Name: James Turner
Height: 6’0″
Weight: 196 lbs.
High school: Saline (MI) Saline
Position: Kicker
Class: Fifth year senior
Jersey number: #32
Last year: Turner played at Louisville. He made 20/22 field goals and 38/39 extra point attempts.
TTB Rating: N/A
Michigan was spoiled by having Jake Moody kick the ball the past couple years, so last year was thoroughly enjoyable with that guy around. Now he's making important kicks in NFL (pre-season) games.
James Turner is a hometown boy who gets a chance to kick in front of 110,000+ fans after playing his high school ball in Saline. He spent the last four years at Louisville, where he was the starting kicker. He did make a long field goal of 48 yards last season, but generally, the strength of his kicking leg is the question mark. He's accurate, but mostly from short range.
The transfer should be Michigan's starting kicker this fall, and word seeping out of camp suggests that's the case. He's battling with freshman Adam Samaha, while punter/kicker Tommy Doman is probably going to stick with punting and walk-on Hudson Hollenbeck is likely to handle kickoffs. The hope is that Turner can handle some chip-shot field goals if Michigan's offense gets bogged down in the redzone, and . . . well . . . hopefully that's about it. Last-second field goals to win or tie games are about the most gut-wrenching plays in sports, so I don't want any of those. It would be nice if Michigan could just cruise to 15 comfortable victories this season . . .
Prediction: Starting kicker
Thanks for doing the countdown Thunder. It's one of my favorite ways to get excited for the season and think about the team's strengths and weaknesses. The player write-ups seem more thoughtful and detailed than in previous years as well. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteAt some point in the countdown I breakdown and do my own version. Often times I find that I agree with a ranking more than I expected to. You have to make a lot of tough calls to parse player values.
Anyway, my top 30 is below.
1. McCarthy
Delete2. W. Johnson
3. R. Moore
4. Sainristil
5. Jenkins
6. Zinter
7. Graham
8. Loveland*
9. Paige*
10. Corum
11. Colson
12. Wallace*
13. D. Moore*
14. Stewart*
15. Keegan
16. McGregor
17. Wilson
18. Henderson
19. Harrell
20. Edwards
21. Barrett
22. Grant
23. Nugent
24. Barnhart
25. Banner
26. Doman
27. C. Johnson
28. Benny
29. Bredeson
30. Turner
* Guys in my top 15 but not in Thunder's
In general I'm surprised that Thunder is putting WRs higher than I am but not surprised he has 2 RBs in the top 15. I have put DBs and DEs higher. I also have Loveland in the top 10 - I think he's got a decent chance of leading the team in receptions.
I echo those thoughts - have been following for nearly 10 years now and have started to put together my own list around the top 20:
Delete1) JJ McCarthy
2) Will Johnson
3) Rod Moore
4) Kris Jenkins
5) Mike Sainristil
6) Zak Zinter
7) Mason Graham
8) Blake Corum
9) Cornelius Johnson
10 Junior Colson
11) Donovan Edwards
12) Ladarius Henderson
13) Roman Wilson
14) Colston Loveland
15) Makari Paige
16) Braiden McGregor
17) Mike Barrett
18) Josh Wallace
19) Drake Nugent
20) Josiah Stewart
21) Ernest Haussman
22) Trevor Keegan
23) Jaylen Harrell
24) Jack Tuttle
25) Tyler Morris
After thinking about this a bit more, I think I'd bump Paige up into the top 10.
@Lank - we'll have to wait and see on Edwards, but I almost wanted to have him higher - I realize that we haven't seen a lot of this in the Harbaugh era, but I'm really hoping the chatter around him being used as a Reggie Bush type has some merit.
@Anon Bush didn't play with Corum. Corum caught 24 passes in 2021 - he's very capable in all facets. It's Lightning and Lightning and Corum is the brighter version.
DeleteNot sure I agree there. Corum is certainly capable of catching passes out of the backfield but I'm not sure that he's a huge threat if you motion him outside against a LB. I think we saw some of this in how they used Edwards late in 2021, in particular.
DeleteIt was argued by others on this site that they used Edwards that way in 2021 because he was deficient as a runner. I disagreed with it at that time and I think you saw that in 2021 when the coaches ran him on iso between the tackles in the 1st Quarter against OSU and in 2022 when he shined brightly with a broken hand. I disagree with it now too, but regardless 170 yards in the air is going to make an impression.
