Open Practice Bits
It's tough to chisel meaning out of an unpadded practice that's just position drills. Your author was also unprepared for the sheer length of the thing, which was scheduled for over two hours, and had to bail early when the infant strapped to his chest demanded egress. Hopefully I did not miss some whiz-bang stuff. I focused almost entirely on the offense because we know more or less what the D is going to be like.
Anyway:
The Gattis-ing. Prepare for QB claps, folks: WRs and TEs run a drill where a simulated QB claps and then they go on backwards motion of the guy's leg. That's an indicator that the sideline-call spread is making its return. There weren't any indications I could pick up of an ability to go tempo on folks. I looked. I'm sure that's a focus, but one that will have to wait for the spring game for anyone to confirm or dis-confirm that.
There were also snaps on which WRs went on simulated snaps from under center, so I don't expect the pro style stuff to go away completely.
[After the JUMP: various other tea leaves about the revamped offense]
Does the Gattis-ing extend to QB drills? I've been to a couple of these open practices over the years and don't recall anything like the QB drills that Michigan was running. These included:
- A rapid-fire drill where the QB got tossed a ball repeatedly and had to get it out immediately.
- A drill in which two QBs ran in a circle and tossed the ball to each other. They would occasionally have to reverse direction.
- A drill in which WRs would disappear behind a large padded wall-type substance and pop out for a quick pass. These were rough for the WR corps, FWIW.
- A "who throws a shoe" drill in which QBs would drop back, dodge a foam trapezoid that was hurled at them, and then throw.
The impression I got was that there was a lot more focus on getting the ball out quickly and functioning on the move. The shoe drill was the only one that seemed more about hanging in the pocket and finding something downfield. I may be completely off here and this is just stuff Harbaugh always does; I may be desperately hoping that Michigan throws one frickin' slant in the aftermath of Pepxit.
One more data point in favor of short stuff: long segment with the TEs where they ran choice routes, which are routes in which you run about 5-8 yards downfield and then break away from wherever your defender is. There seemed to be an emphasis on quick decision-making on shorter routes.
A certain vibe. Combine the previous two bullets with the OL running what seemed to be exclusively zone drills and the practice gave off a very Rich Rod feel, at least on offense. This is a good thing when you might have the best WR corps in the country and a QB like Patterson.
It seems like Michigan's counterpunch to inside zone, which I expect to be their base play, has to be power stuff, because Onwenu and Ruiz seem like awkward fits for outside zone. If Ruiz can run OZ at his size, forget it, Rimington and off to the NFL. Survey says… maybe?
to be fair to Harbaugh, Dwumfour did get hurt in the bowl [Marc-Gregor Campredon]
Motivational tactic. Harbaugh's weird press conference assertion that Mike Dwumfour and Donovan Peoples-Jones had soft-tissue injuries that could last the whole season seemed like motivational balderdash when he said it, and sure enough Dwumfour practiced. Dwumfour disclosed what his injury was and when it happened on twitter:
I did not tear my planta fascia in the bowl hame I tore it against Maryland and still played did not miss any games I don’t know where this false information is coming from. Rehab is going great I will be back healthy very soon in Jesus name!!
— Michael DwumFour (@HON5H0) April 3, 2019
"I don't know where this false information is coming from"… uh well you see I want it to be clear that it isn't a blog and we can just drop it otherwise.
DPJ did not participate. Given the variance between the assertion about Dwumfour and the apparent reality I would assume that there's a small chance indeed that whatever his issue is lingers another five months.
The eye test. Seeing Jalen Mayfield next to Ryan Hayes was seeing an OL next to a guy who's still a year away from being an OL. Mayfield looks the part. I'd still give Stueber the edge in their battle at right tackle since he played about two games worth of snaps and looked decent doing so, but having Mayfield blow by him would be good news.
Also in eye test:
- Erik All is a holy lock to redshirt, unless Michigan wants to play him at WR.
- Rumors that Mike Onwenu has a more plausible claim to being the 350 pounds he's listed at remain unconfirmed despite your correspondent staring at him for a long time trying to figure it out. He is large, and I cannot tell whether he is Large Large or Huge Large.
