Sachse (TX) Sachse quarterback Alex Orji flipped from Virginia Tech to Michigan on National Signing Day. He also had offers from Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma, TCU, and Texas Tech, among others.
Orji is 6'2" and 233 lbs. He claims a 39" vertical, a 275 lb. bench, and a 550 lb. squat.
RANKINGS
ESPN: 4-star, 81 grade, #17 ATH, #244 overall
On3: 3-star, 89 grade, #15 ATH
Rivals: 3-star, 5.7 grade, #9 dual-threat QB
247 Sports: 3-star, 86 grade, #47 QB
Hit the jump for more.
Orji was offered by Virginia Tech in October of 2020 and by Michigan in March of 2021. He committed to the Hokies a month after getting offered by the Wolverines and stayed committed throughout the rest of the cycle, at least until the final day of signing. He was going to be a second quarterback in the class for Virginia Tech, and now he's the second quarterback in the class for Michigan.
Orji is a very good all-around athlete as you can see by the testing numbers above. He completed 127/247 passes for 2,056 yards and 28 touchdowns, and he ran 160 times for 1,187 yards and 24 touchdowns. He possesses pretty good arm strength, considering he has a couple clips of himself rolling left and throwing 60+ yards and rolling right and throwing the ball 50+ yards. His pure power shows up in the run game where he runs through and spins out of tackles with decent regularity. He has good enough speed that it's a tough combo.
Unfortunately, some of Orji's throws and anticipation remind me of Denard Robinson; and if you're a long-time reader, you probably know that's not a great thing to me. He tends to hold onto the ball a little too long, and I don't see a lot of great anticipation throws. He tends to throw the ball after receivers are already open. I had the same issue with Cade McNamara, but the caveat existed that McNamara's protection frequently broke down immediately. Orji is not dealing with the same kinds of protection issues. He also has some mechanical issues and his footwork is inconsistent.
Overall, I think Orji is a project and may not play quarterback at the next level. Two of his older brothers play linebacker at Vanderbilt, and I think that could be Alex's future, too. I don't know how open he will be to changing positions. It has worked out decently for Michael Barrett, and Orji is blessed with better physical skills when it comes to size and strength. We've seen Dan Villari come into the game this year and run the ball almost exclusively, and perhaps that could be Orji's role in the future.
Orji is the second quarterback in the 2022 class, joining Jayden Denegal. He is the first player from Sachse to sign with Michigan; however, he's from the same school district as 2021 defensive tackle signee Ike Iwunnah, who attended Garland (TX) Lakeview Centennial. Other alumni of Sachse include Jared Mayden (Alabama) and Devin Duvernay (Texas), both of whom Michigan offered.
TTB Rating: 55
Neither QB commit seem promising, though we did well with Speight & just won a B1G Championship with McNamara
ReplyDeleteWho knows? As long as JJ sticks around, one of these two can develop and be prepared to backup either JJ or the 2023 commit (assuming that's Dante Moore), perhaps even be the next Speight/McNamara
Both QB commits seem promising in different ways. A position-switch is on the table for reasons above with Orji, but I don't think it's a done deal.
ReplyDeleteThe QB rotation - bringing in different looks with different players - might be a thing Michigan wants to keep around after McNamara's senior year. Perhaps Orji will be a power-runner in the Tim Tebow mold. Could pair pretty nicely with Edwards and keep McCarthy fresh. But we're getting out way ahead now.
The track record of consensus predictions of QB futures at Michigan has been notoriously awful beyond obvious back-up types (Malzone, Bellomy, Villari). A few exceptions (Denard, Henne) but there are far more supposed nobodies who end up being highly productive (Navarre, Speight, McNamara) while the high ranked guys (McCaffrey, Peters, Driesbach, Mallet) tend to transfer.
Thankfully McCarthy looks to be following in the Henne/Denard lineage. That opens things up a bit to take a few chances. But then again one might have thought that in 2018 and 2019 too...change comes fast.
Dreisbach didn't transfer.
DeleteTrue. It was kind of amazing at the time and near unfathomable now for an NFL QB to sit the bench his last 2 years.
DeleteOrji is the perfect candidate for a second QB. He is athletic and can change position if needed. But I question the need for recruiting so many "project" QBs (Orji/Villari/Bowman).
ReplyDeleteI understand Michigan has certain limitation when it comes to getting someone from the transfer portal. But with the number of QB transferring this year, I find it hard to believe Michigan is unable to land a better QB than Villari in case McNamara and JJ leave.
I guess I don't really understand your point. If McNamara/McCarthy leave RIGHT NOW, you've got Villari/Bowman/Denegal/Orji and you're probably looking in the transfer portal. If all those guys stay, nobody worthwhile is transferring in to be the #3 quarterback.
DeleteLong story short: No decent QB is transferring in at this point, so you have to take high schoolers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think he's an LB prospect, like his brothers before him.
ReplyDeleteWhile you can't see it from his video because ... highlights!
You can suss it out from his numbers, most notably his completion percentage from the very low 50s. But as some scouting starts to become available, you hear about accuracy and mechanics.
I was told by a shooting coach that "Shooters are born and then made." I believe the same is true of accurate passers. Work on an inaccurate kid's mechanics all day long, and what you'll get is a really correct QB missing receivers.
I do think he's an exciting big, athlete tho. Probably too smart to play Fullback tho ... his mom is a surgeon.
I agree. I don't really think you can fix accuracy. If you have an accurate QB whose receivers drop a bunch of passes, that's one thing. So I do think high school completion percentage can be somewhat misleading. But at Sachse High School, I don't think crappy receivers is a problem.
