Rivals Judging the recruiting class

Submitted by modaddy21 on December 14th, 2009 at 3:31 PM

It starts by saying "How is recruiting going so far this year? The answer, I think, is not terribly well. Michigan's coaches dug themselves a huge hole to start, and are trying to climb out of it, and the question between now and signing day is how far back they can climb"

the rest is behind a pay wall, does anyone have access? Not terribly well, doesn't sound to good....

Comments

clarkiefromcanada

December 14th, 2009 at 8:11 PM ^

I guess since people can't much call for RichRod to be fired you have to go to recruiting.

The class is hardly terrible and it's not done yet with real potential for a number of 4 star players.

Rivals currently ranks the class at 15 and that's 3 back of Miami, 2 back of ND and ahead of Stanford (and St. Jim) 18, UCLA (the gambler Rick Neuheisel) 19, VA Tech 22 and Iowa 25.

The number won't be going down any with the new signings.

Twisted Martini

December 14th, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^

I would get excited every year by our stellar recruiting only to be disappointed year after year. Let's see how it plays out.

Article was written by Jon Chait, who tosses the bomb about us not doing well, but really provides no basis for that statement.

AC1997

December 14th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^

Here's another way of thinking about it:

-- How much should you worry when your low-ranked recruits in the class come from powerhouse football states, are highly regarded in their area, and are playing for state-champion quality teams?

-- Vinopal was all-state in Ohio at a position of dire need.
-- Carvin Johnson was about the same in Louisiana.
-- Dileo plays at a position that Rodriguez should know how to recruit as well as anyone, plays for a big-time program in Louisiana, and seems to be a high character guy.
-- Drake plays for one of the biggest programs in the biggest state for high school football, can play a couple of different positions, and plays a position I trust Rodriguez to recruit well.

I'd rather have 5-stars, but right now I want bodies who work hard, have a good head on their shoulders, and fit needs. I think this class does that at every position except OL and maybe MLB.

JC3

December 14th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^

The problem is we really need depth right now. And while this class probably won't be remembered for churning out super-talent, it's going to be one of the most important classes if Rodriguez is to make it at Michigan.

The secondary depth is being addressed, and the defensive line is getting there. I'm still not happy with the lack of defensive tackles, but it's known that this is a down year - a reason why Jonathan Hankins is getting Florida/OSU offers - when he probably wouldn't normally.

I'd like to see some more athletic linebackers, a few offensive lineman, and a real speedy receiver, but I suppose we'll have to wait until signing day to see how it plays out.

Maize and Blue…

December 14th, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^

ever hear of DJ Williamson. 10.6 100 not that far off of DRob, of course DJ benefits from tying his shoes. Is it the kids fault he played on a HS team that did't have a QB who could throw the ball.
Did Ricardo lose a star beause he got worse or because he came to Michigan and played with a poor QB. If he had stayed at Dr. Phillips would he have dropped - probably not.
If Josh Furman commits do you think we'll find a more athletic LB than his 4.37 electronically timed 40?
Finally, if a not good recruiting class is one that ends up in the 10-20 range after 3-9 and 5-7 years we should feel blessed.

Magnus

December 14th, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^

DJ Williamson is tiny and is probably a couple years away from contributing, if he contributes at all. The most likely wideouts to contribute early are Jackson, Miller, and Robinson, none of whom is exceptionally fast.

I think Ricardo was a 3-star before the 2009 season began. I could be wrong, but if I'm right, then his 3-star status would have nothing to do with his quarterback.

rickiew04

December 14th, 2009 at 6:05 PM ^

Mark Ingram according to many was a 3 star....

Stars are way overrated. Look at a lot of the recruiting rankings of some of the best players over the past couple of years and you'll be surprised.

Maize and Blue…

December 14th, 2009 at 7:09 PM ^

Gerhart and McCoy 3 stars, Ingram 3 or 4 depending on who you listen to, Suh 4 star, and in last place the only 5 star- Tebow.
OSU recruiting in 2005 built a future team around 3 stars- Hartline, Robiskie, Spitler, Jenkins, Laurenitis.
Clay Matthews who is having a great rookie year in GB was a walk-on. So maybe you need to swallow a little of that ego and admit that there are quite a few players that would surprise you over the last couple years. I could go on but this could get long.
Yes, it's easy to build with the higher rated guys, but to be so dismissive, no, we won't, is just wrong.

Tha Stunna

December 14th, 2009 at 6:51 PM ^

Okay, I gotta ask, why is it always Mike Hart and Pat White? Why doesn't Braylon ever get brought up in these cliche posts? Is it just that the average uninformed poster doesn't think back that far?

(Obviously, I realize this specific post is sarcasm.)

treedoc83

December 14th, 2009 at 9:40 PM ^

I guess, based on his legendary status, now, most people, including myself, would have never thought to even look that up. If that's true, you make a great point.

Speaking of recent or current players whose daddies were standout UM running backs, Troy Woolfolk was a 3*, and I'd say he's become pretty indispensable.

dahblue

December 14th, 2009 at 8:01 PM ^

I realize that UofM has dropped a bit in terms of recruiting big * recruits, and so now we all hope to find some diamonds in the rough saying, "I know that only Kent recruited this kid...but that's just like..."

Anyway, let's just be accurate along the way.
Here's Mark Ingram. A Rivals (and this is a thread about Rivals, no?) 4-star recruit offered by 7 BCS programs:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Mark-Ingram-622…

bluebyyou

December 14th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^

Systems may be more important than the number of stars. A few weeks ago, I looked at Rivals rankings from 2006-2009 for Iowa, Cincinnati, Boise State and Wisconsin.

I would happily take the record any of these schools achieved this year. Yet, based upon Rivals rankings, you would think that none of these teams would have any chance at decent BCS rankings, yet all four of these programs had good (Wisconsin) or great years (the other three programs.

Would I rather have all four and five star players? Absolutely. Are highly ranked classes critical to achieve success? History suggests otherwise.

psychomatt

December 14th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^

The three RR classes -- 2008, 2009 and pending 2010 -- have plenty of talent. Some of the players in the 2008 class might not have been perfect fits for the new system, and a number of the holdovers from previous classes (e.g., Boren, Clemons) clearly were unwilling or unable to adjust to RRs way of doing things and, therefore, needed to go. The unusually high turnover of better players along with the fact that RR was unable to land a real dual-threat QB prospect in the 2008 class (i.e., he effectively had to start over at the QB position in 2009 with Forcier and Robinson) has made the transition more challenging than many expected, but RR has been getting more talent at Michigan than he ever was able to get at WVU (if we are measuring talent based on rankings by recruiting services). With the talent RR got at WVU, he dominated the Big East after just a few years. He also kicked Georgia's ass in the 2006 Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma's ass in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl team was, in fact, one upset away from playing for a BCS title and almost certainly would have given LSU a better game than OSU. If RR fails at Michigan, it will not be for lack of talent.

LB

December 14th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^

I'll take lower rated players that are here to play, can be coached, and think at the same speed as their fake 40 time. If they are defensive players and think raw meat is excellent training table fare, I would consider that a plus.