- Ruiz is also Large Large but is not Huge Large.
- Mike Sainristil is tiny but looks fun. Noticeably more smooth than many of his colleagues at WR. (DPJ and Collins did not participate.)
- Mustafa Muhammad still looks spindly. Nate Eubanks is now a bonafide TE, if he still seemed like a big WR last year.
Yikes. Michigan's options at RB were Ben VanSumeren and walk-ons. Turner and Charbonnet need to get healthy, and hopefully Chris Evans can toe the lines he has to toe to get back.
Lining up all over. Josh Uche split his time between the DL group and the LB group but was mostly at LB. With Mike Danna coming in this fall I assume he'll start at WDE, with Uche reprising his rush specialist role and adding some snaps in base packages. I wonder if we might see more 3-3-5. The 3-3-5 has never been a good rush D for M—it's mostly been awful, in fact—but given the situation at DT and the presence of a guy like Uche it might be an option.
The swap back. Phil Paea was back at DT. Usually switching back to a position you switched away from is a bad sign, but in this case Michigan has a rock-solid two-deep at center and needs DT bodies.
Zoning it. The one item on D that seemed like a notable change: there was a lot of time spent zoning simulated crossing routes. That's the obvious, necessary response after the unprecedented debacle last November. Also on the docket: a lot of simulated WR formations in which folks would point out who's got who, with a lot of unbalanced formations to decipher.
The giant ball. Many defensive drills ended with players grabbing a ball about three feet in diameter and lifting it up. As simulated tackles go this is pretty good: you reach down, arms wide, wrap your arms around something, and then secure it to lift. You want to hit low and explode up to stall momentum.
I think that's fair from a wins and losses standpoint and we have had quite a few near misses. But Harbaugh has completely remade the culture and image of the program IMO. It's a competitive program right now that is recruiting at a relatively high level and looking strong at times (with some notable slip ups). That's a good bit better than where we have been for the previous ten years.
Did I hope for even more? Yes. But there has been significant progress.
I agree with this.
He isn't perfect, but we are far more consistent than we were. And I still don't think people realize how bad we were, and for how long. We had a seven year stretch under RR and Hoke of just horrific football. That's forever for kids coming out of HS. UM wasn't a destination school like it had been. And, to be honest, recruiting had dropped off before then (Though I like Carr).
Harbaugh had a huge culture/recruiting hole to fill. He's filling it. I think we'll get it done.
He brought it back up from where it had briefly been under Hoke and Rodriguez. But he seems to have hit his ceiling. When he was hired, people were predicting that we would be competing for a NC by his fourth year. Looking at his 5th year now, that goal remains unrealistic. So when will it be, if not now, when the whole team is his players? 6 years? 7? 8?
Quite a hike to get there, and not long to get there, either. This is year 5, and nobody really thinks this is going to be a special team, capable of winning a championship. Another 9-10 win season, and more "we were just a couple of bad breaks away". if someone is an elite, NC-level coach, it doesn't take them 6 or 7 years to show it. As you say, more and more of the people who were having wet dreams every night when Harbaugh was hired are having to face the reality that he may be just a very good coach for us, but never a great one.
if Harbaugh cannot take our program to be consistently winning 10-12 games
Aren't win totals kinda meaningless though in the big picture?
What's the point of beating up on Hawai'i, UCF, etc., if Harbaugh is .500 against Staee and ofer against tSOU? 10 win seasons are still successful then?
Serious question. Not looking for @RockinLoud to attack me for being Maizen.
I think it is a fair question, but I guess if only certain wins mean something then how do you benchmark success for a team or coach? Is it win championships or else you had a failed season? Or beat both your rivals? I don't know what the answer is as I am sure it could be different for each fan, but my hope is that we get to the point where it is we beat our rivals and win championships. If that does not happen, we look at the season as somewhat of a failure. We can't though just say that "We are Michigan" therefore we should be winning all the time. I believe it was posted on here a while back that even when we considered ourselves "elite" our average win totals was 9-10 wins. It takes time and stability for a program to become consistently successful. You can take this as an excuse if you want, but I feel it has been a roller coaster decade and a half with a lot of inconsistency. Getting 10 wins in 3 out of the last 4 years is a step in the right direction. Being ofer against OSU is unacceptable. I am willing to continue to wait and see what Harbaugh can do with this program before I write him off.
