I disagree. The F+ ranking for the squad was 6 (9 in 2021, 20 in 2016). No, it's not LSU 2019, but this was a very good offense that had multiple NFL players at OL, RB, TE, WR, (1 at) Qb, etc. Easily the best of recent Michigan teams, easily one of the best in the country, and really the key difference between this last year and almost all of the previous 10-15. They weren't aggressive, but that's completely fine and somewhat different.
He's listed at 6'2", 285. Never seen him play and maybe's he's Hurst 2.0, but he's similarly non-trivially smaller than the backups on the roster (and cam goode, and incoming freshmen, etc.). I'm fine with Etta taking the hybrid role.
I'm skeptical that the current pass attack can beat a 2022 Knowles scheme, regardless of who's throwing. Partially that's because I'm not sure the receivers will get open 1v1 as effectively as the previous guys (also think Morris & Morgan are each better in the slot).
Otherwise, CB2/NB. A little worried Wink goes blitzy to try to protect these guys from prolonged coverage. Most teams don't have more than 1 dangerous reciever, OSU/Texas/similar probably do.
What's your outlook on the football team from 2024-26 (or maybe 24/25 is more reasonable), and what are the key variables (players or current recruit/transfer targets that pop or fail or go elsewhere) and positions where you feel optimistic or pessimistic? Basically, if you're Sherrone, what's your level of optimism and what are you prioritizing?
I think it's tough for a kid to transfer to a team that is going to play the old team in the up-coming year. One reason I never believed the smug Texas chatter that one UM DT or another would head down to Austin.
Overall, the starting talent seems great, but a lot depends on positional uncertainties (CB2) being strengths rather than weaknesses, young guys popping and providing depth, how the scheme fits the talent/how it is...and all the other little things that partially make the difference between 2023's #1 D and, say, 2018's # 15 D.
I'm another fan of the (professional football) Eagles. The two chief Philly media sub-plots that were danced around after C. Kelly's firing as head coach were that he was: a) a terribly simplistic and predictable play-caller; b) the players thought he was racist. I have no idea whether this guy is terrible at drawing things up (Chip was voted as the best play-caller in the PAC not too long ago by his peers in some 247 article). I also recognize that how he actually thinks about/behaves towards other people is an unknown, may be misrepresented, or may have evolved to the point where no player really thinks this way now. I wouldn't draw too much from this beyond this guy not historically being a very fun (read: weird, uncomfortable) coach for a player, but that's also never a good history to have.
I thought West seemed a closer fit to the size the previous staff seemed to like (was basically Cam Goode size), but even with all the rotation, being DT # 5 is probably not an easy sell. Suggs, listed at 286 lbs, would be the lightest DT on the team, and my impression is that he's not as highly regarded as West. Still good to have another experienced body in case of injury.
The main conceptual problem with the preseason polls as a predictor of post-season ranking is how much the preseason polls are weighted by the results of the previous year. Incidentally, I read this while doing some toy analysis, and I think maybe the question to ask (but not easy to answer) is how many players will be drafted on days 1:3 in 2025 and 2026.
I'm too junior on the blog to post the poll I'd like to, but I could see about up to a dozen players going in 2025 (optimistically, the big 4 on day 1, DE/R. Moore/Barham/maybe D. Moore on day 2, Stewart/Paige/Hinton/Hausmann on day 3). This gets really speculative for 2026, but...at first glance, I see a handful of potentially draftable guys: anybody left over from the previous list, Morris, El-Hadi, maybe Benny, maybe another OL like Persi or Crippen, maybe Zeke Berry, etc. If this speculation is remotely accurate, I think we're looking at a 2016 level team this year, although unfortunately, the conference/schedule is a little tougher. (Depending how/if somebody[ies] pop, maybe the ceiling is higher/lower)..
Interesting that Day is taking on more fundraising duties (makes sense in hindsight) while Chip Kelly takes the play-calling reigns. As a fan of the professional football Eagles familiar with his work, I'm not sure I'd want Kelly in that role.
