Reverse Engineering Recruiting Needs via 2017 Depth Chart

Submitted by alum96 on January 8th, 2015 at 6:35 AM

Do not read if you only care about the next 2 years - Michigan football will be a veteran group.  However, due to the disaster class of 2010 and resulting imbalanced classes the 2017 squad could be among the youngest we've seen in a while.  Hence the 2015 and 2016 classes will be critical to make 2017 (2018) a success; we need both the correct positions filled, and a great majority of those players to "hit".

Below is a table showing each position and who on the current roster + the six 2015 commits fits into those positions (excluding kickers).  As I was doing my position by position analysis for 2015-2016 I unfortunately noticed some serious "donut holes" (i.e. upperclassmen not followed by a bevy of underclassmen) in quite a few spots, bringing up some similar worries to the 2013-2014 OL situation.

Per the MGo depth chart here is how many openings we currently have in each recruiting class  (of course there will be attrition to increase the #s) but it showcases the massive departures post 2016.

  • 2015:  12 (this assumes both Glasgows and Kerridge get scholarships as they should and accounts for Bosch/Ferns departues) - 6 spots are already filled
  • 2016:  17
  • 2017:  26(!)
  • 2018: 18

Put another way 43 (17+26) current scholarship players will use up eligibility by the end of 2016.  That's 50% of the roster - and it's not far away.  Hence a very young 2017 squad.  Normally it would be something closer to 38-42%.

Again reverse engineering:

  • A 2015 recruit will be either be a true JR or RS SO in 2017 - that's fine, but currently we only have room for 12 of them and 1 is a kicker. 
  • A 2016 recruit will be either a true SO or RS FR in 2017, not ideal for front line starter especially for line play or places like safety. 

So a lot of the 2015 and 2016 recruits will be playing in 2017 with those class designations just due to vacancies.

Position # Need Players
QB 2 Average Speight, Malzone
RB 1 Urgent T. Isaac
FB 1 Above Ave W. Shallman
WR 6 Average J. Dukes, R. Douglas, F. Canteen, 
      D. Harris, M. Ways, B. Cole
TE 2 Above Ave K. Hill, I. Bunting
OT 5 Average M. Cole, C. Fox, LTT, JBB, G. Newsome
OG 3 Above Ave D. Dawson, D. Samuelson, J. Runyan
C 1 Above Ave P. Kugler
DT 1 Urgent M. Hurst
NT 2 Urgent B. Mone, B. Pallante
DE 2 Urgent H. Poggi, L. Marshall
LB 4 Above Ave M. McCray, C. Winovich, N. Furbush,
       J. Wangler
CB 3 Above Ave R. Dawson, J. Peppers, B. Watson
S 1 Urgent T. Kinnel

Surprising areas of concern - DTs and RBs.

  • I've been in the camp that this class is so small we don't need a RB.  I was wrong.  We have 1 - count him - 1 RB on the roster for 2017.  You need 3 to account for injuries and competition.  Due to small class size can only take 1 this year but we probably need 2 next year to account for 1 of those 3 not "hitting". 
  • Our DTs are loaded for 2015-2016.  But they almost all go away by end of 2016.  For some reason we were not recruiting this position under Hoke for the 2015 class.  (Swim lanes Brady! Swim lanes!)  Do we really want RS FR or true SO starters on the interior of the line? It's not ideal - we've been overpowered there so often the past 2 years.  We need a 2015 DT who will be a true JR or RS SO in 2017.  And the 2016 class of DTs - probably 3 of them - will be primary backups even as true SO or RS FR.  This all assumes Mone doesn't blow up the next 2 years and goes pro.  In that case, well it gets worse.

 

Major areas of concern - S and DE, CB*

  • No surprise on the DEs.  With the misses of Hand, McDowell (who is probably more of a DT down the road), and now Roseboro we are thin in 2015 (4 DEs on roster), and very thin in 2016 (3).  An urgent need for both the 2015 AND 2016 recruiting classes.
  • S is scary.  Again boggling why we stopped recruiting Montae Nicholson.  At this point Kinnel is starting in 2017 no matter how good he is and his running mate at the other S is a blank space.  If we don't have room for a 2nd safety in 2015 it will be a true SO or RS FR from 2016's class next to Kinnel - ugh. Assuming Kinnel is not a miss.  And those 2 guys will be backed up by solely class of 2016 guys in 2017.  The first solution coming to mind is "convert some corners" - well we don't have any to convert - we are thin at corner too! 
  • CB* - I am placing this here because of the increased reliance on 3 CB defensive sets... and Peppers.  If Peppers leaves for the NFL you basically have 2 CBs - Brandon Watson and Reon Dawson.  For 3 spots (incl a nickelback).  That math doesn't work.  We need 5 to account for flameouts and injuries.  We will be young herein 2017 - again.