"I believe it was posted on here a while back that even when we considered ourselves "elite" our average win totals was 9-10 wins."
This.
I don't know how many times I've had to do it, but I used to post our 80's and 90's records. There seems to be this thought that we were Alabama.
We've never been Alabama, except under maybe Yost.
We've had some awfully good teams, and teams that fell short. Bo's bowl record wasn't wonderful.
We had more than a few 8-4 seasons. The difference back then, IMHO, was that we didn't have the internet negativity echo chamber; and often times we'd win against State and OSU in a season that also had losses to other teams.
(As an aside, I'd love for someone now to go back and tell Bo, in a press conference, 'Hey Bo, yeah, you beat OSU, but lost to MSU, Minnesota, and Iowa. Does it really matter? Can we really be considered good?' )
We could turn that right back around. What if we did that today. What does a season matter if we beat our rivals and win a big bowl game if we never get to the playoffs because, like back then, we drop games to Minnesota and Iowa?
Winning is winning. Beating the teams you should beat means something. And learning, as a culture, to win those huge games is a process. I like how Harbaugh is doing it. Is he perfect? No way. I wish we'd been able to keep more consistent on offense. Wish we'd been able to keep Jedd. There are other things. But we went from just getting our asses kicked and physically owned by State to being .500 with them and standing toe to toe with them.
We aren't there yet with OSU, obviously. But I think we'll get there. And OSU is playing at a different level than when I was there. I think they have since they got Tressel. So be it. The bar is just higher.
Michigan was bigger under Yost than Bama ever was or can ever be. I don't think a team could ever get as good relative to their competition as those point a minute teams were. Imagine if a modern power team played a schedule of 1980s teams. There were no coaching clinics or tape of other teams. If you wanted to scout your opponent you skipped your own game. Even after you played Michigan it was hard to figure out what just happened to you. The earliest footage of a football game in existence is from the Michigan Chicago game in 1906 because Amos Alonzo Stagg thought it might help him figure out what Michigan was doing. The only way for Yost's innovations to spread were to hire a coach from his program and because of that most of his 1901 and 1902 teams became head coaches.
Michigan was Bama under Crisler. Expected to win the national championship every year, first dibs on players in their region, etc. The real difference there is National recruiting, and Michigan never had direct support from its conference the way Alabama enjoys. And Crisler didn't cheat (Kipke did, but I kind of look at Kipke as a continuation of Yost the way that Moeller and Carr were a continuation of Bo).
Good coaches win games. Great coaches win championships.
I'm on board.
We have 3 10 win seasons after two seasons going 7-5, 5-7, and getting worse.
We are beating teams we should beat. We are losing to OSU (which sucks) but when OSU has been recruiting better and had one of the best college football coaches in history.
We are doing it cleanly (as far as I know. Please God...)
I want to beat OSU. But I'm happy with the progress. There were things in my life that made me unhappy. The Lions drove me nuts for years. But then I just stopped letting them bother me. I stopped taking it personally. I stopped figuratively standing on the corner haranguing passers by that the Lions sucked, that this made me unhappy, and they should be unhappy too. I'm happier for it, and seem much less lame to those around me.
The staff made it pretty clear they were going after more slot/inside receivers in this cycle after filling up on big body types like DPJ/Black/Collins.. plus I like how you purposely leave out Cornelius Johnson who is a big body WR. Not surprising though....I swear you can find omitted facts to help fit every whiny maizen narrative.
