I'm going to start something that I haven't done in a few years, and that's handing out recruiting grades. As Michigan's recruiting has dropped off a little bit in 2023 to the low teens, I want to share how I feel about Michigan's efforts overall.
I'll start off with the most important position on the football fied: quarterback.
2023 NEEDS: 1
2023 COMMITMENTS: Indiana transfer Jack Tuttle
2023 OFFERS
- Arch Manning - New Orleans (LA) Isidore Newman: Texas
- Dante Moore - Detroit (MI) King: UCLA
- Malachi Nelson - Los Alamitos (CA) Los Alamitos: USC
- William Watson III - Springfield (MA) Central: Virginia Tech
- Creed Whittemore - Gainesville (FL) Buchholz: Florida
GRADE: F
REASON FOR THE GRADE: First and foremost, Michigan completely whiffed on the quarterback position in the class of 2023 unless you count sixth year senior Jack Tuttle, who is a one-year backup rental. Technically, Michigan offered superstar recruits Arch Manning and Malachi Nelson, but both were extreme longshots and the Wolverines never really had a chance. Meanwhile, Watson and Whittemore are both undersized QB/ATH recruits who are probably likely to play a different position in college.
So really, Michigan put all of its eggs in the Dante Moore basket. Unfortunately, Moore had a desire to play immediately, and the presence of J.J. McCarthy blocked Moore at Michigan for at least the 2023 season, if not 2024. Moore is a 5-star prospect and could perhaps be the best quarterback in the class when all is said and done, and it hurt to lose him. It stings a little bit less since he didn't end up at Michigan State or Ohio State, two programs he was also considering. But Michigan had a lot of connections and still couldn't close the deal. Moore committed to Oregon initially, and when his future QB coach left for Arizona State, Moore flipped to UCLA. Personally, I think UCLA is an odd fit because head coach Chip Kelly does not have a strong record of developing pro-style quarterbacks.
Regardless, Michigan tried to land a quarterback in 2023 and failed. They could have potentially earned a commitment from Warren (MI) De La Salle's Brady Drogosh (4-star, #20 QB, #317 overall) if they moved on him earlier, but they waited too long and burned that bridge. That leaves the cupboard relatively bare, since beyond McCarthy for the future, the Wolverines have only walk-on Davis Warren and projects Jayden Denegal and Alex Orji. That puts a lot of pressure on the staff to land a very good 2024 quarterback and/or explore the transfer portal for a future starter.
We will have to land JD and get another portal guy, because JD shouldn't be expected to be a day one starter ...
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on JJ? 2024 Draft is looking like a loaded QB class. I think JJ stays, considering he still needs size, and won't have the stats the other guys do
We'll see how much faith they have in Davis Warren. It seems to me that they like him pretty well, considering they moved him above Alan Bowman on the depth chart last season and also put him on scholarship.
DeleteI'm not sure what the future holds for McCarthy. Personally, I don't think he had a very good 2022 season. I know a lot of people thought he really came on at the end of the season (except for the 2 picks in the CFP against TCU), but personally, I don't think he made a lot of great throws. To me throwing to a bunch of wide open receivers against Ohio State does not constitute development as a quarterback. He has to show the ability to read defenses and make accurate throws against good coverage before I think he's ready for the NFL.
I think this is the right grade for 2013 but the wrong grade for 2023.
ReplyDeleteMichigan has a locked in starter for 2023, 2 recruits from 2022, and a backup they like on top of that. I actually think what they got fits the need pretty perfectly - a vet to take on the Alan Bowman role.
Moore is not worth the money IMO -- there's just too much risk. Investing the NIL money in Zinter, Corum, Keegan, Sainristil, Barrett, and Johnson seems like a much wiser move to me.
Maybe somebody like Drogosh will prove to be a better option that Tuttle but I like having a veteran insurance policy. And it increases the odds of getting a blue chipper in 2024.
IMO, it's a B or B-. They fit what the roster needed.
"That puts a lot of pressure on the staff to land a very good 2024 quarterback and/or explore the transfer portal for a future starter."
Disagree. There's a bucketful of assumptions to reach that conclusion. JJ may or may not go pro and you express doubts about his readiness in the comments. Probably, hopefully, he has a great year and moves on but you never know.
Then beyond McCarthy going pro you have to assume the 2024 starter isn't on the current roster (i.e., that Warren, Denegal, and Orji aren't ready, not just individually, but collectively).
