Harbaugh will surpass Saban in National Titles

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Wow, where to start.

First off, recruiting rankings mean nothing. Secondly, their recent ones suck. Last 2 classes:
2015 - 38th
2014 - 20th

While the 2012 and 2013 classes were highly ranked, the highest rated players from those classes are pretty underwhelming: Derrick Green (3rd on the RB depth chart), Shane Morris (fighting with an Iowa castoff who lost his job this offseason), Dymonte Thomas (meh), and then it's a ton of offensive linemen who are just OK. Joe Bolden is pretty good, Jabril Peppers hasn't done anything yet, and none of your other playmakers on offense have proven any real value.

Secondly, there is not a good chance to beat Utah.

Thirdly, you may be in games vs. OSU and MSU, but those will both be losses, and probably pretty big ones.

Finally, games like BYU, Penn State, and Minnesota are likely to be games where you guys are the underdog, so I don't know how you can "expect" those to be wins.

Wow, where to start.

Yes, recruiting classes do mean something. They directly correlate to success and there's many studies on this topic that prove that. They don't guarantee success of one particular recruit, but it does predict something as a whole.

I'm not particularly talking about class rankings as class rankings weight number of recruits far too much. I'm talking about individual talent. Michigan's last two classes were ranked low in the team rankings because they had fewer than 17 recruits. Unlikely some schools, we offer the scholarships we actually have to give out and retained a shocking amount of the two classes before that. If you take either of those classes and sort by average star ranking, Michigan ranks 14 and 19 respectively.

Derrick Green was the primary running back before he broke his foot. So you are wrong. Morris, well, he certainly could be a bust. But remember, this isn't about just one recruit, it's about the recruits collectively. We just have too many highly ranked kids who are under performing to believe that they are doing so because they are all busts. Hoke was fired for not developing kids and losing games. A good coach, which Harbaugh is, is supposed to develop kids and win games. Assuming the proper training, at least a portion of our highly ranked players should develop into great college players. As seniors or juniors (other than Green and Morris) we have two players who had a fifth star by rivals, and 24 others who had a fourth start. And that's just in two of our classes. Twenty four. Utah has 8 total players on their team that gained a fourth star out of HS.

I disagree (obviously) about Utah. Utah is not some 21+ favorite in the game. They're marginally favored, mostly because of home advantage. The game last year was close, even with our relatively poor performing team. Based on the fact that our team should have decent coaching, Rudock should be a huge improvement over Gardner and our talent base should be much greater than Utah, I think we have a great shot at winning that game. At minimum, I have no reason to believe it won't be close again.

By the time we hit BYU, PSU and Minnesota we have no idea who will be the underdog.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

So you're banking on being good because the 2012 and 2013 classes were highly ranked? That's probably not a good thing because it's been proven a majority of those players aren't any good, especially the ones that were ranked fairly high. Take a look at what those highly ranked players have been:

Just looking at 2012: Richardson, Jenkins-Stone, Kalis, Pipkins, Ojemudia, have all been busts. There were a ton of O-lineman in this class, they obviously haven't done great. And the only great player left early for the NFL. This was considered a top 10 class. It clearly was not.

2013: Derrick Green, David Dawson, Dymonte Thomas, Mike McCray, Taco Charlton, Shane Morris, along with a bunch of O-lineman again, haven't done anything in their college careers. Again another top 10 class with little to show.

It's quite stunning the lack of talent out of those two classes. Very little production if you ask me. I don't see how counting on these guys for 2015 is a good thing. You have no playmakers on the outside either.

We don't know anything. The entire team under performed because we had a terrible coach who got fired for being terrible. I just don't believe, and I can't believe anyone would argue, that somehow we did the statistically impossible and got every single four and five star busts. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

No argument, none of them have done much yet in their career but, again, that's because they weren't put in a position to do much and didn't get the training necessary.

I believe with the right training and put in a position to succeed that the talent we have on this team has the ability to out-perform many people's expectation of Michigan. What they did in the past is irrelevant because Hoke is no longer the coach.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

But the general board is now the Michigan board. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

I've only posted a few (like 3-4) things total about Michigan. Some of the things I've posted have been about Ohio State, others about B10 coaching rankings but very little specifically about Michigan. So I just don't agree. Everyone on this site has the same ability to post threads about topics they want to talk about. The fact that no one has posted any other content other than my few threads is more the issue here rather than me posted a couple of threads about Michigan.

 

[Wamu]

meeeechegan's battle cry...

 

[ericd7633]

We don't know anything. The entire team under performed because we had a terrible coach who got fired for being terrible. I just don't believe, and I can't believe anyone would argue, that somehow we did the statistically impossible and got every single four and five star busts. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

No argument, none of them have done much yet in their career but, again, that's because they weren't put in a position to do much and didn't get the training necessary.

I believe with the right training and put in a position to succeed that the talent we have on this team has the ability to out-perform many people's expectation of Michigan. What they did in the past is irrelevant because Hoke is no longer the coach.

Yes, we know those players listed above aren't very good. If you're going into your senior year and haven't done anything, you're not doing anything. All those 2012 guys are busts. Counting on them to do anything is really dumb. And most those guys were the highest rated in the class, and because of that, the 2012 class was overrated. If you are good enough, you will get noticed.

And not everyone has been a bust out of those classes, but a majority have. Why have the few that have been good, performed good? Because they have talent.

