Princeton transfer running back John Volker committed to Michigan on Monday morning. Volker visited Michigan toward the end of last week.
Volker is listed at 6'0", 215 lbs. and was a captain for the Tigers. As a redshirt junior in 2024, he ran for 514 yards and 6 touchdowns. Altogether, he played in 29 games at Princeton with 245 carries for 1,183 yards and 17 touchdowns. He also caught 31 passes for 273 yards and 2 touchdowns. (Oddly, both career touchdowns came as a freshman, when he had his lowest receiving output with 4 catches for 96 yards.)
Hit the jump for more.
Volker, whose brother is on the U.S. bobsled team, was a high school track athlete who was a finalist in the 100 meters in the New Jersey Meet of Champions. He can scoot. He has reported a 4.41 time in the 40 meters, and I think that's a pretty legitimate time based on his film.
I think Volker's long speed and physical toughness make him a good fit for what Michigan will be doing on offense. He's not going to make a ton of people miss, but he does a good job of setting up and reading his blocks, he can run through some arm tackles, and he can break some big runs if he gets daylight. He also shows some pass catching ability. Overall, this is a nice pickup, and I think Volker should slot in as the #3 running back in 2025 behind Jordan Marshall and Justice Haynes.
Volker attended Rumson (NJ) Rumson-Fair Haven, a school with a recent enrollment number of 849. His high school competition wasn't anything special, so he slipped through the cracks somewhat. He would be the first person from Rumson-Fair Haven to play for Michigan and also the first Princeton transfer.
RUN FIRST, RUN OFTEN
ReplyDeleteWow… We have gotten 3 guys from the portal at the RB position. I am curious what is the thought process behind this roster construction. Last I checked only 2 guys can play this position at any time and we already have an entrenched #1 & #2. In the mean time, we still have a big time hole at WR.
ReplyDeleteYou can only land the guys that want to be at Michigan. Obviously, Michigan has not shown for several years that they want to or can support a standout receiver; even Roman Wilson caught a high percentage of touchdowns, but not many balls overall.
DeleteAlso, Michigan didn't lose much at receiver. They're bringing back guys, just not good performers. They lost Tyler Morris and landed Donaven McCulley. That's the main move.
Meanwhile, Michigan lost Donovan Edwards, Tavierre Dunlap, Kalel Mullings, Benjamin Hall, and Cole Cabana. Along with bringing in 2 freshmen, they're basically just "refilling." They lost 5 backs to the NFL/transfer portal, and they're bringing in 5 backs from high school/transfer portal.
FT is right. Michigan chose to spend big money on RB instead of upgrading at WR. Looks like dubious management of their "salary cap", especially if there is going to be more 11 personnel.
DeleteBut I doubt Hester or Volker cost very much. It's Haynes who was the big $ acquisition. There's your problem.
Without Haynes, Marshall starts (he may anyway) and maybe Hall stays (whatever tho) and Michigan can still tap solid guys like Volker and Hester out of the Portal to round out depth, serve specialist roles (3rd down/short yardage) and replace the Dunlaps and Cabanas of the world.
That said, Thunder is also right that RB depth has to be sorted out. now Michigan doesn't have a functionally endless supply of walk-on RBs (all of them the stars of their high school teams, many of them good enough to be on scholarship elsewhere) with the reduction of total roster size. Going to have to give some of those walk-on level guys scholarships now.
Taking from lower level programs like Princeton because of more scholarships is a new reality. Without the walk-ons at the bigger schools, and more scholarships to use, the Princeton's and UMasses of the world will get their guys yoinked. But from Michigan's perspective -- that part I wouldn't worry about.
The part to concern yourself with is the $. Which is't public data but we get plenty of hints and bits from insiders. Michigan is not competing with the big boys when it comes to WR pay. This has been said by multiple insiders. They don't value it.
So we can blame the volume of passes thrown, or the volume of benjamins being offered, but benjamins are talking at other positions (see DT and RB and QB) but not at WR.
$ and how it's used is critical now -- Just like in the pros.
I don't think it's only about value, but match & interest as well. WRs want to make plays. So sure, MICHIGAN could open up the bag, but that alone isn't attracting playmakers
DeleteWe're a run first, run often offense, and have been for a decade. There's simply too few opportunities with ball in hand, while a transfer WR wants to be THE GUY. We're also probably another year from a playoff run. This leaves us with McCulley (former All-Conference but nothing certain now) and guys who aren't much better than what we already have
Here's the top WRs who transferred for 2o25. While money is critical, you can see that top guys went where they can stand out. That's either on a playoff team or as THE GUY on a non-contender ... and yeah, they get paid too
https://247sports.com/Season/2025-Football/transferportaltop/?positionkey=14
How do you know it's not the bag? The top guys went to Auburn, FSU, LSU, Georgia, and Texas A&M. Those are blue blood southern schools who are assumed/estimated to have elite payrolls.
DeleteMoreover, their WR1s are not necessarily standing out relative to Wilson (789 yards 12 TDs in '23) or Bell (62 catches 889 yards in '22). Plus both of them got drafted without blue chip profiles.
Here are the stats of the WR1s at those 5 schools in 2024:
50/981/8
48/817/4
39/574/8
61/884/5
32/519/4
None had 1000 yards.
None had as many TDs as Wilson had in '23.
Only 1 had more receiving yards than Bell had in '22.
Would you say the data above supports these being places that offer substantially more opportunity to WR1s than Michigan? I would say not.
These narratives about a lack of opportunity don't hold up. Meanwhile we don't need them. We have a simple explanation: Michigan isn't paying for elite WRs so they aren't getting elite WRs.
If you want to go beyond that for secondary reasons (that money could probably solve), you can look at the inept QB play in 2024 and the decision in 2025 to invest your QB $ in an unproven freshman instead of top flight transfers. This, if there's a perception of a lack of opportunity, you can still blame the GM decisions and approach to player acquisition for it, before blaming the run heavy philosophy.
But again, the simple explanation is sufficient. They made a choice to not pay elite money to WRs. They don't value WRs like other schools do. The end.
This post has striking similarities to trolling that wore out its welcome:
Delete✅ I conceded that money was a consideration, but not the only one. Yet here you start by claiming I didn't
✅ you're comparing to WRs we had two-three years ago, with a top 1o draft pick at QB, not the reality of 2o25
✅ those WRs you're comparing them to weren't transfers, but HS kids recruited & developed here for 4+ years
✅ you're acknowledging that MICHIGAN attempted 3oo passes last year and is almost certain to start a TRFr or middling G5 guy at QB... yet denying the lack of opportunity
✅ you claim a "simple explanation" yet need an essay to do it
Hmmm ... this is very familiar. Nah, probably just a random "aN0n" ... but I'll agree to disagree anyway
Enjoy, and Go Blue
@je93. This is my issue with the current roster construction. To be successful in a “run first run often” offense, we need a kick-ass OL. I do not think we have that. The first place to build must be along the line. I know that we managed to recruit a few highly touted lineman but they are unlikely to start immediately. We have a group of WR which do not seem able to gain separation from their defenders. Coupled that with a freshman QB. I could imagine defenses loading up the line of scrimmage daring us to throw deep passes. Not a recipe for a top 25 offense.