DeleteCorum has been motioned outside and used as a WR before. So I think the coaches believed he can do it and likely still do. Edwards might be a better receiver than Corum but Corum is by no means a slouch and was considered a good receiver previously as the lighting to Haskins' thunder. I think the framing of Corum as some sort of thumper is mostly contextual relative to Edwards.
Both Corum and Edwards are excellent players and complete RBs. Edwards is a little more likely to try to run through a guy while Corum is a little more likely to juke a guy but both are fast and can catch and turn a 12 yard run into a 72 yard run when the only thing between them and the endzone is a safety.
Lank, not a bad effort with your list but for mine, I would include both Corum and Edwards in the top 10. RB is such a key position for this offense, you really almost need two star backs (Haskins/Corum, then Corum/Edwards). And there is a significant drop off beyond those two. If you lose a WR, you can go more to the TE or back out of the backfield. If we lose even one of them for anything more than one game, we have the alter the offensive playcalling to avoid too much workload. And there really is no proven 3rd back with star quality.
ReplyDeleteI assume this convo will be had in more detail in the Edwards post but I think we've seen it demonstrated repeatedly that one guy can handle the RB duties in critical games. Edwards last year shined vs OSU and TCU. Haskins in 2021 vs PSU and OSU. Corum against Maryland. In none of these games did we need two star RBs. In all of these games the offense was excellent.
DeleteOf course you'd rather have 2 or more guys to rotate through to keep each of them fresh and keep the defense on it's toes with different looks, but it's clear that the offense can not only survive but thrive when it leans on one RB.
Now, I keep having to say this because I think it's relevant to the debate --Corum is THAT DUDE. That effects Edwards' importance. If Corum wasn't around Edwards would place higher on the countdown (and vice versa) but as is we have two excellent RBs and we only really need one, both get downgraded relative to how good they are.
Moreover, we have depth in Stokes, Hall, Cabana, and Mullings. Thunder thinks Mullings is good enough to start for most other teams and I think he's the 6th option at RB, but that part doesn't matter. These are Michigan caliber backs and not all of them are going to be busts like Dunlap. While unproven individually and not guys who can be considered obvious starters in waiting yet, they can collectively do the job of handling workload to keep options 1a and 1b healthy over the course of the year. Michigan would be wise to manage workloads to focus on health for PSU and OSU.
How significant is the dropoff from 1a/1b to RB 3 and 4 anyway? We got a glimpse in the second half of Illinois and the offense...was more productive in the second half (without Corum or Edwards) than in the first (with Corum).
Playcalling was altered but altering the playcalling isn't a bad thing. We're supposed to adjust playcalls to fit personnel. So for example that can mean throwing for 170 yards to Edwards. That's not a bad thing, in any way shape or form. Or for example it can mean pounding it between the tackles with Deveon Smith. In the case of Edwards and Corum -- these are guys who can do it all so I don't think you have to change the playcalling all that much with either one in or out. If they are both out - yeah - you probably switch to passing a big more. Not necessarily a bad thing either (as we saw against Illinois), if you trust your QB. Michigan should.
The idea that we need two star RBs is directly contradicted by recent evidence. I don't buy it at all. The idea that we need one is more up for debate, I admit. I would just point out that the guys who are called out as not ready or limited in some form tend to end up being very ready the moment they are thrust into a bigger role. In other words the starter is always a star and I think you'll see that next year even if Corum and Edwards or both gone. If we are unfortunate enough to see both gone at the same time this year I think you'll very much see "sudden development" from Stokes or Hall or whoever else. Behind this OL, they'll thrive.
"If you lose a WR, you can go more to the TE or back out of the backfield." Going more to TE or a back out of the backfield IS a change in playcalling and execution. So I disagree. You alter the playcalling if Wilson or Loveland are not available. Nobody has Wilson's speed and deep threat ability. Nobody has Loveland's combination of size and catching ability. I would argue the playcalling is more affected by losing either one than it is by losing one of Edwards/Corum who are each do-everything RBs.
Delete@ Lank 1:01 p.m.
DeleteYou're mischaracterizing what I said about Mullings. Here's the direct quote:
"Mullings could probably be a starting tailback at a number of FBS schools, but at Michigan, he’s maybe the third-best guy."
There are 133 teams in FBS, including the likes of Old Dominion and North Texas and Troy and Eastern Michigan and FAU, etc. (I have no idea who the running back is for any of those teams; I'm just naming random teams off the top of my head).
Yeah, valid correction.
Delete