LOL. There's a good chance DPJ, Black, and Collins are all gone after this year, then what? Crawford, Johnson, McDoom, and Mitchell from the 2016 class have all left the program. The only 2018 WR recruit they took is Ronnie Bell. They signed 4 slot WR's in 2019, and you think it's because they filled up their big body WR's already? They have 3 on the entire roster! It doesn't take a crystal ball to look ahead to what the WR corps is going to be in 2020 and not be completely terrified. Oh, and supposedly we're going to play all these TE's too, so how do all these slots get on the field? Just like when UM completely neglected OT in the 2016 class we paid for it dearly. A bunch of 3 star 5'10 guys ain't going to get it done.
If we lose 3 underclassmen WR to the pros in the same year I am ok with it because that means we just had the best offense in the history of college football.
Weren’t most of the receivers you cite above 3 stars by the composite? (Granted Crawford was a 4-star but Mitchell was going to be a safety...bad hands) 3-stars were going to suck anyway by your logic..so good riddance!
Really wish the new points system allowed folks to go below zero. Want to see what you can achieve in this area - I would expect no less than a 5-star level of neg gathering from you!
Your pessimistic attitude aside, I think you make some fair points: recruiting is the lifeblood of college football, Michigan hasn't consistently been able to recruit at the level of Bama, Clemson, Georgia, or OSU, and the WR corp is an area of concern. (It should be noted that all those programs have a history of paying for that talent, which makes it difficult to compete against.)
That said, I do think you undervalue coaching and scheme to some extent. Yes, OSU has more talent in their program right now, but how they used it to exploit matchups is what made them unstopable last year. Simply put, they intentionally got Watson and Kinnel matched up on crossing routes with their fastest WRs. Don Brown overestimated his ability to run with them in man, and zone wasn't our strong suit (they blew coverages when they tried it).
This year we seem to be working on more zone concepts to counter those crossing routes, plus (hopefully) adding some speed by swapping Kinnel with Dax. Will this be enough to stop them? Who knows. But it's clear that our staff is not staying idle.
We can beat them with the talent on the roster. I wouldn't sleep on Don Brown and company. His defense is always gonna be tough to handle. This year's offense may give him a little more room for error as well.
You're only as strong as your weakest link, but there are things you can do schematically to protect yourself. I think we'll do a better job of that this year.
I am so tired of this dude pretending that outright pessimism/thinly-veiled contempt for this program is in fact learned realism. Everybody knows we haven't beaten OSU and haven't won a B1G championship. And, labeling everybody that's optimistic about this team as "Harbaugh kool-aid drinking idiots" who want to just bury our heads in the sand is just irritating. You're a self-loathing fan. Go away.
And, labeling everybody that's optimistic about this team as "Harbaugh kool-aid drinking idiots" who want to just bury our heads in the sand is just irritating.
Where did I say this? Oh that's right I didn't. But you know what's even more tiring? Getting our ass kicked by OSU every year, not winning the big ten, and finding a way to lose at least 3 games every season. That shit is what's really tiring. Oh, but that's not realism according to you. Nah, you go away fam, don't have time for people who want to rewrite history because it hurts their feelings. Grow and pair and hold your team accountable, I won't take away your fan card I promise.
maizen....give me a few minutes....I'll be back with a bucket to catch your tears.
And that's enough of that.
I swear, you'd think by the 7th or 8th troll account got bombed into dust Maizen would take the hint. I assume he's still banned by Twitter so it must be hard to not have a place to vent your laziness.
I'm not going to walk through how wrong this "the coaches don't develop talent" argument is becuase I swear I've made it a dozen times before, about half of those with you. Rest assured, they develop lower-level talent at a good clip and you're selective memory/analysis is mostly to blame.
Clemson had 7 transfers last season, plus one in-season with Kelly Bryant. 2 of those 7 were defensive tackles, and they lost a couple of other guys at spots like TE and defensive back where you'd like to have some depth.
As for changing your mind, Michigan could win a million titles and it wouldn't matter.
Um, Kelly Bryant transfered because Clemson signed the #1 recruit in the country at his position in Trevor Lawrence. It's also why 5 star Hunter Johnson transfered. Clemson's starting DT's this year were 5 star Dexter Lawrence and 5 star Christian Wilkins. They aren't losing guys like Asiasi, Singleton, Solomon, Hudson, etc who were already starters or were big time recruits who had the inside track to start. Any more shit you want to throw against the wall? And who have they developed that was a 3 star into an all big ten player outside of Higdon and Hudson? That would be no one. Facts hurt don't they.