DeleteI hv nothing against Haynes. He is probably a great kid and a great rb. But we paid alot for him. I would rather use the money for a WR and/or an OL. We already have Jordan Marshall. If you tell me that no WR is interested in coming to Michigan, then it is a recruitment issue on the part of Moore and Lindsay. Recruitment is a huge part of their job description.
The accusation made was "lack of opportunity". Yet Michigan's "run first" offense has produced highly productive WRs who end up getting drafted. So. There is no lack of opportunity at Michigan. Period.
DeleteSo the difference must be relative. Yet the other places don't have WR1s that stand out, at least according to the data, relative to Michigan. Michigan failures on offense in 2024 don't limit opportunities. Their run first offense has gotten a bunch of guys drafted, sometimes multiple in the same year (like Johnson/Wilson), sometimes relatively lightly recruited guys (like Bell), even with TEs having an outsized role as receivers in the offense.
The "essay" counters the points you made, arguing with the simple thesis. Yes, there are secondary considerations in recruiting. No, you aren't going to get elite WRs if you don't pay for them. Everything else is noise, tangential arguments, etc.
@FT
DeleteThis is spot on. The key to being run first effectively is a)OL, b) OL, and c) OL. Well, blocking actually (including TE/RB/WR). Secondary to that are run scheme/diversity, presenting a pass threat to stop teams from cheating into the box, and then RB skill/diversity.
Michigan under Moore/McGee has chosen, on offense, to focus resources on getting a big armed high school QB, a big name proven RB, and big bodied WRs. Relative to Harbaugh, they have deemphasized TE blocking, speed at WR, and overall decimated the depth and experience on the OL.
This does not seem like the right recipe for run game success.
"no WR is interested in coming to Michigan, then it is a recruitment issue on the part of Moore and Lindsay."
YES. Exactly right. The idea that run first Michigan can't possibly recruit NFL caliber WRs because they don't throw enough is directly contradicted by the Harbaugh era facts on the ground.
The bottom line is that Michigan is CHOOSING to not get WRs that will create separation. This is not an accident, it is their strategy.
DeleteThey want it, sure, but they are choosing to not have it by how they spend NIL (at other positions) and what traits they seek out at WR (size over speed) and who they give playing time to (a freshman QB). It is not impossible for Michigan to get WRs who get separation, even if they run a lot, even after 2024's offensive debacle.
You may want a car that drives really fast but if you use your money to buy a minivan you probably aren't going to have that.
They can either change course from 2024 or not. But their focus on change is on size, not on separation. This is a departure from the Harbaugh era.
On the OL they seem content to go with youth (both OTs), in-house options, and cheap lower-level additions from the portal. An approach that is very different from Harbaugh's emphasis on experience, depth, and adding impact veteran starters from the portal (Priebe, Nugent, Hinton, Oluwatimi). Same thing at TE.
We know they CAN take a different approach if they want to. When Michigan wants something, they throw resources behind it and go out and make it happen. Look at how they addressed DT, K/P, CB, Safety and backup QB over the last couple years. Look at how they landed 2 top guys from Alabama just this offseason.
We can make excuses but it's a choice. Money isn't everything and if MIchigan up and decides to throw $2M into their WR budget for a high end starter that doesn't mean they'll get their top choice necessarily, but you can be damn sure they aren't going to get their top choice if the southern schools and OSU and PSU are paying way more to get their guys (either from the Portal or out of high school).
Michigan got serious about getting Underwood and Haynes and paid accordingly. Ditto at DT. We are not seeing that at either WR or OL, not because they can't but because they chose not to.
Michigan's leading wide receiver (by number of catches per game) since 2016:
Delete2024: Outside top 50 in the Big Ten
2023: Roman Wilson tied for #19
2022: Ronnie Bell #12
2021: Cornelius Johnson tied for #26 (with Northwestern RB Evan Hull)
2020: Ronnie Bell tied for #14
2019: Ronnie Bell #14
2018: Donovan Peoples-Jones tied for #15
2017: Grant Perry tied for #35
2016: Amara Darboh tied for #5
So you have to go back 9 years to find a receiver at Michigan who was in the top 11 in the conference in receptions per game.
Let's reverse engineer that and see if any other team has to go back 9 years to be in the top 11 in the conference:
Illinois: 2023
Indiana: 2020
Iowa: N/A
Maryland: 2024
Michigan: 2016
Michigan State: 2021
Minnesota: 2024
Nebraska: 2022
Northwestern: 2024
Ohio State: 2024
Oregon: 2024
Penn State: 2022
Purdue: 2022
Rutgers: 2021
UCLA: N/A (only one year in Big Ten)
USC: N/A (only one year in Big Ten)
Washington: 2024
Wisconsin: 2023
Welp...you've got UCLA and USC who didn't achieve that in their only season in the Big Ten so far, and you have Iowa, which is known for producing elite tight ends and not doing much at WR. The longest stretch for any other team is all the way back to 2020 for Indiana.
There is quite definitively a lack of opportunity for wide receivers to catch a ton of passes at Michigan. It's quite possibly the worst place for receivers in the Big Ten outside of Iowa, which has been an offensive embarrassment for years.
Interestingly, this is similar to the De'Veon Smith and Donovan Edwards arguments where we had to be told they were good running backs over and over again despite their yards per carry being some of the lowest in the conference.
@ "Anonymous" 2:24 p.m.
DeleteYou're reaching a silly conclusion that is easily refuted:
You say Michigan is choosing not to have WRs who separate because they refuse to pay up.
Players have said "Don't draft me because I don't want to play for your organization." One of the more famous examples is Eli Manning when he refused to play for the Chargers. They drafted him, anyway, but his attitude got him traded away to the Giants. Even though there's more money for a #1 draft pick than a #5 pick or more money for a #3 pick than a #10 pick, some players don't want to go somewhere where they're going to lose or be coached poorly.
Furthermore, players aren't being drafted now; players are DOING the drafting - players are picking the schools they want to transfer to.
There are other reasons your theory is wrong, but that's an obvious step one.
