beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^

Does anyone feel like we were targeting and getting more top 100 guys under Carr? Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with RR's recruiting and I think overall the classes have been similar in quality to Carr's. Plus I think this is natural since we are going to be targeting a more specific type of athlete now. It just seems like we would get 3-4 top 100 guys under Carr and now we are getting 1-2.

WolvinLA

March 25th, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^

Beardog - Change your avatar. Or change your signature to say "my avatar is not me." Because when I read your posts, I think "this kid sounds like a total douche." Then I read that your avatar is you. Then I look at your avatar. Then my initial notion is confirmed. Don't be mad. Just try to be less of a d-bag.

jwfsouthpaw

March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^

*Sigh*

You seem to contradict yourself: you are concerned that Michigan is receiving fewer Top 100 commits based on RR's one recruiting class (after a 3-9 season no less), yet you say that you understand because Michigan is targeting specific types of athletes.

And the rankings will change.

Are we really concerned that RR "only" pulled in two Top 100 recruits (both arguably 5-star players) compared to the "3-4" that Lloyd recruited? I mean, seriously? This is quite possibly item number 15,646 on the list of things that concern me about Michigan football.

jwfsouthpaw

March 24th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^

Yes, fortunately I can read. And I can read competently. Apparently you cannot.

For instance: "Does anyone feel like we were targeting and getting more top 100 guys under Carr? . . . It just seems like we would get 3-4 top 100 guys under Carr and now we are getting 1-2."

My response: (1) RR has one recruiting class under his belt, and he signed 2 Top 100 players -- just one shy of "3-4" which is practically a negligible difference; the sample size is WAY too small to definitively say "now we are getting 1-2." (2) By emphasizing that Michigan "was getting more top 100 guys under Carr," you are implicitly expressing concern; in fact, you yourself had to qualify this statement by offering the standard "I am happy anyway" language. (3) The rankings just came out, and they will change. WAY too early to make this conclusion.

You again: "Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with RR's recruiting and I think overall the classes have been similar in quality to Carr's. Plus I think this is natural since we are going to be targeting a more specific type of athlete now."

So after your talk of Michigan recruiting fewer top 100 players, you then emphatically endorse RR's recruiting methods and his system-oriented focus. Therefore, you raise a point of concern, and then you countermand that very point.

And in the end, your post is spectacularly unhelpful and useless (as other posters have also noticed). So congratulations on that. Oh, and thanks for the asshole response to a perfectly legitimate post. Much appreciated.

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^

Actually he has had 2 (1.5), and a third that is shaping up to be the same story, as most of our top targets are out of the top 100, which, again, is fine, just interesting.

Just because the ranking will change doesn't mean they will shift in our favor. some guys will move up and some down, but the average will stay the same.

The whole problem is that you assume I am concerned. I am not at all, I just find it interesting that we seem to be target less concensus top 100 guys. But any implication that this concerns me was assumed by you. the whole reason I got pissed was because you assumed something that wasn't necessarily true about what I was saying, and then slammed me for it.

Magnus

March 24th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^

I think there might be a problem with the crux of your post.

Regardless of who was the coach officially on Signing Day 2008, Rodriguez had less than two months to recruit. So while it sounds unfair, he probably deserves credit - and very little blame - for anything that happened with that class. So forget that year.

So basically, you're asking about a trend that showed itself in...one year, 2009.

For the class of 2010, we've offered 7 out of the top 10 guys, 13 of the top 30, and 32 of the top 100. So basically 1/3 of top 100 prospects can commit to Michigan at any point they want. We've offered about 89 guys (by my count).

So...when you talk about how we're not targeting guys in the top 100, it's just not true. And 1.5 months into the recruiting cycle doesn't really give a great indication of who will end up in this class. As far as I can recall, we weren't talking about Stokes last year at this point, either.

4godkingandwol…

March 24th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^

... this is the thousandth incarnation of this same thread? Rebuttals, I'm sure, follow below:

1. RR in his second year - takes time to build trust with 5 stars - especially out of state
2. Early rankings are just a barometer. Things will change. Coaches know more who fits their system.
3. Early expressed interest also changes. Unless your Texas, your recruiting is just now kicking into second gear.
4. We were 3-9. five stars don't commit to 3-9 teams, unless God is involved (see Irish)
5. I'm sure I've missed some.

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^

Obviously none of you fuckin idiots really bothered to read what I asked. All I am asking: DOES IT SEEM LIKE THE LAST 2 RECRUITING CLASSES HAVE LESS TOP 100 TALENT AS EVALUATED BY THE RECRUITING SERVICES.

I didn't say I was being critical about it. I didn't say it would ultimately matter. I didn't even asset that I give a shit what the recruiting services think. I just asked if it seems that we are getting less top 100 guys, because I've been following recruiting since 03 and it seems that way to me.

Magnus

March 24th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^

Why bother with "seem like" when this is a question that can quite easily be answered by going back to look at the top 100 lists for Rivals and Scout? It seems that a lot of hassle - and hostility - could be avoided by searching for facts rather than opinions.

Magnus

March 24th, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^

It's not against forum rules. Don't get pissed at me. I'm simply making a suggestion.

However, you've now taken the time to write 4 posts on this topic and read the responses to those posts. That quick little research project is probably looking a little more tantalizing at this point...

jwfsouthpaw

March 24th, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^

For someone who has a job and is very reluctant to pull up two web pages due to time constraints, you sure have managed to post quite a few responses here in a relatively short time.