DeleteI would rather have an accurate QB with a mediocre arm (McNamara) than a scattershot guy with a Howitzer (Milton).
Accuracy over arm strength all day everyday.
DeleteThat said, there are notable examples of guys who "learn" to be accurate at least in terms of production. Brett Favre had a 52% completion percentage in college and was known as a risk taking gunslinger but got up to 68% in the NFL. Josh Allen is a more recent example where the analytics crowd (which I tend to subscribe to) saw 56% in college and called "BUST" and now he's over 65% in the NFL over the last couple years.
Accuracy is probably accuracy to some extent but mechanics can stabilize it. More relevant, decision-making can improve outcomes dramatically.
Thunder, if you had to pick just TWO of the attributes from this list: (Arm, Accuracy, Intelligence), what would you pick? What yields the more production from a QB?
DeleteI'm thinking I'd want the anchor point of my "build-a-QB" to have a really high football IQ; to be really savvy about understanding what a defense is giving pre-snap, and then seeing what's happening post-snap. After that, I'm looking at accuracy.
What I'm not sure of is whether a QB with a cannon and the ability to drop dimes, but not very smart about defenses, might be prone to dumb mistakes by disguises and other things from a clever DC. Would it make a difference on average, across a whole season, if opponents figured out how to confuse and rattle that QB?
Thinking more: a really savvy QB can read defenses pre-snap and know where pressure will come from, and what may be open because of that. It might not be a WR forty yards down field, it may be a running back with a lot of green in front of him. So again, Intelligence + Accuracy, to me, seems the very best combination. The cannon arm rates third in my book.
DeleteYes, I would rather have accuracy and intelligence. This is where McNamara excels. He can make pre-snap reads and generally puts the ball in good spots, which is why he has just a few interceptions this year. You do have to have a certain level of arm strength, but McNamara is adequate in that area.
DeleteOnce you get to the NFL level, I think the vast majority of quarterbacks have to have the arm. Maybe not a great one, but a ++ arm as a college player. It's very rare you see an NFL quarterback who can't put some zip on the ball and push it downfield. The windows are just too tiny in the NFL.
So if we stay with my original dilemma -- pick TWO -- which do you pick for the NFL? Arm strength and what ... accuracy or intelligence?
DeleteHere's I'm torn. If the windows are really tight, then accuracy is really key: slight under/over throws are INTs. But that means less emphasis on football IQ. Can a QB with arm+accuracy but not much in the way of reading defenses make it in the NFL?
That's just it Anon, with each level of sports, key attributes shift in their order of priority
DeleteIdeally you want all three, but - depending on where you are in your career, the level of competition, and the offensive scheme - the answer varies
I understand the concept of things shifting at different levels of competition. I posed the question in the "pick two of three" format to tease out the relative priorities.
DeleteI'm not sure I agree with Thunder about the arm being critical in the NFL. I'd rather go for accuracy+intelligence. That presumes an adequate arm, just not a howitzer.
Couple of reasons:
(1) Guys with cannons will sometimes try to push balls where they shouldn't go; whereas a guy with a lesser arm, coupled with a lot of football savvy, will be more judicious; and
(2) I'd rather a QB be really smart about understanding the entire field, where all the receivers are and will be, and what kinds of defensive coverages are where. Why thread a needle when the third checkdown is wide open?
All this is predicated on "adequate" meaning what it means. Wobbly ducks that hang for a few seconds isn't adequate. But I think someone with McNamara's arm could work in the NFL, provided: (a) he was taller than Cade; (b) his delivery was a bit more overhand rather than that wonky sidearm thing; and (c) he wasn't playing for the Detroit Lions.
The 4th attribute not listed here is running ability. That can compensate for other deficiencies and helped make some guys special at the NFL level, even back in the 80s/90s with Young and Cunningham. Obviously there are endless examples at lower levels.
DeleteIntelligence plays into that as well (as we saw with Rodriguez QBs at WVU) but it's distinct and probably different than the kind of quick thinking intelligence you see from Brady/Brees.
My personal ranking for college:
1. Intelligence
2. Accuracy
3. Running
4. Arm strength
I do agree with Thunder that the NFL is different so I'd move arm strength up there. That's why I think a guy like Milton, as badly as he's done as a starter, is still going to get some curious check-ins from NFL scouts over the next couple years. Obviously he's fighting an uphill battle to prove himself after high profile struggles, but that arm is always going to be there.
On Denard, for the last time ... maybe. Because as everyone knows, I love Denard and if you ever want to troll me, say nice things about Hoke and that mellifluous moron, Al Borges.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Denard was a poor passer and could not under absolutely any set of circumstances be expected to deliver a ball into a "tight window" or anticipate a rout or accomplish any of the things/buzz phrases we expect good college QBs to be able to do.
But … he cheated.
Denard could do the one thing probably only one other QB in my entire life could accomplish, Lamar Jackson. And that that thing is, Denard could run guys open.
Denard could freeze an entire defensive backfield and pick up two or three yard windows with just a simple, idle scan of the line of scrimmage during the first second or two after the snap. If he took a step towards a potential hole, he could get a three yard or better window out of some DB who had been given the mutually exclusive jobs of covering a Michigan receiver and containing Denard.
So, his reads, fundamentals, mechanics and accuracy would be a disaster for any other QB on this earth, but those guys didn't/don't have the generational acceleration and vision that Denard had. How many times did we see ... pick your Denard receiver ... standing there wide open, patiently waiting for a Denard duck to finally drop from the sky and then go for big yards only because some hapless DB had completely abandoned his coverage out of the sheer and simple terror of Denard on the loose.
