Redshirt freshman linebacker Cornell Wheeler put his name into the transfer portal. Wheeler was a 3-star, the #22 inside linebacker, and #471 overall in the class of 2020.
Wheeler played for Ron Bellamy at West Bloomfield High School, so it surprises me a little bit that he would transfer before even spending one full season with Bellamy on the coaching staff. However, Bellamy coaches safeties, so their contact might be a bit limited. Regardless, this seems like a slightly odd development.
On the other hand, I always thought Wheeler was a bit of a project and would have his best chance to succeed only if he stuck around for a few years. Athletically, he did not jump off the screen on his highlights. I do think he has a chance to be a hard-hitting, solid inside linebacker at the college level, but I would not expect that from him until he's been in school for three to five years.
Michigan signed five linebackers in the 2020 class, and the only two remaining on the roster are Nikhai Hill-Green and Kalel Mullings. Wheeler, William Mohan (Tennessee), and Osman Savage (Alabama A&M) have all decided to find greener pastures elsewhere.
Surprising to me as well. I have to admit I'm intrigued by what the LB group will look like after all these changes shake out.
ReplyDeleteI'm still not feeling great about Mohan moving on but some of these other guys seemed best suited to try to grow into edge players.
We'll see what happens but the days of Bush and Peppers seem to be far off at this moment.
-LANK
I don't think this move will hurt, but the new transfer portal will hurt more than it helps a program like Michigan ... obvious, I'm no fan
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. Michigan will lose more decent players than they can replace in the portal.
DeleteWhat's the logic to back this up? We've already seen plenty of help from guys like Patterson, Rudock, and Danna. And sure they ran off a guy like St.Juste but there haven't been too many other costly transfers I can think of. Transfers out of Michigan are nothing new but Michigan is taking advantage of the rise in them across college football. Seems like we're already gaining more than we're losing from transfers to me.
Delete-LANK
That's three names. We've lost x10 that, and will lose between 5 & 10 times more each year
DeleteThis keeps us low on scholarship numbers, experience & depth, and reliant on young 3-4 stars, or a transfer like Jordan Whittley. Sure, we'll gladly take him, but does acting anyone expect any more than a rotation guy?
Michigan's always lost more guys than they gain. That's how it's supposed to play out at a powerhouse and we would rightly fully be worried if it was the other way around.
DeleteThe key part is if we are losing guys who would have made a difference if we had kept them. There's a handful of examples - like St Juste who they tried to force into medical retirement - but most of them go off and leave because Michigan has better players. i.e., they aren't missed. Thinking of guys like Dwumfour, Peters, etc. They just didn't have it.
So 3 guys who REALLY helped us. Name 30 who really hurt us. You can't.
-LANK
You're arguing against something not said
DeleteThe portal will hurt Michigan more than help, by quantity/experience/depth. You agreed with that part, but want it to go in another direction
That's fine, enjoy yourself
No I don't agree with the statement. It flies in the face of recent evidence. Michigan will lose more guys than it gains via transfer, as it always has, yet it will continue to be beneficial to Michigan overall because of the quality of the players coming in (high) vs those going out (mostly low).
DeleteHappy to be convinced to change my mind but just restating the assertion won't do that.
-LANK
How many transfers OUT had Michigan had? At which positions? What is the impact in experience & depth?
DeleteNow, how many have come in? Shea Patterson won't play LB, OL or Corner, and neither will Danna play WR, RB or Center
Because Michigan isn't likely to take any undergrads, the numbers will always be slanted - greatly slanted against them
Programs not pulling in elite talent need depth & experience throughout the roster (think Wisconsin). We get recruit better than that tier, but lack the experience & depth). The portal makes it even worse
That's the question for you to answer. Or not if you don't want to backup your assertion. It's not about numbers it's about performance and output.
DeleteIt seems to me that Patterson alone was more impactful than everyone who went out in the last 5 years.