 

Hate to say it but some attrition in the next few weeks would do the balance of the depth chart between years some good in the long term.

Ignoring names here is what is most urgent in the 2015 class in the remaining 6 slots.  I am creating an "up to" 9 slots for an "up to" 15 person class, assuming "up to"3 attritions from here.  I mean we are not going to say no to Clark and TE is a need but in the big picture unfortunately we have needs even greater than TE (not that TE is not a need, we only have 2 of those in 2017)

  1. S #2 (S #1 is Kinnel)
  2. DE #1 (was Roseboro)
  3. DT #1
  4. CB #1 (was Taylor or Crawford)
  5. RB #1 (was Weber)
  6. LB #1 (was Kirkland Jr)
  7. CB #2 (was Taylor or Crawford)
  8. DE #2
  9. Best available player - Clark

*No room for a 2nd OG - this means Dawson, Samuleson Runyan are your only choices for 2 starters in 2017 unless we have a RS FR starting from the 2016 class.  Not preferred. 

*No room for a 2nd LB to provide competition and account for injuries and flameouts.  So the 2016 LBs - true SO or RS FR will be at minimum key backups.  People want to convert Furbush to fix the DE issue but we have a LB issue too - 4 guys for 3 slots. 

*No room for a center so if Kugler is a flameout or is hurt not sure what we do here - you would normall say "convert a guard" but we only will have 3 of those so it's a class of 2016 RS FR or true SO backing up Kugler.

*No room for a FB on a manball team.  In theory you could get a walkon in 2015 but for now it's Shallman backed up by a class of 2016 FB in 2017.

The curse of the 2010 class continues to haunt us.

Comments

AnthonyThomas

January 8th, 2015 at 6:50 AM ^

Wouldn't half of any current team ideally be out of eligibility within a two-year timeframe?

While we certainly will be young at some spots, I guess my point is that a three year projection is going to look thin regardless of what program you're looking at.  

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 7:03 AM ^

No.

Due to redshirts.

If you redshirted everyone (obviously won't happen at a school like UM) and you had no attrition you basically divide 85/5 = 17 a year.

You'd lose 34 of your 85 or 40% of your roster over a 2 year time frame.  While the difference between 40% and 50% doesnt sound like a lot that is 8.5 players a year.  (insert joke about 0.5 player here).  That's basically a third of your starting unit you lose 1 year too early.

Again that is more of a MSU or Wisconsin roster - OSU and  UM tend to play more freshman but still your variance would be closer to 19-22 players a year.

MLaw06

January 8th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^

I think it depends on the position.  Redshirting the majority of your linemen is quite typical (so that they can catch up in terms of size and skill to the veteran players), whereas, redshirting your skill players is not necessary so long as they can play at that elite level.  Therefore, you can pick up a stud RB and play him right away, whereas you can't just fill in freshmen OL (except for Mason Cole, but even that wasn't ideal). 

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 7:09 AM ^

Didn't think about it that way until you mentioned it but that class seemed cursed no matter what coach brought it in in terms of how they dispersed.

Bigger picture we need to get these recruiting classes more in balance.  We can't do a 12 person class and then 2 years later a 26 person class (which by the time we get there with attrition might be a 28-29 person class).   It's going to create a constant cycle of this every few years.

And if Ferns and Bosch had stuck around it would have been 10 vs 26. 

WineAndSpirits

January 8th, 2015 at 7:31 AM ^

Does the 27 person class assume 5th year seniors?

If so, isn't it possible that some of these kids will matriculate early? If so, how many could be spread between 2016 and 2017?

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 7:46 AM ^

Yes it does. 