I'm trusting this is a good faith argument (and not a troll). If so, how many scholarships are you thinking are lost? 10-15 over three years does not really strike me as a death knell (particularly in the NIL era).
I'll say that I'm very skeptical that this is the reason for this particular recruiting loss. It may be part of the negative recruiting strategies being used. An equally plausible answer to me is that Michigan simply has a big RB room, and Davis may not have seen an immediate path to playing time next year. If next Marshall, Hall, Cabana, Kaapana, (and probably?) Tavi Dunlap are back, that's 3 4 stars and 2 other backs Davis (himself a 4 star) is competing with. A little research suggests that Kentucky has both a smaller room (2 transfers are done after this season) and has recruited the position very poorly in recent years.
I'm also skeptical this is a major reason for transfers (17 out this year, vs 14 out last year) or the size of the recruiting board. The last time the team had more transfers was post 2020, when--incidentally--there was also massive coaching turnover. That season was over early, which allowed substantially more time to assemble a new staff to actually recruit.
FWIW, Webb CB'd both Charleston and A. Walker to UM. Charleston has about as many career in-game catches as everybody else on the roster; I guess this is better than having fewer catches. The depth lost extends beyond the new pros and English/Clemons to include Thaw/Dennis/Dixon. Any plausible depth piece is a good pick-up, even if the main impact is at practice or on special teams.
My first thought was that it would be interesting to compare the fully pooled model 1 (score~1+picks) with alternatives score~1+picks+(1|school) and score~1+picks+(1|school)+(1|picks). The Michigan points look like a flat line, which made me wonder if the picks fixed effect was really capturing school-specific variation (random intercept by school). [Edit, random effects not strictly germane, I guess--school-specific intercept/effects could be "fixed"].
The ethics of tampering and other aspects of this NIL landscape aside, I think the interesting part is less the disparity in overall resources and more how schools prioritize investments and how savvy they are at assessing investment worth. I don't follow Kentucky football at all. Maybe they're simply more aggressive about investing in less proven players. But maybe they also over-value guys like Waller (or one-time UM leans/commits like the Smiths or Brian Robinson). Same thing for Colorado and former UM leans/commits/players like Alex Graham, NHG, T. Upshaw, & Montrez Buford. If it's not obvious that the player is jumping to a program that's clearly richer, has greater prestige , or promises more immediate playing time, I think it's likely the root is basically speculative over-paying for positions of need or poor player valuation (for the new or old school). While I liked Waller and the loss of a CB is annoying, I trust the valuation of folks in UM's coaching room more than Kentucky's, and it may just be that they're more desperate for that position in the same way that we might be more desperate for a big reciever than Ole Miss is for a big CB.
If true, I will still never mind having another really tall really fast guy at CB/WR/both regardless of how he turns out. But let's not do this again next year?
I'd upvote this, but I'm not sure how (or if I'm even allowed to yet?) :).
But yeah, although there are definite limits to transitive property types of assessments, I was thinking about how ND demolished USC. I'm very interested to see how the new teams do next year. We'll see how things progress over the summer, but I'm not immediately worried about the USC game next year. The squad I'm really curious about is Oregon. The advanced summary stats (FEI, S/P+) say that team was Georgia/Michigan/OSU good last year: a step above Alabama, Texas, Penn State, etc. I can't quite get there (I think they will be more beatable than Texas or OSU next year), although I admit that I only watched the two games they lost.
This is only tangentially related (QB's), but: There was recent quote in a Feldman article from a coach along the lines of "every PAC QB seemed to be throwing to people that were 5-10 yards wide open."
I'm no QB guru, really didn't watch much of the PAC, and know this is a a classic stereotype of the conference...nevertheless, I wonder about the talent that was being thrown against. Dane Brugler gives 27 BIG defensive players a draftable grade vs. 14 PAC players. PFF's projected top 10 by defensive position for next year includes 17 BIG and 3 PAC players, so it's not like there were several big-time players taking another year of eligibility, either.