Agreed FT. I'm disappointed in OL, and imagine that the top portal guys would consider us among top destinations. Instead, we got FCS Guards ...
DeleteThe WR part is tough. We got away with it during our championship run because we had elite Defense, one of our program's top RB ever, a Joe Moore OL, and a WR or two who were good (though not elite}. I said back then it would impact WR recruiting (because no sh:t), and it has. I think what needs to happen is Sophomore-Junior Bryce Underwood throwing guys open, and then those guys making a play. Maybe he makes progress this year, but it would take McCulley maxing out his potential, Semaj & Fred Moore taking a giant step, and the TEs continuing the MICHIGAN tradition
On Haynes, I understand what the coaches did. If they couldn't pull the WRs they wanted (reinforcing weakness), what's left to do except adding to strength? Jordan Marshall shows promise, but can he take a beating all season? He'll need a break (or get broken), and no one else on the depth chart comes close to RB1 yet
The Run first, Run often approach has been discussed here for years. We're all ecstatic that we won it all, but Harball did come at a cost, and that is our current WR room and ability (inability) to fix it
https://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2021/09/michigan-31-washington-10.html?m=1
Who said they can't recruit NFL caliber WRs? And, two essays in a row? Not even aNoN believes aNoN ... this must be Lank
#exposed
@Thunder
DeleteManning didn't lose any money. He sacrificed nothing. What are you talking about?
Players are picking the school they want to play for. Yes - exactly. That often generally the school that will pay them the most. Carson Beck didn't say "man I'm sick of this Georgia place and making the playoff, I wish I was playing in the ACC!". He said "cut the check".
Players used to just go to the place they wanted to the most and now they go to the "best opportunity". The bag has always been a factor with some folks but it was under the table and against the rules. Now it's all legit -- just like in the pros, there are exceptions where guys take less money to join a contender or whatever, but most of the time the winner is the highest bidder. Pretty simple.
As for the catches per game ranking in conference -- is that a metric you heard brought often during the NFL draft last night? Is that something you hear Portal guys talking about a lot? Because I did not and I do not. This seems like a you thing.
The common element with Smith and Edwards (who led the Big Ten in YPC in 2022) is that the ranking in conference doesn't mean very much. Edwards ranked high (higher than Corum) and then went right back to being a backup. Then he ranked low in your metric, and became the starter. Smith started for Hoke and then he started for Harbaugh and then he went on to be a starting pro RB and play in the NFL. Guys with much higher ranking in conference by YPC (LOL that's a mouthful) and higher YPC on the team never sniffed the pros.
So the assertion of the relevance of this metric isn't there. Period.
Back to --
The point:
Ronnie Bell and Roman Wilson and Cornelius Johnson didn't lack for opportunity in Michigan's run heavy offense. All won, got honored, and got drafted. Guys aren't focused on volume of catches or where they rank in the conference in targets per game the way you are, clearly. They are focused of volume of dollars in their bank accounts, fans in the stands, wins in the standings, and draft position.
The simple fact is that Michigan has been a run heavy program for most of the last 50 years -- and they've managed to get elite WR talent over that span. That means that, even if it's true, a relatively low volume of targets isn't prohibitive for NFL caliber WR talent.
But now that NIL is such a big factor in recruiting, WR recruiting has seemingly gone downhill. The Moore era has seen the worst WR rooms that I can remember in terms of talent and it doesn't look like it's getting better, even if it is getting taller.
What changed? Not Michigan being run first. But Michigan being at a competitive disadvantage. That disadvantage is a self-imposed one, they are CHOOSING to spend less than their peers on the WR position and CHOOSING to spend what limited $ they have on bigger WRs rather than faster or more skilled ones.
Just like when they CHOSE not to pursue a proven (I.e., expensive portal) QB in 2024 and 2025, that's a strategic decision to bet on your (bargain) approach working out.
But FT hit on the salient point here -- if you're going to be a run first offense you need to throw resources at the OL like Harbaugh did. The program's approach on offense is all kinds of questionable. On defense they have their act together so it's odd to see such an incoherent strategy on the other side of the ball. Well, not really -- the Hoke and Rodriguez eras saw the same contrast. The weird thing is that Moore is an offensive guy and that's where the struggles seem to be.
"Harball did come at a cost, and that is our current WR room and ability (inability) to fix it"
DeleteNope it's on Moore (and Magee)
Harbaugh got Nico Collins, DPJ, Bell, Cornelius Johnson, Wilson among others. He got NFL caliber talent at WR and successfully recruited top 250, top 150, and top 100 WR recruits. He didn't need volume to get those WRs. This is indisputable fact.
Moore has brought in just 1 top 500 WR recruit in 2 classes (Marsh) and his big "catch" in the portal market was benched by Indiana (McCulley).
Being run first isn't new. Getting this trickle of WR talent is.
" I'm disappointed in OL, and imagine that the top portal guys would consider us among top destinations. Instead, we got FCS Guards ..."
DeleteThey are choosing to spend their money elsewhere. It really is that simple.
@Anon "The weird thing is that Moore is an offensive guy and that's where the struggles seem to be."
DeleteThis is my theory. Moore started at Michigan as a TE coach, OL coach, Offensive Coordinator before finally getting the HC job. I think everyone would agree that the offense he ran is Harbaugh's. After Harbaugh left, the offense is in a disarray. Remember Josh Gattis and his "speed in space"? Whatever you think of Gattis, I think he has an idea what sort of offense he wants to run. Different from Harball but he has an identity. I think Moore is still trying to form his offensive identity. Does he want to double down on "Run First Run Often."? From what was said, he does not want. He brought in Chip Lindsay to run a "more balanced offense". He probably still want to be physical at the line of scrimmage but put much more emphasis on the passing game. That is probably why we are only getting 2 FCS guard from the transfer portal. But where are the WRs? If the WR cannot get any separation, your QB has to be really accurate in the short and immediate throws. Is Bryce that kind of QB? Spring game does not indicate that Bryce is exceptionally accurate in the short and intermediate throws. This is why I am concerned with the current roster construction. I hope Moore and Lindsay will prove me wrong in the fall.
I do not know how much it will take to get a Jeremiah Smith but I would rather pay for a Jeremiah Smith that than Justice Haynes. Just because (1) Michigan has an easier time recruiting RB (2) Michigan has a better RB roster prior to the opening of the transfer portal.
@ aNoN 26 Apr at 1126 be like "PERIOD! Mic Drop!!!
DeleteBut also, here's another essay ... in three responses ... OH, so familiar!
