2010 Recruiting Grades

Submitted by AC1997 on December 17th, 2009 at 6:30 PM

This is a preliminary report card that indicates how I would rank our recruiting class IF signing day were today.  Obviously we all know that a LOT could change between now and actual signing day.  Players could change their mind, players could be deemed ineligible and asked to go elsewhere, or we could sign three more 5* recruits at positions of need.  So if the Karma gods are listening, this is just a preliminary summary of where recruiting stands right now, don't take it too seriously. 

Recruiting Report Card:

At this point the recruiting class is wrapping up so we can start handing out some grades.  I think Tim or Brian will probably do something similar in the next few days but I got impatient during a slow week at the office so I thought I’d try my hand at putting some grades together.  Obviously a lot can still change between now and signing day, so we need some assumptions:

  • All current signings stay committed
  • Assuming that Murphy, Grimes, and Furman will commit.
  • Assume that there will be one more signing but will not make an assumption as to who that is.  I’ll talk more about who I would like this to be at the end.
  • Handing out grades considers quality of recruits, quantity of recruits as compared to need, versatility, recruiting location, and intangibles.

Quarterback = A+

Hard to argue with one of the top two spread QB’s in the country who has looked good all season and fits the system well.  I don’t think that Jones will ever see the field as a QB and I suspect he’ll just get buried on the depth chart whenever he switches to WR.  But when you’re recruiting basically your 4th string QB this is the type of high-risk guy you go after.

Running Back = B

I struggled with this one because I’m not sure about how much potential these guys have.  But White, Drake, and Hopkins do offer quantity and variety.  It is also good to get players from Texas to keep a presence there for recruiting.  And grabbing White when he had ties to MSU is good.  Maybe B is a bit generous considering that I don’t think we drafted a future star, but they seem solid.

Slot Receiver = C-

Dileo is the only true slot receiver in the class since I’m counting Drake as a RB.  Personally I like Dileo a lot for this spot and I think he’s the kind of gut you target when your depth chart is already pretty full at this position.  But the upside is very low and when you’re strapped for bodies at other positions it is hard to grade this well.  I would have graded it lower but this isn’t a position of need. 

Outside Receiver = B

Much like running back I’m not sure there is a future all-big ten performer in this class.  I don’t really know what we have in the Jackson-Miller-Robinson-Williamson group.  There is some speed and size, but I don’t think any of us know whether they will be viable starters or stars in the future.  For now I’m considering Jackson a WR and not a TE.  It is mildly concerning that we took so many in this class without a star, though this was an area where depth was needed. 

Tight End = D-

This was not an area of critical need given the relative youth on the roster and the fact that we rarely use two TE at the same time.  And despite early success by Koger the position wasn’t utilized much down the stretch.  So it isn’t a disaster that we didn’t sign anyone, but it would have been nice to grab one prospect.  I suppose this is a good position to sacrifice a recruit when you need people at so many other positions, which is the only reason I didn’t give it an F.  I also think there’s hope to convert Jackson to a receiving TE.  And I think that Paskorz and Wilkens both played TE in high school and could convert if they don’t work out at DE in the future. 

Offensive Line = D-

I almost gave this grade an F as well.  I realize that we recruited a ton of guys the past two years and they all were able to redshirt, but I agree with Brian’s opinion that you never want to take fewer than 3 guys in a given class at OL.  Now this also was a good place to sacrifice a signee in favor of another position of need, but having only one person scares me for what could happen in 2-3 years.  I guess there’s hope they could still use the 28th scholarship on an OL, but that seems unlikely.  This is the top need in the class of 2011. 

Defensive Tackle = C+

Taking two guys at a position of need is pretty solid and I like the guys they have.  But the two recruits that defected in 2009 were better prospects than the two we signed in 2010.  And neither of these guys is a true space eater or pass rusher.  The upside for these two is low.  But getting two decent prospects in a bad year for DT recruits is solid.  If the last scholarship goes to Beachum or Hankins this grade will improve some.

Defensive End = C+

Getting two recruits for this spot is a good number considering the depth chart, but neither projects as a star and both played some TE in high school.  It would have been nice to get a stud at this position to replace Graham, but maybe Roh is going to be that guy and these two are destined to be role players. 

Linebacker = C-

Kinard is a decent prospect and Furman could be very good.  But this was a position of dire need and I don’t think we did enough to address the quality or quantity issues on the current roster.  Marvin Robinson may in fact be a LB, but I’m going to consider him a safety for now.  If you want to consider him a LB that bumps the grade slightly, but he still isn’t a MLB and that’s what we need most.