I don't think JJ's obviously better than the other guys, but a lotta QB's will look good against analogues to last year's Purdue/MSU teams.
This is a good point. There are 15 portal-out guys this year, 14 last year, 12 the year before, 22 the year before that. These include guys like Charbonnet, Erick All, RJ Moten (all 4-star transfers to 247, for what's thats worth) and also plenty of high 3 star transfers (A. Anthony, Cade). Each of these guys probably would have or could have been useful in some role here during this year or some previous year, but I don't look back on 2021 (2022, 2023) and think "If we'd only had Giles Jackson (Chuck Filagia, RJ Moten, Erick All, etc.) there!". Even in the NIL era, I just don't think a larger program with an outlook for a pretty successful season loses the big difference-makers--you cover the top guys, and spendier rivals grab your depth guys or grab folks competing for starting positions.
The concern to me is having a room raided or suffering repeated depth losses. With one experienced corner returning, it's frustrating to lose 3 in one year (Calhoun, Walker, Waller). Even if Jyaire Hill was just gonna outright seize the other spot this year, you'd want more guys to grab the other next year. Even if Morris/Moore/Morgan were clearly the top wideouts this year, you want functional reserves (English, Clemons). The safety room seems fine this year, but losing Moten and Saab in back to back years creates further work down the road.
On this blog, one idea has been that Michigan tries to exploit recruiting inefficiencies via development/scouting. I wonder how well that synergizes with a "pay based on performance" strategy in an era when other squads can pick off your high potential guys or guys competing for a position but without previous production to warrant bigger money. I think it places a bigger premium on forecasting (and rewarding) future impact accurately--those high ceiling, high variance guys are yet bigger risks if you have to pay to hold on to them when they aren't ready.
I was half expecting some portal outs at the ILB and RB positions just based on the the positional depth, so I can concoct a story to rationalize this to myself (in contrast to the loss of potential starters at WR or CB!). Still not fun.
Yeah, I think you're right about Waller still capable of playing a big role next year with Will gone (I was expecting him to and looking forward to it, and not sure who takes that spot--Edmunds?).
I dunno, I think Sherrone referring to Zeke and Jyaire on in the trenches maybe gives a hint. I think this is where they were leaning this season (those two with Will, Makari and some combo of QuJo and McBurrows). DJ might not want to wait for next season after getting more time initially than Jyaire?
[Edit]: just listened to in the trenches again, and I think my take above is wrong and am back to thinking of this as a straight bummer.
Bummer--I thought he was looking pretty good. I guess a few options possible:
Great opportunity elsewhere (NIL?).
Preferred other coaches (Clink > Morgan?)
Other players on-roster preferred (by new coaches, etc.).
New portal acquisition likely?
Probably more complex than this. If the staff thinks Hill is a better utility piece to cover contingencies at slot/safety/boundary CB and Waller was only suitable at one position (but maybe better at it), I can understand them preferring to cover the bases and him not being happy with it. Or if it's very close right now but Hill happens to be younger than incoming freshmen (and he is younger then Jadyn Davis) while Waller is not, I can also see the staff placing a bet on the young guy. Obviously no idea how much Hill influenced things vs. other players/factors.
Not gonna be a factor this year, but don't forget Lugard Edokpayi at edge/DL.
Tough due to the number of rostered DT's, but I'd like to see another vet via the portal (CJ West, please?). I kinda would like to keep E. Etta on the edge as a heavy.
Hoping for OL health. Two injured tackles and things get dicey. On the other hand, seems like there are 7 solid guys in the secondary (maybe 8 if Hillman really comes along).
There's gonna have to be some positional shifting around given some of the imbalances. It's UM, but don't think it's good to have more scholarship backs than receivers--I liked Brian's suggestion to swing Cabana out wide. 11 ILB also seems too many, although I guess Curtis/Sullivan/Hewlett are positional unknowns.
"Jump-ball" is probably a euphemism for "run-blocking", but either way--and as much as I like spring game O'Leary--it would be nice to have another playable body over 6'1".