Why is it not about numbers? Because it doesn't hurt Michigan when a guy like Wheeler or Jalen Kelly Powell leaves because that's just another scholarship going to a recruit coming in who might well be better. OR a spot for another starting-level impact transfer coming in, or a solid backup (like Ty Isaac) instead of a guy who was peaking out at special teams contributor. This sort of turnover is good for Michigan and you see it at other programs as well. If you aren't producing, you're hurting the program by taking up a scholarship and you'll be encouraged to find greener pastures.
I can name a few guys it would have been nice to keep but none of them are really casualties of anything new related to "the portal". St Juste was pushed out. Asiasi got homesick. Hudson and Solomon left because of the coaching staff's approach to injuries and it's not clear how much impact they would have really had anyway, had they stayed. Some guys like Wheatley, Black and Singleton were just not as good as some people hoped. I imagine Charbonnet will be a significant asset whereever he ends up but he was going to be a backup here, like Brandon Peters and Wilton Speight.
-Lank
The transfer portal will help more than it hurts a program like Michigan. As we've seen thusfar.
DeleteI don't really feel any kind of way about opening up transfers for student athletes. I think it's bad for fans who enjoy continuity and following high school recruiting but for those directly involved (players, coaches, etc.) who will not feel locked in to bad situations.
I think the programs that are hurt most by it are the lower tier. Those who will lose some of their best players, like Mike Danna, looking to compete at a higher level. Oregon State losing starting caliber DL to Michigan and starting WR to Alabama - that's a killer for those programs. The bigger name programs will benefit and for now I think that still includes Michigan.
It will continue the ongoing trend of concentrating talent at top tier programs, IMO.
-LANK
The numbers aren't close. At the most important position we've seen Morris, Speight, Malzone, Peters, McCaffrey & Milton transfer. In turn, we've gained Rudock, JOK & Shea. That's twice as many lost as gained, and it gets worse when we consider years of eligibility... While I agree Shea & Rudock were better than the other 4, neither were good enough, and the lack of depth & experience made the other 3yrs painful experiences
DeleteOur other crutch has been at DL. Under JH, we have lost Pipkens, Pallante, SJohnson, Jones, RJohnson, Dwumfor, Solomon, Vilain, DIB, CMH, and Lewis. In return we got Danna. While I again agree he was better than all 11 lost, he 1) did not start; 2) was only around for one year; and 3) simply is not enough to replace the depth & experience our DL has desparately needed
I won't bother other positions, but it's more of the same. You have said repeatedly over the years that fans expect too much out of young players. With the portal, our roster will remain young, as more players leave, convinced they can make it to the League from somewhere else
This is not a situation working Michigan's favor
*while recruited at DL, I didn't count Paea or Hudson
Your QB and DL summaries illustrates why numbers don't tell a meaningfully story. You acknowledge the incoming players were better than outgoing in total (i.e., it helps more than it hurts) but somehow conclude that it caused pain. That's a chin-scratcher.
DeleteI think you're making my point for me. Do RB next! Of all the guys lost were any of them more productive than Ty Isaac?
Maybe start with identifying one single outgoing transfer that would have improved team outcomes had he stuck around. I don't think there are any. Speight was the best outgoing QB but Patterson was better and stayed healthy. Better "depth" than McCaffrey wouldn't have moved the needle in 2018.
Ditto for DL. Depth is more important here because of rotation, but most of the guys you listed were run off. Why? Because they weren't producing on their scholarship. When you talk about depth and experience it seems like you're ignoring the part where scholarships are finite and every single one of them gets used in one way or another.
So when Shelton Johnson ('15) leaves the team after 2 years and zero snaps we get to recruit another player in 2017. That scholarship probably gets you a marginal recruit like 3-star Kwity Paye ('17). Does Michigan recruit Paye if Johnson is still around? IDK, but regardless of how you draw the lines it is the kind of turnover that is more helpful than hoping that guy can stick around for 3 more years of scholarship-eating to eventually contribute in some way. Bigger recruiting classes are better than smaller recruiting classes. Culling non-contributors HELPS depth - because that scholarship goes to a potential contributor.