Cornerback = A

Neglect and bad luck at this position have been at the root of Michigan’s problem along with the safety position these past two years.  The coaches did a great job of addressing this position with this class.  There is a potential stud in Cullen Christian.  You have a potential feel-good story in Witty who was able to get back on track and work hard to join the team.  Then you have solid depth with Avery, Talbott, and Grimes.  I’m sure we’ll hear about one or two of these names leaving the program in the next three years, but for now I’m excited.  They will have ample opportunity to contribute at CB, could move to S down the road, or could turn into solid special team players. 

Safety = B+

I’m excited about this safety class.  Marvin Robinson may move to LB but I think he’s a potential multi-year starter either way.  Vinopal seems to be a smart and fast safety who was the leader and all-state performer for a top team in a football fanatic state.  I see him at worst being a special teams demon later in his career.  And I think Carvin Johnson could be a very good sleeper.  Like Vinopal he played for a very good team in a tough state and was their leader.  He also seems to be smart and seems to be a true safety – not a converted CB or LB.  When you combine all three of them I think you have versatility, depth, smarts, speed, talent, and potential. 

Specialists = A

Replacing the best punter in Michigan history is going to be tough, but when you sign arguably the best punter in this class who has a brother already playing at a BCS school you’re doing pretty well for yourself. 

Overall Offense Grade = C+

The offensive line situation is a bit scary and the rest was quantity over quality.

Overall Defense Grade = B-

Depth was addressed, overall talent is still in question.

Overall Grade = B-

The biggest needs were LB and DB and those were mostly addressed.  They also signed a stud QB and P and depth in the defensive front seven.  It is hard to give it a higher grade with only a small number of highly ranked players.

With the assumptions I made above we have one spot left in the class assuming no one backs out or is asked to back out based on academics or a gray shirt.  Here is what I would like to see for that scholarship in order of preference:

  1. MLB (Tony Jefferson? Darrin Kitchens?)
  2. OL (Torrian Wilson?)
  3. S (Sean Parker? LaTwan Anderson? Rashad Knight?)
  4. DT (Beachum? Hankins?)

So where did I get things wrong? Where do you disagree?  Let me know in the comments. 


Crime Reporter

December 17th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^

We do not know which prospects will end up signing with us between now and February, but I really like this class. I am happy we landed Gardner, Miller and M. Robinson, and I am very excited to see Carvin Johnson. All in all, I think the coaches have done a good job so far and we still have time left to snag some more top prospects.


December 17th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

I would generally agree with your analysis though I would probably put the overall grades a bit higher. We are 15th right now on both Scout and Rivals which isn't awesome, but not terrible. What is missing are the 5*s "wow" factor types (though DG is a 5* on Scout). Hopefully they are signing players they feel can fit into a team that is better than the sum of its parts. I'm feeling pretty good about it at this point...will feel better if we get a few of the ones we are waiting on.


December 17th, 2009 at 10:34 PM ^

I'd give it a higher grade if it weren't so far behind PSU (and likely OSU), and if MSU and Iowa weren't so close. Not having a gargantuan talent advantage against Iowa and MSU is going to be annoying and costly. Plus, there are lots of projects, not enough "immediately ready" talent to plug the holes in 2010.

That said, if Gardner pans out quickly nobody will care about the rest of the class. A great QB is more valuable than anything else on the field, and a great QB can allow a team with talent disadvantages at every other position the opportunity to win a game (see the 2009 Sugar Bowl). If Gardner's a difference maker by 2011 (unlikely but possible), everything else is gravy.


December 17th, 2009 at 11:02 PM ^

Tim - i'd love to hear your thoughts and where I went wrong. Go ahead and rip my analysis apart if you wish - you know infinitely more than me.

I really like this class and reading it again I feel too negative. But that has been bred out of the last two years I guess. I have a theory that one reason we didn't see the fall of the program coming was misleading recruiting rankings. In 05 we were ranked #6 and in 06 we were #13. But in those combined classes we had just three DBs if you count Stevie Brown. Same applied to the neglect of the OL. So I'm a little tougher based on need maybe.

I love our safeties, but they aren't a slam dunk to be good. I like the depth and variety at RB and WR but I'm not sure if there's a star among them. Maybe I'm undervaluing Gardner, Christian, Miller and Robinson since we've known about them so long.


