Mailbag: DL Snaps, Three Star Quality, Notre Dame Resumption, Some Guy Mad At Manuel

Submitted by Brian on July 21st, 2016 at 12:35 PM

25576740853_5ce2b2ae35_z

please stop yelling at me about Gary starting, you win [Eric Upchurch]

Hi Brian,

Care to offer your guess on how the snaps will be distributed along the defensive line?

I would guess something like this:

Strongside End: 40% Gary, 20% Wormley, 20% Godin
Nose: 55% Glasgow, 45% Mone
3-Tech: 45% Wormley, 45% Hurst, 10% Godin
Weakside End: 65% Charlton, 25% Winovich/Jones/Kemp, 10% formations with only 3 down lineman.

Obviously this exercise assumes no injuries, and I ignored Lawrence Marshall who'll probably see some playing time.

Interested in your take,

-Andrew

Other than the fact that you project only 80% of the strongside end snaps that seems about right to me. (I assume that was meant to be 60% Gary.)

Over this offseason I've gotten a bunch of pushback about my assertion that Gary probably won't start, pushback that now seems on point after various insiders have asserted that Wormley will stick at 3-tech and Charlton will move over to WDE. But that was always a distinction without much of a difference. Even if Gary was nominally behind Wormley at SDE there would be sufficient snaps available when Wormley rests or Michigan goes to a pass rush package for Gary to make an impact. We're talking about a half-dozen snaps per game going to one guy or the other guy.

The only slight corrections I'd make would be to bump Glasgow up to 60 or 65% and bump Charlton to 70% at the expense of three-man lines.

Hey Brian-

No doubt there's been a recruiting uptick since Harbaugh came aboard....Rashan Gary is nice.  But what about our lower ranked pickups?  I seem to remember you comparing the success of Tressel 3-stars to Carr 3-stars, and the difference was stark.

Without the benefit of seeing how they pan out, how do you think JH's less-heralded guys will stack up to those of previous regimes?  vs. Tressell/Urban?  Curious if you've noticed a difference in talent/potential based on film and summer camp performance.

Cheers,

Joe 

BK, NY

I don't remember that post but there is certainly a difference in quality amongst the vast plain of three-stars, one that's relatively easy to discern. However, that difference isn't based on evaluations I make with my amateur read on Hudl highlight films. It's more about the shape of a kid's recruitment.

There are three stars who end up on the radar of major schools, and three stars who do not. Maybe a Josh Uche or a Nate Johnson comes with sufficient questions for a rating service to correctly peg them a three-star, but it's also correct for teams like Florida or Notre Dame to go after those guys when their plan A gentlemen are uncertain or head elsewhere.

When we're talking about Michigan commits the players in question have tautologically garnered big time interest. That's one vote of confidence; it's better to have other votes from top 25 schools. There's a set of three stars who are targets of multiple big schools and a set who are not. My read on how the 2016 composite three-stars fit in those bins:

  • Multiple options: Nick Eubanks, Khaleke Hudson, Nate Johnson, Josh Uche, Eddie McDoom, Elysee Mbem-Bosse, Michael Dwumfour.
  • Hard to tell: Kingston Davis.
  • Not so much: Sean McKeon, Devin Gil, Josh Metellus, Stephen Spanellis.

I believe everyone in the "multiple options" section could have gone to one of PSU, Florida, Auburn, or Oregon, along with a number of other schools on that level. Davis almost certainly could have gone to Nebraska and maybe LSU or Florida but probably not. The four guys in "not so much" didn't field much if any interest from top-half Power 5 schools. Four guys out of a class of 28 is quite good.

It's hard to get a solid read on the number of comparable prospects in earlier classes. Awareness of the "offer"/OFFER distinction has crept across college football gradually and many earlier recruiting assessments take listed offers at face value when they probably shouldn't. There's more wobble in older assessments, but here's my estimate of the number of Michigan three-stars that didn't seem to get a whole lot of interest from top 20 programs. (I'm not counting MSU here since they only started recruiting like a top 20 team last year and are no longer.) You'll find some excellent players on these lists, but all told it's better to be noticed by more than one big program:

  • 2012 (9/22): Matt Godin, Kaleb Ringer, Sione Houma, Jehu Chesson , Drake Johnson, Willie Henry, Ben Braden, Jeremy Clark, Blake Bars. Godin and Bars might have had real interest from Notre Dame.
  • 2013 (7/28): Jaron Dukes, Csont'e York, Channing Stribling, Khalid Hill, Da'Mario Jones, Reon Dawson, Scott Sypniewski. I'm leaving out kickers but counting Sypniewski here since long snappers are usually walkons; Harbaugh just got the #2 guy in the country as a PWO. Dan Samuelson and Ross Douglas were Nebraska and PSU decommit three-stars and the only guys in that range who had big time offers.
  • 2014 (6/16): Juwann Bushell-Beatty, Wilton Speight, Maurice Ways, Noah Furbush, Brandon Watson, Brady Pallante. Jared Wangler was a PSU decommit.
  • 2015 (5/14): Karan Higdon, Grant Perry, Keith Washington, Jon Runyan Jr, Nolan Ulizio. Shelton Johnson was a battle against FSU; Reuben Jones against Nebraska.

Lone wolf fliers comprised over a third of the four Michigan classes before Harbaugh got a full recruiting cycle, and just 14% of the 2016 class. So yes, the 2016 class's three stars are a different caliber.

Given Harbaugh's tendency to rack up decommits it's too early to state with any confidence how many will be in the 2017 class. As of right now I'd put Joel Honigford (Oregon), J'Marick Woods (VT, maybe LSU), Phillip Paea (Oregon), and maybe Andrew Stueber (Tennessee) into the "major target" category" and Ben Mason, Carter Dunaway, Chase Lasater, and Kurt Taylor into the "not so much" category. (I'm assuming Benjamin St Juste ends up a composite four star.)

[After the JUMP: Notre Dame resumption!]

Guy mad about Notre Dame.

If Brandon did this deal, you would be apoplectic. Just give me a reasoned argument as to why they needed to do this deal and screw over season ticket holders ( and logic in general). 

I am frankly not impressed with Manuel but am open to giving him a chance. That's a different topic though. 

As an impartial journalist, we expect a honest examination of you.

I'm not a journalist, that's the point. I like the Notre Dame series because:

  1. They are playing Notre Dame

The end.

The idea that replacing a game against Arkansas with one against Notre Dame screws over season ticket holders is ludicrous. The home/away setup and October game are wonky, but see #1 above. (Also I don't get the home/away split from ND's perspective.) That's necessary because this is a two-game series starting in 2018 that had to be jammed into the schedule just two years before those games are to be played.

Meanwhile Manuel almost certainly walked into this deal's existing framework and a football coach who wanted the Irish on the schedule and does not give a tenth of a crap about when or where those games occur. I'm not sure what Manuel has even had the opportunity to do that has been "frankly not impressive." He made some comments about not wanting to play night games. That appears to be it. Where does that opinion come from? Jim Harbaugh. If you're the kind of Michigan fan who likes highlighter yellow and night games, real maize and nooners are the cost of doing business with Harbaugh. Manuel's #1 job is cultivating Harbaugh's belief that the Michigan Athletic Department is the best boss ever. As long as he does that everything else is noise.

Non-Harbaugh-maintenance things Manuel has done so far:

  • Asked Red to stay another year so he can get his bearings on a hockey coaching search.
  • Secured a radio deal that seems much better than the previous one.
  • Ushered Brandon's right hand woman Chrissi Rawak out the door.

I'm not a huge fan of the first bullet because there's an obvious replacement tapping his feet but that's 2/3 for me. He's also publicly talking about fixing the MSU/OSU debacle, something Brandon never did. IIRC he said "we can beat them just as easily on the road as at home," because he was a perfect beacon of incompetence. Manuel is not that.

slight contrast

Why it ended in the first place.

Hi there,

I was wondering if you knew the back story behind the UM-ND series being put back on. My understanding was that after ND entered into its set of games with ACC opponents, it had to get rid of a Big Ten team so they decided on Michigan, for whatever reason. What changed since then? At SMSB, Brian Kelly said something along the lines that coaches and ADs were aligned. Was Dave Brandon to blame for the series ending? I really don't think it is, but wanted to know your thoughts. I don't feel like the public backlash about the rivalry ending was so strong that ND had to reverse course. Also, what can we expect the ND series to be moving forward? Will they play every year or intermittently? Thanks for your time, I really enjoy the blog. Go Blue!