@An0n 26 Apr at 1144, it's odd ... no one you listed was recruited after that 2o21 thread. je93 is right, again
#dodge
#outsmarted
@FT
DeleteYes - spot on. Moore is theoretically trying to run a Harbaugh run heavy offense but not doing the parts that Harbaugh emphasized (OL development with many TEs and receivers who can block) to be successful in the run game. Harbaugh was pretty flexible in terms of blocking schemes, FBs, types of QBs but the one thing he always emphasized (in Stanford, San Francisco, Michigan, etc) was having big guys up front on OL and TE who paved the way.
Moore is not doing that. It's a head scratcher.
I don't know how much of a change Lindsey will impose or how much to believe of anything Moore says during the offseason. I'm trying to keep an open mind. I hope Underwood develops successfully. I hope guys like Castillo and Poggi can make an impact.
Insults? Where?
DeleteOh I get it: DODGE & change subjects ... getting outsmarted feels like an insult ... yep, this aNoN is a lot like Lank
#exposed
#obsessed
#youcanthelpbutreply
I'll ignore the aNoN post at 4:56PM as well then
#discipline
#outsmarted
An ESPN article talking about the facts of life for recruiting in the NIL era. It calls out an example where money wasn't the only consideration.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/44839661/ncaa-transferportal
It also indicates that in most cases it is the biggest one.
""We prefer not to be transactional, but it just is what it is," Speros says. "There are things we need to do to keep pressing forward. And what that means is a lot of either just getting to a number or not getting to the number and moving on.""
Weirdly, ranking in conference by stat X didn't come up once in the article.
Moore's approach is dubious across the board on offense:
ReplyDeleteQB: 2024 was a disaster. The walk on stunk, the guy who couldn't throw stunk, and the veteran backup stunk. The stuff that came closest to working, they abandoned. Moore thought it would be alright and didn't address it in the spring. He was wrong. Before the season and during it. The attempted fix for 2025 is making a big money gamble on a freshman recruit, instead of spending in the portal for a proven answer.
RB: Electing to spend big at this position, on a guy who isn't a superstar, when you have proven talent in the room already is dubious. If the argument is that volume matters for recruiting - Michigan should have a queue of guys coming here for less money. It doesn't seem they do, but if they do, then Moore failed to see that or use that.
WR: Discussed above. The best guy in the room without question was benched by Indiana last year. Recruiting is a trickle. Emphasis is on adding size over skill and speed. It's dire.
TE: Lots of options but the dropoff is evident from NFL caliber talent throughout the Harbaugh era with a peak of Barner and Loveland in 2023. No mashing blockers anywhere to be seen.
OL: Back to starting true freshman in 2024 (Sprague). There's your red flag. Letting a bunch of veterans who started walk away (e.g., Persi, Gentry, Guidice) in favor of youth -- does that sound like Harbaugh to you? Would Harbaugh have just handed a starting spot to a clearly struggling player like Link, over veterans he developed himself? Bringing in guys from Ferris State and Cal Poly instead of Virginia, Stanford, and Northwestern -- does that sound like Harbaugh to you?
And philosophically - we are talking about more 11 personnel. Does that sound like Harbaugh to you.
Now to be clear, Harbaugh's way isn't the only way, but if you're going to be a run heavy offense there are some things you have to do and Moore doesn't appear to be doing any of them.
@aNoN 26 Apr at 1134,
DeleteIn other words, another Dub for je93
"I don't think it's ONLY about value, but match & interest AS WELL"
That was jeDub on 23 Apr at 1o:o6PM
#outsmarted
@aNoN 26 Apr at 12oo
Hmmm ... this reads like a concession to last spring's debates:
"2024 was a disaster. The walk on stunk, the guy who couldn't throw stunk, and the veteran backup stunk"
Dang, je93 is right a lot!
#outsmarted
MAN, right again
ReplyDeleteOn today's WTKA Roundtable, Sam insists that the coaches have conceded on WR: they're not going to get higher caliber prospects until they prove utilization on the field; not going to break the ceiling until then
I predicted this back in 2o21, and repeated here and elsewhere: sure, money matters (a lot). But money is not the only thing keeping WRs away from Ann Arbor; Harball came at a cost
We can speculate and fantasize about neglect, but reality is what it is
#iwasright
#outsmarted
#jeDub
Yeah, I heard that, too, and thought of this discussion. Sam said the coaches probably aren't going to try to do anything in the portal at wide receiver, because they aren't going to be able to get any better than what they already have. I'm guessing he probably got that straight from the mouth of someone like Ron Bellamy.
DeleteSpeaking of Sam Webb and Ron Bellamy and portal recruiting of WRs:
Deletehttps://247sports.com/college/michigan/article/michigan-transfer-portal-target-duce-robinson-connects-with-ron-bellamy-and-sherrone-moore-242473538/
" One of the biggest questions surrounding his recruitment, if not the biggest, is what the NIL cost will be. Some reports mention an objective of setting a new standard for receivers with one even suggesting a price tag high as $4 million. Who knows whether any of that is accurate, but if true it's the kind of figure that would almost certainly render him unrealistic. "
Sam Webb has covered this before.
If the story is changing now, well, they are making excuses.
Here is the bottomline:
Michigan is not going to attract 5 star WRs without paying 5 star level NIL.
Michigan is currently unwilling to pay 5 star level NIL for WR.
Sam Webb has talked about this. Sean McGee has talked about his approach that tells you what I said above. It's a choice:
"“While we don’t have a hard, defined salary cap that’s mandated across the board, like any business, we have a budget. And we establish what that constraint is. And if we start to apply some of those ideas of how we do percent allocation, this thing starts to come together, and that’s what we’ve already implemented, right? Specifically in this recruiting cycle, in the class that we put together and signed (in December), this was all under the vision of what is the appropriate percent allocation at this position with this level of talent. That’s what we’re trying to execute.”
https://www.youtube.com/live/bVeVsKn2OeY?si=KQql0VKwxSnUXgUM&t=10425
That approach ("appropriate percent allocation") emphasized size at WR, not getting one of the 5 or 10 best WRs in the country. The big investments came at other positions like OT and QB -- which makes perfect sense in a run heavy offense!
Michigan also didn't emphasize WR in the portal - Michigan put big $ at RB and DT and DB -- to steal away starters from SEC (and Clemson).
They are openly saying what their priorities are. Spend money at positions that are not WR. The focus at WR is on size. Not talent.
Maybe WR production at Michigan ALSO makes getting blue chip talent "unrealistic" - but that's a dubious assertion.
DeleteIf the proposed "fix" here is not THROW A BUNCH OF MONEY AT IT but rather THROW A LOT TO MCCULLEY AND SHOW THE WORLD WHAT MICHIGAN WRs CAN DO....