I'm skeptical the above will be true but even if it is -- how much pressure is it really to use the Portal? There's a host of veteran QBs in the Portal every year and they'll be tripping over each other trying to get in line to interview at Michigan if we keep being a top 10 team. If we have to cross that bridge we are in good shape to do it IMO.
"Michigan can use the portal" and giving them a B- basically means Michigan can't get any grade lower than a B- for any position ever. You can say the same thing for any position at any time going forward - just look at the portal!
DeleteNeed defensive tackles? No big deal, just look at the portal! Didn't recruit any corners? Ah, that's nothin', just check the portal!
No. If you have a need and don't fill it, you can get an F. Michigan hardly has any, and they filled that anyway. They did what they needed to do. That's a b or c grade. If everything goes badly next year for every QB on the roster, and they fail to land a good recruit, and JJ goes pro...if all that happens.... and the best Michigan does is get some equivalent to a mediocre Iowa or Indiana backup from the portal. Then you give them an F. The portal and nil mean way more roster turnover, which means a more short term outlook is appropriate.
DeleteMichigan has a need at cb and so far they haven't filled it. If anywhere gets an F I'd put it there. The ole miss kid going to OSU, not getting anything from the portal, and only average by Michigan standards hs recruits... That's the lowest grade id give, even if hill becomes an all American as a senior or whatever.
DeleteQuarterback is a position where experience is necessary. Freshman quarterbacks do not do well except in rare circumstances, and it's best to have a QB take over in his 3rd, 4th, or even 5th season. Michigan should be getting at least one QB in each class to let him develop. They failed to do so in 2023. That puts a lot of pressure on a 2024 quarterback to be ready to play immediately if McCarthy leaves, or to be ready for 2025 if McCarthy stays that extra year. Meanwhile, all Michigan has is walk-ons (Warren) and projects (Denegal, Orji).
DeleteYou can get an "F" at something and still be successful. This doesn't doom Michigan forever. I might fail a spelling test at school, but that doesn't mean I'm a terrible student. If I get 1/10 spelling words correct, we wouldn't say, "Oh, let's give him a C because he might do better on next week's spelling test, and this week's words aren't that important, anyway."
No...you failed. Better luck next time, but you get an F for this week.
Agree
DeleteGetting two guys in 2022 who will almost certainly never start a game, and then getting no one for 2023 is terrible, and requires luck to overcome
There's just a bundle of assumptions built into this and then a projection onto 2023. People may be very comfortable taking their assumptions as fact, but I would say that collectively the projections are extremely wrong and have been for many many years at QB.
Delete" Michigan should be getting at least one QB in each class to let him develop."
You seem to think Michigan should recruit a HS recruit in every cycle. I don't agree and clearly the coaches didn't prioritize this either. The reasons for this are multiple but for someone making the argument that starts with experience one of them should be obvious -- Michigan took 2 QBs in the previous years cycle.
You don't think those guys are good and take that opinion as a fact and then work off that with more assumptions to create a problem that doesn't exist. It's anticipating a problem that, IMO, won't ever exist.
Michigan didn't fail to do anything. You made up an objective, based on your own assumptions and criticisms, and then evaluated Michigan based on that. The coaches don't agree and I don't agree.
The "recruit a high school QB every year" is an antiquated approach IMO. Some years it's going to be a Portal guy. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't need to recruit guys like Malzone or Villari just to fill a spot anymore -- not when you have guys like Bowman and Tuttle readily available to provide depth.
Michigan's HS recruiting approach is evolving with to the new reality. There is high roster turnover (portal-driven) and more uncertainty than ever (some marginal guys like Hinton and Green might be going pro after 1 decent year at the same time that some star players may return because of NIL like Corum and Zinter).
If we as fans evaluate classes the same way we did in the 1990s we will be wrong.
NFL don't have a draft a QB every year. College teams don't have to recruit a HS QB every year.
DeleteYou're right. NFL teams limited to 53-man rosters with contracts that sometimes have QBs playing for that team for 10-20 years do not draft quarterbacks every single year. You got me there. It's the exact same thing.
DeleteThe 2015 QB class is a constructive example here. Michigan recruited a middle Big Ten backup QB out of the portal that fit their roster needs and recruited an unexceptional low 3-star type of HS QB (barely better than a walk-on) that they hoped to develop, primarily out of obligation to filling out the roster.