-David Harris (NTDH)

There were multiple reasons Notre Dame pulled the trigger on the Michigan series. A primary one: Michigan's contract with Notre Dame was absurdly bad, as it allowed Notre Dame to initiate the end of the series and get the last home game. Brandon didn't write or sign that contract. I don't know who did; it's possible the thing went all the way back to the resumption of the series. Bill Martin had talked a lot about an iron-clad 30 year extension but that never got done, perhaps because ND was already coming to terms with the fact that they'd have to half-join a conference for the sake of their other sports.

I've heard that Notre Dame's combination of loathing and contempt for Brandon also played a major role but that's not a thing you can really confirm or dis-confirm. The nature of the way ND chose to end the series does suggest that's true: instead of sending a letter or whatever, Swarbrick handed Brandon the letter in person just moments before kickoff. Why do that unless you want to see the look on the face of the man you just stabbed?

Whether or not Brandon's personality being to the best of his ability was a major factor in ending the series in the first place, his removal was absolutely necessary for its resumption. Brandon holds grudges.

I don't think a yearly resumption of Michigan-Notre Dame is coming any time soon. Michigan has lined up both VT and Washington in 2020 and 2021 and then starts series with UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma. Canceling Arkansas is one thing; cancelling any of the latter three series is a much worse idea. I mean, they could sign up to play a nine-game conference schedule along with Texas and Notre Dame, but that would take some huevos. 

More ND!

Hi Brian, two questions about the ND series resumption. First off, are you surprised that the reaction seems to be more negative than positive (at least on the site)? I know it's not ideal to start back in South Bend after their trick last time, but did people honestly expect them to give us a contract with one extra home game? That's millions of dollars they would just be handing over. Brandon made a terrible mistake with that last contract, but it's spilled milk at this point and I don't think you can reasonably expect ND to give that money back. I think this time around had to be a 2 year deal to get it going again and at that point, the order doesn't matter that much in my opinion. And who knows, maybe Harbaugh knows we'll be more of a contender in 2019.

Second, do you agree that we could/should have kept Arkansas even with this ND arrangement? We just would have had to move the 2018 game by a week (or have ND move a Ball State game a week) and the 2019 road game could have stayed as is. I know that would only give us six home games in 2019, but I think the fans and beancounters would understand if four of them were ND, Iowa, MSU, and OSU. Especially considering the $2M buyout they'd save, they would only have to raise the prices a bit in 2019 to get the same projected revenue as 7 games, and it would still be a great value. Do you think the schedule would just become too hard at that point? Thanks as always, keep up the good work.

Manuel made having seven home games every year seem like a big deal to the department, which I don't understand. Cash flow shouldn't be a problem since every year the TV contracts throw off more and more money; by 2018 that nutty FOX deal will be in place. A ticket package of six games with Notre Dame is much better than one with seven and no Notre Dame. Reasons to make absolutely sure you have seven home games seem mostly about presenting a budget to the regents. So I don't get that. Maybe someone who is more educated in these matters could explain in the comments?

Keeping Arkansas is a difficult call. Do you want a nine-game conference schedule, Arkansas, and Notre Dame as 11 of your 12? That's asking a lot. I wonder if Arkansas didn't want to move one of their games and Michigan was forced to pick between the two schools, with Michigan calling their bluff.

Comments

DarkWolverine

July 21st, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^

Local Income And Game Days
Would not be surprised if the AD gets encouragement from local business to maximize home games. So, a six game home schedule with ND is not preferable to a 7 game home slate for AA in general.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Sports

July 21st, 2016 at 1:16 PM ^

Another perspective is that more home games favor the student body too. I know I would have loved more home games when I was an undergrad. I think this is really good. Even though alumni are involved and are the primary funding source, it should really be about students. 

Leatherstocking Blue

July 21st, 2016 at 1:41 PM ^

While I never missed a home game in my four years (and arrived late only once), the students today have shown an ambivalence to football Saturdays many of us would have never thought possible. Yeah, yeah, product on the field and DB's marketing freak show, etc. but this is our team. I would have found a way to the game regardless of record.

