Terrell Lucas Announcing Tonight?
"We're going to Miramar."
- Tom Cruise
"You just remember one thing: If you screw up just THIS MUCH you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!"
I gotta give you your dream shot. I gotta send you to MIRAMAR.
*CORRECTION*: I gotta give you your dream shot - I'm gonna send you up against the best. You two characters...are going to Top Gun.
I worked in a video store during the summer when this came out on tape, and I played it in the store every day. Now, 25-some years later, I can still remember every word.
Now, every word is going through my head. I'm up to the young, hot Meg Ryan scenes...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I have lived in two SEC markets now. The best way I ever heard an SEC fan address speed in the Big Ten compared to the SEC: "I can't watch a whole Big Ten game because it looks like it's in slow motion."
When OSU gets compliments down here from the media, it's always for "putting together an SEC team" with a reference to speed as the main factor. Speed is important if you want to win championships, Big Ten or National.
till February 3rd.
I don't really see it with this guy. Unless he has worked his butt off, hit a growth spurt, etc. since his junior year, I don't really see a reason to offer him right now. I think Michigan has better targets on the board.
I must agree with you on this one Magnus.
Are they looking at him as a linebacker? I agree he is small for a DE.
They might be looking at him as a Buck linebacker, which is the hybrid linebacker/end position. I'm not sure yet.
I think he's too small to be a true DE. I think he has potential as an OLB. He's a project, but has some quick twitch to him and some speed. Think he'd take a few years to even sniff the field though, as he's got a long ways to go in the weight room and fundamentally. His biggest limitation may be his lack of length (unless he grows), which is why I think some others would be higher on the board as well.
If he's coming in as a LB, what does that mean for the other LB recruits, how many could they possibly take, 1 more, maybe 2 if you don't include Reese?
I've heard up to five linebackers, and I think that includes the Buck LB/DE position. We're essentially recruiting for a 3-4 defense.
Aside from Gary, the only one who has shown much interest is Chris Daniels for the 2016 class.
We seem to be in on more guys for 2017. We have seven offers out. One of them will be at today's camp (Marvin Wilson).
I think the current team is pretty deep at DT, so they might not want to overload the roster with defensive tackles if they're only going to play one true DT on most downs.
Could be 3-4 recruiting - could be the fact the entire starting LB core goes away and we didnt get a damn LB in 2015.
We have to restock for 2 years. I wouldnt read that much into it. Only Gedeon will be a somewhat proven commodity after this year - after that its a cadre of Gants, McCrays, Furbushes, and Winoviches (if he goes back to LB from TE). We really went after 2 LBs hard last year and didnt land them and so we have to backdate some of these guys in the 2016s to effectively be 2015s.
Why not use your expert eye for analyzing talent and call it. What position does he suit best based on his skill set based on your expert opinion?
There could be a long-term benefit, and Miramar has produced some good players over the years. But I think it's more important to get good players, regardless of whether you make inroads with a coach here or there. If Michigan could get elite talent from three high schools - one in Utah, one in Texas, and one in Michigan - then it wouldn't really matter. In my opinion, the point is to get talent, not make friends with everyone. I'm not saying that's what Harbaugh's doing (and in fact, I'm almost sure he's not offering these kids just to make some new friends) but I just think we could afford to wait on some more talented guys.
I had trouble with commitment for a while. Until my early 30s, in fact.
I have a couple serial neggers. And then there are a few people who just don't like what I'm saying.
These things are pumping in a recruit a camp. It was a great idea by Harbaugh in the first place but his execution in running these camps and showing kids what he is like is a game changer for a lot of these kids. Not to mention the added time we get with each of the kids
I'll repeat something I saw on 247 Sports (IIRC) the other day, even though I don't agree 100%.
Harbaugh thinks that he and his staff can coach/develop players as well as anyone. So whereas some coaches might require top-200 athletes to have success, Harbaugh thinks he only needs top-500 athletes (I made those numbers up). Anyway, you get the point.
There are some true difference-makers who are 5-star or high 4-star recruits, but a lot of difference-makers come from that 3-star or maybe 2-star category. Based on what Harbaugh did at Stanford, I'm inclined to agree that might be a guy who can make chicken salad out of chicken s***. Hopefully we get some good players, and instead of having to coach everyone to their fullest potential, hopefully some of those can just naturally be great.
Not really. If you have a 5-star who can be an All-Big Ten defensive end, or a 3-star who can be an All-Big Ten defensive end, what's the difference?
work hard and have room for improvement (i.e., both have high ceilings), the thinking is that more often than not, the 5 star comes in with more natural ability: raw speed, hand-eye coordination, size, etc. So it's the old "stuff you can't" teach which would separate the All Big Ten potential from the true game-changing All America stud.
Maybe, but I don't always agree with the ratings, coaches don't always agree, etc. Let's look at the case of Dytarious Johnson. I look at him and see a 4-star prospect but he's a 2-star. David Reese, meanwhile, is a 3-star and that's probably fitting. George Campbell, Jr. was a 5-star recruit to some sites, but he was a wide receiver who didn't catch the ball very well, so maybe he's not really a 5-star WR.
