A question: if we don't get Dorsey or Parker, do you like this class?
So let's assume things don't go that well on on our remaining targets tomorrow. In this scenario Parker goes to SC or Washington, Knight is already at Rutgers, Dorsey commits to FSU and Talbott decomits and goes to NC. In that scenario, beyond the obvious disappointment, do you still like this class?
I'll start. Although disappointed, I would still believe we helped ourselves with this class. And beyond that, while a potential #20 Rivals ranking is not what we are used to, given 3-9 and 5-7 I think our recruiting this year is really about the best that can be hoped for. Given two years of bad on-field results, very poor press coverage of M, negative recruiting against RR and the program, and a pending NCAA ruling that is sure to be overblown by opposing coaches and the media, I would give the staff, purely on recruiting, an A-.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
It will still be a solid class regardless of the outcome, but you always want to see a strong finish. We need good news.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
On offense: Absolutely.
On defense: Eh........
I wanted more "college ready" players on defense this year. However, I will have my fingers crossed that the defensive recruits develop into what they are capable of.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
While this is a respectable class and getting Devin Gardner is awesome, we just didn't get the defensive players that we truly need. Yes, we landed a lot of very good prospects on defense, but the fact of the matter is that very few of these guys will be able to come in immediately next year and make an impact. I think that our safety play will be greatly improved next year, especially if Vlad steps up his game and takes over one of the safety spots, but I'm terrified of our cornerback position. We'll be starting a redshirt freshman that has never played a snap in college, and most likely Floyd, who is serviceable but that's it, or Woolfolk. If people think Christian's gonna come in and start they're crazy. He'll definitely see the field a lot. He'll have to. But he's not going to be a starter. Not as a true freshman at the one of the very hardest positions to play in football. Our other secondary commitments are great, don't get me wrong, but they're not going to be division one ready by next season. They can be legitimate starters in the future, but they're going to need a couple of years to develop. Having decent safeties but liabilities at corner will allow opposing offenses to throw little dink and dunk passes all day long or those of the 10 to 15 yard variety, which will extend the time of possession for the other team and wear out our defense while they are still able to score. All in all, if we don't land either Parker or Dorsey tomorrow, we will not have gotten the players we need to fill the holes in our secondary. The fact is we need one or two very elite safeties or corners to come in and get immediate playing time while allowing the staff a little more wiggle room in figuring out where to play Woolfolk. If Woolfolk stays at safety that would make cornerback a HUGE liability with very little depth. The same holds true if he moves to corner though. Whatever happens, the secondary will be very interesting to watch next year.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
we didn't get the defensive players we need. Don't buy all the hype by Rivals, Scout, and ESPN. This class will be measured in two years.
It is time for this blog to condemn those who post defeatist thoughts. You can disagree, that's the American way, but don't gripe until you see it on the field.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
"condemn" "defeatist thoughts" because they are premature or because this class cannot be measured for two years or whatever, you have to be equally ready to condemn optomistic thoughts about this class. Of course we won't really know how good this class is for a few years. But, like, speculating about that kind of stuff is what people do on the global internets. And if we are going to speculate, we gotta welcome (well thought out) optomism and pessimism. Otherwise this blog will turn into an electronic pep rally. Which, like, count me out.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^
I think he's just basing his opinion on the premise that typically higher rated players end up doing "better." This, to an extent, is true, though it does not mean we're doomed to be bad.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
I am not basing my opinion on just ratings. And I never said that we were "doomed to be bad". But do you really think that any of our "sleeper" prospects are going to come in and be starters for division one football as freshmen, especially in the Big Ten? This is especially true for freshmen coming in at arguably the two hardest positions to play in football. I never said that either Dorsey or Parker would fix our problems either. What I said is that we need elite level players to come in that would be able to get playing time right away. Do you honestly think that we got those players in this recruiting class? It continues to amaze me how many people think that these players will come in as freshmen and automatically be ready to play in the Big Ten. Players in the secondary take a couple of years to develop. Ideally, even the elite level prospects in the secondary would take a year or two to develop. But since we don't have that luxury, we need some players to come in to at least plug the holes. We didn't get very many of those in this class. And if you think that I'm just judging my opinions based on these players ratings, well, perhaps you're right to a point. Because players that are universally held in high regard by every recruiting site is more than likely a pretty good player. Again, this doesn't mean I automatically assume they're going to be good, I am merely positing on a board entirely filled with posters positing, that these are the players that have the best chance of "plugging the holes", as it is highly unlikely that very much of our class will be able to immediately do that.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
Did you see all the walk-ons all over the field last year? True freshman starters... yes please.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
because true freshman (like Emilien) couldn't beat them out. Ture freshman starters are NOT something any fan should be rooting for.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
You just said that so much better and more succint than my ridiculously long rant above. Kudos to you sir.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
There is a measure of desperation in these hopes. A psychological split between reality and desire. Reminds me of Mullholand Drive.