The only two things that could have ever possibly stopped Denard Robinson from just destroying any defense ever schemed, were that Fred Flinstone looking, Barney Rubble sounding, nincompoop of a feeble minded twit, Brady Hoke, and his incompetent sidekick, that not just any kind of a simple, generic, cluster doodle of a moron … but rather that world class, drooling moron for the ages, and then some, Al Borges.
Denard was pure greatness as a QB, while not even being a mediocre passer.
Ok, so suit me, I'm passionate on this one.
And since I'm at it, running backs really matter and big backs are a real good thing to have.
I'm with you Roanman. While DRob was not a great (or even very good) passer, in my household, he's a favorite
DeleteEvery once in awhile, a CFB comes along and Fs with standards & norms. DRob was so great a runner, that under better coaching his limitations as a passer would have been irrelevant from anyone uninterested in draft potential
Add to it that he's such a class act - that smile! - and respected as a leader, and I sure would love to have seen him under a different Head Coach (not the poor scheme fit of Hoke, or the poor program fit of RR)
Ah, what could have been
I agree. But I don't think it's cheating. Tom Harmon won a Hesiman this way. Denard was a GREAT QB! Mediocre passer. Plenty of examples out there.
DeleteHoke seems to be a good coach IMO. He's done well in all his HC stints except here - where the job is real tough, despite what many will tell you. The issue was hiring Borges. This was a disaster and probably, single-handedly, Hoke's undoing. Perhaps Denard's as well.
Mellifluous - I had to look up that one. Bravo.
Agree that Hoke and Borges didn't know how to best use Denard Robinson. Or Devin Gardner, for that matter. Putting either under center is the "using a thoroughbred to pull a plow" syndrome.
DeleteGardner, in particular -- and I love Devin Gardner -- was not well suited under center. He tended to turn his eyes away from the defense when he dropped back. That meant he had to re-acquire who was doing what and where, and that often led to unproductive scrambles or sacks. He seemed far more comfortable out of the shotgun.
I'll agree on Robinson's speed, with one caveat: it was on steps 2 through 4 where his acceleration really showed. That first step, however, was not elite. The Mississippi State bowl game showed that Denard could be boxed and caught. The MSU defense did a fine job staying disciplined, which made Robinson stop in the backfield, and they were able to corral him. When Robinson got dangerous is when he was allowed to get two or more steps under him. The acceleration difference between 0 and 1 was okay; between 1 and 2 was really good; between 2 and 3 outstanding; and between 3 and 4 he was gone.
I also agree that Denard Robinson and Devin Gardner should never have been under center. Put them in shotgun and let their athleticism work. Gardner is very defensive of Borges and seems to have liked him a lot, but I think that's somewhat natural to be defensive of someone who's that close with you.
DeleteI'm going to disagree with some of you here - even Roanman - and say that I think Al Borges is a really smart guy when it comes to football and did a lot of really cool things. Personally, I think he was almost "too intelligent" of a coach in that I think he liked to game plan from week to week. He ran too many different schemes and Michigan never really seemed to get good at any of them.
There are certainly things I disagreed with (which is probably the case with any offensive coordinator). Some of them were big picture things (Denard under center) and some of them were smaller (certain schemes/play calls). I also had an issue with his lack of taking advantage of "free access" or "gift" routes.
Anyway, I think Borges is really interesting and diverse as a coach, but he could have used some more support. He had some success at a few different places (UCLA, Auburn, Michigan), and I think he was held back by some of Michigan's other coaching hires. It's almost a decade later, and his fellow offensive coaches haven't exactly gone on to great success elsewhere.
I think Borges is Saruman.
DeleteHe starts talking, and you quickly become mesmerized, then confused until you become completely lost in the rich liquid tones emanating from that baritone throat.
Now, your intellect completely fogged and your reason hopelessly lost, you start thinking "Under center ... under center ... yes, that's how it's done. This is Michigan fergodsakes, that’s how it’s always been done”. But that is a scurrilous lie.
If only he hadn't looked into the sphere and become lost himself, to pure evil.
Borges succumbed to the eternal coaching mistake. He valued his system over his athlete's natural talents. In his defense, probably every coach that has ever lived has succumbed to this error on some occasion, but Borges' fail on this issue is the most egregious I have ever seen or heard of.
Borges had two full seasons of tape on the kid just running amok on everybody. All he had to do was ... CHANGE NOTHING!!!!! And I understand completely that this violates the nature of a football coach down to the very core of his person. But dear Lord Al, you can't see this?
Actually, I blame Hoke more than Borges because he had the same two years of tape to look at. He supposedly is a defensive coach. Had he sat there and watched it all, and then thought, "How the hell would I stop this kid?" The answer should have been obvious, YOU DON'T!!!
I firmly believe that neither of these two football geniuses ever bothered to take the time to watch Denard's film because if they had, they wouldn't have wasted two years of his talent the way they did. And not just two years, but the best two years.
I also believe that they did this out of pure, unadulterated hubris and arrogance. On the arrogance thing, I cut slack because … MICHIGAN!!! Darryl Rogers was right. Embrace it! Make it your strength!
But hubris in this set of circumstances is unforgivable as far as I’m concerned.
I believe that good football coaches would look at that film and say to themselves, “I have this system that I employ, but I also have this kid the likes of which I'll never see again. I'll recruit and train toward my system, but this playbook suits this kid perfectly so I'm keeping it.”
With regards to "even Roanman". You and I disagree from time to time, but for some reason we just never get caught up in it.