Oh, I'd for sure put more stock in the assessment of the coaches, Klatt, UFR grading, etc. than my assessment. I do think the top 3 WR will be better than I was fearing. To me, it was just that there was more wideout beats LB/End/walk-on in straight coverage or bust than wideout beats contributing DB in straight coverage.
My deep-seated fear was that coming out of this, I'd view the team as a 2023 Iowa analogue (9-4 ceiling or something like that). I was mostly concerned going in about WR/QB. But post-game and largely basing this off of traits rather than results, I think Seth's snood face assessment seems accurate. To me, this squad is a much closer analogue to 2023 Penn State (at least average BIG-level qb/wr play). I'm not sure there's an NFL guy at either of those positions--and there were clearly 4 in 2022 and 3 last year going into the season--but I think the guys around are good enough to give the squad a puncher's chance at the BIG.
Couple stray thoughts:
At TE, Deacon T. looks like he could eventually be a dude. I kinda like Zach Marshall as a player, but he's just an odd tweener size. Klein didn't seem as explosive as I was expecting, but he has quick feet and looked good.
This is good, because while the top 3 recievers are solid, I can't see this team using 11 personnel too much without portal pick-ups, 4-wide seems unfeasible. I like F. Moore. I'm don't think he/Semaj/Morris are game-warpers even in the way Roman was (Fred might be more long fast than explosive). Kendrick Bell could develop into something down the road.
When the main guys were out there, looked like blue got better push on the ground. No idea on the specific guys, but I think the run-blocking will still be pretty dang good this year...and this has to be the deepest RB room I've seen for a while.
I think we'll still have pass-pro issues against strong foes. Admittedly missing starters, the D was was blitzier, the reciever depth lacking, but the Chop Robinson's of the world still concern me. I think at QB, you mostly want the guy that can give the rush pause and execute play action.
Barham's huge and fast. This guy could be a monster blitzer. While the secondary seemed good in coverage to me, the non-starting LB's did not.
The edges looked better than the DT's to my eye--I'm guessing this is a depth and relative strength of the interior vs edge OLine thing.
Recent Comments
I disagree. The F+ ranking for the squad was 6 (9 in 2021, 20 in 2016). No, it's not LSU 2019, but this was a very good offense that had multiple NFL players at OL, RB, TE, WR, (1 at) Qb, etc. Easily the best of recent Michigan teams, easily one of the best in the country, and really the key difference between this last year and almost all of the previous 10-15. They weren't aggressive, but that's completely fine and somewhat different.
He's listed at 6'2", 285. Never seen him play and maybe's he's Hurst 2.0, but he's similarly non-trivially smaller than the backups on the roster (and cam goode, and incoming freshmen, etc.). I'm fine with Etta taking the hybrid role.
I'm skeptical that the current pass attack can beat a 2022 Knowles scheme, regardless of who's throwing. Partially that's because I'm not sure the receivers will get open 1v1 as effectively as the previous guys (also think Morris & Morgan are each better in the slot).
Otherwise, CB2/NB. A little worried Wink goes blitzy to try to protect these guys from prolonged coverage. Most teams don't have more than 1 dangerous reciever, OSU/Texas/similar probably do.
I trust Magnus's judgment on recruits more than mine--just had an itchier trigger finger, I guess.
I totally agree--would rather see the team pick up a few more bedrock commits earlier on and then fill things out.
What's your outlook on the football team from 2024-26 (or maybe 24/25 is more reasonable), and what are the key variables (players or current recruit/transfer targets that pop or fail or go elsewhere) and positions where you feel optimistic or pessimistic? Basically, if you're Sherrone, what's your level of optimism and what are you prioritizing?
I think it's tough for a kid to transfer to a team that is going to play the old team in the up-coming year. One reason I never believed the smug Texas chatter that one UM DT or another would head down to Austin.