But there is something exponentially more exciting about seeing a quality game verses an extra beatdown or two each season. If I were a ticket holder, I'd much rather see five home games with quality opponents than seven games that are mostly blowouts.

pdenner

July 21st, 2016 at 4:08 PM ^

(Those being DB's marketing fiascos and the quality of play.) The main point of contention we've had these past few years has always been the seating structure. I guess you might combine that with the marketing blunders but I'd deem it different. The main reason why a large portion of students wasn't showing up was because of the complete overhaul of how seats were assigned to the student body (namely the seniority aspect completely going out the window) and hiking up student prices. Having the rite of passage to get better seats as you gain more seniority being nixed and seeing a freshman who happened to show up absurdly early to the game was jarring and absurd, not to mention paying ridiculous prices for lackluster games. You say you'd have still found a way to go, but I've got to believe you had better competition to see with more affordable prices to boot. People like to bash current/recent students, and that's somewhat warranted, but there's a larger picture people sometimes ignore.

jmblue

July 21st, 2016 at 5:20 PM ^

The main reason why a large portion of students wasn't showing up was because of the complete overhaul of how seats were assigned to the student body (namely the seniority aspect completely going out the window) and hiking up student prices.

But the problem of student no-shows (and very late arrivals) preceded the switch to general admission. In fact, the GA adoption was supposed to remedy the problem (though it obviously backfired).

For whatever reason, over the last decade it's become more common across the country for students not to come to as many football games as before, and to often arrive very late when they do. It's not strictly a Michigan issue.

trueblueintexas

July 21st, 2016 at 7:22 PM ^

I don't think as many college students feel a connection to their schools sports teams as they used to. I think the primary driving factor is that student athletes have very little interaction with regular students now. Over the last twenty years you have seen the massive building of athlete only buildings for study, eating, working out, hanging out, living, etc. Many of the athletes are steered into classes primarily with other athletes. I'm sure someone will quickly point out how player X was in their class, but that is becoming the exception, not the norm. It's going to be very difficult to integrate athletes back into the campus scene now due to recruiting competition, but I think that is the biggest factor in declining student attendance. It's basically become the equivalent of watching a pro-team. You will most likely never interface with those students anywhere on campus.

SpikeFan2016

July 22nd, 2016 at 9:52 AM ^

There are several reasons for this:

  1. Student tickets in the last 5 years have been more expensive than they EVER were for any past alumni. 
  2. At the same time as tickets were incredibly expensive, the product on the field went completely to shit. No current college aged students can remember a time when Michigan football was elite, besides early childhood memories (less than 10 years of age), which frankly are not as significant. 
  3. Less students go to the University of Michigan from the state of Michigan than ever before. (The class of 2016 that just graduated had 42% of its students from out of state). If you go to U of M as a Michigander, you're likely already well versed in the importance and significance of Michigan football to the school. Out of staters in general are less exposed to that view. Now, many out of staters are easily and quickly converted, but that becomes much, much harder when the team sucks. (which is has, for a long while, with a few exceptions). 
  4. Dave Brandon fucked up long standing traditions of seating arrangements, openly disparaged student fans and just in general drew a lot of bad blood. He bet that student demand was perfectly inelastic; it was not. 

In order to get back to prior levels of enthusiasm, we will need the few classes that came of age in 2013 and 2014 to be weeded out via graduation as these classes are significantly less invested in football. We will also need several consecutive successful years. 

Successful, not in the 2015 moral victory way, but actually winning our big games. 

Muppet Glee Club

July 21st, 2016 at 5:39 PM ^

As a current student, I disagree. I actually think the current system is the best option for getting students to the game. As a freshman my seats were not great but my friends and I made sure to get to every game 30+ minutes early to ensure we had the max number of points. We were rewarded last year and did the same. This year we still have fantastic seats. I would hate to be stuck 15 rows higher behind seniors who show up late or don't care about the game just because they are seniors.

Pricing is obviously a different issure. I would pay a high price, but others just don't have the interest. The current rate seems fair. It might be asking a bit too much for UCF, but it is a bargain for Ohio State.

Ultimately, a lot of students would rather tailgate all day than enjoy a football game. That just seems like a societal change without much reason. However, I think the current system provides the best of both aspects.

bluebyyou

July 21st, 2016 at 1:01 PM ^

Does anyone know the approximate revenue generated per home game?  With 109,000 people, it's got to be over $8 million considering concessions.  

Six home games for season ticket holders might not sit well, partiularly when you are paying the additional dollars that are required to get the better seats.

Bodogblog

July 21st, 2016 at 2:01 PM ^

Re. PSD's, you have to consider how much of a draw ND is to those payers.  Are you swapping Arkansas and Miami of Ohio at home for ND?  In terms of stubhub/street cost, I'm betting ND comes well ahead.  Miami of Ohio tickets can be bought for $10 from a yeah-too-drunk-to-go-now student, and Arkansas is a good draw, but I doubt they would get much of a premium over face.  I'd bet they'd be Nebraska/Iowa level (back when we played the latter), which would be face or a little above. 

