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 2:48 PM ^
Yeah, it's a variation between British English and American English. I was told in college that "gotten" is a horrible, horrible word and that it should never be used except in phrases like "ill-gotten." So I try to avoid it.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
What about "gots"? Is that okay?
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
Magnus is right here - gotten should be avoided.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
Actually, I did the interwebs digging to check on Magnus's comment, and he's right that both are acceptable. It is incorrect, however, that "gotten" should be avoided (especially give the context above or our North American location). There's actually an issue of meaning of the phrases and blah blah blah super boring, but I'd stick to "have gotten" in this instance. To me, "have got" sounds like "I axed" instead of "I asked".
Holy shit...We must all be really bored waiting for something to break tomorrow!
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
"could have obtained"
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
Yes.
Devin
Marvin
Cullen
Ash
I think that is great news. All could for sure be impact players in fact I would be disappointed if they are not. Thats 3 difference makers on D and an almost can't miss QB for this system. Also I like the fact that the class coming of a poor season is one with such big numbers. This allows to take more 3 stars and have a better chance of finding the "slepper" if you will. Imagine if we only had 15 spots and they were filled with 3 stars we would be half as likely to find the 7-8 contributers you need form each class.
But what is the biggest need on this team? Safety. Its a pure numbers game back there. The more players 4 stars or 3 stars the better. So yes I would love to have more safetys.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
Well i think we'll have a great class. on offense we got tate as a sophmore and have devin gardner as a back if tate were to get hurt. so our offense will be dynamic. and our defefnse, come on it cant get any worse since we're getting some four, three star linebackers( which is what we need big time. smart and fast linebackers). so i think that michigan goes 9-4 this year.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
I agree that the offense should be strong. I think we're going to average 37/game. That being said, our defense could be much worse than last year. We lost our 3 best defenders on a bad defense. I don't know how quickly the young guys will be able to contribute, but our offense better score a lot because the defense could be unwatchable.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
When taking a look at a defense from one year to another, you need to look beyond "how good were the guys we lost." Yes, we lost our best DL, our best LB (although he was a solid player, not s star) and our best DB. HOWEVA, we return 8 of 11 starters, and rarely does a defense see a decline when it returns 8 of 11. I like the idea of Big Will coming in to play the NT and moving MM and RVB down a spot. I don't think the DL will see much of a drop-off. The backfield will be young, but they'll be talented as well, and moving Woolfolk back to SS will improve that group a lot. If we get solid improvement from the group we have returning, it won't be as mad as you're making it out to be.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Yeah...that seems like a possible best case scenario. I hope you're right, but seems like some of those 8 "starters" were less starters and more "nothing betters". I worry (and I think it's a very rational fear) that we'll hear plenty of "the defense is young; you can't expect them to be good" next year. We heard that last season with the offense (fair as it may have been). Now, it's time for RR to win games...no more excuses. My fingers will remain crossed all season.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
C+ now, too many gaps
B- with Parker
B+ with Parker and Dorsey
I think Dorsey will be the type of SS with elite speed we need if we want to play our FS in the box regularly and I am not sure we have another player on the roster like that unless we move a CB.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
Our class is a decent one now, but if we can land both Parker and Dorsey, the class vaults to an A/top 10 class. I'll be happy with just Parker, hoping for both.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
When two of your glaring needs are nose tackle and inside linebacker and you fail to fill either one, you don't get an A. We're taking a butt load of receivers and DE/OLBs; we could have given up a WR for a NT and an OLB for an ILB (assuming one of each wanted to come).
Anyway, you can't give this class an A, unless Rodriguez pulls in at least one of those positions tomorrow in a surprise move.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
I think that with the worst case scenario listed , losing Talbott and not getting Parker and Dorsey, this class is a C+ but getting all 3 wold make it a B+ in my mind.