Recruiting breakdown by position

Submitted by cypress on November 10th, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Yes, I know we have a big board, but I feel like posting this anyway. I'm projecting a class size of 22, which means we have 10 left. I know you never turn down great talent but I think we need to be a little choosy about the remaining scholarships if we want to finally get some balance on this team.

QB: We needed 1, so we need to retain Sousa or find a replacement.

RB: We needed 1 and got the best one on the board. I just don't feel we should use another scholarship on another RB like Malcolm Crockett or Tre Mason.

WR: I feel we need 2. We have Conway so we need 1 of Watkins/Arnett/Flowers/Shuler. Hopefully Sammy.

SLOT: Don't need one, please don't take one.

TE: We definitely have to take one in this class. Drew Owens or Jack Tabb most likely.

OL: I think we need 4, we have 3. So one of Hobbi/Bryant/Elliot.

DT: We definitely need 2 in this class and have none. Fortunately we are in on quite a few. We need 2 of Jernigan/Cooper/Damon Knox/McReynolds/Mickey Johnson/Zettell (I'm including him at DT because I think he could grow into the position)

DE:I think we needed 2, we got Rock and Beyer. Rock could be a DT at some point too.

LB: I'd like to see us get 4. We have 2 and it looks like Morgan and Frost are our 2 targets so we hopefully will get both unless a surprise emerges.

CB: I'd like to see us get 3. We have 2, and maybe a 3rd coming in Crawford. If Blake Countess wants to commit, I wonder if Greg Brown's commitment would still be accepted.

FS: Need 1 of Walls/Byron Moore/LaQuentin Smith

SS: Need 1 of Lyons/Roderick Ryles or (Clinton-Dix if it were a perfect world)

There will probably be other names that pop up, but I'd really like to see us finish with 1 more WR, a TE, an OL, and the rest on defense.

Comments

True Blue in CO

November 10th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^

Would really like to see better kickoffs into the endzone next year.  I know getting better recruits will improve kick coverage but getting more touchbacks will help next years defense.

Thoughts?

Blue_Sox

November 10th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

Don't know if RR really wants to use another scholarship on a kicker after using them on Gibbons (epic fail so far) and Hagerup both got them the last two recruiting classes. Wouldn't expect a true freshman to come in and kick anyway, although Hagerup has proven solid. Just hope the guys we have now will improve next year. 

UAUM

November 10th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

Those two out of bounds kickoffs in the Iowa game may have cost the game.  That's around 8% of the season.  I would say that's worth at least one scholarship. 

Just the possibility of improvement in the kicking game is worth it, even though it's not a guarantee he'd be able to do any better. 

If we want to win a nat'l championship in 2012, or sooner, we will need a complete team, including kicking.

Logan88

November 10th, 2010 at 8:45 PM ^

I'd be willing to bet that at least half of the guys UM signs in this class end up being career backups and I would gladly trade one of those guys for a reliable PK.

I think they should definitely secure another kicker in this class and if they strike out again, offer another kicker in the next class. A reliable PK who can be counted on to hit 70%+ of his FG's and kick the ball inside the 5 yard line (and in bounds) is an absolute must for any decent team. I'd much rather have 3 or 4 scholarships devoted to PK's if that is what it takes to find a good one than have 12 WR's or 6 RB's.

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought UM was going to lose that game against Illinois in OT because of a missed FG and I really don't want to continue to experience that discomfort every time UM attempts a FG for the next couple of years.

pee on freep

November 11th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^

can they pull the scholly on Gibbons?  Aren't scholly's one-year commitments from the school?  I heard there is a move or petition to require schools to provide four-year scholly's but right now they are one-year limits.

i am not a big fan of any school renigging on a scholarship for a student athlete, but isn't that something that happens across the country?  with Gibbons doing no more than keeping the bench from flying away would they not pull it in favor of giving it to a new recruit kicker?

bluenyc

November 11th, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^

Not sure if you can, but coach won't.  He said as much in a presser from a couple of weeks ago.  I agree with him, I don't think you should ever pull a schollie for on field performance.  We are not the SEC.  I rather use another schollie than start that process. 

This is one example, but OSU has a couple of PK's, one for short and one for long.  I thought I heard that they were walk on's.  I wish we can get some of these guys as walk on's and then give them a schollie after they prove themselves. 

jtmc33

November 10th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^

Seems like you could have created a post with essentially the same content without stating certain specifically named players are not worthy of a schollarship, or, are less worthy than your top choice.

Remember that these are 18 year old kids who are trying to get a free education and improve your favorite team, not NFL Free Agency.

cypress

November 10th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

I should have put LQ Smith as a LB, meaning Avery Walls is a key commit unless we are satisfied that Vinopal and Carvin have the FS position locked down for 4 yrs. I'm not convinced. And for you internet-tough guys with your emo jokes, you can go back to discussing GERGs hair or post stupid pictures of random crap. Thanks in advance.

cypress

November 10th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^

Question..
What will it take to not get a "eMo?" comment or sarcastic crap when I post something? And its not just me..others get it as well. Does it just come with the territory and there is nothing anyone can do about it? I get negged because I get sick of nothing but sarcastic responses when I try to put a little thought into something. I can see if I am trying to post a 2014 depth chart, but a recruiting break-down draws people mocking?? How long until this joke just isnt funny anymore?

bluenyc

November 10th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

If Frost wants to play offense, maybe we can use him at TE.  The WR position seems pretty full.  If we do get Arnett, I think we still take Watkins.  Sam Webb was talking like he was a can't miss prospect. 