Worth reading (although pay-walled): https://theathletic.com/5484900/2024/05/13/college-football-transfer-portal-nil-deals/
Overall, the starting talent seems great, but a lot depends on positional uncertainties (CB2) being strengths rather than weaknesses, young guys popping and providing depth, how the scheme fits the talent/how it is...and all the other little things that partially make the difference between 2023's #1 D and, say, 2018's # 15 D.
I'm another fan of the (professional football) Eagles. The two chief Philly media sub-plots that were danced around after C. Kelly's firing as head coach were that he was: a) a terribly simplistic and predictable play-caller; b) the players thought he was racist. I have no idea whether this guy is terrible at drawing things up (Chip was voted as the best play-caller in the PAC not too long ago by his peers in some 247 article). I also recognize that how he actually thinks about/behaves towards other people is an unknown, may be misrepresented, or may have evolved to the point where no player really thinks this way now. I wouldn't draw too much from this beyond this guy not historically being a very fun (read: weird, uncomfortable) coach for a player, but that's also never a good history to have.
I thought West seemed a closer fit to the size the previous staff seemed to like (was basically Cam Goode size), but even with all the rotation, being DT # 5 is probably not an easy sell. Suggs, listed at 286 lbs, would be the lightest DT on the team, and my impression is that he's not as highly regarded as West. Still good to have another experienced body in case of injury.
Just digging around a few sites, I'm seeing him pegged in the pick 30 range.
I'm happy whenever crystal balls turn out to be accurate. Looks like a good fit.
The main conceptual problem with the preseason polls as a predictor of post-season ranking is how much the preseason polls are weighted by the results of the previous year. Incidentally, I read this while doing some toy analysis, and I think maybe the question to ask (but not easy to answer) is how many players will be drafted on days 1:3 in 2025 and 2026.
I'm too junior on the blog to post the poll I'd like to, but I could see about up to a dozen players going in 2025 (optimistically, the big 4 on day 1, DE/R. Moore/Barham/maybe D. Moore on day 2, Stewart/Paige/Hinton/Hausmann on day 3). This gets really speculative for 2026, but...at first glance, I see a handful of potentially draftable guys: anybody left over from the previous list, Morris, El-Hadi, maybe Benny, maybe another OL like Persi or Crippen, maybe Zeke Berry, etc. If this speculation is remotely accurate, I think we're looking at a 2016 level team this year, although unfortunately, the conference/schedule is a little tougher. (Depending how/if somebody[ies] pop, maybe the ceiling is higher/lower)..
Can't upvote, so can just say I totally agree.
Good animal. Seems to benefit from fairly persistent snow--uses it as a refrigerator to cache carcasses/carrion.
I think those are estimates from some valuation model they use based on rating, position, and maybe other things rather than actual measures of pay.
Interesting that Day is taking on more fundraising duties (makes sense in hindsight) while Chip Kelly takes the play-calling reigns. As a fan of the professional football Eagles familiar with his work, I'm not sure I'd want Kelly in that role.
I'm trusting this is a good faith argument (and not a troll). If so, how many scholarships are you thinking are lost? 10-15 over three years does not really strike me as a death knell (particularly in the NIL era).
I'll say that I'm very skeptical that this is the reason for this particular recruiting loss. It may be part of the negative recruiting strategies being used. An equally plausible answer to me is that Michigan simply has a big RB room, and Davis may not have seen an immediate path to playing time next year. If next Marshall, Hall, Cabana, Kaapana, (and probably?) Tavi Dunlap are back, that's 3 4 stars and 2 other backs Davis (himself a 4 star) is competing with. A little research suggests that Kentucky has both a smaller room (2 transfers are done after this season) and has recruited the position very poorly in recent years.
I'm also skeptical this is a major reason for transfers (17 out this year, vs 14 out last year) or the size of the recruiting board. The last time the team had more transfers was post 2020, when--incidentally--there was also massive coaching turnover. That season was over early, which allowed substantially more time to assemble a new staff to actually recruit.
FWIW, Webb CB'd both Charleston and A. Walker to UM. Charleston has about as many career in-game catches as everybody else on the roster; I guess this is better than having fewer catches. The depth lost extends beyond the new pros and English/Clemons to include Thaw/Dennis/Dixon. Any plausible depth piece is a good pick-up, even if the main impact is at practice or on special teams.