DeleteThe first part was helpful and the second was not. Getting Alex Malzone made the recruiting class worse, not better.
In the past, when the Portal wasn't so full of options the approach made sense. But now it doesn't. We have other options and the are plentiful. Michigan already has 3 developmental guys in the pipeline behind McCarthy. They don't need more.
It's more the same than you seem to think.
Delete@JE
DeleteFinding a good starting QB in 2024 doesn't require luck at all. It requires player development or recruiting (in many forms of the modern game). It would take a failure of both for Michigan to not have a good starting QB in 2024.
Isn't it an assumption that we'll get any better than a Tuttle/Bowen 3d stringer out of the portal?
DeleteThunder is right. UM wanted a QB, and chased DM since middle school, and (at least according to Sam) recruited him hard enough to make him feel special & unique, by not pursuing anyone else without much effort
I don't get the malzone comparison, because I don't think anyone is asking for that. If anything, most aren't optimistic with Denegal/Orji, but while criticizing the malzone approach, you're defending those takes ... We can get quality QB in ea class. Not necessarily elite, but 4stars with other P5 offers is a realistic expectation, and one we have done quite well with in the past
I can see how the reference to Malzone could be confusing. What I intended to say was that there’s no reason to recruit high floor/low ceiling types who are very likely going to be career backups. At least not to just fill a designated spot in each class. The portal makes those guys readily available to Michigan.
DeleteThe pivot in strategy is that if you’re going to take developmental guys who will take a few years you want them to have big upside. Bell, Orji and Dengal may not be likely to start but they have physical traits that you can’t teach. If their skills are developed (processing reads quickly, making sound decisions, consistent mechanics, accuracy) they have more upside than a guy like Malzone. Big IF, obviously.
Bottomline: The current roster has 4 developmental QBs on it. They don’t need another. That’s the other pivot. Michigan has gotten burned in the past by not taking guys (around Henson and Morris) but the portal substantially reduces the risk of a Speight/Navarre repeat.
My assumption about the Portal is that Michigan will get a player commensurate with the opportunity. If the job is wide open they are more likely to get a Shea Patterson or Bo Nix type of player (proven starter) and if it’s not they are more likely to get a Tuttle or Bowman.
I understand that not getting Moore is disappointing. I’m not saying givem them an A grade. But one guy doesn’t define a class. We can’t ignore how much the landscape has changed from even 2 years ago (McCarthy). Rumblings seem to be that Michigan was priced out for Moore. It wasn’t even close. Yesterday’s price is not today’s price. What happened in middle school 4 or 5 years ago, unfortunately, is irrelevant.
Michigan doesn’t just need bodies, they need answers. Those answers might be on the current roster and if they are not – the chances of getting them in 2024 are better than just taking the best of the leftovers from the 2023 HS class. In Thunders opinion doing that would have helped out the grade but in my mind it would have not – even if they could have gotten a guy like Peters/McCaffrey/Milton/McNamara they would still be in the exact same position – needing to develop guys from within the program OR, if that fails, going to the Portal to get a ready made starter (again).
@ Lank 2:07 p.m.
DeleteYou seem to be including Kendrick Bell as one of the four developmental QBs already on the roster, and you say Michigan doesn't need another one. Which I think misses the point.
Remove him from the equation, replace him with Drogosh, and you have a guy who's ranked higher than Denegal and Orji at the QB position. Or recruit another QB (it doesn't have to be Drogosh). A guy who's the #20 QB isn't necessarily a developmental guy. Your boy Wilton Speight was ranked lower than that.
Bell is really beside the point. The argument above ignores him.
DeleteSo is comparing star ratings. You just said experience is important at the position but then you assume drogosh is better than guys more experienced based on rankings. You might as well do that for Davis then.
Michigan has many option for 2024. We don't even know them all yet. Not getting drogish isn't a problem.
Speight was OK but it took him 3 years to be ready and then he got replaced by a transfer early in the portal era.
The transfer era is here. Things have changed. You want more guys like Peters McCaffrey Milton and McNamara but none of them will finish their careers at Michigan and none were multi year starters.
Michigan is at a level where starting guys like speight and Navarre is not necessary even if they get nothing from HS recruits.
CFB is more like the NFL now. If you don't get your QB in the draft you get him in free agency. Both paths are equally viable.
MICHIGAN has many options for 2024?