Despite a mountain of evidence that success with true freshman at these positions is very uncommon, people would rather put illogical expectations on marginal freshman prospects than facing the reality that we'll need to ride out the season hoping that our returning players develop into quality starters. Given that Williams/Kovacs/Emilien have a known (and limited) performance expectation, that makes 10+ win season almost impossible, which people just don't want to rule out right now.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
One would be nice but I think we need both to have a respectable defense next year. I think both of these guys could end up starting and maybe people disagree with me, which is fine, but at the very least they would make for some really strong competition for the secondary spots, which obviously makes people better. Also, it's always good to have depth, especially good depth. I feel like last year it was hard to experiment because we didn't have great depth.
All in all, I like the class but if we don't sign both of them I will be really disappointed. I say the class is good now but will be great if we get both of them.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
Yes.. I'd be satisfied. But if we don't get to use our 2 available spots on Parker and/or Dorsey I'd want RR to take a shot on 1 or 2 NSD offers for a "sleeper" OL
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
so unless an OL calls there is no way RR can take a shot at him. Quite frankly, I'd rather bank it for next year then take a shot on a "sleeper". Now if someone (Donnal, Schofner) wants to make a last minute change that we have been recruiting I'd be fine with that
By the way, physically Marvin Robinson will be ready to play at safety. The only question will be if he picks up the D quick enough since he didn't get enrolled early.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
I'd say the class is a C+ right now. Best case scenario--meaning that Talbott stays and UM gets Dorsey and Parker--then that' a solid B. I just question whether there are enough (near sure-fire) difference makers in this class.
By the way, I'm not grading on a curve in the sense that I give any credit for recruiting in the face of the recent records. I can see why you may choose to do that, but I'm not going to.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 PM ^
Dang you're a tough grader. Do Devin Gardner and lots of defensive holes filled count for nothing? I think he's at B/B+ right now and with the best possible result a solid A class. I can't disagree I'd be disappointed if we got no new commits on NSD but I think that's mostly because it's also my birthday and I'd like a present from Rich Rod and the general aura of excitement that goes with NSD. On reflection I think I would still be pretty happy with this class, stubby legs and all.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
IMHO I think we're filling serious gaps with this class.
Dorsey and or Parker would be the premium icing on the cake.
But I'm not going to take away from what looks like a strong, need filling class even without Dorsey or Parker.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
And to answer the original poster's question, yes, I'd think the class is "fine". Not great, but fine. Nothing to scream about, either way. This class is realistically between 10-20. That's probably a little below average for Michigan. A "B" range grade, above average, is probably mid to low single digits. An A would have to be Top 4 or 5. But he's pulled together an okay class. One that helps fill some needs. But not one that you win a lot with. But it's one year; different purposes this year. If next year's class is the same, he's going to have some problems down the road.
And your avatar is disturbing.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
.. albeit a little negative. C+?
