Do you want to recruit Dee or D more?

Submitted by StephenRKass on September 28th, 2010 at 9:35 AM

There is a lot of breathless anticipation at a potential Dee Hart commitment next week. This is all well and good. I hope Dee comes too. But I have to say, if I was forced to choose, I would rather have another 4 star LB or CB over Dee. Or another stud OT or DT. We're already doing well on offense, and between Shaw, Toussaint and the rest, will be ok with the RB position. Yes, Dee Hart could well improve things. But if our defense becomes dominant, he won't matter so much. If our defense is still porous, he also won't matter so much.

Hopefully, this isn't a choice that has to be made. We get Dee to commit, and plent of solid "D" commits as well.

Comments

JD_UofM_90

September 28th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

optimistic about out LB's in the next couple of years.  I think Demens and Fitzgerald have both look really good on special teams and in limited playing time this year.    They can be our "power" LB's the next couple of years and if Marvin Robinson and Josh Furman put on a little more bulk, they can be our "speed" LB's.  And you still have Death Roh.  I think the "weakness" of our team this year, may turn out to be our strength the next couple of years.......

I like the job Cam is doing at Safety, but watching him get out run on a couple of big plays this year really shows we need some "speed" DB's / Safeties who can chase down some guys from behind and are able to make plays with their feet/speed even when they get a little out of position (cuz it is going to happen to every DB, sometimes).

CRex

September 28th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^

Why does everyone assume we need "SuperMechaGodzillaDefense" or it is the end of the world.  RR had decent defenses at WVU, but nothing that got national acclaim.  

This is not to say the current state of our defense is acceptable or that I enjoy bend but don't break (I don't, neither do the dogs who exit the room when they hear the game click on) but at the same time the focus some people have on needing a class full of defense players is overkill.  With our offense we should be scoring 30+ a game no problem and our offense has shown the ability to sustain long drives.  We people like Dee Hart to let us keep reloading that offense while we recruit defensive depth over a few years.  

Heck last class we pulled in a nice haul of DBs, but it is going to take time to coach them up.  Basically don't sacrifice offensive firepower just to get a bunch of freshman D players running around.  We had two painful years on offense because RR didn't have the players he needed, we need to keep restocking the shelves to avoid going through that again.

CRex

September 28th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

I realize this, but dumping a bunch of bodies into a spot in one or two classes is just a band-aid.  You get a great run as those players all fight it out for playing time and get better, but then they all graduate at the same time and you're back to square one.  

Michigan should be consistently taking defensive players, but never in some massive clump that would prevent us from recruiting offensive players.  Thus the question about Dee vs D is moot, because we should never load up the defensive side of the class to the point where we have no scholarships for O.

EHTree

September 28th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^

That's a good question. While I have been reading Dee Hart posts with great anticipation, and watching highlight videos with drool streaming down my chin, I don't think the future of our offense hinges on one guy. We do need a big-play back to accompany Denard (or Gardner down the line) but our current stable of backs is serviceable IMO.

What I would like to see is some serious LB and DB recruiting. Not to say that we need a Top-5 player at those positions, but some speed and tackling ability would serve us well down the road. Winning by simply outscoring the opponent can be fun, but defense wins championships.

jmscher

September 28th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^

Prob Krist Frost/Avery Walls/Dee Hart, in that order.  But getting Dee prob helps at least a bit in landing the other two and not getting doesn't help us get frost or walls, so the moral of the story is - please come to michigan dee hart!

profitgoblue

September 28th, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^

I agree with the need to focus on recruiting defense this year (and next?).  But one thing everyone needs to remember is that if Michigan can pull a kid like Dee Hart away from a school like Alabama it might open a lot of eyes of recruits considering but not sold on Michigan, including defensive recruits.

Dreisbach1817

September 28th, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^

In my opinion, getting Dee Hart is more than just getting a top RB.  I think it would be a huge statement for this program that would indeed have ramifications on the D side of the ball.

For one, this is a guy we targeted at least 2 years ago.  He's a top RB from Florida whom we are battling for againt top SEC/ACC schools.  The fact that we could go into Florida and grab this highly recruited a player and beat the likes of Alabama, Auburn and Florida would be a strong statement for us and our presence in the region.  It would have other Florida/South players on notice.  Now don't get me wrong, we have always recruited well in Florida (Denard!).  But this recruitment has been a bit different-- i think the high profile nature of this will have ramifications.  This is the kind of recruit where we can say -- Michigan is back.

Second, Dee Hart brings with him a legitimacy that will convince other players from SECland to think strongly about UM.  I'm talking guys like Dix, Jernigan, K Williams.  Big Time Defensive prospects.  I'm not saying these are likely, but it gives us a better chance.  Everytime we hear of SEC recruits, we hear that Dee Hart is in their ear about Michigan.  It has to mean something.

To sum up, I think this recruitment is more than just about Dee the player.  It's about making Michigan's presence known in Florida and other SECland regions.  If we win, we get serious momentum with our recruiting. 

Magnus

September 28th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^

It's about making Michigan's presence known in Florida and other SECland regions.

I think you're overstating how much a commitment from Hart would mean.  We've recruited a lot of kids from Florida over the past few years, including Denard Robinson, Demar Dorsey, Vlad Emilien, Marvin Robinson, etc.  You're acting like we've never recruited a kid from below the Mason-Dixon Line before.