Can anyone demonstrate historical correlation with Michigan's high production WR seasons with success in recruiting highly rated WRs?
I don't see any over the last 20 years of recruiting data.
Michigan has really NOT recruited 5-star WRs (DPJ being a notable exemption, but he was a local kid).
Michigan HAS consistently recruited 4-star WRs, despite being run-heavy. They just got Andrew Marsh in THIS class, coming off their worst passing offense I can remember.
And the holocene days when Michigan recruited multiple 5 star receivers -- David Terrell and Marquise Walker (plus drew Henson) was in 1998. Check the WR stats coming into that year:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/big-ten/1997-receiving.html
That would tell you the inverse of the argument is true LOL.
So let's say they throw a bunch more in 2025 and focus targets on McCulley and get a 1000 yard season out of him. Is that suddenly going to bring in the 5 star recruits? Did that happen after Gallon's record breaking 2013 season?
No. It wasn't going to in the pre-NIL era and it definitely isn't going to in the NIL era.
Money is what matters (see Underwood, Bryce). Winning after that. (see Terrell/Walker coming after the 97 natty and Peoples Jones coming after the 2015 and 2016 Harbaugh successes)
WR is no different than QB. If you pay for top tier talent and you set the stage for winning, you will attract talent.
It doesn't help Michigan that the offense does not produce big volume passing or receiving stats -- there I can agree with you. But it's a speed bump, not a wall. It's definitively NOT prohibitive -- we've seen it when they attract blue chip talent at QB and not-quite blue chip but still 4-star at WR.
Guys will come here to win and they know NFL scouts are watching not just reading the yardage leaders on espn.
Maybe they ALSO need to get a guy 1000 yard receiving seasons to be successful to get 5 star WRs in here but that was not true for Peoples Jones or Terrell or Walker -- the only 5-star WR recruits I can remember at Michigan.
Theory makes sense but doesn't hold up. Simpler explanation ($) does.
@ "Anonymous" 2:30 p.m.
DeleteThis conversation is bordering on ludicrous, which doesn't surprise me. The quote literally says that Duce Robinson wanted to "set a new standard" for receivers in college football. It references $4 million - most quarterbacks don't make that much (per year) - and it's a guy who made 23 catches last year.
If your argument is that there is a certain amount of money that could convince 5-star level talent to come to Michigan, then of course. I bet if Michigan threw $15 million at a 5-star talent, they could get someone. Hell, if Texas State threw $15 million at a 5-star talent, they could probably get him, too.
The structure within the program matters.
The point should be obvious - if OSU and Michigan are both willing to pay $3 million for a top WR, that WR is going to choose OSU every single time because OSU has shown production and NFL-level development, whether it's Michael Thomas, Garrett Wilson, Chris Olave, Jaxon Smith-Njigba, etc.
1. Yes. Despite not having impressive volume stats or an impressive offense overall, there is a certain amount of money that can get 5-star to come to Michigan. We saw this at QB. Same is true for WR. And other positions. Everyone has their price.
Delete2. Yes. You are right that volume production might be a tie-breaker. It's not a complete non-issue, but it's also not prohibitive. At both QB and WR, when the money is the same, OSU will usually have an advantage. We saw that pre-NIL (when money was the same).
3. Money is NOT the same. OSU offers 5-star level pay at WR. Jeremiah Smith is generally considered to be a top 5 compensated NIL player nationally, despite not playing a premium value position like QB. Marvin Harrison was rumored to be offered 1st round NFL money to stay at OSU. etc. Michigan has no comparable at WR. They do at QB (Underwood).
4. Marquise Walker, David Terrell, and DPJ all came to Michigan while OSU had more impressive WR production. So no, it's not every single time. It's most of the time, though, agree there. Same issue exactly at QB. OSU has a parade of 5-star recruits going back to Terrell Pryor. They won most of the head-to-head battles, when money was equal, and production was a bigger factor. Michigan usually has been picking from guys OSU doesn't want (e.g., JJ) at WR and QB alike.
5. Michigan has shown NFL level development at WR. They've done it without having 5-star recruits (except DPJ), which is arguably more impressive than OSU. That's not an issue.
------------------------------------
So where are we now:
In the NIL era Michigan has broken the normal pattern of the last 20 years at QB, but not at WR. Despite a massive production disadvantage at QB production, they beat OSU for Underwood. They overcame production and pedigree because they outspent OSU. It can be done. It has been done.
They have yet to do so at WR. The difference is the money. Michigan is choosing not to spend the way that OSU spends at WR. They are choosing TO spend the way that OSU spends at QB and other positions instead.
The same production issues that hold michigan back at WR hold Michigan back at QB. Michigan chose to overcome them, by writing a fat check. At WR, they are choosing not to.
The coaches and fans can make whatever excuses they want but the fact is they overcame this issue at QB. McCulley can catch 2000 yards this season and MIchigan still isn't going to land 5 star recruits until Sean McGee and Sherrone Moore decide they are worth paying for.
We cannot pretend that the money is equal when all signs point to it not being equal.
Again, this conversation is ludicrous. As such, this will be my final comment in the thread:
DeleteDavid Terrell and Marquise Walker came to Michigan at a time when Desmond Howard was a WR at Michigan who won the Heisman during their youth (when they were about 12) and when Amani Toomer was a 2nd round pick (#34 overall) averaging 20+ yards per catch. They were highly recruited guys with recent examples of star receivers at a time when high-flying offenses were not the norm.
Michigan has no such recent examples. The last guy to cross 1,000 yards - in a much more pass-happy era - was Jeremy Gallon in 2013, who went on to do nothing in the NFL and was a 7th round pick. If you're 20 years old today, you were about 8 years old and probably weren't watching a bad Michigan team's 7th round pick and being like, "I want to be like him someday!"
Receivers don't want to come to Michigan. They don't believe they'll get the ball. And they don't believe they'll be developed to make money in the NFL, either.
The comparison to QB doesn't make sense. Michigan literally just produced the #11 overall pick in the 2024 NFL Draft at quarterback, about seven months prior to Bryce Underwood signing with Michigan. Yes, it took a hefty NIL sum, just like it does for pretty much every 5-star talent at any position these days.
Michigan hasn't produced a 1st round WR since 2005 (Braylon Edwards). Recruits these days weren't alive back then, and even the guys who are in the portal were only 1 or 2 years old, maybe.
I'm not going to say money isn't a factor. Money is a factor in most decisions these days.
Sam Webb has literally said what je93 and I have been saying for weeks, if not months. Is he reading TTB and copying what je93 and I say because we're so awesome and intelligent? Possibly.
Or is he talking to coaches and guys in the football program and relaying what they're saying? That's very likely.
