Opposite Problem of 2008 Recruiting?

Submitted by coastal blue on

At this point we have only 14 recruits, of which 11 on the defensive side of the ball along with a kicker (much needed by the way). We have only 1 RB and 1 OL.

One of the big complaints with RR was that he went after offensive guys while neglecting the defense in his first year of recruiting. I know we are pretty well set for at least a year or two on the offensive side of the ball, but it's worrying to me that we have very little talent coming in in this class. We've seen what wasting classes on the defensive personnel has done the past few years, be it neglect or busts and now I feel like Hoke is at risk of doing the same.

Anyway, hopefully we retain Fisher and add Rawls along with a WR and/or QB, but right now I'm concerned.

Old School Wolverine

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^

Im as old school as it gets.... Bo and Mo were my coaches.

We are in good hands with Hoke. He is stacking the team to be built similar to Moeller's teams.

Note the importance of landing the TE Barnett and the RB Rawls.

Note that everyone here thinks Heitzman is a small TE or DE, not even thinking that he will be a LB here. Its so obvious to the old school.

And you should be excited as pie for a player like Willingham and Heitzman at LB... figure its Woodley and Harris again.

Next year you'll see a monster class and will see a jumbo center, another TE, a QB, a WR, and more trench players.

But your concerned is unfounded.  Worry not.

trueblueintexas

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^

Jack Miller is projected to play O-Line not DE.  With him and Posada and probably Bryant according to TomVH that would be 3 OL and a RB.  If we get a TE or two that would be 5+ O recruits out of 20. 

mmiicchhiiggaann

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^

Definitly an interesting point. Is there actualy data that supports everyones theory that underclassman can come in and play wr and other skill positions more than a defensive player can?

jlcoleman71

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^

early to start worrying about O or D recruits...........we obviously need depth on D, so no harm in picking up more D than O players for the upcoming season..........I'm excited to see some names I hadn't heard before, it's shows that kids are still interested in coming to Michigan when there isn't a ton of negative press out there.

m1817

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^

Don't get hung up on how a recruit is labeled position-wise.  These are 17 and 18 year old kids who can play multiple position.  Most of them played 2-ways in HS. 

BH is probably looking at athletic ability, speed, intelligence, willingness to play where needed, etc.  A DB can be converted to S, WR, or RB.  DE may eventually end up at LB or TE.  A DL can be converted to OL like William Campbell or vice versa like Quinton Washington.

BH wants flexible players who put the team first.  That why his is no longer recruiting Devin Lucien who wanted to be a WR when BH wanted him as a DB.  BH may have read DL's insistance on being a WR as not being a team player. 

BH's approach is similar to RichRod's except RichRod recruited good offensive players and then converted them to defense as the need arose like with Cam Gordon, Teric Jones, etc.

bronxblue

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^

Eh, I'm not worried yet.  RR had to really recruit kids for his brand of offense, and didn't have much in the cupboard.  Hoke inherits a top-25 offense by any metric and one of the worst defenses in college football.  I'm fine with him going after some defensive kids in this recruiting cycle.  I also think that he'll nab some kids toward the end for offense, along with moving some athletes on both sides of the ball to their proper positions.  

coastal blue

January 24th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^

I'm not saying I'm displeased with the number of defensive players.

However, while our offense is set for the next year or two, it would be a shame is underrecruiting on that side of the ball came back to bite us in year three or four. Hell, even this year in the defensive backfield seemed like it might be okay once 2009 ended, then we were an NFL draft entry and 2 injuries away from imminent doom.

Sorry that you can't think in the long-term.

WolvinLA2

January 24th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

I haven't heard much buzz about this so maybe I'm making this up, but what about Beyer at TE?  If we don't get a TE in this class and Heitzman stays at DE, wouldn't that make sense?  He was a receiver in high school (not sure if he was a WR or TE) and he had good offensive stats, so the skill set is there.  He's 6'4", around 230 and fast.  That screams TE to me.

