UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[iam416]

At some point the offense needs to, well, score points. It's not the Era of Bo.

No doubt the TOs were a disaster. But merely being even in TO margin isn't really much of an answer if you're not also moving the ball and scoring points. I mean, I guess it could be an answer if 8-4 is the goal.

[whodean]

One huge thing to remember -- Michigan was -16 on turnovers last year. -16. That's huge.

Devin Gardner baby.

[Mike]

Not only were they -16 on TOs, they were coached by a buffoon who is really bad at coaching football.

[Hannibal]

No doubt the TOs were a disaster. But merely being even in TO margin isn't really much of an answer if you're not also moving the ball and scoring points. I mean, I guess it could be an answer if 8-4 is the goal.

Yeah I want our team to move the ball down the field and score too but it's a lot easier to move the ball 20 years when your defense sets you up than it is to move it 80 yards. College football history is full of mediocre 2 loss teams that stole close games with turnovers and/or special teams, like Gary Barnett's Northwestern teams, 2003 OSU, and our 2011 team.

Anyhow, my point from earlier is just to show how a team with a -16 turnover margin is poised for a significant record improvement, even if the team isn't actually that much better from down to down.

[iam416]

Gratuitous insult of the 2003 team. Thoroughly mediocre on offense, but fantastic on defense. I believe that team set a record for NFL draft picks. And oddly enough, they actually had several games where they did everything they could to transform an easy win into a close game...NCS and BG come to mind instantly. They were only +1 on the seasons in TOs.

If M has a defense THAT good then they should definitely stick to a Tresselball approach. Based on what I've seen, they won't.

But that's an aside. I think the viability of Tresselball is waning. Offenses need to score points. I mean, I think OSU had a pretty decent defense last year -- spotty at times, but certainly one that improved. They conceded 22 points per game. Fortunately the offense scored almost 45. Mattison's defense has given up 24.6 per game the last two seasons and 22.4 last year. M will have to score points to win, IMO. 17-10 isn't really a viable option.

But, hey, I could be way off. Wouldn't be the first or last time.

[Hannibal]

"Mediocre" is very generous to describe that offense. Without defensive scores against San Diego State and Purdue (both of them ended up as 16-13 contests) OSU would have been 9-4 that year. Not unlike our 2011 team that legitimately won 9 games and then got two by luck. If memory serves, they scored all of their points against Iowa on special teams that year too. Their rushing offense averaged about the same ypg and ypc as Michigan's 2013 team.

[hack]

I don't think anyone is banking on beating teams 17-10 for the longterm. Seems to me the hope is that for this year we have a veteran QB in Rudock who won't make mistakes, and that's a baby step toward an actual good offense, but for this year we might just need to rely on the defense more than we'd really want to.

Frankly I wouldn't rule out Morris responding to good coaching either. The situation isn't completely analagous, but Rudock as Alex Smith and Morris as Kaepernick. Harbaugh may go with the more talented guy and gameplan around the rawness.

[lineygoblue]

Either way, I don't see a regression at the QB spot this year. You'll either have an experienced 5th year starter at the helm, who is known for not making game-killing mistakes (gratuitous stab at Gardner) .. or, we'll have a coached-up Shane Morris who could finally let some of that talent show.

Nobody thought Brian Griese would be the starter in 1997. As I recall, that was a bit of a surprise. Maybe Morris can make the same leap.

[jaadam4]

Not only were they -16 on TOs, they were coached by a buffoon who is really bad at coaching football.

This!

[Hannibal]

I don't think anyone is banking on beating teams 17-10 for the longterm.

Oh no doubt. But I think that people are overlooking the significance of -16 and what an absolutely massive turnaround that sets up for the coach -- any coach. I said the same thing going into the 2011 season when lots of people were predicting 6-6 or 7-5 -- the 2010 team suffered tremendously from turnovers and terrible special teams too. Depending on the timing of those turnovers and special teams breakdowns, they are worth 2-4 wins without any improvement anywhere else on the field. Against Notre Dame we were -4 on turnovers with two missed field goals. Against Utah we were -3 on turnovers with a punt return touchdown allowed. Against Rutgers we were -1 and we had a blocked field goal. Against Maryland we were -1 on turnovers and we had a punt return TD called back because of penalty. For all I know we could be -16 again but I think that a return to zero is more likely, along with at least average special teams again. The reason that I'm not predicting 9 wins this year is because I think that the schedule is pretty hard.

[Wellington_beefhouser]

Decent read from Garrett Fishaw @ MGOFISH

http://mgofish.com/team-137-best-gue...ass-july-15th/

Some suprises in this forecast...kelly would be a huge get. I'd love to see Jon Jones in Maize and Blue.

[whodean]

grayshirts?

[Wellington_beefhouser]

Per recruiting 101 - "Basically a grayshirt is when an athlete delays his enrollment at his future college so that his eligibility clock will not start ticking until he arrives on campus during the second semester of the year. Football is the only sport that I am aware of that uses grayshirts but it could be used by other fall sports and possibly spring sports as well.

Here is how it would be used. If you were an athlete who signed a National Letter of Intent last week for football, you would be reporting to the school in early August to start the football season. Your eligibility clock of four playing seasons in five total years would start ticking. If you are currently 18, even if you redshirted and played the next four years, you would finish your playing career around the age of 22 or 23 (Depending on birthday and such).

If you decided to grayshirt, what you would do that first semester would be go to a local Junior College and attend classes. The reason you may go to a JC near home is to save money over another, more expensive school. What you would have to do is make sure that you are not taking a full load. If a full load of classes is considering 12 class hours, you would just need to make sure you are taking less than that. As a grayshirt, you would not get to practice with the team, workout with the team, or even eat at team meals. During the first semester, you are not a part of the team.

The reason that you cannot do that stuff is because you want your full time status to start during the second semester. Instead of just being thrown into the wolves during the summer, you can participate in spring practice, get used to classes, and then possibly be able to play in the fall. If you started in the second semester of next year, which would be 2009, you would get that season, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 to complete your four years of playing. Some prospects do go from being a grayshirt right to being a redshirt so that they would end up being 23 or 24 when they finish.

Schools will grayshirt a player for a few reasons. The first is because they are really high on a player but have a small class or already a number of other prospects being committed. If you were a senior and you grayshirted, your scholarship would count towards the Class of 2009. It is similar to when a prep athlete graduates high school early to participate in spring practice."

[drok]

That list seems a little too optimistic.

[hack]

No idea bout the others, but Michigan vs. Auburn for Rashan Gary just doesn't sound like it's going to end well.