Pipkins was literally run off. He wanted to play for Michigan! They didn't see him as worth a scholarship and acted accordingly because it was helpful to the team. I didn't and don't like how that was handled but it was done in the name of helping the team.
You can make a plausible argument that Dwumfour might have helped in 2020 I guess but people were pretty whiney about DL while he was here. I'm very skeptical he would have moved the needle on the disastrous season. His scholarship let you recruit another DL in the 2020 class (lowest rated guy was Kris Jenkins, who might be a player).
Contrast Dwumfour with Danna's list of accomplishments here: https://mgoblue.com/sports/football/roster/michael-danna/20484
He did start one game, not that it matters. If you're going to argue the value of depth you shouldn't undercut it by dismissing one of the best backups of the decade.
-LANK
diminish not dismiss
DeleteNumbers aren't the only story, but they're a big part. Rudock & Shea are better than the six who left, but they were only here for 3 of the (going on) 7 years. Without them, we have a losing record and embarrassing experiences against Wisconsin, PennSt, and even sparty. At DL, sure Danna is better than the 11 we lost. But he was a backup, and only here for one season. We are headed into the 4th consecutive season where our lack of size, strength & deph/experience got our DL (and eventually secondary) exploited. If the portal was working in our favor, we'd have had a QB & DL to fill some of those spots
DeleteRB is an outlier. But we just lost our starting Center, and have no one coming in from the portal to even compete for his spot...
We're going into year 7 of harbaugh, with huge voids at both QB & DL, and uncertainty at Corner, LB, and WR ... and TE. If Michigan were benefiting from transfers, the opposite would be true. Instead, our HC just blew up his staff, took a pay cut, and is on the hotseat
Now that's chin-scratching
You didn't answer the question again. Instead you're listing problems with the program. The portal didn't create those. It didn't fix all of them, nor is it supposed to. It fixed some of the biggest ones though (the 3 best years of QB play we've gotten under Harbaugh).
DeleteIt has helped more than it has hurt.
-LANK
Carpenter started 1 more game at Michigan than Danna.
Delete-LANK
What question, about RB? I said, it's an outlier among position groups (Safety too)
DeleteYour last comment on Carpenter/Danna is exactly my point: while both had limited starts, Danna was a one year backup, whereas Carpenter was our starting Center, with three years of eligibility remaining. That hurts
JH has recruited top10 classes all but one year. We have not finished top10, and have gone unranked twice. We're currently projected at 7 wins for his seventh season ... This supports that we are:
a) not developing incoming talent (your solution to departures);
b) losing a lot of guys to transfer before they can contribute; and
c) not getting enough replacements from the portal to make up for the losses (contrary to your assertion)
We are getting more production coming in from transfers than we are losing going out, as you acknowledged above.
DeleteSo despite the last X years where it hasn't hurt you are speculating that it will hurt in the future.
Maybe things will change the way you think. I'm skeptical.
-LANK
If Carpenter goes on to be an all conference player and 3-year starter, and Michigan doesn't have a similar caliber player at his position, that would be a first in recent history. Michigan looks strong at OC so I'm skeptical this is going to play out as harmful in the end.
DeletePeople thought departures of some players like Drew Singleton, Tarik Black, and Wheatley was going to hurt Michigan too. Most times it turns out these guys weren't as good as they were hyped to be - and that's probably a very big part of why they left. It doesn't hurt Michigan, as outlined above. These players are sunk costs and moving on from them frees up a scholarship for better players to grow and join the roster.
St Juste could have been a counter-argument to this - where his departure hurt Michigan at a position where he would have made an impact. But again, he was run off, intentionally. Can't blame that on the portal.
Solomon probably would have helped given Michigan's DT woes, so he might be the best counter-argument for the LOSS side. But ultimately he's a part-time starter at Tenn. Over 10 games he "Totaled 17 tackles and one quarterback hurry on the year."