Another classic fact admittance. Jon Runyan and Josh Metellus were both all Big Ten last year.
Oh right, I forgot how two of our biggest liabilities against good teams managed to squirm they way onto an all big ten list. So 4 players out of how many 3 stars in 5 years? Horrible ass ratio.
How does one squirm onto the all big ten list that is decided by coaches who faced those players, and media that covered them? My god you are a pathetic little man.
Too weak up the middle at DT
Agreed that is our weakness with Solomon gone. Keep in mind everyone is a year older and with 5-star Chris Hinton and high 4-star Mazi Smith coming in will help Kemp, Dwumfor, & Jeter.
safeties are as average as the day is long
That's not how I'd describe Dax Hill :)
Devin Gil is going to get picked on again
I'm not a Gill fan either, but Jordan Anthony & Josh Ross are both juniors now and both top 250 recruits.
outside of Hudson the staff has not unearthed or developed their 3 stars
Josh Uche had 7 sacks in limited snaps. Josh Matellus has been above average. Chase Winovich was a borderline 3/4 star as was Devin Bush.
The talent level overall screams good not great.
The replacements are going to be on average higher rated recruits from last year minus Gary & Long. Gary will be replaced by high 4-star Hutchinson. Long will be replaced by high 4-star Thomas. Bush will be replaced by either 4-stars Ross or Anthony. Kinnel will be replaced by either Hawkins or 5-star Hill. This will be an upgrade based on recruiting profiles. We're not as talented as OSU, but if that's your barometer, you'll probably always be unhappy. I don't see us consistently out-recruiting OSU for any significant stretch of time.
Guys like Asiasi, Solomon, Hudson, Singleton, Walker, Mitchell, Crawford, Irvin Bey, etc walking out the door means ours is not as good as people think.
Keep in mind we're also exiting the 2015 class which was ranked #37 and bringing in the #8 ranked class. So, overall team talent will be better next season than it was in 2018.
Until this program starts beating OSU and winning B1G championships you won't change my mind.
I agree that OSU still out-recruits us, but not by a ton. They also out-recruit Clemson (as does UM). IMO we're closer than you think. The offensive philosophy shift is all that's missing. I think last year's defensive performance against OSU was an outlier, just like PSU in 2017. We ran into a great offensive and had a bunch of injuries.
You forgot to mention Cornelius.
I don't usually take your bait like I would have a few years ago, and for that I'm much better off, but figured I had a few minutes so let's go.
Sainristil was known to be small coming in. Outside of Giles, he's the smallest of the group you listed. So saying "wait until these guys arrive" as if people will be shocked they're smaller, won't be that shocked because they are in fact larger. And Giles is thicker already than Sainristil. You often talk about height at WR as if Michigan is screwed because of the lack of it. The average height of an NFL WR is 6'0". There is no meaningful correlation between 1000 yard seasons and height from NFL WRs. There is only any significance in height and TDs because of some extreme outliers like Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson, and outside of those outliers, there is no meaningful correlation. The top rated NFL WR prospects are 6'3", 5'11", 5'9", 6'0", 5'11". Height is an overrated number for receivers, because a few inches rarely impacts the catch point. It's nice to have if it doesn't inhibit flexibility and ability to get in and out of breaks, but it generally is far from an extremely important point to gripe about.