ND is like OSU, always at a premium unless you're in the 3rd/4th year of a coaching failure.  Good seat for ND preseason with an optimistic fan base is $350, very much doubt you'd get half that for both Arkansas and Miami of Ohio.  Maybe a lot of Arkansas fans do want to travel to AA, driving up the value?  Hard to discern, but still betting ND is the much better money deal. 

SpikeFan2016

July 22nd, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^

Exactly. 

And, there will be way more ND fans interested in travleing to Ann Arbor than Arkansas ones would be. They will have gone through a 6 year span without visiting the Big House, there are many more ND fans, and they are much closer in proximity. 

 

Fun fact: Notre Dame has lost 7 in a row in the Big House. Can't wait to make it 8 in 2019. 

Bighou

July 22nd, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^

what I've been thinking when I see complaints about the $2M payment to Ark. If trading for ND gets UM more than $2M compared to revenue from an Ark series (which I would certainly think it will/does) then the financial objections are moot.

Regardless, I am 100% in favor of switching to ND. I grew up watching that game with my Dad (from the late 1970's onward). Oviously, most younger fans don't have that same nostalgia.

Jkidd49

July 21st, 2016 at 1:02 PM ^

This sentence struck me as surprising, although maybe it shouldn't...

"Michigan has lined up both VT and Washington in 2020 and 2021 and then starts series with UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma. Canceling Arkansas is one thing; cancelling any of the latter three series is a much worse idea."

Is the majority opinion that VT and Wash are bigger draws then Arkansas?  UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma seem like no-brainers but i would have put Arkansas over the other two.  Perhaps that's just an irrational desire to beat the SEC.

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 1:09 PM ^

Not better competition, but Seattle is a bigger market with more alums for sure. Va Tech will get cancelled i'm almost positive. Look at our road games since 2003 Oregon, all big market or national following. This is why i was shocked when arkansas was added. This isn't what sports should be about, but it's too big business now

ElBictors

July 21st, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^

Remember also that when these MEGA-Conferences were being created and teams fleeing the B12 for the SEC and Pac-12 that the BigTen and Pac-12 came to a 'gentlemen's agreement' to resume some of the OOC games that had taken place in the 80s-90's.

This is in part why we're seeing Oregon State, Colorado, Utah and Washington on the schedule.

It keeps the OOC more comptetitive than playing MAC cupcakes and for TV/media, it draws in the west coast viewer/fans.

I like it.  Pac-12 is pretty strong academically and it doesn't hurt to play P5 teams, even if its the Oregon St, CU caliber P12 team, for now.

 

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 4:54 PM ^

i would love it so long as it's not an excuse to continue playing an SEC team once every half century. The Pac-12 is not the only other realm of good football, historic stadiums, passionate fans

just like i'm not fond of the 9th conference game and especially adding rutgers and maryland, if it's an excuse to cancel arkansas (which it is in the end)

J.

July 21st, 2016 at 1:36 PM ^

I was really looking forward to a game at Arkansas.  They have a fantastic game-day environment and the area around Fayetteville is gorgeous.  (The rest of Arkansas, less so. :-).  It's the game at Oklahoma I'm least excited about traveling to.  There's little of interest in that entire state.

J.

July 22nd, 2016 at 12:00 AM ^

I didn't say I wasn't going to go.  :-) Just that I wasn't as excited about it.

Arkansas has a proud football tradition as well.  If you don't believe me, ask Richard Nixon, or Jerry Jones.  Or -- any Texas fan who's old enough to remember.  They've clearly suffered since they left the SWC, but they were a national power in the 60s and 70s.  And, they have Bret Bielema, so there would have been immense satisfaction in administering a beatdown.

Carpetbagger

July 21st, 2016 at 2:45 PM ^

Most everyhting east of OKC is green. Think of what most people think of Arkansas, then make it quite a bit flatter. Nothing like what I expected either.