Now, you have one example where Duce Robinson said he wants to "set a new standard" for wide receivers in the NIL department, and perhaps Michigan didn't pony up $4 million to land a guy who had 23 catches last year, and you're deciding to run with THAT.
They didn't "overcome this issue at QB." The issues aren't the same. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. That would only make sense if J.J. McCarthy never happened, but J.J. McCarthy exists.
"If the story is changing now, well, they are making excuses"
DeleteMore speculation & fantasy ... I can guess who this might be
and if the first reply didn't do it, then the follow-up essays make it more certain
#exposed
Note:
DeleteWalker and Terrell committed after the national champ season. Class of 1998. Desmond Howard finished his college career in 1991.
That's a 7-year gap. Howard was as relevant then as a Nico Collins is now.
-----------------------------------
You're arguing that 2024 was hurting 2025 recruiting.
I'm arguing that 1997 didn't hurt 1998 recruiting. Which Terrell/Howard demonstrate.
Now, for QB you're bringing up 2023 and acting like 2024 was irrelevant to Underwood.
JJ exists, yes, and so do Roman Wilson, Cornelius Johnson, Ronnie Bell, Nico Collins, etc.
---------------------
The commonality is there between the national championship season in 1997 and 2023 with run heavy attacks. The recruiting outcomes are night and day different.
You say that McCarthy getting drafted after 2023 is a reason for recruiting success. But not Wilson and Johnson getting drafted? Which is it -- is the success of 2023 lifting MIchigan up in recruiting or is the offensive failures of 2024 holding them down?
The same story goes for QB and WR -- you can quibble about the differences like round 3 vs round 1 but Michigan has gotten guys successfully drafted despite not producing big volume stats. Period. True in 2023 and true throughout the Harbaugh era.
Yet the recruiting outcomes in the NIL era are different. If the narrative doesn't hold up in one case it doesn't hold up in the other.
Sam Webb literally said Michigan couldn't compete for top tier WRs due to NIL. They are doing so at RB and QB -- where they have chosen to invest in NIL. Sam has said this multiple times. They are not emphasizing WR - per Sam Webb.
It is also WELL publicized that Michigan putting forward a massive NIL offer was a game-changer in the Underwood recruitment, and played a pivotal role in flipping him from LSU. He wasn't coming because of what JJ did. Not when LSU has had even better production at the QB position recently. He looked past the low volume passing stats in 2024 as a blip. I think the dead presidents had something to do with that.
Duce Robinson is AN example of Michigan not being competitive in NIL at WR. He isn't the only one at WR. He is one where the money was explicitly called out (along with Branch, another example), per the link. Michigan missed out on a bunch of other targets as well. If MIchigan isn't paying their WR more than UConn or Vanderbilt or Indiana, they aren't going to get better WRs than those places. Period.
They took a different path at RB, getting a guy who was rumored to be the most expensive RB in the portal to jump from ala-freaking-bama to compete with top 100 composite recruit coming off an MVP bowl performance.
Money talks.
People don't care about volume stats nearly as much as you assert and that's been proven out over time over and over again at Michigan. A useful litmus test for future assertions about WR recruiting and volume stats is "does this argument hold up at QB also".
The Harbaugh/Michigan offense is far more likely to get a WR drafted than QB drafted.
DeleteIn the last 18 years Michigan has had 3 QBs drafted and 12 WRs drafted.*
In the last 10 years (Harbaugh era) it is 2 QBs and 7 WRs.
https://247sports.com/team/michigan-wolverines-football-71/draftpicks/?year=alltime
*4 QBs if you count Denard which I know you don't.
"it took a hefty NIL sum, just like it does for pretty much every 5-star talent at any position these days."
DeleteThis is really the whole point. For all the grousing about volume of passing yardage -- this is what matters. Ultimately we agree.
Michigan CHOSE to invest in the top ranked QB recruit in High School.
Michigan CHOSE to invest in the two of the top 6 ranked OT recruits in High School.
Michigan CHOSE to invest the top transfer RB available in the portal.
Michigan CHOSE to stock up on proven veteran DTs plucked from Clemson/Alabama.
Michigan CHOSE to NOT invest in any of the top 10 portal WRs or top 10 high school WRs.
We can argue those guys wouldn't come if Michigan offered them the money, but it's a hypothetical. Because Michigan is -- as publicly stated by Sam Webb and Sean McGee -- not giving elite compensation to elite WR. That is by design. It is their strategy. Moreover, it makes sense since they are a run first offense.
When money was out of the equation pre-NIL -- Michigan did not land 5 star recruits either (except local boy DPJ). They didn't when they threw a lot (e.g., Gallon) and they didn't when they ran a lot. In ancient history times (25+ years ago) when Michigan did land 2 of the top 5 WRs in the country, it was immediately after they didn't throw very much at all to their WRs (in 1997).
The correlation isn't there historically and we both agree that getting 5 star recruits requires paying 5 star money. I think we've reached the logical conclusion here.
Thanks for the conversation.
@aNoN 1o:51AM, the coaches still talk about Nico in WR recruiting, sooo ... this is a bad point
Deletehttps://www.on3.com/teams/michigan-wolverines/news/sherrone-moore-on-flag-planting-rod-moores-future-big-receivers-and-more/
Who said 2o24 alone hurt 2o25 WR recruiting? I'm seeing Harball, ten years and ... the "I told you so" from 2o21
*back in 1997, being run heavy was not uncommon. In the 2o2os, it is
#harball
#runfirstrunoften
this is hilarious (and suspiciously familiar):
"JJ exists, yes, and so do Roman Wilson, Cornelius Johnson, Ronnie Bell, Nico Collins, etc"
That statement came right after insisting Nico is irrelevant ...
When did Sam Webb say MICHIGAN "is not emphasizing Receivers?" Are you dismissing the WHY explained in the WalTKA Roundtable? Because the quotes are there. Denying the entire statement is not only false, but a lie
"If MIchigan isn't paying their WR more than UConn or Vanderbilt or Indiana, they aren't going to get better WRs than those places"
This is likely another lie, but I'll ask: do you have evidence to support this? Do you have any comparison between NIL at WR between MICHIGAN and these three schools? I'm going to guess NOT
@Anonymous 12:13PMPM, we also recruit/sign/play a lot more WRs too, so there's that
@aNon 12:24PM, where are you getting this info? fAntaSy?
"Because Michigan is -- as publicly stated by Sam Webb and Sean McGee -- not giving elite compensation to elite WR"
"When money was out of the equation pre-NIL -- Michigan did not land 5 star recruits either"
Funny how when the money variable is removed, the result is the same. So - as I say - money is obviously a factor, for everything in life. But for WR at MICHIGAN, money is not the ONLY factor
#selfown
#outsmarted
#jeDub
Why did Tyler Morris transfer? I thought it was in large part to style of play and touches or use of his skills?