December 18th, 2009 at 12:47 AM ^

are we evaluating our recruits on their talent or their star rankings before giving out your "grade"? just wondering since the recruiting services(as has been overly discussed here) grade based on more of a pro set and we obviously run a spread our stars aren't gonna be there.
1. our recievers are larger than the previous 3yr
and i really had more thoughts in my head but too much beer tonight and thinking that with the QB spot being more important on the field at the college level than everyone else. i've decided that as long as D Gardner enrolls we have an A- class. thank you very much. crap my beer is empty!

Simi Maquoketa

December 18th, 2009 at 8:03 AM ^

I think your analysis is fair based on how the class looks right now.

I agree with your thought that there is quantity over quality--but I extend it to the defense as well. Yes, this will be a very full class (looks like 28)--but at this point we DON'T know.

Your analysis is along the lines of what Brian seems to feel. Top heavy with Gardner, M Robinson, Miller, Christian--then it starts dropping off.

I know, I KNOW stars an recruiting services, player rankings, and all the other things used to gauge recruiting are now out the window when it comes to judging Michigan recruiting. Now the only thing seems to be some gray-area "I trust the coaches" kind of thingy.

I'm OK with that--yes, a lil bit of cognitive dissonance, but we seemed to have some good results with Vincent Smith and Roy Roundtree, so I can roll with Rondriguez knowing what he's doing. But I DO believe he likes to keep players on the bench for awhile and I just don't know if he has the luxury to take his time with player development.

But at some point you got to go with raw numbers and have SOME way to look at the class--and most of the numbers indicate this is a class you'd really (so far) just like to pass out redshirts to every one of them. But no can do.

My hope is that we see the improvement from Year 1 to Year 2 we were all hoping for in 2009 come to fruition between Year 2 and Year 3 so this class can be brought along slowly and developed the way I think RR likes to.


December 18th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^

How can you claim the staff should get a D- for the tight ends when they needed exactly ZERO in this recruiting cycle?

Actually, I'll pick another. Your offensive line analysis is ridiculous. 4 scholarship lineman remain from the 2008 class, and 3 more were brought in in the 2009 class. Also, 5 preferred walk-ons remain from the 2009 class.

This is why the analysis, at this time, is absurd. If Rich Rod later decides to bring in 5 more preferred walk-ons on the offensive line, that means that he has brought in 18 candidates for offensive linemen in the past 3 cycles, and your argument is completely void. And what if Torrian Wilson switches?

Wait - I'll pick another. Your comments in the WR section are really weird. Jerald Robinson is a four-star, and Ricardo Miller was highly rated and highly recruited until he committed early and then moved to Michigan. His talent hasn't evaporated. Way to definitively label a class of athletes months before they even set foot on campus. None of us has any idea how they'll turn out, but my guess is that they'll perform better than you are giving them credit for.

I recommend posting this in March next time, when you have a clear picture of the 2010 class.

Simi Maquoketa

December 18th, 2009 at 9:19 AM ^

He has multiple disclaimers in there about the time frame and it being a slow week and he's impatient.

So sorry that he dared to question The Mighty Godriguez in your presence.

Now, how can you claim zero need at tight end? Koger and Webb will be at least juniors next year (not sure on Webb), and Brandon Moore has yet to see the light of day. Koger and Webb showed strange cases of butterfingers last year, and both were non factors most of the season. Zero need? Only if RR reverts to WVU form and the tight end becomes nothing more than a blocking position.

And why blast him on his offensive line evaluation when we're down to 13 scholarship players and bringing in only one this year SO FAR? You might be thinking that walk ons are great (inlcuding the five you imagined for this year as some sort of argument against the OP), but let's not set those walk ons up for photo shoots as starters just yet.

I still find it amazing that when someone poses questions that don't tow the company line, they get blasted. But when someone posts something like, "Wowie! Rich Rod is doing great!" no one says, "Now wait just a minute. Let's see how this works out!"


December 18th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^

I don't know what "tow the company line" means when it comes to football recruiting.

What I do know is that I can't wait to watch all these guys play. I'm not going to label them busts if they're not performing at "five star status" by the midseason of their freshman year. I'm going to wait three or four years until I determine whether they were good enough to play at Michigan, not negative seven weeks before they actually sign to play at Michigan.


Simi Maquoketa

December 18th, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^

As much as you are being sensitive. This class is full of fair to middling prospects. Even BRIAN "judged" Dick Ash as a "moderate prospect."