We agreed that Danna produced more at Michigan than Dwumfour, Solomon, et al. I think this kind of situation will continue to be how it plays out most times. Guys like Bowman and Whittley are going to do more than guys like Singleton and Dwumfour when you add it all up.
Obviously, there are some guys I'd like to keep around (e.g., Carpenter, Mohan) but would I trade it for not getting saviors at other positions like QB? No.
Would I rather have to keep every recruit Michigan has (and burning a bunch of scholarships on replacement-level rotation guys or non-contributors)? No.
Transfers have helped Michigan more than they hurt them and that's likely to continue in an era of increased student-athlete mobility.
Again, Michigan has always lost more guys to transfers than it brings in. That's a good thing. What hurts Michigan is when they lose guys who would be helping them be better than what they had -- that happens but not very often. Less often than they get guys who help, a lot.
-LANK
What I'm asking about JE is for you to provide a specific example of a player whose departure has tangibly hurt Michigan football outcomes.
DeleteI listed St Juste above - Michigan struggled badly early in 2020 at CB in part because they lost Thomas but also because they were throwing out inexperienced players. BSJ got all conference honors (HM) in 2020 and got drafted. He could have made a difference, maybe enough to beat MSU. That one hurt Michigan, IMO.
But he's not a portal casualty. Michigan didn't want him.
So - are there any portal transfers that pretty clearly could/would have had an impact like BSJ? Or are they all guys who got replaced by similar caliber players or better? Did any really MATTER?
I think if you squint and ignore the opportunity cost of the scholarship you can find guys in the "would have been nice to keep him" category but you'll struggle to name guys who really would have moved the needle. But maybe I've forgotten some...
-LANK
You're arguing against points I never made. I never brought up St Juste, but you've committed a paragraph to his cars, twice
DeleteI've never said it's about one player - or even two. It's about 11 DL in a position group that has been bulldozed repeatedly in the last two years; LB position left lost & with incapable walk-ons ... It's happened everywhere but RB & S, a lot. We've gone from bringing in top10 blue chip prospects, only to see them leave before making a contribution ... and not be replaced
You're saying they're not good enough... Cool, I agree. But for years you argued against WCB for making that same point. Which is it? Why can't it be all three I listed above?
*a) not developing incoming talent (your solution to departures);
b) losing a lot of guys to transfer before they can contribute; and
c) not getting enough replacements from the portal to make up for the losses (contrary to your assertion)
We don't have to agree. If JH is recruiting top10 and benefiting from the portal, our woes are 100% his coaching. I think there's more to it, but not enough to keep this going
Go Blue
Developing incoming talent isn't my solution to departures. Because departures aren't a problem.
DeleteThere is good attrition and bad attrition. Most of it is good which is why saying 11 guys left is meaningless.
We don't need, nor do we want, to replace the outgoing guys with incoming transfers. We replace most of them with extra recruits (like Paye) and supplement with impact transfers (like Danna and Rudock) where there are gaps.
I'm asking for examples of specific guys who left that hurt us and you don't have any to offer. You acknowledge the guys coming in are better than the guys going out. Net win for Michigan. Which was the original point.
Now, you're trying to shoehorn in a bunch of other issue into a discussion about the transfer portal. Yes, there are a bunch of things contributing to where the program is at. But here we are talking about one specific issue - the transfer portal and how it affects Michigan.
-LANK
Football is a team game. I get that you can't wrap your head around that, but it is
DeleteLosing dozens at one position group, and multiple at others - without replacement - is a problem. Never said it was about one guy, or even two
But you want to argue that point. Fine, enjoy
I'm arguing the point because it hasn't been true. AND I don't see any reason to expect a change. I asked you to back up your assertion with specifics and you won't. Instead it's platitudes and deflection.
DeleteThe scholarship number is 85. 11 guys go out, that's 11 more scholarships to offer. Every top tier programs recruits over the 85 cap because attrition is expected AND DESIRED. We used to criticize Alabama for this but now we do it too. They were ahead of the game because they saw the (obvious) benefit of it.
