UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[iam416]

You recruit for what you want to do, but you also recruit the best players possible for what you want to do. HARBAUGH!!! isn't going to recruit the #1 Dual Purpose QB because it doesn't make sense. He's going to recruit Pro-Style guys (probably). But he's going to recruit the best possible Pro-Style guy -- and that's what he did -- starting with reaching out to Eason, recruiting Costello and then moving on to Peters.

It's also worth noting that recruiting rankings in the 1990s -- back when UNL was good -- were terrible. These days the sheer volume of available evidence is exponentially higher. Coaches and recruiting services get to see this kids at camps multiple times and then get to see the really good ones in actual practice for all-star games. Seeing like talent on like talent is a huge, huge improvement from looking at HS film.

[Da Geezer]

Devery Hamilton commits. Hard to believe there is not too much talk around here about another 4* who plays either offense or defense. I happen to think the story of Harbaugh's recruiting is not that he has taken some 2* prospects, but rather many, probably most, of these recruits have multiple positions that they could play. This kid is 6'6" 270, good on defense, but considered an OT by the services. Raw. Needs a RS year.

[iam416]

He's gotta be an OT, IMO.

[Wellington_beefhouser]

I still think the overwhelming evidence...OVERWHELMING evidence shows that recruiting rankings are pretty accurate.



A program that is consistently top 15 and typically top 10.

Anyway, I understand that "stars don't matter" these days. If M fans want to hang their hat on Art Briles, so be it. I'm sure that'll whip Urbie.

Sure, teams who have higher recruiting rankings fair better overall. I wasn't disputing that. I'm glad Michigan currently has the number 7 class in the country. However, a strong recruiting class doesn't automatically mean they are going to be successful. No doubt, their chances of being successful are higher. It's easier to get a corvette up to 150 mph than it is a hyundai. IMO talent development and management have a huge role in how successful a team will be. I'll hang my hat on Harbaugh being able to develop and manage his talent successfully (based on his track record as a coach).

[Hannibal]

IMHO scheme and "fit" matter fuck-all for recruiting for everything besides QB. That is because when it comes to O-linemen and just about everyone on defense, you have virtually no idea who's going to put on weight, how well they will carry it, and what it will do to their athleticism. Tons of guys switch positions on defense in college. If you recruit a guy because he fits your system as a rush end but then he puts on 35 lbs, suddenly the "fit" becomes meaningless. On offense, just about everyone values the same traits, as evidenced by the fact that Oregon went after the same players as Michigan during the Hoke era. The exception is at QB, whether your system is based on a running QB or a pure passing QB, whether you need height or not, and the importance of arm strength.

[iam416]

I'll hang my hat on Harbaugh being able to develop and manage his talent successfully (based on his track record as a coach).

And that's perfectly fine. I guess my question, then, is what are your expectations for JH? Because if it's a national title or being an elite program, then that, IMO, requires being elite at recruiting, player development and scheme/coaching. Put another way, Saban and UFM, e.g., are pretty damn good at the latter two. JH isn't making up much, if any, ground in those departments. So, I'm not sure how you're going to beat them with any type of consistency with inferior recruiting.

[iam416]

Hanni:

I think you have a pretty decent idea of what kids will look like down the road in terms of weight. And I think the assumption is that you can add weight through S&C that won't, at minimum, detract from athletic ability. I agree with you, mostly, on scheme. Good OL are good OL. The only thing may that power teams may value OGs more and perhaps passing teams/spread teams are looking for leaner, more athletic OTs with the hope they can bulk them up. I dunno. I look at the top 20 OL and think there's no team in the country turning any of them down, regardless of scheme. BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD!

I think you may see a little more "scheme" analysis in sorting out 3* kids. But then the first question always has to be -- can this kid play? Then, maybe, you figure out how they fit into your roster.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, yeah, I don't think there is any rational way to calculate this subjective talk about HARBAUGH!!! into a meaningful equation predicting on field success that, as it's variables, includes things like the level of talent on your team.

There are just too many M fans doing that right now. HARBAUGH!!! is a huge unknown at this point compared to objective facts that are readily available to anyone that wants to see them for what they are. Facts.