Here is the link. 

http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-depth-chart-class-0

The vast majority of the 2016 guys are actually key contributors as they needed to be due to the vacancies the 2010 class created in 2012-2015.  But I see 3-4 names that would fit what you speak of.  Some of those may also decide to transfer if football is more important to them as they are getting negligible to no playing time.

This would help shift some of that 2017 class to 2016.

jbibiza

January 8th, 2015 at 8:26 AM ^

Nice work. Several of us have been noting these looming donut holes in posts, but the majority of the board seemed oblivious (Bolivian?). The OL situation for 2018 is particularly glaring as we have effectively only taken one last year and so far only two in this class. That means only 3 (!) OL in 2018 not including the '16 and '17 classes. We need four this year to get the pipline in order.

Fortunately, it looks like attrition for lack of PT will increase the sizes of both this class and the next one beyond what is normal.

Realus

January 8th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^

A good a place to reply as any.  It is absolutely silly to blame this on the RR or even the 2010 class.  Why not blame the 2007 class as well?

The blame falls squarely on Hoke. He obviously wasn't thinking about 2017 just a lot more about 2015 and 2016.  Why would he?  His record was simply, get a HC job, get one good year in and then get a new HC job.

Part of being a HC is deciding how many of each position to recruit each year.  You might have some flexibiity here, but maybe not a lot, especially if you don't have a lot of RS players.  Due to the 2010 class, it might have been more challenging for Hoke, but he wasn't up to this challenge either.  

 

jmdblue

January 9th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^

Hoke filled his classes.  Period.  He had to in order to fill the huge talent deficit he inherited. He had those openings in his first 2 years due to imbalance and the imbalance was due to RR's troubles + transition.  I'm not at all worried about the imbalance.  Yes it will be a problem for 1 or 2 classes of the upcoming 4-5 year recruiting cycle, but things will return to normal by the end of that single cycle.  Why?  

1) Harbaugh doesn't have the talent deficit Hoke did and won't need to completely fill a 25 or 27 kid class.  He'll be able to save a few to get things back to normal

2)If he does take a 25 to 27 man class it will suffer larger attrition than normal as competion will be stronger and more guys will transfer looking for playing time.  

3) more kids from a large class will redshirt (again due to class size) spreading a larger percentage of that large class into 2 years of graduation attrition in the following cycle

I'd guess within 6 years we'll have largely balanced numbers going forward.  No worries.  Harbaugh.

 

Jkidd49

January 8th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^

of all the positions listed only 3 even qualify as "average" need.. this would indicate to me that there aren't any area's than have "no need"?  So with a fixed and common roster number for all teams I am wondering how UM could seemingly have no depth anywhere on the roster?

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^

Well average is average.  It's not a bad thing; it's just going along on pace as it should - QBs (although I think Jim will bring on 2 in 2016 not 1 so we'll have 4 competing), WRs and tackles for example have a supply of younger guys coming in, in various classes to give you a healthy mix of young guys competing once the upperclassmen leave. 

If we had a more normalized distribution of players across classes you'd add back about 6 players who would be JRs/SRs in 2017.  That would have alleviated the issue in many position groups - for example LB, TE and probably CB. 

Areas like S and RB are just circumstances of so many players coming in together at once while the guys a year ahead of them got RS so they are leaving en masse and we havent recruited much behind them.  I am not super worried about RB in terms of performance because as long as we get competent bodies in there its a position group you can excel at very young - look at OSU.  S on the other hand I  hate seeing underclassmen play it - too much responsibility.

An area such as DE is just a few recruiting misses plain and simple and not having a backup plan.  And Tom Strobel was a well thought of mid 4 star with nice offer sheet who should have been helping to fill the gap in that group - and just was a miss.

 

Ziff72

January 8th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^

To see what shape we are really in I think you need to do a comparison of Ohio St, MSU, ND and maybe a few outsiders like FSU, Oregon and maybe 2 a tier below like Clemson and Georgia to see if everyone has similar concerns or were in worse shape.