Delete@Anon
DeleteDid Morris say that? Or did he say Indiana offered him more $?
I don't believe he said either.
I don't believe Morris has said much outside of his original tweet
DeleteThe MGoPodcast and Bayless have both opined that it had to do with fit & use, but nothing confirmed. A look at the web shows the same, or at least mentions usage but never money
So basically, money can be a (big) thing, but not the only thing
#jeisrightagain
https://athlonsports.com/college/indiana-hoosiers/indiana-football-incoming-transfer-profile-tyler-morris-big-ten-ncaa-michigan
https://www.on3.com/teams/michigan-wolverines/news/tyler-morris-to-transfer-portal-michigan-wolverines-football-wr-expected-to-enter/
https://atozsports.com/college-football/michigan-wolverines-news/michigan-wolverines-major-blow-offense-talented-playmaker-transfer-portal-tyler-morris/
Who said money was the only thing?
DeleteIt's the biggest thing is the argument here.
Without Morris saying something everyone is guessing at the reasons. It was reported by Webb and others that Michigan tried to keep him. That we know.
Who said money was the only thing?
DeleteTwo posts 😂😂😂
DeleteScroll UP, to 24 April ... aNoN 😉
Incorrect. It does not.
Deleteje93 on 23 Apr 23, at 10:06 PM
Delete"I don't think it's ONLY about value, but match & interest as well. WRs want to make plays. So sure, MICHIGAN could open up the bag, but that alone isn't attracting playmakers"
An0n on 24 Apr, at 9:25 PM
"h0w do y0u kn0w iT's n0t tHe bAg?"
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
#receipts
#outsmarted
#jeDub
So no. Nobody said "it's only about money". Thanks for confirming.
DeleteDenial = white flag
DeleteHahaha
Deletehttps://www.maizenbrew.com/michigan-football-recruiting/2025/5/15/24395899/michigan-football-recruiting-grant-newsome-lou-esposito-tony-alford-lamar-morgan
Let’s put aside WR for a moment. My biggest concern with what Sam Webb said was with regards to OL. He thought we should go for a tackle during the spring transfer portal. This is to me is the biggest problem with splurging money on Justice Haynes. That money should have gone towards the OL. Does anyone disagree with this?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to receivers, I am not disagreeing with Thunder/je93 that our coaches have a hard time recruiting one in the transfer portal. The fact remains that to be a top 25 offense, you need at least Roman Wilson/Cornelius Johnson type talent. If you can’t sell the fact that Michigan got these two guys drafted, then perhaps Ron Bellamy should go. We have the money, we have fairly recent success story to sell to potential transfer players. You can’t just keep complaining that WRs are not interested in Michigan. I am not asking to beat Ohio State or Oregon for WR. I am asking that we beat Indiana of the world. Is that too much to ask?
Without numbers being public, it's really difficult to address the whole NIL thing. It's even worse with recruiting than it used to be when trying to gauge the role of academics, football, weather, etc., because kids will talk about all those things - but most of them aren't going to get specific about NIL deals.
DeleteShould Michigan have spent more NIL money on a tackle? I have no idea, because I don't know how much they spent.
The crappy thing about the current NIL climate is that Michigan landed Ty Haywood and Andrew Babalola, who probably both got pretty big NIL deals. So who do you pay? Do you pay Babalola/Haywood a ton of money to come and develop for a year or two and barely play, and ALSO pay a ton of money for a legit tackle who can play right now in 2025?
If we're comparing this to the NFL, if you draft a 1st round tackle (Babalola, in this comparison), he's a) probably your highest paid tackle and b) starting from day one. But in this case, Babalola isn't or probably isn't ready to play, so you paid 1st round money for a backup tackle.
It seems to me you would have to pay the most money for a tackle who's ready to play in 2025, then you probably have a tackle who's more ready than Babalola to play in 2025 (like Evan Link or something), and then you have Babalola, who just got a big NIL deal to sign with Michigan.
So how do you structure the pay scale? Does your #3 tackle make more than the #2 tackle and less than the #1 tackle? How can you justify that? How does that work in the locker room? What would Evan Link think about being the third-highest paid left tackle but being (perhaps) the sixth offensive lineman, the guy who's ready to step in whenever someone along the line gets hurt?
I'm not saying I know the answers. I'm just saying the whole thing is very convoluted with NIL, because there's no draft slotting for contracts, the rosters are much larger than the NFL (you have to keep 20 linemen happy, not 8 or 9), and numbers aren't public.
As for wide receiver transfers, I'm honestly not sure how much Ron Bellamy has a hand in those. I get the feeling that transfers are much more in the hands of the GM and head coach. Transfers are often about money/opportunity, and money (GM) and playing time (head coach) aren't necessarily determined by the position coach. The recruiting done by Bellamy is more at the high school ranks by building relationships over 2-3 years and selling development over 3-5 years at the college level.
No, you can't keep complaining that WRs are not interested in Michigan. At some point you have to take an under-the-radar recruit - or someone like Marsh, who's a solid but not elite ranked recruit - and get them 70 catches and then say, "See, we're willing to throw the ball here. He caught 70 balls and averaged 13 yards/catch, but we think you can catch those same 70 balls and get 15 yards/catch or score twice as many touchdowns or catch 80 or 90 balls."
In 2024, Michigan was #122 in the country in passing attempts. With the #11 overall pick at QB in 2023, they were #93. They were #90 in 2022. Michigan hasn't been in the top 50% of the country in passing attempts since 2019, when they were #60 out of 130 teams.
@FT
DeleteSean McGee disagrees with it, it seems. I suspect Moore is on the same page. Going after Haynes (when they had Marshall, Hall, Kapanna and some highly regarded recruits coming in) was a choice to prioritize RB depth over other things.
I think it's a mistake given the OL situation being so dire. But that's just one man's opinion.
"Is that too much to ask?" To out-recruit UConn and Stanford and UCLA and Indiana for upgrading the WR position? No, it's not too much to ask but Michigan just doesn't want to allocated money that way. They are going the bargain route at WR. Maybe this is a smart strategy and maybe it isn't. We'll see. But it's a departure from the Harbaugh era, though TBF, Harbaugh's NIL world was a primordial. He may have gone down a similar path...we'll never know.
The budget-seeking approach at WR is the downside to spending big on Underwood, Haynes, Babaloa, Payne, etc. You can't have it all so you have to allocate carefully. Michigan is also paying a lot to keep guys home, and here they have generally been very successful. Except, again, at WR losing their top guy to Indiana.