Sub-par team performance in previous seasons certainly makes me less disappointed with the results, but it doesn't suddenly make this class a great one.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
My point was given the handicaps they had to work with which hinder recruiting, all of which I listed, I'd give the coaches A-. The class itself IMO is a B, but I believe that is about the best we could hope for this year given our current situation.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^
The Team, The Team, The Team
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
RR and staff are bringing in a ton of athletes that could exceed their star ranking. I still haven't figured out how Furman is only rated a three star by Rivals. 2000+ yards rushing and dominate on D. Measurables of 6'3" 200lbs and runs a 4.37. Still need a true MLB but with DePriest, Frost, and Thomas (unlikely given were he goes to HS) in the crosshairs for next year I can live without one this year.
That being said I hope we land at least one of the two.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
...definitely I would feel better with two more 4-5 stars.
That said, I think it is a solid class that does meet most of our needs...so atleast a solid B without, A with Parker/Dorsey.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
A-- with either one. I think there are a bunch of real substantial kids here who might have been somewhat under the radar for different reasons (Ryan, Avery, Conelius, Stumpy Vinopal just to name a few) who are going to prove to be very substantial players down the road, regardless who the HC is.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
I'm not sure there's a strong safety in this class without Parker, which worries me.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
After this year, the only strong safeties on the roster are...Vinopal and Thomas Gordon. If we don't get either Parker or Dorsey, I think SS becomes priority #1 for 2011.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
I understand your logic Magnus, but the truth is we haven't seen Gordon, Emilien, Carvin, Vinopal or posibbly even Turner play at all at a college level. So to say none of these guys besides Vinopal could play the strong saftey position is a bit of a sky is falling attitude. I'll defer to your recruiting eye but I thought Carvin had great ball skills, considering his intangibles he seems like a nice fit as the quaterback of the D if his speed is up to the job.
The key is we finally have some bodies for Barwis and Gerg to work with in my mind.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Well, Carvin Johnson is being recruited to play FS, so I'm not the only one who think he's not an option at SS.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
Magnus, you're one of the most knowledgable guys on this board, but lately you've been pretty stubborn with some of these position discussions. Yes, both MRob and Carvin were told that they would play FS, but that doesn't mean that this can't change. Vlad said in his Q&A that he could play both. If it turns out that Carvin and MRob are the 2 best safeties, I'm willing to bet one of them moves to SS.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^
a) I'm adamant about some of these position thingamajigs because I take the words straight from recruits. If Marvin Robinson says he's going to play free safety, then by golly, I'm going to represent that. I'm not going to say that he's going to play LB or something if the kid himself says otherwise.
b) Now...that being said...Johnson and Robinson won't be on the field at the same time unless one of them switches to linebacker. Neither has the speed or coverage skills to play SS.
c) Emilien is perhaps the most versatile safety on the roster. I agree that he could play SS as well, but I don't think that's ideal.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
of Christian or Turner eventually being SS types. They could play CB for a year before switching over when more CB arrive.
It definitely early to be talking about specific position needs within groups, considering most of these guys won't be starters for a few more season (ideally) and there should be a couple seasons of player development, positions switches, new recruits, etc in between now and then.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 AM ^
forgot about Christian's versatility. actually, between Christian, Dorsey, Avery, Woolfolk, Turner, and Emilien, there's a three deep shell for '10 in there somewhere, right?
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
That's weird.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
I posted on another thread that I didn't think any of the 3 remaining safeties were coming. Losing Talbott is is a big disappointment.
I think the class is OK. We filled a lot of needs, but didn't land a very balanced class which puts a lot of pressure on next year's class to land OL/DT/LB. Gardner and Robinson sound like impact players, and theres a lot of other players I like.