EGD

January 8th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

This is nice work, alum, but I look at this situation a bit differently. In my view, 2017 is far enough away that you can recruit a developmental player in 2015 and have a reasonable expectation that you'll get production out of that player by the time you need him. It's not difficult for M to find developmental recruits. What's more difficult is when you have a hole that needs to be filled immediately, either because you didn't recruit the position earlier or because of attrition or underperformance. In that scenario, you can't get away with developmental recruits--you need guys who can come in and contribute immediately as true freshmen. Those kinds of players are obviously much less common and much more difficult to sign. With that in mind, the only spots that really concern me are QB and DE--and it's not so much because of depth, but because we haven't gotten production from the existing players and may need freshmen to come in and have an impact in 2015.

UMaD

January 8th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^

The 2015 class needs to hit on a couple immediate needs (DE and QB) and then after that it mostly just needs to fit the typical balanced class. 

Remaining needs:

1 - TE

1 - OL

1 - DL

1 - DE/OLB

1 - LB

1 - CB

1 - DB

 

Given it's class size, Michigan needs to take a best-player available attitude.  If Weber wants to come -- you absolutely let a bigger need go unfilled and take him, because nothing is really that pressing right now (other than DE).

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^

Not sure how one can read this and not be concerned with a position like S.

Kinnel is literally the only guy who will be here in 2 years.  We are going to need to need to get some combination of 3 guys (converted HS CBs or Ss) in the 2015 and 2016 classes just to create a 2 deep at S in 2017.  That assumes all 4 are viable players and none get injured.  We literally have nothing right now there but 1 commit.

Our 2016 secondary is going to be ALL underclassmen assuming the 2015 recruits RS which I assume they will.

Corner is only slightly less worrisome.  If Peppers goes to the draft after 2016 we have 3 secondary players on the entire roster inclusive of this year's commits.

 

EGD

January 8th, 2015 at 3:02 PM ^

For 2016, I don't agree that our secondary will all be underclassmen.  In fact, I think it's more likely that they will all be upperclassmen.  Lewis will be a senior (if he's still here), Strbling will be a senior, Peppers will be a junior (unless you want to classify him as a RS sophomore because of the likely medical RS), and we'll still have Dymonte Thomas (Sr.) and Delano Hill (Sr.) on the roster.  I am not expecting Reon Dawson to become a starter but he would be a RS Jr. that season.  The only way an underclassmen plays is if he beats out one of these guys--and if that happens then hells yes.

You are correct that, as of now, we don't have much left for 2017 (assuming Peppers leaves early).  But there are several ways to deal with that problem: (1) we could sign some kick-ass recruits in 2017 and play them as true freshman; (2) we could sign some very good recruits in 2016 and play them as sophomores or RS freshmen; or (3) we could sign some developmental recruits now and play them as RS sophomores.  More then likely, M will do a combination of these things.

alum96

January 10th, 2015 at 5:28 AM ^

"Our 2016 secondary is going to be ALL underclassmen assuming the 2015 recruits RS which I assume they will."

I typo'd that sentence. I meant 2017.  If Peppers goes we currently have 3 guys on the entire roster for 4 secondary spots.  And we play a lot of nickelback so that is 3 players for 5 starters.  Throw in 2-3 backups (1 S, 2 CB) and we have 3 players for 8 spots.  So we need 5 guys in the next 2 spots just to have a normal 2 deep.  And none can get hurt or flame out.  Or else we need 6-7.

I am assuming 1 of those spots will be a 2015 CB.  Andd then either a 2015 CB or S will be another.   So that would be 2 of the remaining 6 spots if we have no attrition in the 2015 class.  Doesn't leave us much for other recruits.

That still means a bunch of 2016 guys need to be recruited at that positions.  Not a fan of throwing true freshmen into CB or S.  Especially S.  I  know I am old fashioned in that regard apparently.

UMaD

January 8th, 2015 at 4:20 PM ^

Kinnel, Watson, Dawson, and Peppers are all versatile enough to project to either CB or Safety.

The 2015 class already has Kinnel and Cole.  BOTH of these guys could be safeties by 2017 for all we know.

They need more at DB, certainly, but they'd don't have to be Wilson/Clark types who aren't going anywhere else. Corner is just as big of a need, if not bigger than safety, and Corner is a position where you can play freshman or sophomores. This is a need that can be adressed in 2016.

That said, they should definitely add at least one more DB, so it should probably go on the NEED list along with DE and OL.

teldar

January 8th, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^

Suboptimal, yes, but I've thought it too, recently. I think what they need to do is simply not fill the class. Not take 5 they could get and carry those over to 2019 to even it somewhat. It would make the team a little thinner, but I think Harbaugh could handle it.