Two things I give the locals crap about, Sooners are always premature, and that the locals were on the wrong side of a little war back 150 years ago.

funkywolve

July 21st, 2016 at 1:13 PM ^

Agree.  Their last 4 seasons have gone:  7-6, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6 with the 7th win in the three 7 win seasons being a win in the bowl game (6-6 regular seasons).  It'll be interesting to see whether the new coach can get them back to winning double digit wins on a regular basis.

hunterjoe

July 21st, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^

They're washed up.  Wife and her dad are grads so I've watched some of their games and followed them a bit.  They're not good anymore.  Maybe the new coach can revive them, but they're in need of a swift kick in the ass badly.  

jdemille9

July 21st, 2016 at 1:48 PM ^

VT has suffered through a sort of fading with their last coach similar to what we went through with Carr.. Though VT's has been wayyyy worse obviously. But still, with a hot new coach and some tradition in 4-5 years VT could be a good team again. Regardless, Blacksburg is an electric place to attend a football game and it'd make for a great early season road test.

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^

yeah and watch Manuel do something mindblowing like cancel Washington instead of Va Tech just to play ND at a date of ND's choosing, or hell, schedule all 3 just to entirely negate his arguments for cancelling Arkansas

Dan84

July 21st, 2016 at 1:18 PM ^

I think he was referencing the UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma series as the "latter three" that'd be a bad idea to cancel. I think the problem with swapping out either VT or Wash is that then you have a nine game conference schedule plus two potentially tough OOC games, not that those programs are wildly popular, etc.

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 5:05 PM ^

This isn't a problem for several other teams, including our main rival which is playing 3 P5 opponents soon. But you're right, on further consideration, Manuel will cancel both Va Tech and Washington and replace them with ND and toledo ("revenge" match!)

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^

Some good points but there's 0 chance that arkansas would've been unwilling to move games. That's something Manuel would've brought to light. Instead, arkansas is (rightly) incensed that they have to find another opponent with so little time

As for 9 conference games + texas or arkansas + ND taking huevos, i couldn't disagree more. This kind of schedule was common in the 90s, ohio state and teams like stanford are playing TWELVE P5 opponents in a single season coming up, and i feel like playing rutgers every year and then "adding" a 9th game is no accomplishment. It doesn't make the schedule appreciably harder than an annual game vs toledo. This position just makes us look afraid of arkansas, pitiful

I agree though about the 7 home games. We used to have 6 frequently, i don't see the problem and that's only fair as well. I'd much rather have 6 quality home games than say 5 + 2 cupcakes. The problem is Manuel botched this badly. He should've got MSU switched (again, only fair) BEFORE signing this deal. What was the rush? Honor the arkansas deal, swap say Va Tech for ND, switch MSU to even years....voila

Beyond that is the perception of desperation and abusive relationship on our part. Manuel should've never picked up the phone unless Swarbrick offered 2/3 at Michigan or something. Instead, we get late october? WTF

J.

July 21st, 2016 at 1:31 PM ^

Michigan should be playing the best opponents possible.  Full stop.  Give me Texas and Notre Dame, and throw in USC or Florida State or...

If I wanted an easy path to the playoffs, I'd be an SEC fan.  I'm tired of seeing Michigan hold glorified scrimmages against overmatched teams.  Remember, the 1997 schedule was Colorado, Baylor, and Notre Dame.  Colorado turned out to be mediocre that season, but they were preseason AP #8.  Baylor was nothing special but still a cut above the MAC.  The 1985 schedule was Notre Dame, @ South Carolina, and Maryland.  (I think I've heard of the '85 team's quarterback recently, but it slips my mind)...

drzoidburg

July 21st, 2016 at 5:07 PM ^

Agreed, and i would add that i don't see the point in having all this talent if it's only going to be shown off in Ann Arbor against the same teams every year. We should playing coast to coast. I don't understand how Harbaugh takes this approach to satellite camps but not actual competition

The Oracle

July 21st, 2016 at 1:07 PM ^

I really wonder if anyone from the 2015 class will end up making a significant impact. Harbaugh didn't have much of an opportunity to recruit, as he hit the ground running, and all subsequent recruiting classes will no doubt be outstanding.

Rabbit21

July 21st, 2016 at 5:55 PM ^

Newsome and Kinnel should, simply by dint of the depth chart.  The fact they also seem to be very talented players doesn't hurt.  

TWJ and Gentry both provide something very intruiging at Tight End.

The rest of the class all offer something or they wouldn't be here, so I'm going to assume that this won't be a class of 2011 level disaster, and hope to enjoy the careers of guys who decided to come here when the program seemed to be at a low point.