Of course, YOU are free to tell us that Mike Jones and Brandon Hawthorne are going to easily fill Stevie Brown's spot because they "are faster and hit harder"--despite the fact that neither have played.

You're simply guilty of getting pissed off at a guy because he disagrees with you.

Shit, just admit it. I do it all the time.


December 18th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^

wow chill out! i do agree with you about the TE situation, no real need there so not worth getting a grade.

i think his analysis of the Oline was pretty accurate, althou i suppose the grade was slightly low. having RR bring in 5 preferred walkons at Oline is not exactly gonna put my mind at ease. The fact is that the Oline is probably the hardest position to predict, so having numbers is always important. and while walkons do contribute to numbers, i would at least like some guys with potential upside.

as for the WRs, i think his analysis was spot on. I dont see a major contributor in the class. Everyone can point to ricardo millers offers and say that his meh rating must reflect that anti-michigan conspiracy where all michigan commits are either ignored post commitment or they are graded down. notice that there are guys still in the top 150 that were committed way before miller did. the fact is that he attended several camps over the summer, and he was evaluated as having good size, but avg speed and poor agility.

as for the overall grade, i think it was pretty fair althou my reasoning is really based on the fact that im not at all satisfied with the LB recruits. That was a position where walkons and inexperienced sophomores challenged for starting spots. were losing our best LB in stevie brown, and i dont see a worthy starter currently on the roster. althou there may be some talent and potential in the recruits that we got, none seem like viable options at this point. if i could have chosen one position where we got a superstar recruit, it would have been for one of the two ILB positions...and we didnt even get a 4 star LB (unless your counting mrobinson) .


December 18th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^

regarding the linebackers, no matter who was brought in, ezeh, mouton, fitzgerald, leach, demens and isaiah bell would be in front of them in 2010. And frankly, I expect all those guys to be solid in 2010 in their second year in Robinson's system (none of these guys have gotten a second year in a defensive system since 1997, if they were here).

And if Josh Furman commits tomorrow, there is your high quality linebacker. Don't forget about Ken Wilkins and Kinard, if he qualifies.

As for replacing Stevie Brown, Brandin Hawthorne and Mike Jones will play the position just fine - they are faster and harder hitters than Brown.

As for the WRs, Jerald Robinson is a 4 star, just like Je'ron Stokes was last year. Ricardo is better than you give him credit for.

Why pre-judge all these guys before they get the chance to contribute? Thank goodness the Internet wasn't around in 1987 - I could only imagine the comments: "Boy this Grbac guy just isn't good enough, he's only a three star. And gosh, I just don't see a contributor with these wide receivers - Desmond Howard, Derrick Alexander and Walter Smith? I'm really unimpressed with their video and their pad levels."


December 18th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^

if this class pans stays exactly the way it is projected, i'd consider it a solid class. and honestly, we need some of those. lloyd's final few classes were heavy on getting a couple big stars each year and then nothing behind that. i'll gladly take a bunch of solid contributors and maybe 1 superstar (DG) at this point. we need depth everywhere and we're not realistically at the UF or USC level where we just stockpile 4 and 5 star guys for depth. i think the coaches have done a good job of recruiting for need, too, based on the system they want to run.

at this point, i'm willing to trust the coaches' evaluations. no one they have brought in has been a bust yet. any underachievers on the team were inherited, so until we start seeing tons of disappointments out of RR's recruiting classes, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt (which i'm sure lets him sleep easy at night).


December 18th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^

I'd be extremely happy with this class finishing out that way. But I consider a spectacular class to be something akin to what Texas, Florida, USC, and Alabama have raked in the last few years. I don't expect us to be able to do that right now, obviously, since we aren't winning. Maybe solid was a poor choice of adjectives.

The real point I was trying to make is that outside of Gardner and Christian (and Parker if he commits), the class is made up of a bunch of seemingly solid, but not necessarily spectacular guys. And that's fine - we need contributions from everyone in these next few classes (all teams do, but us especially right now). I'll take 25 solid contributors with no superstars over 3 superstars and a bunch of other middling performers, which is more in line with what we'd gotten out of Lloyd's last few classes. And please note, I'm not trying to infer we won't get any superstars out of this class.

Bottom line, if we pull in a top 10-15 class this year, RR's done a great job of recruiting. Even if we don't get that high, I still think we're getting a bunch of guys that can help the team win.