The hubris you ascribe to Hoke and Borges (which I don't disagree with), could also be ascribed to Rodriguez when he got to Michigan.
DeleteWith respect to Hoke, the role of Dave Brandon's influence is a potential factor. I don't know to what degree, but I'm sure to *some* degree.
Truth is, Michigan football was in the wilderness a bit from the late Carr years, made worse by the churn of the Rodriguez and Hoke years. This year seems to suggest Harbaugh has found his footing, and I certainly hope so, but I'm not so sure some of the "we're back for good!" celebrating I see on other sites is yet warranted.
Borges success at UCLA and Auburn was pretty unexceptional and dated, that was pointed out in 2011. After Michigan he did next to nothing. He wasn't good. While it's true that Borges certainly wasn't helped by a weak crew of assistants, he probably had some say in who was working with. I don't think he was awful awful, just not up to the standard at Michigan (Gattis, Hamilton, or even Fisch) before or after. More importantly, he was an awful fit for THAT team in particular.
DeleteThe under center stuff is bit of a whipping boy IMO. Rodriguez ran it too, especially against Iowa. Didn't work especially great but Denard still ran for 100 yards in a half. Of course there's a difference in a matchup-specific curveball vs a base offense. Still, the formation stuff is far from the worst thing Borges did (or didn't do).
Agree with Anon that "we're back for good" is big fallacy. Less has changed from say 2019 than people think. The difference between 11-1 and 9-3 can be a few lucky breaks, and Michigan has had plenty of those this year (and in 2011). But also... this is the kind of year you need to break into the elite 3 or 4 programs. Turn victories into recruiting success, replace elite assistants with new ones, keep building, don't get complacent, and wait for somebody to fall back to the pack (Clemson) or lose their edge (Day is no Meyer). The big thing for Michigan is Ohio State of course and they are already counting down for November 2022. Hopefully we are too... by February. For now we celebrate now and there's nothing wrong with that.
I won't accuse Rodriguez of hubris. That charge goes to the lying scum at the free press and an athletic department that wouldn't give him anywhere near the budget for staff and the "Michigan Men" who deliberately tanked him because he wasn't of St. Bo's coaching tree.
DeleteRodriguez' fail is on Michigan ... not Rodriguez.
You can throw Lloyd in there too.
DeleteI love Lloyd and he is entitled to retire however he sees fit but his support for Rodriguez was lacking IMO. Supposedly he wanted to get out at least 1 year earlier so maybe he felt like he had done his part for the benefit of the transition already. Regardless, when the sharks circled he could have stood up and said something poignant. The podium was open and he would have been the guy to step in. He said something tepid at one point but it was too little and probably too late. He let Rodriguez flounder. If that was due to Martin not hiring his guys or dislike of Brandon or Rodriguez or whatever else... we'll probably never know.
DeleteAs with anything there's plenty of blame to go around and Rodriguez hasn't done anything since to undo the idea that he wasn't the guy for Michigan. Contrast that with Hoke back at SDSU.
Still - Dave Brandon gets more blame than anyone IMO. John Bacon's book paints that picture fairly clearly. Incomplete and biased as that may be there's plenty of facts and evidence that point fingers at Brandon. His "peculiar and unsuccessful" tenure was the primary factor in Michigan football's struggles from 2010 to 2014 if you ask me. Luckily, Harbaugh was available to turn things around very quickly once that weasel was out of the way.
Rodriguez' fail is at least in part on Rodriguez.
DeleteYou mentioned the foolishness of Borges having a player like Robinson and not using him according to his abilities. Well, the same holds for Rodriguez: he comes into Michigan in 2008 and tries to operate a run-first spread read option offense with Sheridan and Threet. That 2008 team was never going to be world-beaters, but a 3-9 record, with a loss to Toledo of all things, was inexcusable.
Rodriguez' record at Arizona was not good; his tenure as OC at Ole Miss was not good; his tenure as OC at ULM was not good; and I predict his tenure at Jacksonville State will not go well either. He's a coach out of place in this era of football.
I'm as passionate about my disregard for Rodriguez as you are in your disregard of Borges.
Sheridan and Threet weren't gonna win under any system.
DeleteSheridan and Threet weren't gonna win anywhere.
Sheridan and Threet weren't gonna win.
The cupboard was bare.
Rodriguez invented this era of football.
Not 3-9 empty. Not "lose to Toledo" empty.
DeleteRodriguez was part of an innovation in the early 2000s. That innovation has led to other evolutions. Rodriguez had not evolved. It's the same stuff. And it barely works with today's defenses. Rodriguez is spent. And was spent by 2011.
Many people forget that Michigan lost to Appalachian State just the year before. Toledo was a worse team but not as bad of a loss.
DeleteWinning 5 games instead of 3 in 2008 would not have changed anything.
I don't think many folks are changing their minds on Rodriguez anymore, but it's worth noting that it took over a decade to produce as highly ranked of an offense as 2010.
You're right: not many are changing their minds on Rodriguez.
DeleteIn 2010, Michigan was 8th in total offense (yards per game), but 25th in scoring offense. They were 13th in rush offense, but 36th in passing. The other side of that coin: 110th in total defense.
It was mostly Denard's rushing: he was 5th in the country. They lost to Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin, OSU, and Mississippi State. OSU held Michigan to 7 points; Mississippi State to 14.
In other words, they put up gaudy numbers in lesser games, and failed to come through in tougher match-ups.
Denard was great. He was as close to the "Pat White" model that Rodriguez ever got. He keeps searching for his Pat White and Steve Slaton. He hasn't found them yet.