The "struggle vs good teams" thing is tiring. Yes, Michigan has had some poor performances. But your basically calling out 3 games in the past 4 seasons (2015 OSU, 2017 PSU, 2018 OSU), and then there was the 2018 Florida and 2015 Indiana game in which was a good not great offense where Michigan had a major let down for a variety of reasons. In that same time, the best defensive football team in that span (Alabama) gave up 43 to Ole Miss in 2015, 43 to Ole Miss in 2016, 35 to Clemson in 2016, and 44 to Clemson in 2018. That's the most talented defense in college football with the best defensive coach in college football (your claim that Saban proved talent is more important than coaching because he sucked in the NFL is a terrible take on his tenure on the NFL and his overall ability to coach). Michigan doesn't have that level of talent. Teams have bad game plans. Opponents have good game plans. Sometimes you get got. Michigan needs to do better and they need to do better against good teams, but this isn't a situation where they are mediocre and are a miracle away from competing like you make it out to be. "Struggle vs good teams" is a relative thing, we'll see overall how they do.
Your claim that the staff hasn't developed "3 stars" is of questionable validity even if you take it at face value. 3-stars do generally require more work to get to their potential (Harbaugh has had three full recruiting classes take the field at Michigan) or they tend to fill out roles that you need to fill on your team (that maybe you weren't able to fill with a more highly sought after player); that doesn't mean they are bringing down the team. And your claim that "recruiting rankings have been spot on" is false. Everyone here agrees that recruiting rankings are generally a solid indicator of success, there is a correlation. That correlation breaks down at individuals, and can be proven by the number of high ranked players that didn't work out in favor of lower rated players. Michigan's weak link on OL last year was RT, where they had a 4-star. The weakness of the interior DL that you are calling out is loaded with 4-stars or 3-stars that beat out 4-stars (or 5-stars). Michigan trusted their evaluation over recruiting sites and it paid off with guys like Devin Bush, who was a very low 4-star. Nick Eubanks will effectively be a starter and despite the pessimism about McKeon, Michigan will have one of the best pairs at TE in the B1G (and were only outdone by Iowa last year, who rocked generic 3-star TEs). Despite you calling him average, Metellus is an All-B1G caliber safety and was Michigan's best safety last year (above several of 4-stars). Michigan will have several 3-stars that beat out 4-stars to start this year. "Trust the coaches" doesn't mean people think they are infallible, but "trust the recruiting rankings at an individual level" is entirely just as bad of a take as "coaches are always right". I do generally trust the coaches who have been around football their whole lives and are the ones responsible for implementing their scheme and techniques more than I do recruiting sites; that seems like a pretty sane thing to do for any school.
Sure, I'd love to have the pick of the litter recruiting, I'm sure Harbaugh would too. But just saying "Michigan could sign a class of all 4-5 stars easily" doesn't make it reality, the same way it doesn't when you argued Michigan basketball should have been recruiting all 5-star players. Outside of a few of the players that walked out the door listed, most walked out the door because they weren't as talented as the other guys that beat them.
Absolutely 0% of Michigan fans are satisfied with not beating OSU and winning conference titles. That doesn't mean everything is an abject failure. It doesn't necessitate the hopeless future you twist every narrative toward. There is middle ground where we currently are. Michigan has work to do. They have some gaps that need to be cleaned up to consistently compete with teams above them. Nearly ~98% of teams are making the same arguments. And like all those teams, Michigan is trying to find ways to put themselves in the best position to build their program to compete. That doesn't mean they are just on the Clemson path, it also doesn't mean they should "just take the Bama path", because that path isn't just available for everyone. Michigan has to find its own path the best way it knows how. Until then, we'll have ups and downs. Gotta find a way to beat OSU, and then things can start taking off. But just beating teams you are supposed to beat is something 90+% of college football teams would take right now in a heartbeat. Michigan got that, now has to find the next step, which is even more difficult to find.
And your claim that "recruiting rankings have been spot on" is false. Everyone here agrees that recruiting rankings are generally a solid indicator of success, there is a correlation. That correlation breaks down at individuals, and can be proven by the number of high ranked players that didn't work out in favor of lower rated players.
This is 10000% false.
You just proved my point by linking two articles that show "that recruiting rankings are generally a solid indicator of success, there is a correlation. That correlation breaks down at individuals, and can be proven by the number of high ranked players that didn't work out in favor of lower rated players." So, yeah, 10000% or so...
On top of it, to employ your own method of argumentation, "way to focus on a small part of my argument and ignore the rest because you can't argue it". And you failed to actually argue the one point you tried to argue.