Hopefully there is a pleasant surprise tomorrow with Parker and he lands in AA.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
We've been told for months that there was some flux in the class. This just underscores for me why you work to have 28 - 29 set up, so that if some flame out, you still end up with a full class without going the 1 - 2 star route. Of course, I still hope Dorsey & Parker come, but they will not make or break this class.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
It's a tough call that involves a lot of "ifs".
I'd say right now we hit a lot of positions of need with a lot of lower rated recruits.
The main reason to say "yes": Devin. If he pans out, this class is a homerun regardless.
The main reason to say "no": Our worst class via the rankings in a while.
I'm going to say "yes" because I believe in Devin and I think the depth of the CBs in this class is good enough.
Parker would change this class from a B- to a B. Adding Dorsey might push it to an A-. Probably only a B+ though.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
quality d linemen? linebackers?
overall defensive recruiting was lacking this year. no.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
Yeah, it was a bit lacking. Next year will be interesting having to fill holes with only 15-18 scholarships available. It is really important that some of these players pan out.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
Jibreel Black and Richard Ash are highly regard D lineman. This doesn't include a second year Big Will and Craig Roh and a RSed LaLota.
IMO Furman will eventually be a stud though at LB. Marvin Robinson may grow into an LB and we haven't seen much of Mike Jones, Isiah Bell, and Brandin Hawthorne who will all be in their second year in the program.
Finally, the D as a whole will benefit from being in the same system for the second year for the first time since Ron English left. Reacting without having to think first can be the difference between making the play or not.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:01 AM ^
will, roh, and lalota arent in this incoming class. and if you honestly think black and ash will be impact players, the defense is worse than i imagined.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
I think the class is a B- without Parker, B+ with. Devin Gardner is more important to this class than Sean Parker and/or Demar Dorsey, and Gardner is already in AA.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
While I agree this class is a B- without Parker, how does he make it a B+?
I assume you just pulled that grade out of your head without thinking about it much.
Yes, he's an important player for sure. However, he's a 4 star, and would be our 6th four star. He's also only 1 of what would be 27 recruits.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
I am as excited as can be about this group of teenage boys, shirtless or not.............
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
I think without those guys, we're a B/B-. With them...a solid B.
Given that we've been terrible the last two years, our drop off is understandable...but that doesn't turn a decent recruiting year into a good one. Rutgers should not be competition. North Carolina should not be competition. We shouldn't be behind Clemson, Missouri, VaTech, etc. If we don't jump back into the top tier next year, it's a big problem. But for this year, decent class.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
By the standards of a Big Ten championship contender, C+ without Parker or Dorsey. B- with one of them, and a B with both of them. If you added a couple of stud linebacker recruits on top of that, it would be an A-. Without Parker or Dorsey, that means that our desperate needs at ILB and S won't be filled with a stud recruit (assuming Robinson ends up at the Stevie Brown position). Too many "sleepers" and "projects" at positions of need. Good class on the DL and great lands at punter and QB. Getting the #1 dual threat QB in the country, by itself, is worth a full letter grade. Only drawback is that we probably won't need him until 2013 (if things go well). We could have used at least one more OL (and there was a great crop in the Midwest this year). Lots of good but not great skill position players at positions that don't really need depth.
Grading the coaching staff by considering the 3-9 and 5-7 seasons... that's tough. The record hurts, but we're still Michigan and the recruits have to know that things have bottomed out. Going forward, nobody thinks we are stuck at the Minnesota or Indiana level. We still have massive exposure, unparelleled tradition, and the largest stadium. And with the new practice facility and stadium expansion, it sounds like we've got competitive facilities. I'm not panicking yet, but if we have another "3-star mafia", as it has been lablelled here, next year then I will be disappointed. It looks like that 2009 class is going to carry us in the coming years.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
I think this class in a solid B without either Parker or Dorsey
If we could of got Munchie Legaux this class would have been an A++
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
"If we could HAVE got Munchie Legaux..."
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
thx Magnus I grammar fail ungood.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
Actually, I think you meant to say, "could have gotten"...