DeleteJJ is QB1 for 2023. DW & Tuttle are his backups. That leaves almost no snaps for Orji or Denegal ... so if JJ goes pro (I don't think so), and Tuttle is gone, we have walkon Warren and two RS Sophomores who have not taken a meaningful snap
That doesn't sound promising. We'll need luck to get any better than a Rudock-level QB, who took until about week 6 to get into a groove with the complexities of the Jim Harbaugh offense
@JE
DeleteName the last time your 2-years out projection at QB was accurate.
2024 options include JJ, DW, Orji, Denegal, Bell according to Thunder's roster projection, plus whoever they recruit.
McNamara and Orji got snaps in 2022. McNamara is gone and someone gets his snaps. JJ could get hurt at anytime.
If JJ goes pro one of the most attractive jobs in the country becomes open and the position of greatest supply in the Portal aligns with demand. Unless they land a 5-star kid who might keep the opportunists at bay. Add those to the options.
It's a promising situation. No luck needed - just do your job coaches.
With the Portal being open for business, guys like Rudock and McNamara and Speight are the floor. Rudock still hadn't figured out the complexities of the offense against OSU when the offense couldn't score.
I don't think I've ever done a 2 year projection
Delete2024 was based on the "what if JJ did leave" hypothetical ... I think he stays, because 1) that draft class will be loaded, and 2) he won't have the stats to make up for it
Mullings has as many pass attempts as Orji & Denegal combined ... with three guys ahead of them, they won't combine for more than a dozen in '23. Even if JJ goes down next year (knock on wood), neither will see the field much
Back to "if" JJ leaves, I am not as certain a top transferring QB would pick MICHIGAN. The program is on the cusp of elite, but the position speaks for itself: we're a running team, and stock can be boosted better in a more open offense. I hope you're right, but unless it's a Midwest kid who wants to play closer to home, I don't see top portal QBs jumping to A2
JJ staying is one option yes. I don't think 2023 class evaluation hinges on it.
DeleteOrji played qb denegal didn't. Peters McCaffrey and McNamara didn't either. It's not relevant to the 2023 class either.
We already know Michigan is attractive to transfer QBs. This isn't a hypothetical. Another option for 2024.
The assertion that we need to take a guy like Peters McCaffrey Milton or McNamara every year or we fail is weak.
@ Lank 1:29 p.m.
Delete"The assertion that we need to take a guy like Peters, McCaffrey, Milton, or McNamara every year or we fail is weak."
Who is making that assertion? I haven't seen anyone say that failure of the program is on the horizon.
We know MICHIGAN is attractive to portal QBs, because we got Bowman & Tuttle? Okay, but the "if JJ leaves" hypothetical requires a higher quality transfer, right?
DeleteI didn't say we "must" or even "should" get a blue chip QB every year. I'm saying if all you got in 2022 was two projects, missing in 2023 - even with homegrown talent - is bad
Anyway, don't look now, but we're disagreeing respectfully ... that's good
GO BLUE
The harbaugh era had seen 5 QBs who started elsewhere transfer into Michigan to compete for a starting job.
Delete@thunder you said Michigan failed.
Delete@thunder. you didn't when they got those guys, and your advocating for more of those types instead of what they're doing
DeleteMichigan failed to get a QB in the class. That doesn't equal failure on any kind of macro level.
DeleteWell there we agree -- it's not a failure at the macro level. On the micro level, they got 2 new QBs and with 2 going out (32 pass attempts combined on the season) I don't see a failure there either.
DeleteI think Michigan's recruiting at QB has been bad since JJ. I think this has to do with Harbaugh flirting with NFL 2 years in a row. Having said that, I kind of understand where the coaches might be coming from (and in some way, Lank's argument).
ReplyDeleteSay JJ leaves for NFL next year. We get to evaluate Davis Warren and see if we think he is good enough to be starter the following year. If he is not, we will look at the transfer portal. Every year, there is always a Devin Leary, Grayson McCall, Sam Hartman, Brennan Armstrong who has been successful at a "smaller" school. I would rather have one of these QB who has been successful at a smaller school than an unknown 3star high school prospect. I would only recruit elite 5* QB who would not be available through the transfer portal.
But this is a grade of the 2023 QB recruiting class, not "what we could do to fix it"
DeleteThat the second part is of high consideration supports the grade of F, in my opinion
JJ leaving in a year would be good for Michigan. We can separate the issue but if a guy is going pro he probably had a really good year on the field and that's what we want for McCarthy. The ideal situation is that JJ wins a Heisman (even without elite counting stats) and that helps Michigan recruit future elite QBs.