Huh? How on earth do you get that stars don't matter at the individual level from this?
Consider this: While four- and five-star recruits made up just 9.4 percent of all recruits, they accounted for 55 percent of the first and second round. Any blue-chip prospect has an excellent shot of going on to be a top pick, if he stays healthy and out of trouble.
For those who don't like percentages, here are some more intuitive breakdowns based on the numbers from the entire 2014 draft:
- A five-star recruit had a three-in-five chance of getting drafted (16 of 27).
- A four-star had a one-in-five chance (77 of 395).
- A three-star had a one-in-18 chance (92 of 1,644).
- A two-star/unrated recruit had a one-in-34 chance (71 of 2,434).
You just quoted a bunch of stats that demonstrate as a collective highly rated recruits are more likely to be drafted higher, and within that quote demonstrated that at the individual level, a large number also failed to be drafted early. It’s not like it’s only outliers of highly ranked high school prospects don’t get drafted early, it’s either as typical or the norm for them not to, again pointing to it being a collective correlation, not an individual one.
What on earth are you talking about. This isn't hard.
Class rankings = team success
Individual rankings = NFL draft success
I have no idea what you're arguing anymore, because you have failed to provide statistical evidence of anything you're saying. If your argument to me is that the sample size I'm using is too big, well, uh, that's not a good one. Stars matter at every level. Stop fighting it.
If you’re a fan of an SEC team you’re more likely to be a fan of a team that won a national title recently.
That doesn’t mean if you’re a fan of Vandy you’re more likely to be a fan of a national championship team. There is correlation with the collective, not with the individual.
If you’re a fan of Michigan you’re more likely to be intelligent. But you’re supposedly a fan of Michigan and, well...
If I own 247 and (let’s take a player you hate because you take this very personally) I label Kent a 5 star, he doesn’t change as a player just because I labeled him a 5 star. If I labeled Trevor Lawrence a 3 star, he doesn’t change as a player (outside some potential psychological impact). The label means very little at the individual level. This isn’t picking cards out of a set deck; there are tons of variables that impact the individual, which is why half of 5 stars aren’t first round picks and the vast majority of 4 stars aren’t drafted.
Recruiting classes are very small collectives. In general, a large group of 5 stars will perform better than a large group of 3 stars, no one argues otherwise. And if recruiting was just on paper and a 5 star came in as an 82 rating and every 3 star came in at a 68 and each improved at the same rate. At an individual level this breaks down, otherwise we’d be talking all time great Derrick Green who now plays for the Cowboys instead of Zeke who the Buckeyes passed over Green for, because the individual scouting is more important than a group correlation. 5 stars are generally more athletically mature, so yes, their baseline makes them more likely to remain more athletically mature when they leave college. But these are individuals, and not just numbers on paper, so while the rankings intuitively correlate, individuals don’t, because they are individuals that fail just as much as they succeed still, at best.
And don’t argue I didn’t provide any stats when you provided them for me and didn’t understand what they meant. Using stats you don’t understand to justify an argument doesn’t help you.
Ok, um, it's clear you have no idea how statistics work.
Says the guy that thinks high school recruiting rankings carry probability in the same way a flip of a coin does...
I have a fine grasp of statistics to know when someone is misapplying them
My issue with the percentage of draft picks by star ranking has always been that the 3-star designation covers a wiiiiiide swath of players. In maizen's eyes, Mike Morris (#397 .8891 composite) and DJ Turner (#400 .8888) are grouped together with Joshua Simon (#2519 .8003) and Wes Dorsey (#2534 .8003), who are both Western Kentucky commits, for example. Which pair do you think has a better chance at reaching the NFL?
These percentages should be grouped by national ranking, not star number. It's the same concept as NFL GMs using draft pick numbers instead of the arbitrary round numbers.
Great post, SC. Thank you.
"I do generally trust the coaches who have been around football their whole lives and are the ones responsible for implementing their scheme and techniques more than I do recruiting sites; that seems like a pretty sane thing to do for any school. "
I honestly wonder if coaching evaluations will start to carry more weight as some recruiting sites have started to lop off their stafffing, making seeing everyone an impossibility.