December 21st, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^

"I'll take 25 solid contributors with no superstars over 3 superstars and a bunch of other middling performers, which is more in line with what we'd gotten out of Lloyd's last few classes."

I'm not sure that I follow your logic regarding Lloyd's "middling" performers, at least as it pertains to recruiting classes. Here's a breakdown of the last six recruiting classes by Scout (three for RR and three for Lloyd). 2010 is still pending. 2008 is a "shared" class.

5 Stars 4 Stars 3 Stars National Rank
2010 1 5 14 18
2009 2 7 11 14
2008 1 14 8 6
2007 2 12 4 10
2006 5 5 7 9
2005 2 12 8 2

Lloyd didn't have fewer than double digit 4 and 5 stars in a class. RR hasn't hit double digits yet (except for 2008 which was shared with Lloyd).

You mentioned "performers" which is obviously different than recruiting but you can't really tag Lloyd with the performance of current juniors and seniors because he hasn't been coaching them. For example, Jonas Mouton was a five star recruit. Is it Lloyd's fault that he hasn't lived up to that level of expectation as an upperclassmen?

I'm not trying to throw RR under a bus (although I'll get the inevitable negs), I'm just saying that the overall raw talent of recruiting classes has not been what it was in the past. More importantly, it doesn't appear to be keeping pace with PSU and OSU. There's a reason that OSU has won the Big Ten five consecutive times and a lot of it has to do with the fact that they have had better players than the other teams. That trend hasn't been reversed.

There are situations where two and three stars beat four and five stars, WVU over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl for example. However, it seems to me that was more of an alignment of stars. For a team to remain consistently competitive at a high level year over year, you're going to need some high end stars complemented with a boatload of four stars. Then you need to coach them up to their potential. The jury is definitely still out in that regard.

Anyway, the whole discussion about this recruiting class will be pretty pointless for the next two to three years.

Block M

December 18th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^

I'm excited for this class simply based on the fact that we're coming off 2 consecutive losing seasons and these players are coming in wanting and knowing that they can contribute. Whether there reason is the fact that its Michigan football (and who wouldn't want to suit up in that beautiful Winged Helmet) or they see improvement and want to contribute to that, I don't care. The fact that they want to play and win at U of M makes me excited for this class. And I'll trust the coaches that there is plenty of talent in this group to bring us back to what we're all used to...GO BLUE!!!


December 18th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^

When I put this together I struggled with how to handle star ratings. On the one hand I think they're overblown. But then if you read the Dr. Saturday piece on star rankings below you see that there is pretty strong correlation:


So the fact that we have few highly ranked guys is cause for concern....to some extent. So I took that into account in some cases but I also focused a lot on depth. One of the biggest issues with the team the past two years is a lack of depth. So I'm going to be somewhat critical if we don't address that.

I have a theory that we didn't see the collapse coming these past two years because there was so much talent on the 2006 team in the junior and senior class that we didn't realize that the guys behind them (that should have been carrying the team these past two years) were a huge downgrade. We woefully neglected DB and OL recruiting at the end of Carr's tenure. Rodriguez did a decent job of addressing that but was beset by bad luck (Turner's late arrival, Cissoko falling apart, two LB not making it to campus, etc.).

With that being said, I was hard on the OL and TE because of a lack of bodies. We don't need a TE in 2010 on the field, but we're going to need one in the years after that. We may not need an OL on the field in 2010 or maybe 2011, but we need depth. RR did sign 9 guys the past two classes, but one of those is still recovering from a major car crash and two others have defected.

So maybe it makes sense to avoid signing OL and TE in this class when there are other needs elsewhere and maybe that was the right decision. So maybe I should have said "INC" instead.


December 18th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^

I personally LOVE the walk-on program that Rodriguez has created. I think it is great. I like having preferred walk-ons at a variety of positions, I like the open try-outs, and I like success stories like Kovacs.

But I don't really want to hear anyone tell me that we don't have to worry about OL depth because of all the preferred walk-ons we've signed. I am a believer that the OL and defensive front seven define the success of your team (hence why Matt Millon was a terrible GM). Having OL walk-ons is nice but the odds of more than one of those guys turning into a viable starter is really low.

I do think OL (along with Safety and MLB) is a position where it is harder to assign star rankings because intelligence plays more of a factor. But preferrered walk-ons are not a substitute for actual scholarship prospects at this position. Thus I'm going to ding this class for signing only one guy to a scholarship.