You are also very quick to call people "fuckin idiots" and "bitches." For the record, when you comment that Michigan seems to be recruiting fewer top players, the OBVIOUS IMPLICATION is that this is concerning. And several responses to your post indicates that people interpreted your initial post in this way.

Instead of calling those people "fuckin idiots" and telling them to blow you and whining about the good ol' days, maybe you should acknowledge that your initial post was a little ambiguous. Hint: if people consistently interpret something in a particular way, perhaps your intent did not manifest itself in your writing/post.

But my goodness: someone misreads your intent, and suddenly they're fuckin idiots who should blow you? A bit defensive today, or just an asshole in general?

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

You are also very quick to call people "fuckin idiots" and "bitches." For the record, when you comment that Michigan seems to be recruiting fewer top players, the OBVIOUS IMPLICATION is that this is concerning.

No, you assumed that. It doesn't have to mean that. In fact, I tried my best to show that I wasn't concerned, just noting it. But you wanted to read it the other way so that you could feel good about criticizing me and maybe one day become a member of the WLA.

There was nothing ambiguous about my initial post. I stated, in more than one sentence, that I was still excited and pleased with RR's recruiting. The reason I included those sentences was because I knew I would be mis-interpreted if I didn't explicitly say that I wasn't trying to be critical or concerned. but it happened anyway, cuz thats how people get their kicks here. You just didn't want to hear it that way.

People consistently misinterpreted me because thats the way people act on this board. It s a group think mentality. Not because I wasn't clear.

And I am gonna have to stay later at work today cuz of this meaningless exchange. Oh well.

jwfsouthpaw

March 24th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^

I called you an asshole, not a fuckin idiot or a bitch. Really, you should read more closely.

Yes, I'm sure the reason that several people misinterpreted you is because there's a group mentality and "that's the way people act on this board." Yes, because that makes sense.

According to you, your post was not ambiguous. I'll take that at face value. You have to consider the source, remember.

"And I am gonna have to stay later at work today." And I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest.

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^

I was quoting what you wrote dude, didn't you recognize your own writing?

And I wasn't expecting you to feel sorry for me, why would I. I was just making an observation that this silliness sucked me in and wasted my time, which is what I was trying to avoid in the first place. Its called irony, i like to enjoy it in life sometimes.

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

You are also very quick to call people "fuckin idiots" and "bitches." For the record, when you comment that Michigan seems to be recruiting fewer top players, the OBVIOUS IMPLICATION is that this is concerning.

The above paragraph is what you wrote. I didn't say that you were very quick to call people fuckin idiots. I copied and pasted it from your post and put it in my post to show that i was about to address that point. Why is this hard to understand? You might be confused because I didn't put quotation marks around it. I figured you would be able to recognize your own writing.

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^

From other poster:

"

In fairness to beardog, he did say in his original post that "I'm not concerned" or "I'm in full support of Rodriguez's recruiting" or something like that.

There's really no better way for him to ask the question "Are we getting/targeting fewer top 100 recruits?" I think there's an obvious flaw with the question, but it's really not his fault that so many people thought he was being critical. He tried to cut that off at the pass, and it just didn't work.

It's kind of like saying "Excuse me" as you navigate through a busy store and then getting berated for being rude and just barging through everyone. What else is he supposed to do?
"

Magnus

March 24th, 2009 at 4:30 PM ^

In fairness to beardog, he did say in his original post that "I'm not concerned" or "I'm in full support of Rodriguez's recruiting" or something like that.

There's really no better way for him to ask the question "Are we getting/targeting fewer top 100 recruits?" I think there's an obvious flaw with the question, but it's really not his fault that so many people thought he was being critical. He tried to cut that off at the pass, and it just didn't work.

It's kind of like saying "Excuse me" as you navigate through a busy store and then getting berated for being rude and just barging through everyone. What else is he supposed to do?

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^

I'm not knockin you, its those other fools I have a problem with.

Man, I've been readin this blog since most of these bitches were in diapers. I hate the comments section now, it wasn't this bad when it haloscan and not as many people. But I'm glad for Brian'success.

Instead of that research project, I think I'm just gonna go back to not ever posting. This place is too full of goobers wanting a chance to imitate the WLA.

Aight, I'm out, back to the sidelines for me.

sedieso

March 24th, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^

They started it? What are we in the third grade now? By the look of your insults and lack of logic, I have a hard time believing that you were reading this blog back when I was in diapers...Well actually I do have this shitting problem as of late where the doctor put me on diapers to save me time from going to the bathroom. Regardless though, take a chill pill bro. The more you type, the more you are coming off as an idiot teenager trying to pass as someone older than your age. I hope I do not make you stay late at work, I am sure your mother has cooked a delicious casserole for dinner that you do not want to miss.

me

March 24th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^

This does not mean he will get them, but these are recruits who have visited, are planning on visiting or have expressed significant interest.

1. Sentreal Henderson
2. Marcus Lattimore
7. Lache Seastrunk
9. Jeff Luc
48. Gabe King
57. William Gholston
63. Mack Brown
70. Dietrich Riley
77. Devin Gardner
83. Robert Bolden
89. Sharrif Floyd

beardog07

March 24th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^

I decided that now that I invested (wasted) so much time on this thread I might as well publish Rival's numbers. Took me 5 minutes.

2009 - 2 - **
2008 - 3 - ***
2007 - 3 - ***
2006 - 7 - *******
2005 - 7 - *******
2004 - 5 - *****
2003 - 6 - ******
2002 - 2 - **

So other than 2002, we were getting more top 100 guys before the last three years. We have been getting roughly half the amount since 2007, Carr's last full recruiting class.

Take it for what its worth.