Whoah, it's okay to question coaches if it's Borges? I gotta remember that one
DeleteOn RR, I have no idea if anything JUB says is true. Regardless, he fails anyway because he ignored the defense, skipped OL recruiting, and never let his offense evolve - even since leaving
Good riddance
Abuse coaches all you want when they're gone.
DeleteBut never before they're gone. Counter productive and just not good business.
Rodriguez did not ignore the defense.
Michigan was still living under the shadow of the great Saint Bo Schembechler who famously would not pay assistant coaches, feeling that people should work for Michigan Football cheap because ... Michigan.
As an aside Woody, I am told, operated the same way. But I don’t know.
Rodriguez was hamstrung from the beginning by a low Power 5 budget for assistant coaches because that's how we did things around here then. He wanted to run a 3-3-5 and he wanted Jeff? Casteel to run it because that guy knows how to run a 3-3-5. He couldn't throw money at him because Martin wouldn't properly fund him. So Casteel stayed at WV, RR ended up with GERG who is likely an ok coach, but didn't know squat about a 3-3-5 and subsequently goes down in Michigan history with Borges ... fair or not.
People around here scorn a 3-3-5 because it was crap for us, but I will tell you that the by far best football mind posting in this little gaggle will tell you that any defense is good with proper personnel, properly run.
Rodriguez was far from spent in 2011, having strung together multiple 11 win seasons and had New Years day bowl victories over Georgia and somebody.
But the Michigan Football establishment had decided to commit football suicide because they weren't happy with the hire. Bo was dead, Martin wasn't ... something ... enough to nip it in the bud, so that's exactly what those asshats did.
RR foolishly did something that no Michigan football coach before him would ever do, and will likely never do again, he opened up practice to the press. The two ........... I don't have even a long phrase that adequately expresses my contempt for, Rosenberg and Snyder, got hold of a couple kids at that open practice who proudly talked about how hard they were working. Those two lying liars that lie ginned that pride up into an NCAA investigation of by far one of the cleanest programs in NCAA history.
The entirety of the football portion of The M Club with very few exceptions skipped no opportunity to pile on. The one really notable exception was Ricky Leach.
But the stench of death came early and strong. Recruiting tanked pretty quick.
Rodriguez is toast now to be sure, but he got screwed over by arrogant, hubristic and most of all, intolerant "Michigan Men".
In retrospect, Michigan should have never hired RR, not because he wasn't a good football coach but because of a culture that wouldn't/couldn't tolerate anyone outside of the Schembechler coaching tree.
Nobody wins in Arizona. it's just not done.
I disagree with whoever was saying above that Rodriguez's system wasn't successful after 2010. He went to Arizona and these were the team rankings in total offense over the six seasons from 2012-2017:
Delete#7
#30
#26
#16
#67
#12
That's an average ranking of #26.3, and interestingly, Ole Miss was #26 in total offense during his one year as offensive coordinator in 2019.
Rodriguez is a very capable offensive mind. Is he the best? Maybe not. But the guy can coach offense. And he wasn't exactly working with top-of-the-line recruits at WVU, Arizona, Ole Miss, or - dare I say it - Michigan. He had access to great facilities and doors opened for him to recruit very good players at Michigan, but he was playing catch-up from the start when the cupboard was bare at quarterback, the offensive line was decimated by injury/transfer, etc.
Arguably the only place he started with decent talent was at running back (Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor, Sam McGuffie, Michael Shaw, etc.), and those guys put up pretty good numbers overall.
Holy revisionist history
DeleteRR wasn't stuck with Gerg in 2008, he went out and hand picked him in 2009 ... in 2008 he hired Scott Schafer, who - if anyone was screwed - was forced into running someone else's defense, midseason. That's a head coach's decision. What should have been a good or at least okay defense got turned into sh:t over night
You want to talk money? What was the staff pay in 2008 compared to our schedule? Did the athletic department pay less than those at Toledo? Purdont? How about the other seven losses?
Oh, and who was is DC at zona? And what happened to Jeff Casteel while there? Where is he now? Let's not pretend he was the answer
Thunder, he was the head coach at Michigan & Arizona ... His defense & SpTms should be included as well. His W-L record matters. Who cares if you have the #26 offense when you're losing 7+ games, and have sexual harassment allegations floating around?
Did RR inherit holes at QB & OL? Yeah. Did he know it? Gladly & proudly
Something other than "total offense" is needed, as that can produce good numbers, but not win games, and more importantly, not win big games. 2010 illustrated that. Scoring offense is better, but that has to be balanced against what the defense is doing.
DeleteBut enough about Rodriguez. He's at Jacksonville State now. We'll see how he fares.
@ je93 11:36 a.m.
DeleteI'm not talking about him as an overall coach. I was very critical of his decisions as a defensive coach, deployment of personnel, etc.
I'm simply talking about offense. I really don't think football has passed him on that side of the ball.
@Roanman
DeleteYou nailed it. Though I do agree he has to take some blame for the D regardless of the constraints in place. GERG was a hail mary but still an ill considered one. Schafer was supposedly undermined, so there's a parallel to how RR was treated and how he treated SS.
@Thunder
Minor was OK but those other RBs mostly stunk by Michigan standards. It didn't matter. OL and QB hit.
@JE
The OL criticism is my longstanding pet peeve. Let's look at the Rich Rod era's production in terms of NFL starts:
QB: Zero
RB: Zero
WR: Zero
TE: Zero
OL: Dozens and dozens (not even including Jake Fisher).
Lewan, Schofield, Omameh were not only good recruits, they were developed very quickly into high caliber starters in college.