December 18th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^

Next year's possible first string:

Omameh - Schilling - Molk - Huyge - Lewan

Next year's possible second string:

Dorrestein - Mealer - Khoury - Barnum - Washington - Schofield - Pace

Next year's possible third string is where any preferred walk-ons would be found. I don't have any problem with that. And if one guy becomes a contributor, again, that's to Rich Rod's credit.

willis j

December 18th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^

too many of us want these impact freshman to come in and start right away. But the reality is that most of these guys will take 2-3 years before they start contributing on a regular basis and it seems like some people think of that as a bad thing. That is the way it is though, most recruits dont start as a freshmand and contribute heavily right away.

I personally hope that the talent returning on the team is good enough so that these guys dont have to play right away. And there is talent at all positions on the team. It will just depend on how those guys pan out.


December 18th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^

"shiny new toy" syndrome. Fans are always inordinately excited by the prospect of new recruits who are currently the "big dogs" in H.S. and tend to forget that these high school "studs" will be pee-on freshman next year playing against 21-23 year old men.


December 18th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^

You like most of us always wants what is best for Michigan. We love to hear about the impact freshman. But we have to look at the freshman like stocks. We just hope what we invested in pays off, and sometime you get a split on your return and hit a homerun. Freshman are the foundaion for the program. But in the same breath if they can come in and compete for the job, then so be it. I have no loyality to upper classmen. I think whoever is the better player at that position should get it. I agree 100% with willis j. The talent returning on the team shoud be good enough.


December 18th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^

but did not seem to get much "love" from the OP are: Tony Grimes and Tony Drake.

I'll concede that I was very "meh" about Drake when it was first announced that he committed to UM, but after seeing his film, I think he will be an excellent RB/slot much like Jock Sanders at WVU.

Grimes is actually pretty well regarded by at least one of the "Big 3" recruiting sites and the "insider buzz" about him is pretty positive.

I also have a serious man crush on Josh Furman already. I am just not sure what position he will play and I think he will need at least one year to bulk up before he will be able to contribute.


December 18th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^

I once saw Nick Saban (omg we all hate him!) being interviewed. While he may be a horrible person he is a hell of a coach. His theory as to the most important positions was that the OL, DL and LB are by far and away the most 3 important positions.

Next he explained how the biggest difference between most players down South (Florida, GA, MS, LA, TX and a little CA) and the ones from other areas of the country is the combination of size and speed of DL and LB.

I had never thought about it before and while I do find it a little worrysome that we are recruiting smaller DT's, I think its important to remember we can always bulk em up, but you cannot teach speed. As my favorite high school football coach always said, "god gave you (k)wheels, now go on and use them son."

Clarence Beeks

December 18th, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^

"I don’t think that Jones will ever see the field as a QB and I suspect he’ll just get buried on the depth chart whenever he switches to WR. But when you’re recruiting basically your 4th string QB this is the type of high-risk guy you go after."

I just don't get where this "Conelius Jones to WR" stuff is coming from. He's not going to play QB, he's not going to play WR, he's going to play DB, probably safety. It is literally unbelievable to me how the comments by about two people have shaded so many people's perspective on what is going to happen with him. He's a much better athlete than most everyone here gives him credit for. I've repeated this several times in other threads, but you have to remember that this kid has only played two years of organized football. Which means that he hasn't been going to camps for years and years like other players have been and thus hasn't had the same exposure to the recruiting services that most other players have. He's not a "high-risk guy". I'm very confident that he'll be a great contributor to this program by the time that he's done.


December 21st, 2009 at 10:35 AM ^

I agree with your comments and player assessments. however,
the acquisition of an all-star QB should give extra value because in theory he makes everybody else better. As a result, I would give the offense a B. The lack of a strong MLB is so damaging that I would downgrade to a C+. Those good DBs will have to make too many TD saving tackles.


December 21st, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^

I think TE should be "incomplete". Michigan had little to no intent of picking up here.

I think that the OL rating is low, considering we have Pace, who will be very good and a perfect addition to last year's class.

The ninja slot position has the very shifty Drake coming in, and a redshirt Gallon that I personally can't wait to see now that he is probably in shape.


December 25th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^

comments and analysis on the recruits, but looking at the roster filled with sophomores, freshmen, redshirt freshmen, and the incoming class, I hope everyone realizes RR is going to need more than next year to get this turned around. If the new AD gets rid of RR after next year for whatever reason, this whole thing will blow up and could take years to recover. By the way, RR is doing a good job of recruiting for the record he has posted the last 2 years, I give him credit for that.