EGD

January 8th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

It's one thing to eat a scholarship if you wind up with one or even two spots in a class that you can't fill with a quality recruit.  But to not take five players is tantamount to imposing NCAA-style sanctions on your own team.  To maximize your chances for success, you need all 85 of your scholarships to be producing at all times (or as close to all times as possible).  If you have 27 spots open in a recruiting cycle, your goal should be to fill all 27.

BlueCube

January 8th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^

and we've had to make assumptions on Glasgow and a couple others.  Sam Webb mentioned today that new recruits, who have been offered after Bosch left, have been told there are 6 openings. Twelve appears to be correct number of scholarships currently.

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^

Yes that would coincide with the depth chart from MGo.  The silver lining is it's not much at all to fill in a month's time in a relative sense especiall if Lewis and Clark are 2 of those 6.  If a coaching change had happened in the 2017 class it could have set the program back half a decade.  Ugh.

There is just no way you don't give 2 starters scholarships.  Harbaugh is all about what you do on the field - the Glasgow brothers have done it on the field.  Doesnt matter where you start, it matters what you do when you get here.  It would be akin to pulling Kovacs scholarship his senior year and saying thanks, but we have a 4 star we want to give this to.  Kerridge also deserves his at this point.

What's amazing is if Ferns and Bosch had stayed and Funchess did not go to the NFL we'd have a 9 man class.  (at this moment - I still expect some attrition in the coming month)  That's absurd.

Anyhow I sound like chicken little and I realize this is way in the future but our 2017 team - especially the 2017 defense - is going to probably be the youngest in the nation in the Power 5 conferences.  Other than at LB any defensive players in the 2015 and 2016 recruiting classes are not only going to have a great chance to be on the 2 deep but has a great chance to start.  Now again OSU is sort of dealing with that this year - only their DL is experienced, their back 7 is very young.  But they have a ridiculous offense to offset that.  We need a ridiculous offense by 2017 ;)

UMaD

January 8th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

I very much agree that we need to focus beyond the next 2 years when recruiting.  Recruiting needs to be an exercise in exploring the depth chart 3-4 years out, just as much as 1-2 years out.  But it can't be JUST one or the other.

Picking one year (2017) and analyzing based on that is even more silly than just looking at 2015 or 2016, especially with all the uncertainty on the roster and certain attrition

Do we need RBs for 2017? -- yes.  But we can get them in the '16 and '17 class? Yes.  We can do that without sacrificing the next 1-2 years.

You have to take into consideration what scholarships would be wasted if applied in 2015.  A 2015 RB recruit won't touch the depth's chart top group and would likely be red-shirted -- typically a waste for RBs.  Then he'd again sit the bench in 2016.  So now you've spent two years worth of scholarship on a guy for marginal benefit. 

If we're talking about an OLmen -- this makes sense. He needs the seasoning.  A RB does not.

With the style of play Michigan wants OL and DL are the most critical positions and those happen to be the ones that take the most time to develop.  We need to lock those positions down, along with QB, before addressing a position that's already well stocked for the next 2 years and potentianlly a lead ball-carrier on the roster 3 years down the road.

 

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^

As someone else said "I am old fashioned".  Cole was an out of the blue outlier - the first true freshman tackle to ever start at Michigan.  Mone for all his great intangibles (and I love him long term) was a backup with 9 tackles.  I don't want true freshman on either line as a starter.  Counting on it to provide good outcomes is not a good thing.  So counting on the 2017 class to provide staters in 2017 is fool's gold. 

What position other than RB and CB do you really feel comfortable with a true freshmen being a top line starter?  You saw the struggles of Canteen out there at WR - he was lost.  Yes you can get by with 2-3 freshmen on an otherwise relatively veteran team but counting on the 2017 class on what will already be a young team to immediately step in, is pie in the sky thinking.  It's different to plug in 1 star freshman (or 2) surrounded by 7 upperclassmen.  The 2017 guys won't have that luxury.

Look to USC for an example of a bunch of 5 stars running around out there almost all underclassmen.  They are a solid team but nowhere near the class of Oregon.

UMaD

January 8th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^

Agree on OL -- freshman are a red-flag. 