Lugard Edokpayi erasure!
Very cool, thanks!
My first thought was that it would be interesting to compare the fully pooled model 1 (score~1+picks) with alternatives score~1+picks+(1|school) and score~1+picks+(1|school)+(1|picks). The Michigan points look like a flat line, which made me wonder if the picks fixed effect was really capturing school-specific variation (random intercept by school). [Edit, random effects not strictly germane, I guess--school-specific intercept/effects could be "fixed"].
The ethics of tampering and other aspects of this NIL landscape aside, I think the interesting part is less the disparity in overall resources and more how schools prioritize investments and how savvy they are at assessing investment worth. I don't follow Kentucky football at all. Maybe they're simply more aggressive about investing in less proven players. But maybe they also over-value guys like Waller (or one-time UM leans/commits like the Smiths or Brian Robinson). Same thing for Colorado and former UM leans/commits/players like Alex Graham, NHG, T. Upshaw, & Montrez Buford. If it's not obvious that the player is jumping to a program that's clearly richer, has greater prestige , or promises more immediate playing time, I think it's likely the root is basically speculative over-paying for positions of need or poor player valuation (for the new or old school). While I liked Waller and the loss of a CB is annoying, I trust the valuation of folks in UM's coaching room more than Kentucky's, and it may just be that they're more desperate for that position in the same way that we might be more desperate for a big reciever than Ole Miss is for a big CB.
He's at Colorado.
If true, I will still never mind having another really tall really fast guy at CB/WR/both regardless of how he turns out. But let's not do this again next year?
I'd upvote this, but I'm not sure how (or if I'm even allowed to yet?) :).
But yeah, although there are definite limits to transitive property types of assessments, I was thinking about how ND demolished USC. I'm very interested to see how the new teams do next year. We'll see how things progress over the summer, but I'm not immediately worried about the USC game next year. The squad I'm really curious about is Oregon. The advanced summary stats (FEI, S/P+) say that team was Georgia/Michigan/OSU good last year: a step above Alabama, Texas, Penn State, etc. I can't quite get there (I think they will be more beatable than Texas or OSU next year), although I admit that I only watched the two games they lost.
This is only tangentially related (QB's), but: There was recent quote in a Feldman article from a coach along the lines of "every PAC QB seemed to be throwing to people that were 5-10 yards wide open."
I'm no QB guru, really didn't watch much of the PAC, and know this is a a classic stereotype of the conference...nevertheless, I wonder about the talent that was being thrown against. Dane Brugler gives 27 BIG defensive players a draftable grade vs. 14 PAC players. PFF's projected top 10 by defensive position for next year includes 17 BIG and 3 PAC players, so it's not like there were several big-time players taking another year of eligibility, either.
I don't think JJ's obviously better than the other guys, but a lotta QB's will look good against analogues to last year's Purdue/MSU teams.
This is a good point. There are 15 portal-out guys this year, 14 last year, 12 the year before, 22 the year before that. These include guys like Charbonnet, Erick All, RJ Moten (all 4-star transfers to 247, for what's thats worth) and also plenty of high 3 star transfers (A. Anthony, Cade). Each of these guys probably would have or could have been useful in some role here during this year or some previous year, but I don't look back on 2021 (2022, 2023) and think "If we'd only had Giles Jackson (Chuck Filagia, RJ Moten, Erick All, etc.) there!". Even in the NIL era, I just don't think a larger program with an outlook for a pretty successful season loses the big difference-makers--you cover the top guys, and spendier rivals grab your depth guys or grab folks competing for starting positions.
The concern to me is having a room raided or suffering repeated depth losses. With one experienced corner returning, it's frustrating to lose 3 in one year (Calhoun, Walker, Waller). Even if Jyaire Hill was just gonna outright seize the other spot this year, you'd want more guys to grab the other next year. Even if Morris/Moore/Morgan were clearly the top wideouts this year, you want functional reserves (English, Clemons). The safety room seems fine this year, but losing Moten and Saab in back to back years creates further work down the road.