Rodriguez absolutely CRUSHED OL recruiting and development. I would argue it was the one thing he truly excelled at in his 3 years at Michigan, though you can make a case for QB recruiting too even with the big miss on Pryor and Forcier flopping. Gardner was kind of a gift to be fair...anyway
The rise of the Michigan offense was rapid during the RR years. It was based on scheme, QB, and absolutely staggeringly good OL recruiting and development. What's happened in the NFL has completely blown up this dumb narrative from 2013.
The defensive criticism is valid. The OL is an easily disproved myth.
...
Nobody said coaches can't be criticized ever - you're troll game is getting weaker by the day. Did you really peak at "spreadsheet" how every many years ago?
Not revisionist history at all. He hired B defensive coordinators because he had a B budget for staff. I accurately named the infamous DC, GERG. The other guy was about of the same cut.
DeleteThe good coaches weren't coming anyway any more than the good recruits were because because Michigan was obviously fouling their own bed.
@ Lank 12:40 p.m.
DeleteMinor (4-star), McGuffie (4-star), Brown (4-star), Grady (5-star), Shaw (4-star). There was talent.
There was no such talent/depth at any other position with a glut of 4- and 5-star prospects. Not at QB (Sheridan walk-on, Threet 4-star, Cone 3-star), not at TE (Massey 3-star, Butler 3-star, etc.), etc.
@Thunder
DeleteWouldn't a better indicator of talent be NFL interest? None of those RBs surpassed Butler. They were more on the level of guys like Mark Huyge or Steve Watson - camp invites.
That's not even touching the guys inherited who went on to successful NFL careers like Molk and Hemingway.
You also brought up Shaw and McGuffie who were RR recruits (not inherited players) and if we're talking about guys he recruited there's no question there was more talent recruited at QB and OL than RB under the Rodriguez regime.
The HS-based stuff doesn't matter. RBs are always going to get overrated by that barometer.
I'm not going to revisit the parsing of the talent level of the 2008 team. We're 13 years in the future. I'll stick with recruiting rankings.
DeleteLike I said above, no one is changing their minds about Rodriguez anymore.
DeleteThe idea that Steven Threet is a talented QB because he's a 4-star and Kevin Grady is a talented RB because he was a 5-star is nutty to me. Gotta let go of that stuff once new info is available. The recruiting rankings are a reasonable indicator at some level but variance is high and grain of salt is big, etc.
The NFL thinks more of Pat Omameh than Sam McGuffie and whatever Rivals thought back then doesn't matter at this point.
@Roan, you're a reasonable guy, and I'll assume you know more than I do on this topic. Conceding this, I ask:
DeleteHow far behind in budget was M than their competition in RR years?
What kept RR from succeeding at Zona, or anywhere else in the last decade?
Why was Casteel fired by RR?
Where is Casteel now?
@Lank, RR nailed it with Lewan. Fantastic job with Omameh & Schofield as well. But that's three OL. RR came late in the 08 class, making Omameh an even bigger score. But if the cupboard was bare, why skimp OL recruiting in 2009? 2010? Even in 2011, we took 3 OL, making 6 total for the three full RR recruiting classes
Certainly as a strong proponent of OL play, and the constant rants of "RBs don't matter," you must see how neglectful the RR tenure was to the UM football program. He could have been fired for a number of reasons, dereliction of duty among them
@JE
DeleteI appreciate the turn towards a civil tone and will reciprocate.
The three OL are home runs but they weren't the only success stories on the OL. There were other guys who were singles, doubles, and triples. Barnum, Huyge, Mealer were solid players for example. Bottomline is that RR had ZERO problems on the OL. And he left an excellent OL to Hoke for 2011 too! The critique was that he didn't setup Hoke for success in 2012 and beyond is wacky.
Still there are several reasons for it. Despite fighting an uphill battle and grasping at straws at the end of his tenure he still had Jake Fisher lined up and you can be sure he would have turned him into a good player in short order. Simply put, the OL failures beyond 2012 were on Hoke and only Hoke. Start with inability to hold onto Fisher for one. The 2011 class was Hoke's. 2008-2010 were RR's.
What about the 2010 class? He knew he what had and had bigger fish to fry. What did he have? A bunch of young guys he knew were going to be good for the next couple years at least. Confidence that he could fill those spots as needed - and do it quickly - because he had done exactly that already. In other words, worry about it later. Bigger fish: a problematic defense that needed every scholarship it could find.
At that moment, Rodriguez's boat was flooding so he was plugging holes, not worried about fine tuning the engine for going even faster.
So there's multiple reasons why his recruiting strategy was right on the OL.
The RR tenure was a failure. That's not the point. It wasn't because of the OL. Which, again, was excellent. That's a fact, even if it didn't set someone else up for success two years later.
Here is another of my "constant rants".
Deletehttps://twitter.com/SethWalder/status/1473403145342656514
Derrick Henry matters so much he averages .1 ypc over expectation.
I will cop to one thing though - I didn't think Jonathan Taylor mattered, because Wisconsin backs are usually just riding the OL coattails - but it seems he does. Credit where it's due.
RR's '09 class produced 3 NFL OL. Hardly skimping at all.
DeleteSkimped in '10 - you can draw a line between the one Carr guy he was worried about losing (Molk) and who he recruited (Pace)
That tells you where his head was at. My OL is set for the next couple years and my defense is sliding into absolute chaos and disaster. He did the logical thing.