Harbaugh has been very clear about it with 5th year guys - a senior is a senior and if you want to come back in year 5, you're welcome to try out but no promises. The guys that aren't clear contributors are encouraged to look elsewhere (e.g., Devin Gil, Nolan Ulizio) so that Michigan can play a younger guy who might be better and recruit another player who might be great.
In simpler terms -- we aren't LOSING guys we are REPLACING guys. That's a net benefit to programs like Michigan or Ohio State and probably not so much for Central Michigan or Oregon State.
Maybe you can put a more objective lense on it by talking about other programs. It seems like with Michigan, the thing is looking like another weak excuse to complain.
-LANK
11 go out, 11 come in. Scholarships are finite, they won't go unused. Holding them up to keep around guys who are replacement-level contributors can help continuity and experience but at a cost of overall talent or filling gaps with veteran players (e.g., Rudock).
Delete-LANK
I have been specific: outside of RB & S, transfers have been a busted pipe going out, and a leak coming in. "11 guys going out & 11 coming in" would be great if it were addressed the positions lost. But instead, we have walkon OL playing significant snaps at DL, Ben Mason (a FB) & Jordan Glasgow (a S/LB) playing DT ... against Wisconsin. It's a loss, not simply a replacement: the proof is in our record, and abysmal play at the positions listed above
DeleteAgain, you don't have to agree
GO BLUE
You don't have to tell me I don't have to agree. I already know, I am disagreeing in each post. LOL.
DeleteYou're blaming the portal for things that aren't the portals fault. For example, Ben Mason started a game at DT while Michael Dwumfour was here. That says it all but I'll say more. Shelton Johnson still being on the roster wouldn't have changed that either. In fact, it would have been even worse if he was, because Kwity Paye might not have been around because his scholarship wasn't available. Paye being a good player at end allowed Hutchinson to contribute at DT. So even at a spot where you argue the portal has hurt Michigan it probably helped.
Another example at WR where we lost a bunch of guys and addded none until this week. Did losing Tarik Black cost us? -- or was his production immediately replaced by Cornelius Johnson and his scholarship reallocated to Roman Wilson?
You can talk about the record all you want. But if you can't tell me a guy (or guys) who keeping around would have changed it the connection isn't made. If you can't make it then your argument is no better than blaming it on anything else. The great barrier reef is in trouble, obviously that's what's led to the downgrade in DL play the last few years.
You don't have to disagree.
-LANK
"can't make the connection" with you ...
DeleteScholarships are not 1for1; SJohnson leaving did not bring in Paye ... you're reaching now
Our DL depth was bad. In addition to my previous posts, we were preseason favorite for the B1G. Against army's tiny OL, we were outrushed two-fold, and Don Brown's presser was dedicated to the Herculean effort by Carlo Kemp, a converted LB, stuck out there for the near entirety of the game, because we had no depth. Scholarships are finite, but not 1for1
Among many other problems in the program, we have not replaced players lost to transfer (good or bad)
To put it another way - assess the 2019 DT situation as it was (with portal) and a hypothetical without the portal. Which is better?
DeleteYes, it was a weak spot with the portal, but how much would it have changed without it? You probably have Aubrey Solomon around, and assuming he isn't sulking or quit football he'd be a solid player, which would have helped. OTOH you wouldn't have been able to use Hutchinson inside as much because DE was locked down by Paye and Danna - two guys who arguably wouldn't be on the team without the Portal.
Keep in mind, the Ben Mason DL experiment - while a failure and sign of desperation - ultimately didn't result in all that many game snaps.
If Michigan is better off on the DL with the portal than without you can't pin their woes on that.
-LANK
I don't know how to tell you this in any other way - you are wrong. There are 85 scholarships. Every year we use all of them, no more and no less. 1 goes out = 1 comes in. If a guy is retained (or a transfer comes in) he takes one scholarship and that is one less recruit.