Michigan has a strategy. Is it the right one? TBD. Right now it looks highly questionable and logic they are putting out there in public seems highly dubious.
"Do you pay Babalola/Haywood a ton of money to come and develop for a year or two and barely play, and ALSO pay a ton of money for a legit tackle who can play right now in 2025?"
DeleteI think this is EXACTLY the question that should be getting asked more often. Anyone paying big money for blue chip recruits is taking on a pretty big risk that they go el busto. But the payoff of potentially having a DUDE for 3 years is the reward that risk buys.
Me personally, I'd lean more into the sure things in the portal than taking these kind of risks. Mostly because all you are REALLY paying for is one freshman season. Then dude can be out the door for a bigger paycheck. There are no contracts to stop that.
In other words I'd be going after Miller Moss, not Bryce Underwood. And yeah we don't know how different the money is exactly, nor do we even know if the Underwood money (rumored to come from Larry Page) was even available for Moss.
It's all in the shadows, but we can still make some reasonable guesses without knowing every specific. Especially when Sean McGee is openly saying some things and respected insiders like Sam Webb are reporting what Michigan is willing to ante up for and what they aren't. Ultimately, the results are what matter.
"The recruiting done by Bellamy is more at the high school ranks by building relationships over 2-3 years and selling development over 3-5 years at the college level."
Its interesting that this conjecture is definitive when we have reports directly linking Bellomy to hosting portal WRs. Just like NIL money, we don't know what Bellomy spends his time on exactly. We can make reasonable guesses though.
I disagree with the assertion strongly that we have to throw the ball 70 times to a WR for any reason. Jeremy Gallon didn't lead to a cartful of 5 star recruits. Being 122nd in pass attempts still landed us the #1QB recruit in the country, although perhaps that can be explained by being a local kid, it could also be explained by the M$$$$. And being low in pass attempts didn't stop us from getting blue chip QB recruits like Peters, McCaffrey, and McCarthy either.
The way to change WR recruiting outcomes is to spend differently. I personally think Michigan is right to limit their spending at WR. The choice to offer big time money to big time WRs is the right one, IMO. But when you lose a Tyler Morris and fail to entice a Skyler Bell, well I think you may have overdone it. Michigan is compounding the problem by playing too many WRs and not enough of the H-backs and TEs that they thrived with emphasizing under the Harbaugh era.
Moore is taking a different approach. I'm skeptical it will work.
I'm with Thunder. We don't have the information on NIL. The aNoN fantasy includes "it seems," "I suspect," "I think," and they lead to assertions such as "Michigan just doesn't want to allocated money that way"
DeleteHere's what we do know
- we took two 5star Tackles, which is probably expensive
- Sophomore Jordan Marshall did well, but has not proven durability. While I wanted want another Tackle, it does make sense to want/need a second RB. What's left behind him is a big fat question mark ... we saw the difference in the bowl game when Ben Hall came in, and the gap was huge. The run first run often offense e needed a 1b RB
- the WRs we signed are rated in line with Harbaugh WRs and higher than Indiana's, UConn, Stanford and UCLA ... including in the McCulley-Morris trade
I agree about running back. Michigan needed someone else. Benjamin Hall is probably going to also be a backup at North Carolina, but he might be #2 (behind Davion Gause) instead of a likely #3 at Michigan (behind Marshall and Justice Haynes). Tavierre Dunlap ended up at Eastern Michigan, so that gives us an idea of what other teams thought of him.
Delete@je93 @Thunder. Let's see how the season plays out. I am not a football analyst. I am just a fan who loves Michigan football and I did not like how the offseason went. The over/under for Michigan wins is 8.5. With the current roster, I am picking the under. As always, I hope to be proven wrong. Go blue!
DeleteRE: RB2. Having UNC's #2 is not as good as having Alabama's #2 RB but is that upgrade worth X hundred thousands? We know Haynes "is probably expensive".
DeleteIs it worth it when you have big issues at OT? We don't have complete information here yeah, but FTs question is valid. Decent chance that X hundred thousands might have made an impact that's bigger on a down to down basis at OT than at RB2.
Michigan is following an NFL model of allocating salary by position according to McGee and OTs cost a whole lot more than backup RBs in the NFL. But Michigan presumably could have done more than get guys from Fresno State and Cal State Poly or whatever, given that they landed some big time guys in the last few years of the Harbaugh era. Plus they let Gentry and Persi walk who seemed like decent options. Not ALL of this is a choice but the overall strategy is. They are trying to build up with mostly in-house options, young options, and high school recruits. That's a departure from the veteran-heavy Harbaugh approach.
Yeah, RBs still matter
Delete@FT, agree. Last year conceding problem areas and acknowledging potential losses was "loser thinking" ... turned out to be reality
Delete@Anonymous, FT's question is valid. But aNoN's answer is foolish
*also, Persi & Gentry sucked and were BEHIND Link on the depth chart
Didn't PFF and UFR have Persi/Gentry outperforming Link?
DeleteThe decisions of this coaching staff are being questioned on multiple fronts here. No is arguing that they started Link over other options, because they did. They also started Guidice over Crippen. Chose to play Bell, O'Leary, and Charleston heavy snaps instead of Bredeson/Hoffman etc. Edwards and Hall over Mullings at times. QB decisions etc. The list of questions is long.
This isn't the Harbaugh staff anymore, even if there are a big chunk of holdovers. The approach has changed. A lot.
On pt1 of the MGoBlog mailbag, Alex Drain referred the WR issues as "toxicity," and on pt1 gets more detailed
Delete"I think when Sam refers to the WR talent acquisition part he's talking more about a problem stemming from the offensive philosophy"
and
"The legacy of Michigan mis-using Nico Collins and their proud identity as a running program, one that relished in never throwing against Penn State, is not attractive to wide receivers and I've been saying it for years"
He goes on, but that's the jist
@Anonymous at 1:5oPM, that's a very good point Anonymous. You should post more
Delete#questionthecoaches
Some coaches deserve to be questioned on some things while others deserve to be trusted.
DeleteMoore isn't Harbaugh. Early returns say he might not even be Hoke. The ineptitude on the offensive side of the ball is reminiscent of the Rodriguez era defenses in level of questioning. Hopefully Chip Lindsey isn't Greg Robinson.
Money can paper over a lot of deficiencies though. When you're paying for an NFL DC and going out and getting SEC starters to replace your NFL departures, and retaining big time talents like Benny, Moore, etc. things should be alright on that side of the ball.
That's a moved goal post alright!
Delete"foolish"? -- that's insulting
ReplyDeleteLol
Delete