Yes, I think if you have a 5-star DE who's 6'5", 240 lbs., can jump over a 6'0" running back, can run a 4.6, and can plow through a 290 lb. offensive tackle, that's a good thing.
Meanwhile, if you have a 3-star DE who's 6'3", 210 lbs., doesn't have speed to get around the edge, doesn't have much strength, and can't get off of blocks, he's not looking so hot.
Almost everyone would want that 5-star freak. But usually the differences aren't that stark. Plus, you have 100 schools beating down the door for him, while only 5-10 schools are interested in the second guy.
Some could simply be beneficiaries of playing in more publicized or regarded programs as well.
Harbz could also be looking for players who are good depth players who don't necessarily mind working to earn their larger roles on the team while contributing as role players until then.
As a slight counter-argument to a point I largely agree with, there are differences between, say, an "elite" all-conference performer and a relatively "meh" all-conference performer. For example, both Shilique Calhoun and Joey Bosa were all B1G defensive linemen last year. Yet, I think most see Bosa as a dominant, disruptive pass rusher while Calhoun seems more a product of a great MSU defensive system with a lower ceiling. I'd take Bosa in a heart-beat; Calhoun might be fine, but I'm not expecting him to upgrade my entire line. Another example would be Michael Sam and Clowney a couple years ago.
So I guess that's the argument; the higher-rated kids give you a better ceiling along with the accolades.
Yes, but if you have a team full of Shilique Calhouns, you're still in very good shape. Joey Bosa was a stud recruit that everyone wanted. He and his relatively lightly regarded teammates went 11-2 this year. Bosa and his all-star teammates went 14-1. Both are still very good records, and we would be pretty happy with either (especially the national championship). And as far as individuals go, Bosa might be a first round pick, but so were Darqueze Dennard and Trae Waynes.
I agree if you can get a team of Calhouns, but the counter is that if you only need to get one Bosa or 3 Calhouns for roughly the same results, your odds might be better going for the unicorn than trying to find three pretty good horses to put horns on.
I think we largely agree, and we've seen the issues with a couple of top recruits and then a steep fall-off (Carr's last couple of classes felt like feast-and-famine). My point about Waynes and Denard was only that those were clear examples where Dantonio turned sub-elite recruits into elite players, though it does seem like corner is a place where guys can blossom late.
sounds like another one of your tall tales, WE NEED FACTS. No link? you should be embarassed. You just get on here telling stories, proof man, we need proof. Is that paywalled info? you would know...
Magnus always just makin shit up...
With the argument that Harbaugh believes he can develop players up, isn't that true for most coaches? And yet, you obviously want to coach up kids with the highest ceilings, so that's why you go after the elite recruits.
It makes me think about all the talk you hear around Dantonio as a guy who can coach lower-rated guys into great college players. He obviously was able to do that with Denard and Waynes, and Bell turned out to be a very good back despite meh ratings. But overall, it's not like MSU has become an NFL factory in the way Stanford was under Harbaugh, and so maybe Harbaugh simply has a better eye for under-the-radar athletes who can become great college and pros versus some innate ability to build up kids. It could be two sides of the same coin, but do you think we'll see real growth from the current players on the roster (which would point toward player development skills) or simply improvements by new recruits (which might be a combination of development and talent acquisition)?
I'm sure a lot of coaches THINK they can coach kids up, but there are also coaches who probably count on getting elite talent. I think Mack Brown was a guy who people thought was reliant on elite talent. Meanwhile, guys like Harbaugh, Dantonio, whoever's at Boise State at any given time, etc. have shown that they can do a lot with a little.
Yes, I do think we'll see real growth of the guys on the current roster. I think some positions are lacking in some physical skills (wide receiver, cornerback depth, etc.), but there are other positions where improved fundamentals will help (offensive line, in particular).
Makes sense. Mack Brown was a bit of a special bear, though - he had his pick of elite talent in one of the top-3 recruiting hotbeds in the country, and nobody else in the state seemed able to touch him until the end. Oklahoma and some of the SEC west schools would pick guys off, but that was about it. I agree that Brown got the rep for being a talent-reliant coach when that probably wasn't the whole truth (at least early on he seemed willing to experiment with some different offenses compared to other teams in the conference), but I also think guys like Dantonio and whoever coaches at Wisconsin maybe got a bit too much credit for "coaching up" kids when in fact they benefitted a good deal from redshirting and age/down opponents. I will go down as an irrational hater of Dantonio, and he's absolutely shown an aptitude in the defensive backfield, but I don't completely buy Harbaugh as a chicken sh*t to chicken salad coach, and so I definitely doubt the same is wholly true for Dantonio and his ilk.
Per 247Sports, his sole offers are Michigan, Minnesota and Tulane - he was at Michigan's camp on the 6th (was that Tampa? These happen so quickly) and offered the same day according to their information. The Minnesota offer came on May 22nd. THey have him as the #67 WDE overall and #155 in the state of Florida.