Lank, if we agree no one is changing their minds on RR, why rely on feelings? You think Huyge (recruited under Carr), Barnum & Mealer support your opinion that RR had great OL? I disagree. I can point to recruiting rankings, #starts, accolades & draft status, but those facts won't move the needle. They are though, facts not feelings
DeleteNo problems at OL, but no 1K rusher? So does the RB matter? I don't get this argument
Speculating on Fisher is something, considering we want to stick with facts
On recruiting strategy, I already proved OL negligence via OL commits. As for focusing on defense, let's stick with facts: of a class of 19, only 10 were D, and 4 of those committed to Hoke in January. How many of RR's defensive focus contributed? Only Desmond Morgan was a starter. That's it. His focus on D resulted in one starter
RR 2008 class produced two NFL OL: Lewan & Schofield
Facts my friend, Go Blue
2009 class, not 2008
Delete2008 only had Omameh play in the NFL
*on my point above, Huyge was a Carr commit, but so was Mealer. Barnum is the only guy you list who RR recruited, and he didn't earn a regular startet status until his 5th year, in 2012
@ Lank 2:03 p.m.
DeleteI'm not really sure what that does to prove your argument. It doesn't show that running backs don't matter, which you have claimed repeatedly. It just shows WHICH running backs matter, such as Jonathan Taylor, Nick Chubb, Damien Harris, Javonte Williams, etc.
It's not too surprising that guys like Mike Davis, James Connor, Darrel Williams, Myles Gaskin, etc. are in the bottom left quadrant.
@ Lank 4:27 p.m.
DeleteYou're conflating talent with production. Recruiting gurus can identify talent pretty well. Who's big, fast, agile, strong-armed, a good leaper, etc.?
Success in college and the NFL sometimes comes down to leadership, work ethic, off-the-field behavior, etc.
Walk-on Jordan Kovacs was a more successful/productive safety than 4-star Demar Dorsey. If you're going to sit here and say Kovacs was more talented, then we're just not ever going to agree.
@Thunder
DeleteLook at the scale. The percent of times the expectation is exceed is a minority of plays. The size of that differentiation is also very small. This is YPC the one place where theoretically a RB would matter the most and still shows a tiny change.
Only a few guys are over half a yard. Let's say somebody gets 20 carries that means... 10 more yards in a game. That's punter level impact.
Game of inches and all that but you're talking about very few guys who make a difference of 10 yards a game.
There are always exceptions and that data says Taylor is one. MAYBE a couple other like the Dallas Plan B. The rest...they don't seem to matter.
Hard work is talent. Intelligence is talent. Mental quickness is talent. This is stuff that the coaches need to consider when allocating scholarships.
DeleteThe NFL draft based on potential and talent. Not produciton. But they do player interviews and tests beyond the combine physical stuff.
So yeah, I suspect we don't agree on that. If it was all physical then Joe Milton would have been a 5 star recruit. He wasn't.
Using data to demonstrate RBs who exceed expectation v RBs who don't as well is a strange approach to insisting "RBs don't matter"
Delete@ Lank 4:59 p.m.
DeleteMilton wasn't a 5-star recruit because he didn't have good footwork, was inaccurate, etc. That's all a part of talent that can be seen. Regardless, he was a 4-star recruit. He had/has talent.
Your version of talent is entirely viewed in the rear view mirror; in other words, "Player X did well so he must have had talent. Player Y did not do well, so he must not have had talent."
It's possible to be talented - in any field - but not to recognize or maximize that talent due to off-the-field issues, injury, poor system fit, etc.
@ je93 9:56 p.m.
DeleteThat was my point exactly. "I am going to use this data to point out that running backs don't matter, but by golly, this data also proves that Jonathan Taylor matters."
Sigh. There's always exceptions like I've said all along (Barry Sanders, Darren Sproles).
DeleteIf I showed you Denard Robinson's gamelog https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/denard-robinson-1/gamelog/2011/
would you say the OSU game proves that Denard is an accurate passer. Or would you see the other 90% of outcomes and conclude otherwise?
Over 90% of the RB are within a tiny range. They don't matter. At least not as rushers.
@Thunder
DeleteYeah I think talent assessment doesn't begin and end in high school. That's true. You're viewing it through the lense of recruiting rankings forever, even when we have way more info. I think that's a pretty basic error, though not uncommon. But even if you ignore that the NFL drafts on talent at that level not production at a lower level, you can see what I'm talking about in recruiting rankings...
Colleges recruit based on potential and talent is how that is assessed. There are no low talent high potential players. There are no high talent low potential players. It's the same thing - at whatever level you want to look at. Skills can be developed. Work ethic is much harder. You can't teach a rocket arm and you can't teach willing to put in 60 hour weeks by choice. That's talent - and you can recruit/draft to it.
Footwork for example is something you can work on so that doesn't explain a guy with the strongest arm in the country perhaps behind ranked outside the top 200 and behind 17 other QBs in his class.
McNamara, who if you go by your definition of physical talent ("who's big, fast, agile, strong-armed, a good leaper, etc.") should be ranked much lower. He wasn't - he was ranked the same as Milton (15th in the country, 4 star, in the 200s overall).
So even the recruiting sites know that talent is more than the physical stuff. The NFL certainly does.
@ Lank 1:10 p.m.
DeleteNotice there was an "etc." in there. I can't list every trait for every position that teams might look for.
Let's get back to the point. You argue that I'm conflating production and talent but I'm not.
DeleteIn your world talent is determined by senior year of high school and based primarily on physical attributes and demonstrated by recruiting rankings. Production is established in college, and NFL drafts based on that.
In my world talent is just another word for potential, it is physical and mental, and it is reevaluated at each level (HS, college, NFL).
Talent and production are correlated but very different.