I know we need DE guys, but Beyer is too skinny to contribute immediately at DE, and it sounds like we'll get a couple immediate contributors at DE in the 2012 class, so losing him from the DL isn't a major loss. 

Thoughts?

jsquigg

January 24th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^

After watching last year's defense and seeing teams win in spite of poor offensive performance I think it's refreshing to see a defensive focus.  I would hope that long term Hoke will be balanced with his recruiting.

goblueinMO

January 24th, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^

I understand the concern, but Hoke has little in the defensive cupboard right now.  RR had some offensive guys, he just couldn't get them to or didn't want them to stay: Mallet, Arrington, Boren, Manningham.  I am okay with the initial heavy emphasis on defense.

thisisme08

January 24th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^

I love how everyone was bitching about recruiting too much offense when offers were going out, and now that the staff (RR and Hoke) have shown that defense was a priority in this class and people are bitching about to much defense.

Seriously the coachs have this job for a reason.  Just because you can oversign and get 32 kids in your class in NCAA 11 so you are balanced doesnt mean the coachs in real life have that ability.

cadillacjack333

January 24th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^

If it makes anyone feel better consider all of these defensive recruits special team players for the next two years.

I think defensive recruits do better than offensive recruits when it comes time to tackle players going full speed.

 

MichLove

January 24th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^

Hoke's #1 concern was to get better on the defensive side of the ball. He only had a couple of weeks to recruit the talent that he saw as most important to the team's immediate success (note the focus on a kicker and defense). I am confident that we will see a much more balanced recruiting strategy going forward but for now he knows this team needs defensive talent.

dahblue

January 24th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

Player retention also factors in here.  It will be important for Hoke to keep these kids on the team and not just get them to A2.  The defensive depth became so a huge problem under RR because he (for a number of reasons, some not under his control) lost ~30% of defensive commits under his watch.  Hoke's retaining of the entire (less academic Forcier) existing team gives me some measure of confidence that he'll do the same with his commits.

Blue In NC

January 24th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^

I understand your concern but I think right now it's due to two factors:

(1) Hoke is a defensive-minded coach and probably has slightly more credibility with defensive players, making it easier to get into the game late.

(2) He can more easily sell playing time on the defensive side of the ball again making it easier to flip guys at this late date.

The offensive positions may simply take more time, which he does not have at this point.

JMO.

Russ48239

January 24th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^

Guys, the scholarships have long been known to be uneven. RR came in and stocke up on offense so he could run his scheme, which he was mainly hired for. This required a lot more WRs than we had(not only did we not have enough WRs for the spread, we didn't have enough for a pro set), some RBs who fit the scheme and of course spred style QBs liek Denard,Tate and Gardner. OL is always going to be recruited of course. So anyways, this year and possibly even next year were going to be used to even things out to some degree. We would have taken a few more O guys with RichRod, like Hart and a WR or 2, but D had to be the focus.

 

Also lost on this is how bad our STs are. Young DBs cannot tackle and make terrible STers and this is what we were stuck with last year. I think they are recruiting an extra LB or 2(include Heitzman here because he can play ST coverage) because young LBs may be a little more bulked up and ready to play STs. Jones,Morgan and Clark all fit the mold of quality STers IMO.

Nickel

January 24th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^

The numbers definitely look like there's a big disparity, but if Hoke & Co. took one look at our defensive statistics I'm sure it became their number one priority to add bodies on that side of the ball.  Does anyone know what our current Offense to Defense scholarship numbers look like?  (excluding the incoming class)  Is it really still heavily weighted to offense or did that even out eventually?

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the guys we've picked up on defense don't look to be immediate impact guys (NTTAWWT, those guys are rare finds for any program), but it will be interesting if the guys recruited by the new defensive-minded coach end up buried on the depth chart the next 4 years behind those recruited by our old can't-recuit-defense-worth-a-damn coach.