DeleteWarren Davis is probably overrated by our fanbase right now but he's got a plausible story for being an underrated dude who could become a strong starter after multiple years under Harbaugh. He could easily be better than McNamara.
Denegal or Orji could be good players too. We all knew it was going to take time with each of them and it's too early to judge either IMO. They'll be juniors in 2024. The list of guys who did nothing until their junior year is very long.
The 5th option, before even getting to the portal, is recruiting an elite HS QB. It's true that experience matters a lot but it's also true that more and more HS recruits are coming in ready to play. For a place that likes to question head coaching decisions, I'm surprised no one has argued JJ should have started over Cade in 2021. It's at least as plausible as all the RB conjecture.
So that's 5 options and the most likley perhaps (The Portal) makes it 6 options that all go ahead of the 2023 recruiting class.
It is not the objective of the 2023 recruiting class to provide a starter for the 2024 team.
JJ going pro in 24 would be great for him, and mean we had another solid year in 23 ... but it does nothing good for our QB room after
DeleteLook at Thunder's way too early depth chart, and we have a walkon (who we agree the fan base overrates), and ... nothing promising
*I did not say it would be catastrophic, or anything drastic like that. Just that nothing good can be projected based on what we have and who we are recruiting
I don't really put any stock in a depth chart beyond this year. If you looked at the equivalent version from 2 years ago it would be half wrong. I mean, who would have guessed in early November that Corum would be back and All would not.
DeleteI don't agree that there is nothing promising, even after agreeing with JJ going pro and ignoring potential commit of JD. I think WD can be better than McNamara and I doubt that Bell/Orji/Denegal collectively amount to nothing.
Michigan tried in 2023 to get a quarterback, specifically Dante Moore. They failed to achieve that goal. "F" stands for failure.
ReplyDeleteMichigan tried to get a guy they didn't at every single position on the roster.
DeleteAll of this without mentioning the QB recruit Michigan took in the HS class.
ReplyDeletehttps://mgoblue.com/sports/football/roster/kendrick-bell/24107
He will be in the "ATH" section, which is where he's ranked on 247. I don't think he will end up playing QB at Michigan.
DeleteATH isn't a position and the NEED is always 0. Michigan lists Bell as a QB and so do 75% of the recruiting sites. Including 247. You might be right to be pessimistic about him as a QB, as you were with Orji (who played at QB last year), but that's where he is projected to right now by most sources.
DeleteThese are all reasonable things to say at the individual level:
JJ McCarthy may go pro
Warren and Denegal might not have the talent to be a starters at Michigan
Orji and Bell might change positions
But collectively, to take a pessimistic outlook on ALL 5 QB options and then say PRESSURES ON TO FIX THAT PROBLEM IN 2024 is a pretty big leap in logic. It's really trusting your crystal ball to be accurate when it probably isn't very warranted to do so based on past history.
And then to retroactively look at HS recruiting in 2023 as THE fix and evaluate it accordingly is a pretty massive leap. Especially when Michigan has brought in 5 transfer QBs in the Harbaugh era (3 of which started) and is a heavy favorite for a 5-star recruit in 2024.
Or course you're entitled to your opinion but take a step back and think if this kind of logic will be applied to other positions. 1) Not landing the top target is failure. 2) assume a worst case scenario for the top 5 options at the position and then evaluate the 23 class based on it's ability to address the post-apocalyptical vision.
I don't think you're going to do that anywhere else. Anywhere you do - that position will be an F. It's exceedingly pessimistic.
You don't like Orji , Dengal, or Bell and so you wanted something in the '23 class that was better and graded based on your own assumptions being accurate and your desires around that. Even though you know you might not be right (and likely won't be on all 5) you evaluate as if it's a given.
The fact is Michigan has recruited 3 guys who could be QBs in the last 2 classes. On top of that they have veteran insurance policies via the Portal.
There isn't an annual recruiting pipeline like there was in the Peters->McCaffrey->Milton->McNamara run from 2016-2020 but considering what that produced (transfers finishing their careers starting at other programs) I think we can let go. Recruiting instant-impact 5-stars and hitting the Portal have proven to be a more successful approach for Michigan and they are not alone.
Need: 1. Got: 2. Grade F, because they didn't get 1 guy they wanted.
