Bryce McNeal

Submitted by TomVH on
Don't take too much stock in this. BUT, I have talked to a couple commits that said Bryce still has some interest in Michigan. He was at the Minnesota game, which I firmly believe he is only looking at Minnesota because he's from there, but there's not real strong interest. What I had reported earlier, and what he told me, was that he didn't think he would fit into our offensive style. With that being said, I'm thinking that seeing a more balanced attack against the Gophers might have peaked his interest again. He has changed his mind A LOT, and at one point Colorado was the leader, and another he listed Oregon, Penn State, Oklahoma, and Minnesota his top 4. This is not the only outside receiver we are going after either. So, I'm going to try to talk to him again, he's been shying away from talking with people lately. I think he's getting irritated with the process. But I will try to keep you updated. Again, don't hold your breath, but if we got him back would that be some kind of snake oil that we used on ourselves?
MGoBoard
Recruiting

WolvinLA

November 11th, 2008 at 12:34 PM ^

I don't want a guy who doesn't know 100% that he wants to go to Michigan and nowhere else. Cameron Gordon! Why does no one else like this kid? I really want him.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 1:10 PM ^

No offense, but this is such a stupid mindset. Not all good football players grow up as Michigan fans. They pick schools for a lot of reasons - academics, depth chart, weather, the coaches, the system, etc. - but many of them aren't 100% sure about ANYTHING. If you don't want a guy who doesn't know 100% that he wants to go to Michigan, then send Cissoko off to Illinois, let McGuffie go to Cal, etc., etc. You won't have many recruits left.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 1:17 PM ^

Also, Cameron Gordon is not as good as you think. He's a big, possession-type receiver (6'2", 210) with mediocre speed. We have enough of those with Clemons, Savoy, Mathews, Jeremy Jackson, etc. McNeal-for-Gordon is not a fair trade. McNeal's a big-play guy. If Michigan does end up offering Gordon, it will probably be as a safety or a linebacker.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

WolvinLA

November 11th, 2008 at 1:24 PM ^

Dammit. Once again I over estimate our ability to detect sarcasm. I thought enough people had made the "if he's not all michigan I don't want him" joke that I didn't need to type "(sarcasm)" after my post. My bad guys. That said, I'm not saying McNeal for Gordon is a good trade, but as it stands, we don't have McNeal. My point was that if McNeal doesn't happen, I think Gordon should be our first back-up. It would also help us out with Gardner. And you think we shouldn't offer him because we already have guys like him, namely Jeremy Jackson. This is where I stopped understanding.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

TomVH

November 11th, 2008 at 1:56 PM ^

Having Jeremy Jackson, Stonum, and Ricardo Miller will be a really good compliment to each of their styles. Ricardo can do everything, so put the other two on the outside, and go to work. Sneak the slot dots in there, and we'll look good.

Joined: 10/21/2008

MGoPoints: 16654

KRK

November 11th, 2008 at 2:09 PM ^

Magnus relax. He runs in the 4.5 range (fake?) and says that's his main point of improvement. Braylon was a big receiver, doesn't mean he's a "possession" guy. Nice name drop though on the "i know people" shit. Good thing that carries weight around here.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 5497

Aequitas

November 11th, 2008 at 2:16 PM ^

Perfect example, KRK. You could have saved me a long, irritated post if I'd read yours earlier. We don't want a big, slow possession receiver? How bout one of the best to ever play the position? Braylon Edwards. If a guy wants to be here, works his ass off and ends up 80% of what Bray turned out to be for us, I'd snap him up in a heartbeat.

Joined: 09/22/2008

MGoPoints: 718

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 2:29 PM ^

My point, which you obviously didn't catch, was that EVERYONE who has seen this guy play has realized that he's not a burner. It's not really a "name drop"; it's more of the idea that if film + scouting reports + people at his school = slow, then...well...that's what we call unanimous. I never said big receivers are automatically slow. There are numerous examples otherwise. Slow receivers are slow. Big receivers are big. Some are both. I say what I mean.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

WolvinLA

November 11th, 2008 at 1:45 PM ^

Sorry man. I was just trying to joke around, and I didn't expect to get a response. I'll lay off the sarcasm, you might want to look again before telling someone they have "such a stupid mindset." Honestly, I don't want any slow receivers, I guess I didn't realize that Gordon, or all those other guys, were so slow. I've heard a lot of buzz about the guys, and he's pretty highly rated by rivals, and since Brian pointed out that outside WR is a position of need, a 4-star guy in our backyard might be a good option. All I'm saying. He also looks like a guy who could play D if we get too many receivers.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 1:52 PM ^

The fact that you were being sarcastic about it means it is, in fact, a stupid mindset. Whether you're pointing it out by sarcasm or I'm pointing it out bluntly, it doesn't change the fact that it's stupid. Also, I'm not saying Clemons, Gordon, Jackson, etc. should be moved to guard. They're quality athletes. But they're not guys who are going to get separation. I might be okay with taking Gordon as a defensive player, but my reaction to McNeal is "whoa" and my reaction to Gordon as a WR is "okay, if we HAVE to."

