December 1st, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^

Lets hope we can get Hankins/Beachum, the are the last DTs we're in on and Beachum looks closer to recommitting to R-Kansas then coming to AA.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^

how does Talbott compare with Hankins?

I understand Talbott is considerably smaller (about 70 lbs.), and could potentially play the "Van Bergen" DT spot while Hankins is more of the "Mike Martin" DT spot.

Who would you be more excited about?
Who has more upside at UM? etc...

as a plebe, i'm just looking for some info on some of these guys.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^

It's difficult to compare. They play two different positions. Hankins would be a nose tackle, so his job would be to eat up a double team every play and try not to get blown off the ball. I think we need a guy like that, because Mike Martin is better suited for the 3-tech DT spot. If we move Martin to 3-tech, that means we only have Sagesse (Sr.) and Campbell (Soph.) at nose tackle.

Meanwhile, Talbott would probably play 3-tech DT. That position is currently inhabited by Van Bergen (RS Jr.) and Greg Banks (5th year), along with Martin if he moves there. But I would guess that Van Bergen will move to DE, so that basically makes us two-deep at both NT and DT before we get to incoming freshmen.

Yeah...our depth is questionable.

If I had my druthers, I'd pick Hankins over Talbott, just because we need size on the defensive line. Hankins isn't the athlete that Campbell was when Will came out of high school, but he's more technically sound. I think Hankins could contribute in short spurts as a true freshman, whereas Talbott probably needs a year or two to bulk up and refine his technique.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^

I agree that we make this move if one of Campbell or Sagesse can establish himself as one of our top four defensive lineman. Either way, I'd like to see Van Bergen add another ten pounds of muscle. I feel much better about him winning his matchup and occupying blockers if he's around 280-285. At 6-5, I think he has a frame to support that kind of weight without sacrificing too much quickness.

Even if Van Bergen moves to DE in the base package, if another end steps up as a rotation player or situational pass rusher, we can slide Van Bergen back over to DT as either a regular part of the rotation or situational pass rush.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^

We are so thin at DT it is ridiculous. And remember these guys probably won't be fully effective until after Sagesse and Martin have graduated, so getting DTs like RIGHT NOW is very important. Getting DTs next year is already a bit too late to properly fill the vacancies that will occur in 2011 and 2012.


December 1st, 2009 at 5:15 PM ^

I hope that this is the last time I ever read that someone hopes that a Michigan football coach withdraws a scholarship offer and asks that player to be a preferred walk on instead.

Seriously, that is such a bullshit thing to suggest about a kid who has been committed for about a year and probably lost other scholarship opportunities because of his commitment to Michigan.


December 1st, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^

Can you point me to a source that says we can't count early enrollees to 2009?

- Oklahoma already has 25 commits and they are still in the hunt for several more top prospects.

- Oklahoma State has 26 commits and they continue to recruit.

- BYU has 25 commits and they are not done recruiting.

The NCAA rulebook for this year says that you can count early enrollees against openings in the previous class. Depending on fifth years returning we can certainly exceed 25.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^

With BARWIS! it would seem like we should have ability to take some of these huge balls of goo and mold them into 300-320 pound blocks of twisted blue steel. Ya know?


December 1st, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^

I think picking up a guy for "upside" is not a great idea. I am ok with it if there is a player who grew a lot late in high school, or who didn't get exposure or who had poor coaching. But Barwis can only mold guys who want to work their ass off. I respect and really like the fact that Rodriguez seems to prefer effort and heart to simple numbers when it comes to recruiting. I mean, he wants guys with great numbers, but it seems clear based on the last three years of recruiting that he pays a lot of attention to attitude and work ethic.


December 1st, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^

What I don't get is how a kid can "miss his flight" to visit another school. Did he honestly miss his flight, or is that just a euphemism for the fact he chose to go somewhere else. If he honestly just didn't make it on the plane, then book him on the next Delta flight north.


December 1st, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^

He all, thanks for letting me get involved in U of M football (recruiting) discussions. I not sure siging Talbott, Hankins and Beachum would be over kill. I can see Hankins at NT, Talbott at DT and Beachum (considering his athleticism) at the DE spot. If we did sign all three and Martin, Roh, Campbell and Lalota continue to improve I can see G-Robinson's D being much more versatile. I also feel strong D-lines hide A LOT of weaknesses in the LB'ing group. If anything, with a strong core of athletic D-linemen we could play more 4-3.

Edit- forgot about Paskorz and Wilkins. All three probably would be over kill.