Talent + skill + execution = production.
Kevin Grady was a 5-star talent in your mind regardless of what happened in college. He failed on the execution part of the above. In my mind Kevin Grady was a 3-star talent who the sites got wrong. He had 4 years of opportunity and didn't produce -- because of his lack of talent. The NFL reacted to his lack of talent accordingly.
But it's not always lined up like that. You can have less production and more talent or more production and less talent.
Talent different from rankings and production:
Michael Cox > Ty Isaac. He had more talent regardless of college production or recruiting rankings (which both favor Isaac). We learned that based on information gathered after high school. The NFL reacted accordingly.
Talent different than production but not ratings
DPJ > Jeremy Gallon. DPJ had higher rankings out of high school and a higher draft grade but Gallon was way more productive in college.
Talent different than ratings but not production
Hutchinson > Zach Harrison. There's a million examples there like this but the recruiting sites gave the fifth star to the wrong guy.
I know you disagree on Isaac because you think he was used wrong, by two different coaching staffs, plus the various pro teams that he joined, but I think there's way more evidence that he simply was JAG. A 3-star or maybe fringe 4-star player. Somewhere below Mark Huyge. That's what the NFL thinks. That's what I think.
But you see talent differently...
So like you said, we aren't going to agree here.
Not to imply that the NFL can't be wrong but if you aren't productive in college and you aren't productive in the NFL the chances that you were really a 5-star level talent are pretty small - typically it's limited to people who got severely injured or had off-field issues that prevented them from reaching their potential.
DeleteIf those things didn't happen to you (e.g., Derrick Green) then the recruiting sites were just wrong. That happens ALL THE TIME.
I think you're relying on them too much Thunder, and it's clouding your judgement on some takes like "actually Rich Rod had tons of RB talent" and "actually Ty Isaac was misused by all these different coaches". My opinion. I know we don't agree here.
To take it away from the more contentious position (RB) was another disagreement: Luiji Villain. You've expressed that he had untapped talent, derailed by injury. I think the sites just got it wrong and he wasn't actually a top 100 player. This one is probably unknowable but it's indicative of my inclination to move on from recruiting rankings based on new info and your inclination to stick to them.
I think the sites are wrong a lot especially on undersized guys (like Frank Clark, Josh Uche, Blake Corum) who don't necessarily have traditional NFL size.
The problem with your definition of "talent" is that it can only be seen in hindsight. You're saying a freshman in college can't have been talented because the NFL didn't draft him/like him three or four years later.
DeleteDid Ryan Leaf lack talent because he wasn't successful in the NFL? No. Did Charles Rogers lack talent because he wasn't successful in the NFL? No.
I don't stick to recruiting rankings no matter what. Some guys are underrated, and some are overrated.
I just heard Sam Webb a month or two ago talk about Luiji Vilain, and oddly enough, he said the same exact thing as me: Vilain was derailed by injury. He said the staff had big plans for him and they just couldn't get him back to where he was after two years of being injured.
What proof do I have? Well, it's not a smoking gun, but he transferred to Wake Forest and made 9 sacks this year, which tied for #2 in the ACC and #25 nationally. If you're trying to call me out for a guy that I was irrationally supportive of...that guy doesn't seem like a good example.
I'm not calling you out on Vilain. I always said "you could be right here but". I was giving it as another example of where you and I diverge on holding on to recruiting rankings. I discard them very quickly.
DeleteI agree that Leaf and Rogers are talented too. They were derailed by off field stuff. Some NFL talent evaluators saw that and some didn't.
I don't agree that you can ONLY see talent in hindsight. But hindsight can tall you if the assessment of talent was incorrect. That was the case with Grady, Green, Walker, and Isaac. They had plenty of opportunity over many years. Whatever issues they had off field, they still got chances on it. They didn't do much with it.
*Not entirely fair to lump Isaac in this group as he was a pretty solid college back at major program and went on to a (very) modest pro career, but he wasn't remotely the 5 star talent he was made out to be. In other words he did not have the talent that some said. We know that now. At some point it's just burying head in sand to just stick to the high school info that was clearly wrong.
I watched Villain play at Wake. He's not bad. He'd be riding the bench at Michigan though, IMO.
DeleteThe injury impact is a reasonable take. I'm just skeptical of it. I definitely could be wrong.
Also "free access" or "gift" routes?
ReplyDeleteSorry. A "free access" or "gift" route is a pre-determined route against certain coverages/alignments. For example, if a run play is called but the defense stacks the box and a cornerback is playing off coverage, the QB can throw a quick hitch. Or if the box is stacked and you have the defense outleveraged to the trips side, you can throw a bubble or tunnel screen to a receiver.
DeleteThat "free access" or "gift" routes ... are those something a QB sees and has to adjust to at the line? Or is that something that gets called in from the sideline based on defensive alignment?
DeleteI ask because this relates back to the "QB intelligence" thing.
I'm thinking that multiple guys have to see it and know/decide to go there?
DeleteSeems like you could get bit real hard if someone misses the clue.
How do you drill it?
We've done it in high school. I don't think it's that difficult. The thing is that if it's murky or there's nothing there, you just hand off the ball.
DeleteWe ran drill sessions where the CB's depth/leverage changed the route. So you just have a line of WR's and one guy (preferably a coach, so me sometimes) changing depth/leverage/technique. You can run slants, fades, hitches, speed outs, etc. depending on coverage.
It seems like a lot, until you realize that it's all wide receivers are doing on most run plays. If your only job as a receiver on a run play is to determine which free access route to run, then you get a lot of practice at it every single day.
good stuff!
Delete