Logan88

November 10th, 2010 at 8:50 PM ^

No one is "can't miss"...I refer you to Turner, Justin and, to a lesser extent, Cissoko, Boubacar. Their position rankings were just about the same as Watkins and, well, you know.

bluenyc

November 10th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

I guess everyone can "miss".  But all 3 major recruiting agenices has him in the top 4 of WR's.  I just looked up Turner and Cissoko on ESPN and they were not ranked in top 10 for their positons.  I don't think anyone will say Watkins will absolutely be a superstar, but I would be shocked if he is wasn't at least a starter.

His Dudeness

November 10th, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^

You should just switch Rock and Zettel. Rock will def be a DT at the next level and Zettel will be a terror at DE. I think if Rock were projected at DT his star rating could be a 4. He doesn't look like a DE as much as he does a DT.

UMaD

November 10th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^

4 DL seems a bit much, 3 would be OK. Theres already the two commits you listed and keep in mind that the last class added about 4 DL (Ash, Talbott, Black, Wilkins or Paskorz). Q Washington is there too and in the immediate future Martin, Van Bergen, and Roh all return.  3 DL would be OK.  Theres 3 outgoing seniors and lots of youth here.

4 LB seems like a lot.  Theres only 3 outgoing seniors and plenty of young bodies on the depth chart.  2 or 3 is OK.

4 DBs seems about right, but I don't think you have to worry much about positions.  There are 3 freshman safeties and 3 freshman CBs on the roster.  If all 4 recruits are corners, your depth is probably fine, especially if Christian moves to safety.

I've argued we need more OL.

Bottom line: the youth of the team means the coaches have A LOT of flexibility.  They can afford to grab whatever players they think will be successful.  I think we can all agree that repeating last year's defensive focus is a good idea, but theres no NEED to follow strict positional adherence in the recruiting class.

tasnyder01

November 10th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^

I thought this upon first relfection myself.  We have loads of underclass defensive players, and no need to get THAT many, IMO.  Also, while I could see us getting a new QB, I have to think that Sousa would be the first to go if we had to chose someone to drop.  Why?

  1. We're set at QB until 2013, when DG starts as a (hopefully) RS Senior
  2. We've got GREAT DEPTH there.  Two players who will have 12 starts each at the end of the season as the 1 and 2.  Oh, and DG in case all hell breaks loose.
  3. If DG starts until 2015 (5th yr. Senior) then a 2012 QB recruit would be a RS soph. to replace him.  A RS Soph would be a great starter.
  4. Assuming we keep up the great recruiting (DG #1 dual threat, D-Rob #1 DILITHIUM) then we'll most likely get a high 4/5* guy to come in and take over the QB spot.  If you're a 2012 dual threat QB you've got to put us towards the top of your list right now, I believe.
  5. That's not even counting a 2013 recruit who would have just seen DILITHIUM'S senior year and what this offense can do.

three red spiders

November 10th, 2010 at 5:07 PM ^

In this offense, as the Illinois game (and so many others) surely shows us, you can't rely on one QB to stay healthy.  I think DG is studly potential as well, and I don't think he'll crap out, but you just can't assume the next four years go smooth...You have to get Sousa or that kid out of North Carolina (Whose name escpaes me, sorry) for the what if...where would we have been in the Illinois (and even Iowa) game if we hadn't recruited two QBs in 2008?  Now, we had noneish on the roster then and three now...but in DG's Sr/Jr (assuming redshirt)year we can't just have one solid, experienced QB on the roster...

tlh908

November 10th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

While I also agree with your thoughts, RR has said that he prefers to have 5 qb on scholarship at a time.  That would mean making sure we keep Sousa or get Williams to commit.  We need qb's who can go in at a moments notice and take over the offense.  Look at how Tate has helped us win a game or 2 this year that we could have lost without a 2nd ready qb.

Black and Blue

November 10th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^

Anyone hear any updates on Byron Moore?  There was an article about him couple months ago, seems like he could potentially be the biggest contributer right away for the defense. 

Tater

November 10th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

By the first game this season, South Florida had lost its top seven recievers to injury and early departure.  It made me glad that Michigan has so many interchangable recievers.  Ultimately, though, other than saying "we really need to fix the defense," I can't pretend to know enough about recriting to tell the coaching staff how to do their jobs. 

Consequently, I am going to "worry" about the games that are being played on the field for the rest of the seasons and trust the coaching staff to recruit appropriate numbers at appropriate positions.  And, of course, hope that the incredible bad run of DB luck is over.    

TheWolverineWay

November 10th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

I would love for Tom to just let us all know what our chances are with each of these kids. I would love to have them all - Walls, Drew, Jernigan, Watkins. But I also want to know what our chances are so I can sleep better at night.

TheWolverineWay

November 10th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^

I would love for Tom to just let us all know what our chances are with each of these kids. I would love to have them all - Walls, Drew, Jernigan, Watkins. But I also want to know what our chances are so I can sleep better at night.

markusr2007

November 10th, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^

so that we don't frighten grown adults anywmore with all this offseason-transfer-and/or-failure-to-academically-qualify business that has ravaged Michigan football down to the bone marrow.  For the love of all that's holy, beef up the freaking defensive depth chart already!....like this.

jmblue

November 10th, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^

I definitely hope we land a TE.  As it currently stands, we'll only have two on the roster next year (Koger and Moore), and both will be upperclassmen.  Unless we're planning on phasing the position out, we've got to land somebody.