DeleteIf you push out 8 non-contributors, that's 8 more recruits coming in. These recruits are generally going to be near the bottom of the recruiting class - the 3-stars and the fliers. Paye fits there as he was one of Don Brown's infamous New England recruits. Shelton Johnson opened up a spot that someone else took. That someone else was either a non-contributor (swing and miss) or he was a player who helped (hit).
Willie Allen - since it appeared he wasn't going to contribute - went packing and in comes a new WR.
This is how it works. 85
------------------
The DL depth was bad in 2019 for other reasons. The portal isn't why we didn't have Mattison around to coach up the guys that were coming in. The Portal isn't why Jeter and Dwumfour weren't starting caliber players. The Portal isn't why Kemp (always projected to DL) was undersized but most effective at DT. The portal isn't why Hinton and Smith weren't ready to contribute. All these are problems with or without the Portal.
You're not mad at the Portal you're mad about the DL. The Portal didn't cause the problem, but it is a way to fix problems like this. Michigan used it to help the DL in 2019. Michigan is trying that RIGHT NOW with Whitley.
-LANK
Not sure how you conclude we don't get Paye without the portal. Just guessing, throwing sh:t out there, reaching
DeleteYes, we have 85 scholarships. That much is true. What we fail to grasp is that there are position groups & individual positions that must be addressed in building/maintaining a roster ... it's more complex than your point, but simple enough. When we lose 11 DL and do not recruit/develop or gain transfers, we end up with Kemp out there all game, Mason & Kovacs playing DT, and walkon OL playing significant snaps along the DL. When we lose 6 recruited QBs and only gain 2, we get stuck with Joe Milton at QB. The result is a HC on the hotseat, brand new staff, and a projected 7 win season. If recruiting top10 was coupled with the benefiting from transfers, we'd have a different outlook
Look, it's okay. You're replying twice within an hour because not even you are convinced of your position. I find it humorous, but it's an indicator that this has gone on too long. Relax; we disagree. Shocker
GO BLUE
I explained it repeatedly. If you use scholarships to keep more people around, you must take fewer guys. If you take fewer guys, you miss out on some Kwity Payes. This is a fact because again, 85.
DeleteDo I know for a fact that Kwity Paye would have been THE ONE cut from the class if Shelton Johnson was still around? No. But if we kept all 11 of your DL around there would have been a lot fewer DL recruits, and Paye was one of the lower ranked to come in. So very likely you would have had not room for him in your transfer-free alternative reality.
Would Kemp have not been out there if all 11 were back? Nope - he still would have been. Because he's a good player who is better than the guys that went out. That's what you're failing to grasp. Keeping guys around for depth doesn't affect that you don't like the quality of the starter's play. It might have kept Mason of the field - but he barely played anyway. Very little impact, even there.
It's interesting that you're willing to call me out for not going to individual position groups (even though I did), but when I ask you to name individual players who could have made an impact you dodge and say "It's a team game". Make up your mind.
So again, wash rinse repeat, which outgoing transfer QB would have improved our outcomes? Answer is the same as with any other positon group. Probably none, MAYBE some marginal benefit in retention if you squint and complain about the team we had, but certainly less lost than was gained in other instances (i.e., Rudock and Patterson instead of Speight and Peters).
I've explained it to you calmly and clearly. If response time is an indicator of stress levels, buddy it's been long overdue time for you to take some hardcore sedatives. Telling on yourself again.
-LANK
Breathe Lank. This one is over
DeleteGO BLUE
Could have been. But you felt the need to prove yourself wrong again.
DeleteNine 3 gonna Nine 3.
-LANK
Don Brown at Arizona needs an LB.
ReplyDeleteAnother transfer coming in. I bet Daylen Baldwin will do more at Michigan than Tarik Black did at Texas (10 catches 240 yards).
ReplyDeleteWe'll see what happens but my guess is we'll be adding WR to the list of positions where recent transfers have helped more than hurt after this upcoming season. QB, DE, RB... with DT and WR hopefully to come.
-LANK