Green and Issac together puts UM in very heady company

Submitted by Wolfman on June 6th, 2014 at 3:56 AM

It goes without saying adding Ty is one "Great Get" for UM football.  However, the more I thought about it I realized, even with a year in between original recruiting classes, just how unique having the no. 1 and no. 4 rb in the same class is. The "Pony Express" at SMU was far before stars were being placed beside player's name and I'm not certain James was among the top ten that year, even though Dickerson would have to had been among the top five. 

I can recall when we got commits from Adrian Arrington and Mario Manningham in the same season, but it was actually the combination of David Terrell and Marquise Walker that gave UM two of the nation's top 15 receivers,  a feat that had not been accomplished prior to then. But knowing how much we wanted this kid motivated me to do some research and although Green was the consensus no. 1, Issac was just a few places back at no. 4.  Toss in Smith who came in at no. 37 and that's one hell of a haul for that season, even though Derrick and Ty are, of course, are not considered part of the same recruiting class. Fact remains just the same we landed two of the top five rbs for that particular year. 

I am not certain, of course, especially with some of Bama's recent hauls, whether or not they were able to accomplish a like feat. Given that Hart was considered by many the no. 1 back in his respective senior season, then getting beaten out for the starting spot, leads me to believe they may have, indeed, pulled something similar.  The only two I'm certain are of USC in their "Glory Decade" when they pulled both no. 1 Reggie Bush and according to many sites who had Lendale White at the same spot they, undoubtedly, pulled off the same accomplishment.

They will be considered part of the same graduating class, of course, unless one of them bounce for the NFL, an unlikely scenario inasmuch as Green has yet to accomplish anywhere near the numbers penciled in for him immediately after his verbal. Although Issac, due to learning a sophisticated offense along with the experience the Trojans had, he did enjoy some season ending success,  particulary vs. a weak, ableit a true D1 defense against Cal.  Don't know the whys or werefores, but Smith looked like the best back on our roster in the spring game.  No matter how the two big names in this particular piece end up in the all-time UM record books, the reality that they both ended up wearing the winged helmet is one hell of an achievement for Brady and staff.


Gucci Mane

June 6th, 2014 at 4:38 AM ^

If we can establish a good running game this season I think we will be playing in Columbus with the big ten on the line, just like it should be.

Mr Miggle

June 6th, 2014 at 5:16 AM ^

Well done, but what happened? I think you're underrating Marquise Walker. Both he and Terrell were ranked in the top 3 WRs by some services. Adding in the #1 RB in Fargas and a top 3 QB in Henson made that an unreal haul. 


June 6th, 2014 at 6:25 AM ^

I threw this chart together yesterday while discussing the OL with some buddies. The number by each guy's name is number of years in the program. I've removed walk-ons.

Obviously we're still quite youth-heavy, but I see about 10 guys on there who should be serviceable linemen at this point in their career, IMO. Unless Funk is completely wasting the talent of these kids, we should be able to put 5 together and run the goddamn ball. And I'm not even considering Cole who is still a potential starter last I heard...

Erik Magnuson RS SO 3
Dan Samuelson RS FR 2
Chris Fox RS FR 2
Logan Tuley-Tillman RS FR 2
Ben Braden RS SO 3
Kyle Kalis RS SO 3
Kyle Bosch SO 2
Ben Pliska    
Blake Bars RS SO 3
Graham Glasgow RS JR 4
Jack Miller RS JR 4
Patrick Kugler RS FR 2
Joey Burzynski    
David Dawson RS FR 2
Mason Cole FR 1
Greg Froelich    
  AVG 2.54



June 6th, 2014 at 8:50 AM ^

Yes - very misleading.

Your words: "The number by each guy's name is number of years in the program. " & "This will be their status when the season starts this fall?  "

I dont think Kugler has been in the program for 2 years when season starts in the fall. Agree with other poster that the statement does not apply at all here.

Basically the experience is approximately half redshirted last year while the other half have a redshirt yr + 1yr experience. The rest is a few sprinkled in (Miller, Glasgow offset by Cole).


June 6th, 2014 at 9:13 AM ^

You are asserting that Erik Magnuson, for example, has three years in the program when the season starts, which is odd since his profile at MGoBlue says this:

Sophomore/Freshman (2013) ... earned first varsity letter ... appeared in 12 games as an offensive lineman, making seven starts at guard ... also contributed on special teams ... INDIANA (Oct. 19) ... made first career start at right guard.

Freshman (2012) ... did not see game action ... redshirted.

Unless you're calling the time between the end of the 2013 season to the beginning of the 2014 season as an entire season in itself, Erik Magnuson enters the 2014 with two seasons under his belt.

