don't think it's necessary for someone to lay out a bunch of different reasons for preferring one player over another. For all we know, the OP spent 5 hours watching each player's game films.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
http://mgoblog.com/content/tuesday-recruitin-39
"Here's a direct example of Michigan's eagerness to accept commitments probably costing them a better class. I mean no offense to Antonio Kinard or Jordan Paskorz, but if I had to pick one guy from the three just based on offers, recruiting buzz, and whatnot, it would be Onwukaife."
December 20th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
with the analogy taken at the logical extremes.
it IS insulting if you are a dinner guest and get served chicken and then say that you prefer pork. it IS insulting if you would tell Tate that you would prefer if Ryan Mallet or BJ Daniels was our starting QB.
Not saying you don't have the right to do bring up your preferences, I'm just saying there's a time and a place and a little tact wouldn't hurt. For someone to bring this up now.....it serves no positive global purpose.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
It's a good thing that the OP didn't say to Tate, "I wish Ryan Mallett were still here." That would be rude.
If Jordan Paskorz is like most recruits, he knows that he's the #39 defensive end in the country, according to Rivals. Therefore, Rivals prefers 38 defensive ends ahead of him. Do you think he's crying in his basement because Rivals likes him only 39th-best? Probably not.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:51 AM ^
Word.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
Dude, you are sooo dead once Paskorz's dad reads this.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
Magnus,
You're better than this...and apparently dissent on criticism of players from my end is censorship? Oh, okay. I said, "is it really necessary"...that is the question. Well, apparently was necessary to the poster and to you...
Nice message from you to new commits then:
"welcome to the Michigan family!... until we find someone we might marginally like more than you who maybe has another star...then screw off"...
Nice work.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
I didn't say it's necessary. I'm saying it's no big deal. It's an opinion, and the other poster should voice his opinion if he wants without being accosted by other posters.
"welcome to the Michigan family!... until we find someone we might marginally like more than you who maybe has another star...then screw off"
I didn't say this. I said the OP should be able to say it if he wants. IIRC, I didn't voice my opinion one way or another about Paskorz vs. Onwukaife.
That being said, I wasn't a big fan of Paskorz from the beginning, especially as a Quick linebacker. I think he's too stiff to play that position well, and if he comes to Michigan, I would rather see him play DE.
And when I offered my original analysis of Onwukaife, I said that I thought he would be a good inside linebacker prospect. After Onwukaife was turned away as a Quick, guess what we learned - the coaches wanted him as an ILB still, but Onwukaife didn't want to play that position. So I just might know what I'm talking about, especially now that we have a few Quick linebackers committed (Paskorz, Wilkins, Kinard) and zero ILBs. I would rather have Onwukaife than Paskorz right now, and perhaps so would the OP and anyone else who is concerned about the linebacker position.
EDIT: Look here if you don't believe me:
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2009/06/holmes-onwukaife-wolverine.h…
December 20th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
I periodically check your site. We're not going to agree on the overall point where I say it's uncool/classless to criticize commits versus recruits (I think it unnecessary). SamSoccer makes a more compelling presentation, perhaps about supporting the new players. I don't think saying that is akin to censorship but rather consistent with my values around respect.
End of the day the blog doesn't operate in space but as an integral link to the program and recruiting process. Recruits/families/commits obviously do read it and perhaps in some tiny fractional amount it might impact someone's decision. More important however is the concept of the Michigan family/Michigan man which is not consistent with criticizing 18 year olds who have decided to join the Michigan family.
We're obviously not going to agree so let's just end this.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:34 PM ^
Must.only.like.players.who.commit.to.michigan. (repeat as necessary)
/sarcasm
December 20th, 2009 at 8:05 AM ^
all over a ridiculous rumor that had no basis in fact that nobody should have paid attention to for more than a second. If TomVH is reporting something or Sam Webb has another gut feeling, then it's worth paying attention to.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:12 AM ^
Since this Holmes thing has no legs I'll ask another recruiting question: every time I hear anything about Henderson and his top choices, Minnesota is usually thrown into the mix. Given the very public dissatisfaction with Brewster on the part of the Minnesota AD, the poor record Brewster's managed so far, and 70% of responding fans in a recent poll wanting him fired, is the inclusion of the Gophers by Henderson simply a polite nod to his hometown team and nothing more? In other words, isn't he USC's (or whatever other top 5 program who's offered him) recruit to lose?
(And no, this question is not designed to elicit some forlorn hope he'll come to UM. I know that ain't in the cards.)
December 20th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
I'm just guessing here, but yes I'd assume that's what it is. Growing up in MInnesota, they might have been his favorite team as a kid, I'm not sure. There's no real way I see him choosing MInnesota over the others, though. If he does, I'd be pretty shocked.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:55 AM ^
like Harrison Barnes, the SF basketball recruit who recently committed to UNC. All along, he kept listing Iowa State in his top 5. He is from Ames, IA. He probably grew up a fan since they were his hometown team, but quickly realized that he was a much bigger prospect than he ever dreamed he would be. His childhood loyalty may have compelled him to keep insisting that the Cyclones had a chance when he knew that the best path for him was UNC or Duke. Maybe he felt that keeping their name in it to the end might make other recruits think "Well if the number one SF in America is considering going there, I might wanna check it out" indirectly helping the team he grew up rooting for.
I have no idea, this is all just conjecture, and I have never met this guy, but it seems like something I might do if I was a fan of a smaller team and any sport anywhere wanted me for anything.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
FWIW Barnes' dad played for Iowa State back in the day which I am sure is why he listed them for so long.
December 20th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
That makes sense. I assumed there was already local pressure, I didn't realize it might be coming from his father as well.
Thanks for the info
December 20th, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
I didnt realize that my opinion on a recruit made you so upset. Is it ok if i say i would rather have roy roundtree on the field over kelvin grady?
December 20th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
God, you're an asshole. How dare you take a backhanded shot at Kelvin Grady!
December 20th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
Preferring another player could be something like...
Holmes is more athletic, but Packorz is stronger. I would rather have Homes because we need athleticism....
for example.
It isn't and shouldn't be a negative towards Packorz, who I like. It's just that I would prefer Holmes if it isn't possible for us to take both.
Not advocating Packorz getting kicked to the curb either. He sounds like he could be a very productive player for us.
That said, I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
I think this board has jumped the shark.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
would only take player x over player y if he was three stars.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
Good lord, some of you have been arguing over whether it's okay to criticize a player or not for almost 12 hours today!! Please tell me you were at least snowed in or you just recently broke both legs and are incapable of leaving the house all day?
TomVH answered the question right off the bat, why couldn't it just be left as a short, informative thread instead of an internet tough guy must have the last word pissing match?