"Michigan has to find its own path the best way it knows how."
A-Men!
A cogent and logical post. Sadly, You aren't unhappy enough for the critics. They'll only be happy when everyone is sucking mire and bitterness.
Not really worth arguing because you'll never concede to a point, but all of your complaining is undercut by the fact that the "talent evaluators" have Michigan ranked in the top 10 since 2015.
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/
Michigan lost Gary and Solomon, but picked up 2 other 5 stars in the process this year.
Teams like USC, FSU, LSU, and Texas are all in the top 10 as well but have had complete dumpster fire seasons in the last 2-3 years. The only teams who are consistently in the top 5 are Alabama, OSU, and now UGA.
Also, Crawford, Walker, Asiasi, Mitchell, and DIB walking out the door has proven what exactly? They can't keep guys around? None of those guys have done anything at their new schools. DIB couldn't even stay enrolled at CMU and Walker did practically nothing in JUCO.
The 2018 class was disappointing, no one will argue otherwise. But they've also had an 8th, 5th, and 8th ranked class out for 4 total cycles. They're out-recruiting everyone in the Big Ten sans OSU.
I am not surprised but it is still depressing seeing OSU at the top of that list. Interesting to see that only 5 out of the 10 most talented teams (according to these ratings) have made the CFP.
Sure, it sucks, but it's also worth noting the context.
For as shitty of a person as Meyer is, he is probably the 2nd best coach in this current era behind Saban. He coached at the only Big Ten program that can go dollar for dollar with Michigan. He also came into a program that, while having some issues, hadn't suffered through 5+ years of futility unlike anyone had seen in more than 50 years like Michigan had. Yeah, they had the 1 Fickel season, but they weren't running back to back ~.500 seasons, getting curb stomped by competent programs, and generally slowly falling apart at the seams.
Yes, Michigan missed out on a huge opportunity to stem the tide in 2016 and last year where a win would have probably propelled Michigan recruiting into a level they haven't seen in decades, but that's unfortunately how it goes sometimes.
So your argument is that Michigan's recruiting rankings are inflated by guys that were highly thought of, left, and haven't done anything at their new schools. But it's ok because they were initially ranked in the top 10.
LOL
I know you see yourself as the only rational personal speaking "truth" to idiot homers, but you either apparently can't comprehend shit or are purposefully sidestepping.
What I'm saying is even with those departures, Michigan's roster composition is still top 10 nationally year in and year out. Turnover or not, they still out recruit 90% of the programs nationally and retain enough talent to be top 10 every single year.
Crawford left before 2018. So did Walker. It didn't matter. They were still top 10 because those rankings are based off the 85 scholarship players each individual season.
Had Crawford and Walker stuck around, would Michigan be better? Probably not because neither of those guys have done anything at their new schools. Crawford had to sit out a year so not a great example, but Walker went to JUCO and is now at Miss St after pretty much nothing. Asiasi had 130 yards last year. But had he stuck around, that's another 4 star!! And as I said, DIB couldn't stay enrolled at CMU.
Arguing that "Alabama recruits better than this" and "Clemson doesn't have turnover like this" is... fine. It doesn't demote Michigan's roster to average or barely competitive. The roster make up is top 10 according to the sites you slobber over.
He certainly knows he's an idiot. He fled twitter in shame and has opened up double digit accounts here. No one is doing that for him, and he realizes how pathetic that is. He's trying to make M fans feel bad, but extremely frustrated he makes so little headway for his volume of effort.
I think you have described what Bo's teams were... good talent... and we are trending to Bo type teams with a dominant OL again and a good D.... I think this is better than a uber-talented team with no OL...
On message, on brand.
Nick Eubanks
Quarterback claps.
Not a fan.
If we have a good offense with #speedinspace I will be all for it. If our offense does not improve it will just be watching our old offense with quarterback claps. /shutters.
Which could be said for literally any offense, any season.
Outstanding man. Just a great point.
Yup, it is.
Comments