Even more ridiculous is your assertion that incoming freshman Mason Cole enters the season with one year of experience in the program even though he hasn't yet gone through his first fall camp.


June 6th, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^

Maybe there's some poster history that makes this sub-thread more relevant to some, but I'm not sure its a huge deal. The "average" years of experience is a poor indicator, IMO since it matters greatly where and who has the experience. So, the general argument around average is misguided.

However, as for listing the current year in the program doesn't seem that egregious. I have great hopes for DG as a 5th year senior and would have no problem someone using 5 next to his name on a similar chart. Whether you use 4 or 5 seems pretty immaterial as long as it is consistent. 

At some point, these kids will be in the middle of that year and at the end of that year. I for one expect the 3rd year in a program to be significant from a maturity, S & C and "speed of the game" stand point.

To be clear, I'm a "youther" and do think the O in general is still prohibitively young as is the OL...but I expect a marked improvement by the interior and pray the tackles can be average (OL average to slightly below would be okay with me).

Avon Barksdale

June 6th, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^

Whether his chart is correct or not, the University of Michigan football team should never rush for -48 yards or 28 yards on 27 carries. Any third year player is about as good as he is going to get which means Kalis, Braden, Magnuson, and Glasgow/Miller should all be ready to run people over. Bosch started as a freshman, so there is no excuse to not drastically improve as a sophomore.


June 6th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^

No one thinks the OL play was acceptable, and part of the point of my post was wondering why there was so much emphasis on "misleading" data. 

I think you're way off stating,  "Any third year player is about as good as he is going to get." That is just dead wrong, and we all should expect players to significantly progress in years 4 and 5 and should expect some surprising lights to go on in years 4 and 5 for some players (happens all the time).

I did say I expected significant improvement from the interior and do think 3rd year players should have made significant gains.


June 6th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^

I liked what I saw in the Spring Game, I know others will disagree. It seemed like there was a heavy shift in focus from releasing to second level players to blocking the DLine first and foremost. That resulted in a lot of short gains as LBs came free to meet the RB in the hole, but they were much much better about not giving up losses and zero gain plays. I think that's the right approach when you have bruising backs like we do. Give the guy the ball and have him truck the LB and fall forward.

Add in a whole summer and fall camp for Nuss to install more elements in his offense, more time for the OL to get stronger from a S&C standpoint and gel as a unit, and actual play-calls with wrinkles in them instead of the vanilla stuff for the Spring Game and I think we could see a unit capable of picking up 3 yards consistently with a few long ones sprinkled in. That may not be all that flashy, but it'll have an incredible effect in wearing down defenses and keeping the pressure of off Devin and the passing game.


June 6th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^

Absolutely. This team doesn't have to become a running powerhouse in the snap of the fingers. If they can at the very least keep the D lineman from playing in the backfield and limit negative plays, that will be an improvement right there. I'll be happy with an offense that gains little by little on the ground. That will keep Gardner much healthier and upright and if that happens he could be poised for some good things.

Roc Blue in the Lou

June 6th, 2014 at 11:19 PM ^

Agree that the key is making forward progress and keeping defenses honest.  Gardner presents a hell of a mismatch to most defenses when he is in 3rd and 3 v. 3rd and 9 because he is a legit threat to EITHER run or throw at that shorter down and distance.  Our problem last year with neg plays was the domino effect on teams knowing Gardner had to gain 9 or more yards on a third down...they pinned their ears back and he was surrounded.  Imagine him only needing 3 yards with Jake Butt, Funchess, Isaac, Canteen and Chesson/Darboh as his weapons OR just run for 4 on a QB keeper.  I would not want to be the DC trying to stop all those possibilities.


June 6th, 2014 at 6:23 AM ^

In Nuss we Truss!! He will figure out how to use these guys. All the O-line has to be is "serviceable" with all the weapons DG has at his disposal...crazy to think about it...Green, Smith, Isaac, funchess, canteen, darboh at full go per Speight, Chesson, norfleet, maybe peppers a little bit (?), moe ways, Harris....we all know the defense will be stronger than the O and probably carry us through the first few games...predicting a season similar to Sparty's last year where the defense won the first few games as the O got there feet underneath them...our O will not be nearly as sorry as theirs started out, but you know what I mean.


June 6th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

It's not so much that your opinion is unpopular, just that it's unfounded and pure speculation.  Why can't our defense be as good as their defense last year?  Our defense was quite good (though inconsistant) last year, and we return a lot of talent, as well as adding some frosh who could make an impact.  

Now, I'm not predicting that, simply because MSU's D was incredible last year.  But there is nothing about our defense that would preclude us from that.