3-star Speedy Smurf Recruiting Tactic

Submitted by AC1997 on September 19th, 2008 at 11:56 PM

There have been some discussions on this and other blogs lately regarding whether or not Rich Rodriguez has signed too many small, speedy, three-star athletes. I've been thinking about this lately and had a few thoughts. I think this topic has softened some since we just signed two stud defensive ends, but outdated as it may be I'll post it anyway.

  1. First of all, the change in offensive philosophy requires a collection of athletes that weren't already on the roster. Therefore we need to stock the cupboards and signing a bunch of them in these first two classes is important.
  2. I think too much has been made of the class size, which is becoming apparent. Originally we all thought the class would be 17-18 players. Now we're seeing that the available scholarships have grown. With a couple of more unexpected departures before next season the total number will be around 22-24. Therefore it is easier to afford a few spots reserved for the smurf-like track stars.
  3. There is no way the coaching staff is going to turn away 5-star recruits if they come knocking on their door. Even without resorting to Saban-like tactics they'll find room in the recruiting class.
  4. Not too long go a discussion was sparked on www.umhoops.com about whether the basketball team should sign mid-level recruits or save scholarships for the hope of future high-level recruits. My feelings on that subject are the same as with the football team - you don't "save" scholarships for the hope of the 5-star recruit the next year. There will always be spots available in the next class. You fill the scholarships you have available, you keep the depth chart full, and you take a gamble on the occassional underrated prospect.

I don't have any problem with the recruits that have been signed so far. I am wondering how the situation is going to shake out at running back with McGuffie and Shaw seeming to have it locked up for four years. I'm also wondering whether how the staff will approach recruiting the following year when they've establish more of a presence and have the ability to recruit the five-star variety early in the process - will they actively pursue that or will they settle for system guys that are less heralded?

Comments

Farnn

September 20th, 2008 at 12:35 AM ^

One more thing to consider, is that a lot of the smaller 3* types are under-ranked for the system they are coming into. They are being looked at as if they are going to play in a more traditional offense. Additionally, many of them would be 4/5*s if they were a few inches taller and added 20 pounds or so.

Sommy

September 20th, 2008 at 5:06 AM ^

Is anyone actually complaining about the number of 3-star guys? It seems to me like the number of 3-star guys we have right now is about the same as an average Carr class, or even slightly less. One is a kicker. Seems fine to me.

turbo cool

September 20th, 2008 at 8:33 AM ^

this has been talked about and debated at least 2983467538947 times. and i can't tell if you are even being serious at this point. try not to lose sleep over this. as stated by Sommy, the number of 3* recruits really isn't any different from the Lloyd era, it's just that a lot of these guys are at the RB position. you just have to realize that the RB position is a bit more dynamic under richrod than it was with Lloyd. When we recruit RB's, that means that they are RB/slot WR/all around multi-purpose athletes. and as well as as McGuffie is playing (i personally love the guy already), he is far from locking up the position already with Shaw. under richrod there will be consistent competition at the RB position with respect to new guys coming in every year.

Chrisgocomment

September 20th, 2008 at 11:10 AM ^

Despite the change in offensive philosophy, you've got to love this class so far. RR can really recruit. Do either of the websites (Rivals, Scout)rank the classes as the year goes on? If so where is Michigan?

Chrisgocomment

September 20th, 2008 at 11:47 AM ^

Well, then why are people bitching?  I mean, if you can at least stay in the same ballgame as USC, OSU and Florida (top 10) then you should be happy.  At least Michigan's not like West Virginia pulling in a class ranked like 40th.  JEEEZZZZZZZ.

Plus, and I truly believe this, Lloyd's teams always performed under their capablities.  I think RR can maximize his talent.

The Barking Sp…

September 20th, 2008 at 11:59 AM ^

This argument has been raging on Scout for awhile now. The Bigs there have shed some light on the rankings. Although it sounds a bit rationalistic, here it is:
The rankings are somewhat political. They say that the services keep in mind that there are tons of players in certain regions (like the south) with far more talent than other regions. The talent in those richer regions is in such quantities that you can't give them all higher rankings because the stars have to be spread out over the country. Yes, it seems they give consideration to subscribers in all parts of the country by making sure players from all regions are ranked, and this apparently comes at the expense of the south in general, and in particular places like Florida and Texas.
Another part of that philosophy is that a three star from Texas or Florida is equivalent to a four star from say Indiana or Michigan, and then some in many cases. They say that if a kid is a three star in the midwest, he is pretty much a three star and unless he has a "high celing" that isn't noticeable, you pretty much get what you see.
But for kids from the south, they argue that the "ceiling" is a lot higher, and you shouldn't put too much credence in their ranking.

PattyMax64

September 21st, 2008 at 12:45 AM ^

That may sound like a crappy guy, but how else would you describe Jason Avant?  One of the most underrated positions in all of football is the possession receiver.  Its an asset to have a kid who will catch any ball thrown to him.  I wouldn't mind having a possession receiver or two on our roster.  Its not always about speed.

Maize4Blue

September 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 AM ^

Why do people say McGuffie and Shaw have locked up the starting job for the next 4 years when it's only been 3 games into the season. Do you really want to go all Mike Hart and have absolutely no one behind them to run the ball when they get hurt? Bring on the speed.