ReplyDeleteI would rather have Drogosh. He's more than a one-year rental, and even if he can't throw all that well, he brings a rushing element to the position. Michigan already has a decent #2 QB in Davis Warren, and I'm not sure Tuttle will move past him on the depth chart.
ReplyDeleteTeam Tuttle.
ReplyDeleteTuttle is a sure thing and his scholarship becomes open in January. A potential recruit (from HS or Portal) is going to look at the number of guys on the depth chart as part of the equation in evaluating the opportunity.
I don't expect Tuttle to play a meaningful down (a la Bowman). In my eyes Bowman still contributed more than McCaffrey, Villari, or Malzone contributed. If Tuttle can repeat that, it's a hit.
Getting insurance is smarter than buying a stack of lottery tickets.
We have no idea if Drogosh is more than a one year rental. The nice thing about a one year guy is you don't have to use up multiple years of scholarships on them.
ReplyDeleteThe way I look it at, a guy like Taco Charlton cost 4 times as much as a guy like Mike Danna and Patrick Kugler cost 5 times as much as Olu Oluwatimi. I say cost because you can only give 85 scholarships a year so that's the budget you are working with.
ReplyDeleteSaying somebody is "more than a one-year rental" doesn't mean they outproduce a one year rental (obviously) but even if they do you have to look at it from a benefit/cost perspective and know that scholarships aren't free -- they're taking a spot from somebody else who might have used them up more carefully. There's obviously room for development but the payoff needs to be pretty large if a guy is just going to give you one good year while taking up all those scholarship spots over 4 or 5 years.
these costs/benefits are not going to be linear relationships, given how much better upper classmen fare
ReplyDeleteRight but it's reasonable to say a guy who costs 5 years worth of scholarships to get 1 year worth of production is inferior to a guy who produces the same with 1 year of scholarship. Not that I'd advocate for 85 one year transfers at all, but we can't also just assume the guy who is around longer is superior because he's around longer.
ReplyDelete@ Lank 11:36 p.m.
ReplyDeleteWe can't automatically assume anything. We're talking about people, not science. Injuries, attitudes, sickness, home life, team chemistry, etc. are all at play. I don't think anybody is making assumptions. We're all just predicting.
There are some one-year rentals (Wayne Lyons, Casey Hughes, Jordan Whittley, Cam Goode, etc.) who have done virtually nothing in a Michigan uniform. So trying to plug holes with those guys is also sometimes a crap shoot.
@Thunder
ReplyDeleteMy issue isn't with predictions. Predictions are wrong/stupid/uncertain but they are fun.
My issue is with doing analysis based on predictions. That takes predictions (that we know are going to be somewhat to very wrong) and then basing evaluations on that. I think we have to account for the uncertainty.
So in this specific context that means looking at the pool of developing guys who could return for 2024 (Warren, Orji, Denegal, Bell) and recognizing that even if you don't have confidence in any one of them specifically you can say that collectively there's some decent chance that one of them will pan out. So if plan A (JJ) doesn't work out, and plan B (get a stud via portal or recruiting in 2024) doesn't work out, then Plan C (one of the guys on the roster already becomes the starter) comes into play. We don't have to automatically jump to Plan D (a 2023 recruit besides Bell) and evaluate like that's reality and assess accordingly.
It's the same issue I have with your take on RBs. You assume MIchigan will have injuries and needs tremendous depth at RB to cover every carry in a season, while at other positions you're more likely to look at the starters and mostly shrug at backups as essentially irrelevant.
I think we can automatically assume some things - like 5 stars are generally more likely to be good at 3 stars, while also acknowledging that 5 3-stars will probably outproduce 1 5-star.
There have been far more high school recruits who have done nothing or virtually nothing than portal recruits. It's a far safer and more reliable path to contributions. The portal guys who have not done much have generally played on good teams with strong positional units (e.g., Goode, Bowman).
I don't follow recruiting much, but happened to listen to the beginning of EJ Holland's podcast. He was discussing 4* WR Amarion Stewart (never heard of him), and how he loves MICHIGAN, but isn't confident in the QB position once JJ leaves
ReplyDeleteNot an end all, but does apply to this thread
Yeah, it's I'Marion Stewart. I've written about him on here before. Maybe seeing it spelled out might ring a bell. But yes, the future of the QB position is definitely questionable.
DeleteI follow recruiting so little, I don't think I've read too many of your recruit visitor posts. Mostly just on guys who commit
Delete