On this blog, one idea has been that Michigan tries to exploit recruiting inefficiencies via development/scouting. I wonder how well that synergizes with a "pay based on performance" strategy in an era when other squads can pick off your high potential guys or guys competing for a position but without previous production to warrant bigger money. I think it places a bigger premium on forecasting (and rewarding) future impact accurately--those high ceiling, high variance guys are yet bigger risks if you have to pay to hold on to them when they aren't ready.
I was half expecting some portal outs at the ILB and RB positions just based on the the positional depth, so I can concoct a story to rationalize this to myself (in contrast to the loss of potential starters at WR or CB!). Still not fun.
Yeah, I think you're right about Waller still capable of playing a big role next year with Will gone (I was expecting him to and looking forward to it, and not sure who takes that spot--Edmunds?).
I dunno, I think Sherrone referring to Zeke and Jyaire on in the trenches maybe gives a hint. I think this is where they were leaning this season (those two with Will, Makari and some combo of QuJo and McBurrows). DJ might not want to wait for next season after getting more time initially than Jyaire?
[Edit]: just listened to in the trenches again, and I think my take above is wrong and am back to thinking of this as a straight bummer.
Bummer--I thought he was looking pretty good. I guess a few options possible:
Probably more complex than this. If the staff thinks Hill is a better utility piece to cover contingencies at slot/safety/boundary CB and Waller was only suitable at one position (but maybe better at it), I can understand them preferring to cover the bases and him not being happy with it. Or if it's very close right now but Hill happens to be younger than incoming freshmen (and he is younger then Jadyn Davis) while Waller is not, I can also see the staff placing a bet on the young guy. Obviously no idea how much Hill influenced things vs. other players/factors.
Not gonna be a factor this year, but don't forget Lugard Edokpayi at edge/DL.
Tough due to the number of rostered DT's, but I'd like to see another vet via the portal (CJ West, please?). I kinda would like to keep E. Etta on the edge as a heavy.
Hoping for OL health. Two injured tackles and things get dicey. On the other hand, seems like there are 7 solid guys in the secondary (maybe 8 if Hillman really comes along).
There's gonna have to be some positional shifting around given some of the imbalances. It's UM, but don't think it's good to have more scholarship backs than receivers--I liked Brian's suggestion to swing Cabana out wide. 11 ILB also seems too many, although I guess Curtis/Sullivan/Hewlett are positional unknowns.
Looks like some recruits may have liked the game, so I'm happy. More predictions for Gach, and I guess what they now call a "FongBomb" for top 50ish Nate Marshall (https://twitter.com/On3Recruits/status/1782121016304734491)?
"Jump-ball" is probably a euphemism for "run-blocking", but either way--and as much as I like spring game O'Leary--it would be nice to have another playable body over 6'1".
Oh, I'd for sure put more stock in the assessment of the coaches, Klatt, UFR grading, etc. than my assessment. I do think the top 3 WR will be better than I was fearing. To me, it was just that there was more wideout beats LB/End/walk-on in straight coverage or bust than wideout beats contributing DB in straight coverage.
to be clear, I think it's less "expert" and more "guy who can see and is willing a post an opinion online like anybody else" :).
My deep-seated fear was that coming out of this, I'd view the team as a 2023 Iowa analogue (9-4 ceiling or something like that). I was mostly concerned going in about WR/QB. But post-game and largely basing this off of traits rather than results, I think Seth's snood face assessment seems accurate. To me, this squad is a much closer analogue to 2023 Penn State (at least average BIG-level qb/wr play). I'm not sure there's an NFL guy at either of those positions--and there were clearly 4 in 2022 and 3 last year going into the season--but I think the guys around are good enough to give the squad a puncher's chance at the BIG.
Couple stray thoughts:
The edges looked better than the DT's to my eye--I'm guessing this is a depth and relative strength of the interior vs edge OLine thing.