Dreisbach1817

September 28th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^

that we have recruited well in Florida.  I put that in my post.  But I think Dee's recruitment has been more high profile than Denard, Demar, Vlad, or Marvin.  Also couple this with our recent success on the field with Denard's star rising.  I just think this would tip the momentum scale dramatically in our favor with some other recruits. 

3rdGenerationBlue

September 28th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

Is it too much to ask for a defense that can hold opponents to less than 20 points a game? Let's hope that signing Dee Hart and landing defensive players that will make a difference are not mutually exclusive.

Fuzzy Dunlop

September 28th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

Yes, our defense is great, it doesn't need to be fixed at all.  Anyone suggesting that our defense is flawed is a whiner and doesn't know what they're talking about.  It's perfectly legitimate to believe that we can go undefeated with our current defense.

In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

/ Homer Simpson

Braylon 5 Hour…

September 28th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

No contest here, although hopefully we can get both...let's shore up the defense. I think our offense next year with this roster of people is good enough to take it to the next level (Big Ten Title, etc.), but not with a defense that has a best case scenario of mediocre

evenyoubrutus

September 28th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^

This isn't the NFL draft, so they don't have to choose between the two, especially since it isn't like they are competing with each other for playing time.

Also, wouldn't a star RB kinda make Denard even scarrier than he is already? Just sayin'

I guess my point is... what is the point of this thread?

oakapple

September 28th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^

Michigan currently has no committed running backs in the 2011 class, and they would seldom go a year without taking one. That still leaves something like 18-20 other scholarships available (depends on attrition, scholies given to walk-ons, and who comes back for a fifth year), and I am sure a majority will be on defense.

Michigan Shirt

September 28th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^

Especially since Hopkins is our only RB from last year with White transferring. I think we need one RB that can actually be a threat, not that I don't think Hopkins can be good, he just isn't quite a HR threat that Dee can be. I say we get Dee and also go after more defensive players.

ND Sux

September 28th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^

The real need is on defense.  If Dee Hart comes, he may light up the B10, or he may just add depth.  Not every top recruit lives up the the hype.  By contrast, our defense doesn't even have hype going for it at this point. 

Safeties: I just watched Kovacs gaining on C Gordon during the long BGSU TD catch/run, plus see the ND clips again. 

Corners: We have two decent guys and several in diapers, plus see ND clips. 

LB's: It's EZEH to see that we need help here.  Graduation is around the corner too. 

DLIne: About as much depth as an OSU coed. 

joegeo

September 28th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

In the hypothetical situation where there was one schollarship left and it can either go to Dee Hart or a similarly rated defensive player, then you give it to the defensive player.  Or you're Nick Saban and you give it to both and tell some other player to grey shirt when he gets to campus.  The running backs are capable, deep, and young.  If Dee plays as well as projected, he would improve the postion from solid to strong.  It's a diminishing returns area though.  Going from weak and shallow to capable and deep will improve a team more than going from capable and deep to strong and deep.  Defense needs players.  However, there are enough schollies to get everything we need.

Promote RichRod

September 28th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

false choice.  Dee is just one guy at a position that is good but not awesome and has 0 recruits so far.  I want Dee here.

I suppose the proper analogy would be would you rather take Dee + top 5 QB + 2 top 5 WRs + top 5 slot + 2 top 5 OL + some middling defensive recruits or 7 of our good (but not top) defensive prospects + some middling offensive recruits.  You have to look at the class as a whole, not at one guy.  Personally, I'd take the latter even if it meant missing out on Dee...but I want both dammit.

StephenRKass

September 28th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

As others have said, and as I said in the OP, we can have both Dee & D. My point in the OP is that I believe the focus now needs to be on defense recruiting. Dee is a luxury, not a necessity. Of course, we welcome him in, and I hope he commits. But in terms of energy and focus, I want at least six more solid recruits on defense:  two on the line, two LB, and two DB. Were we to add six more on defense to the class we already have, along with Zettel and Watkins, and Hart, I would be ecstatic.

Hannibal.

September 28th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^

Dee Hart and it's not close.  There are a few reasons why...

1.  Defense has been bad, but is there any evidence that this staff can take a highly talented DB or LB and get him onto the field immediately as an impact player?  The defense needs competence right now, and not necessarily elite athletes.

2.  I think that our running back situation is as bad as our LBs and DBs.  It just doesn't show up as much because the supporting cast around them is insanely good, and because it's impossible for a running back to cause a disaster unless he fumbles.  Smith has looked like Walter Cross since his injury.  Shaw has more speed but worse vision.  Cox and Fitz are still question marks.  Our offense will go from very good to national championship quality with a great tailback that has good vision and quickness.  A DB or LB isn't going to have this kind of immediate impact.  If Hart is really our Steve Slaton, our 2011 offense could be better than the 1994 Penn State offense. 

3.  We need to win now.  Immediately.  The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent to me that it is critical to the program that we beat Ohio State in 2011.  They could be in semi-rebuilding mode, depending on who leaves year.  This year will make 7 in a row.  Next year, if we lose, will make 8, and if we lose next year, count it off at 9 in 2012.  We desperately need to win that game in '11, and there is nobody in high school who can help us do that more than Hart.