No UM Recruit Was Top Player at his Position For 5 Years, per Rivals
As per the unwritten rules around here, the title pretty much speaks for itself. This Rivals article lists and ranks their top player (at his time of signing) at every position over the past 5 years.
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=907094
Granted, it's subject to the opinion of Rivals, and naturally just because someone's ranked as the #1 Cornerback on signing day doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to graduate as the #1 CB. One can also argue that having the 2nd or 3rd player is nothing to be ashamed about.
BUT... just feels wrong that for all the school's named there, we are absent.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
Hypothetically, we could have had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ranked guys at every position each year, and you could still trash Michigan for never having that "#1 guy"
Nominal statistics are not something you should give a shit about. There's nothing to feel "wrong" about.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 AM ^
The statistic is kind of interesting, but the implication of the statistic means nothing to me. No big deal.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^
Jeremi Finch was a decommit, Ronald Johnson was predicted by just about everybody to be a sure M commit, and Justin King was widely predicted to end up at Michigan, too.
Just under half—27 of 60—of the players on the list committed to programs that have played in the national championship game over the last several years. Cause and effect?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^
Mallett was not #1 at his position but #4 overall. Obviously landing the #4 overall prospect vs. the top guard who is 45 overall is much better. These type of rankings to me are just to put up something for people to read when you have no new information to publish...
think of it this way: more than half the players on the list committed to programs that haven't played for a national championship game over the last several years. This proves definitively that we do not want these players.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
would do just fine for us. Rivals can just shove it...
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
I don't remember UM ever getting a lot of people who were ranked number one at their positions, or even more than a couple of the top 100 overall, but they usually seemed to do pretty well with the entire class when all was said and done.
If you only get one or two of the first 100, but eight or nine of the next 200, the class works out great.
Then, of course, there are those little trifles like coaching, conditioning, development, how kids fit into your program, character, etc....
That being said, I think Carr lost a lot of his energy for recruiting the last two years. I think he actually became too nice of a guy and good of a human being to effectively play the recruiting game anymore.
I am not saying RR is a jerk, or that you have to be one to play the game, but I am saying it is more like a poker mentality and Carr just didn't seem to have it the last few years.
Is there anyone here who would want to play poker for money against RR? I know I wouldn't.
I think the program is in great hands.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
Wasn't Mallet #2, I'd still take him over Jimmaahh..