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 2:12 PM ^

Is it suddenly my fault that you don't know Jeremy Jackson is a big possession receiver? Yeesh. This all started when somebody else said something undetectably sarcastic and I apparently misinterpreted due to the lack of intonation, facial cues, etc. Now all I'm saying is that I'm not infatuated by Gordon as a WR. I'm not the one who is overreacting.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 3:04 PM ^

I called his mindset stupid because his comment represented something that doens't make sense. A similar conversation: Man #1: "Obama can't be president. He's black." Man #2: "That's a stupid mindset." Man #1: "I was being sarcastic." Man #3: "You're stupid, Man #2. You're stupid for not knowing that Man #1 was being sarcastically racist." Man #2: "Oh, fuck."

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

WolvinLA

November 11th, 2008 at 2:02 PM ^

Captain critical. If we get an exciting outside receiver to commit, then awesome. No Gordon. But as it stands we don't have one. He would be the most exciting receiver in our class, by default. Since it's looking like a lot of the "whoa" guys are getting snatched up, and I don't want a class void of WR's, he's a good option. Wow, I don't even really like him that much; I really didn't expect this to go this far. But now I feel like I have to push for him.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

Aequitas

November 11th, 2008 at 2:11 PM ^

"The fact that you were being sarcastic about it means it is, in fact, a stupid mindset. Whether you're pointing it out by sarcasm or I'm pointing it out bluntly, it doesn't change the fact that it's stupid." I've talked about this with my brother, a lot. Though we disagree, neither of us refers to the other's point of view as a "stupid mindset". My take on it is that, especially during these rough transition, the last thing we needed is a slightly more talented player than the next guy, but one who has wandering eyes. We need to get players in here willing to work hard and buy in to the system with everything they have. RR has put in a scheme with hard-working, dedicated, less-skilled players in the past. If he can bring in some with more talent, good on him, but we can't have kids coming in while the program is truly going through some pain-wracked times only to bolt on us (like Mallett or Boren or the other quitters). If you can't see that this is more important now than it has been in the past, I'll agree to disagree with you. Not every kid who comes in here reluctantly turns into a contributing starter. Some of them leave or decommit late and either of those things, especially right now, would be 100x worse than taking a slightly slower kid willing to come here and work hard. And for what it's worth, RR isn't going to recruit slow players for this offense. So if it comes down to RR and his staff picking a guy, or some poster who claims a guy "looks slow in the film" he's watched, well...yeah. That's my opinion. And for the record, yours isn't a "stupid" one, but your arrogance sends up a stench.

Joined: 09/22/2008

MGoPoints: 718

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 2:23 PM ^

It's naive to think you're going to get a class of 25 upper-echelon players who are DYING to come to Michigan. Like I said, if you require that type of dedication, then kick Cissoko and McGuffie out, along with countless others. How does that make our Class of 2008 look? Let's just stop contacting William Campbell, too, since he's wavering. Yes, I think it's important to get die-hards. It's important to get leaders, guys who really want to be at the school. But it's also important to get talented guys who say, "You know, this is the best place for me to be if I want to get to the NFL" or "Hey, the girls are easy in Miami - I wanna be a Hurricane!" I get that. But that can't be your sole requirement. I'm not saying I know more than Rodriguez and Co. When I say Jeremy Jackson is slow, I obviously don't mean we should switch him to guard or defensive tackle. I just mean, this offense is predicated on speed and athleticism, and Jeremy Jackson is not the speediest or athletic-est. We've got our possession guys here or in the pipeline (Mathews, Clemons, Jackson). Let's get some guys who are going to be able to make plays down the field and in space. And if you trust the coaches' judgment so much - which is fine - then we should all realize that Gordon hasn't been pursued by Michigan for a reason.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Magnus

November 11th, 2008 at 2:38 PM ^

Ah, yes. Let's compare his 40 time to mine, since obviously I can't call anyone slow unless I'm faster than them, right? Anyway, I haven't run the 40 in a long time, but with a week or two of Barwis training, I'm betting I could it down in the 3.8-3.9 range. Also, have you ever seen a wide receiver who DIDN'T report his time to be between 4.3 and 4.5? I have 36 Class of 2009 receivers in my "favorites" list on Rivals, and exactly ZERO of them have a 40 time listed at 4.6 or higher. But we can all agree that there are some slow receivers out there, right? Right.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

KRK

November 11th, 2008 at 3:50 PM ^

You should try that more often. You are way too critical of posters opinion and treat yours like it's fact. I understand you may have more info, but you just blast people for an honest valid opinion. Rather than just asking what they are talking about, you tend to burn them at the stake. Just try to be a little more patient and not jump to so many conclusions.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 5497