[froot loops]

Michigan has won 1 national championship in 65 years. Nobody that posts in this forum has ever known a time where they have dominated college football. It has been a dominant national brand, but the results have lagged behind. If people were expecting Harbaugh to come in and dominate recruiting, it was an unrealistic expectation. There might be a couple of years where you are hanging your hat on "being able to develop and manage his talent successfully." That doesn't mean in the future he is recruiting the unheralded players your hope is you have results to sell.

[entropy]

Teams that win NC have great coaches and staffs or Cam Newton. Recruiting is part of the equation, but there is a lot more too it than just getting best players. Guys who win develop, teach and know what they need for their system. I'd also agrue that they are innovators on either offense or defense... and they usually set the curve and if they are long term successful, the ability to continually set the curve.

[iam416]

Michigan has won 1 national championship in 65 years.

What's more, Michigan has only PLAYED for 1 national championship in the past 65 years. Up until the 2007 or so, they routinely fielded teams capable of winning the national title -- I think the 1986 and 1988 teams, e.g., were certainly of that quality -- and the 1992 team was really good, too. But 1 time they've even played for a national title.

But this is a considerable digression. More pertinently, M has a big weekend of visits coming up. If you put Bush in the class, that's 20. The OG from Maryland is big on M, Upshur is big on M and I think they probably lead for Mitchell. If you're holding spots for Gary and Caleb Kelly -- and I assume they are -- that puts them at 25. So we're nearing a point where M is pretty much done with broad recruiting and is now moving into a much more targeted approach where they try to land roughly 4-8 kids and recruit over commits as needed.

[entropy]

what nobody has mentioned is how poorly Wisky is recruiting... even compared to their norm.

[iam416]

Teams that win NC have great coaches and staffs or Cam Newton. Recruiting is part of the equation, but there is a lot more too it than just getting best players

Even with Cam, they had Malzahn on the staff.

I mean, this is getting silly. There are numerous elements to winning a national title or competing for a national title. But there is absolutely no soft-pedaling talent. A MAC school with Bill Bellichek, Pete Carroll, Nick Saban and Bill Cowher as coaches would have no fucking prayer of winning the national title.

Meanwhile a coach like Jimbo Fisher -- a coach I consider merely "good" -- can win the national title by recruiting a boatload of talent.

Further, if good coaching and player development is comparable -- and for the good coaches, I think that's the case -- then what makes the difference. Talent! And, of course, with all levels of football -- your QB.

Finally, when I watched last year's OSU-Oregon game, I didn't think, man, Ohio State is splendidly coached -- what tremendous player development. I thought, holy fuck, they're better than Oregon at shit near 21 of the 22 starting positions. Now, UFM gets credit for that in terms of player development, but he was also starting with a MUCH higher rated lump of clay.

[Da Geezer]

Welcome Wellington_beefhouser glad you are here. Hope you have some insights about high school players in Texas.

You are right. It all comes down to how Harbaugh does in developing talent and now, more than ever, how he does in 2015. And in particular, how UM does against Utah on a Thursday night national game where the "story" is going to be Jim Harbaugh.

Whoever scheduled a summertime away game at altitude should be horsewhipped and then hung.

[entropy]

based upon the past few years.. I'd say recruiting in the BIG:

OSU: same.. too much talent in the state to really be bad.. and out of state schools are their only real competition
MSU: I'd say the class looks better than previous yrs.. on paper. MSU finally cashing in on the success?
Mich: feels the same to me.. sorry guys, but Michigan under the last 3 coaches got some really good players and several projects. Hasn't seemed to change.. What might be changing is development of those players
Wisky: feels down.. so far. Not that wisky was great, but they seem to be competing for kids with less impressive offers
Iowa: had a big weekend where 6 kids committed... but I'd say the same. They just don't recruit well and some of their best kids were passed over by Bo P or late bloomers. Team speed is lacking
nebraska: appears to be up.. UNL is not doing the settle for the kid with only a central florida offer in the summer. I'd have to look at star rankings, but my impression is we are competing with schools who are a head of UNL in recent program success or they are programs on the rise.
PSU: seems to be up.. lots of energy in that staff.. not sure they have the real difference makers, but they seem to be beating schools they should beat for kids instead of losing some of those battles..
Minn: seems to be the same..


thoughts..