On DL... well, it's not ideal generally, but there are a lot of guys who are physically ready to play right away, especially at DE.  Michigan hasn't had a great DE starter in a while but we've had instant contributers in the past and other schools do it all the time (e.g., Bosa).

I am by no stretch saying we should count on the 2017 class for starters at ANY position -- certainly not along the lines.  That's why I don't include a RB in my '15 class ideal -- I want more depth at OL and DL to ensure we have vet starters there a couple years down the line.

The Ducks are a pretty bad example - they use freshman and somphmore starters a lot.  I think their system allows them to do that more than Michigan will be able to.

 

TakMacYamada

January 8th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^

After looking at this depth chart analysis (as well as WMUKirk's posts on Durkin) does anyone else get the sense that we may begin shifting more towards a 3-4 base as opposed to a 4-3. 

I don't have a preference, but given the current state of the D-line (lack of outside speed rushers/heavy on athletic DT) it would make a certain amount of sense to make that shift. I think the only DE who really wouldn't fit would be Ojemudia, but he seems like he would also fit in nicely as a rush OLB. For that matter, I think Henry and Wormley would make a fantastic pair of 3-4 ends.

Given all of this, it seems like Durkin favors a 3-4 front and we would have the personel to run one. Thoughts?

UMaD

January 8th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^

We have a lot of good options at LB and great depth at DT while we have a glaring need at DE.

NT - Pipkins and Mone are big enough, and Glasgow probably good enough to play that role.

SDE - Wormley, Godin, and Poggi seem like better fits for the 3-4 or 4-3 under SDE role than for how they were used last year.

RLB - This is where we are lacking, but Ojemudia could slim down to regain some athleticism, and McCray or another OLB could bulk up.

 

alum96

January 8th, 2015 at 2:54 PM ^

I think the personnel works ok for a 4-3 this year on the DL - both Mario O and Charlton fit fine as traditional DEs.  But for 2016 yes it would be better for the DL perhaps (but do we have the LBs?), unless Marshall turns into a pass rushing demon right out of the box.  But even then we only have 3 guys for 2 spots and cannot absorb an injury really.  Unless you start sticking guys like Godin and Wormley out at the edge.  And at that point you might as well go 3-4.

The other issue with this thinking for 2016 is linebackers.  We have plenty for 2015 but lose Bolden, Ross III, RJS (not that he plays much), and Morgan.  That's a ton of depth taken out of the LB core for a potential 3-4 in 2016.  You return Gedeon, Gant, McCray and the younger guys.  Out of all those only Gedeon has played any serious minutes.  You'd be installing 3 new starters in a system they never played - and you need at least 2 primary backups.  There is only so much practice time. Depth doesn't seem to fit the LB core for that.

But if your ultimate goal is a 4-3 at Michigan long term not sure you make that change for just 1 year.  In 2017 you need everything on the DL.

 

 

Reader71

January 9th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^

The difference isn't as drastic as you would assume: almost no 3-4 team actually fields 4 LB-type LBs. One is almost always more of a typical DE. Think Woodley at Michigan and the Steelers, Suggs in Baltimore, Ware in Denver.

It is possible Harbaugh/Durkin have a "small" package featuring 4 LB, but most likely, the only difference in front would be the techniques they teach someone like Marshall - stand him up or put his hand in the dirt, but he is going to primarily be a rusher and edge setter no matter what.

I'm writing this as I'm doing something else, and it sounds like gibberish to me. Sorry. TL;DR: The difference in 3-4 and 4-3 isn't swayed so much by how many experienced players you have at DE vs. OLB, because a few guys will be tweeners in either system.

TakMacYamada

January 8th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

RLB- I think Ojemudia would be good and I just think we have the athleticism at LB to make this work. Or at least we have a better chance than we do to make our limited DE depth work. 

It also seems, in terms of future recruiting, that it's likely a little easier to find the 3-4 kind of players than it is to find the kind of dominant rush DE that helps make a 4-3 go. 

I'm not saying it has to be one or the other, but based on recent recruiting efforts we've had a lot more success bringing in 3 tech/3-4 DE type players than we have had finding rushers off the edge. 

I know everything is going to hybrid but more and more I kind of warm to the idea that this is a good way to help sort our both our current roster and our 2017 recruiting crunch.