Michigan just lacks playmakers.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

[/QUOTE][/MEDIA][/QUOTE]

Yesterday, Michigan released their 2015 football hype video. I have to admit, it's actually pretty cool.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

C23D needs to get his satellite camps rolling before the Hoop bans them for everyone.

I already have A job of MnB's mother

 

[ericd7633]

Wow, where to start.

Yes, recruiting classes do mean something. They directly correlate to success and there's many studies on this topic that prove that. They don't guarantee success of one particular recruit, but it does predict something as a whole.

I'm not particularly talking about class rankings as class rankings weight number of recruits far too much. I'm talking about individual talent. Michigan's last two classes were ranked low in the team rankings because they had fewer than 17 recruits. Unlikely some schools, we offer the scholarships we actually have to give out and retained a shocking amount of the two classes before that. If you take either of those classes and sort by average star ranking, Michigan ranks 14 and 19 respectively.

Derrick Green was the primary running back before he broke his foot. So you are wrong. Morris, well, he certainly could be a bust. But remember, this isn't about just one recruit, it's about the recruits collectively. We just have too many highly ranked kids who are under performing to believe that they are doing so because they are all busts. Hoke was fired for not developing kids and losing games. A good coach, which Harbaugh is, is supposed to develop kids and win games. Assuming the proper training, at least a portion of our highly ranked players should develop into great college players. As seniors or juniors (other than Green and Morris) we have two players who had a fifth star by rivals, and 24 others who had a fourth start. And that's just in two of our classes. Twenty four. Utah has 8 total players on their team that gained a fourth star out of HS.

I disagree (obviously) about Utah. Utah is not some 21+ favorite in the game. They're marginally favored, mostly because of home advantage. The game last year was close, even with our relatively poor performing team. Based on the fact that our team should have decent coaching, Rudock should be a huge improvement over Gardner and our talent base should be much greater than Utah, I think we have a great shot at winning that game. At minimum, I have no reason to believe it won't be close again.

By the time we hit BYU, PSU and Minnesota we have no idea who will be the underdog.

Michigan recruiting classes since Carr left: (According to Rivals)

2008: Ranked #10
2009: Ranked #8
2010: Ranked #20
2011: Ranked #21
2012: Ranked #7
2013: Ranked #5
2014: Ranked #31
2015: Ranked #50

Michigan's record since Carr left: 4 games over .500

Why that study may be true for other schools it certainly hasn't been for Michigan. Outside of the last two years, Michigan had 6 classes in a row ranked in the top 25 and 4 classes ranked in the top 10 and have one good season to show for it.

Also, Derrick Green even before the injury, couldn't really do anything against good competition. Sure he racked up yards against Appy St and Miami(Oh), but look at his numbers against the other teams. And he wasn't any good his freshman season either.

Also, I don't know if I would downplay the talent at Utah as it correlates to recruiting rankings, as they have more players currently in the NFL than Michigan does, and I guarantee you they never finished ahead in any recruiting ranking.

 

[7Samurai13]

I already have A job of MnB's mother

You're MnB's mom? I didn't know you were a chick.

 

[Across The Field]

Wow, where to start.

Yes, recruiting classes do mean something. They directly correlate to success and there's many studies on this topic that prove that. They don't guarantee success of one particular recruit, but it does predict something as a whole.

I'm not particularly talking about class rankings as class rankings weight number of recruits far too much. I'm talking about individual talent. Michigan's last two classes were ranked low in the team rankings because they had fewer than 17 recruits. Unlikely some schools, we offer the scholarships we actually have to give out and retained a shocking amount of the two classes before that. If you take either of those classes and sort by average star ranking, Michigan ranks 14 and 19 respectively.

Derrick Green was the primary running back before he broke his foot. So you are wrong. Morris, well, he certainly could be a bust. But remember, this isn't about just one recruit, it's about the recruits collectively. We just have too many highly ranked kids who are under performing to believe that they are doing so because they are all busts. Hoke was fired for not developing kids and losing games. A good coach, which Harbaugh is, is supposed to develop kids and win games. Assuming the proper training, at least a portion of our highly ranked players should develop into great college players. As seniors or juniors (other than Green and Morris) we have two players who had a fifth star by rivals, and 24 others who had a fourth start. And that's just in two of our classes. Twenty four. Utah has 8 total players on their team that gained a fourth star out of HS.

I disagree (obviously) about Utah. Utah is not some 21+ favorite in the game. They're marginally favored, mostly because of home advantage. The game last year was close, even with our relatively poor performing team. Based on the fact that our team should have decent coaching, Rudock should be a huge improvement over Gardner and our talent base should be much greater than Utah, I think we have a great shot at winning that game. At minimum, I have no reason to believe it won't be close again.

By the time we hit BYU, PSU and Minnesota we have no idea who will be the underdog.

Recruiting classes mean something when you consistently are near the top of class ratings each year. However getting a few high rated classes here and there mean nothing. Programs that also have a few top classes over the past few years: Florida, Texas, Miami(FL). They all suck for several reasons. Bottom line is, unless you're consistently getting top 5 classes, they don't mean as much as you're making them out to be.

Yes, you have some guys who were highly rated. However, thinking they're just going to all of the sudden become developed, good college players in year one under a brand new regime is foolish. It takes time. Even Harbaugh took a couple of years to get any success at Stanford. I'm not saying he won't be able to get you guys back, but it won't be year 1.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You're MnB's mom? I didn't know you were a chick.

Yes I just found out myself tho Brb i'm putting him up for adoption

 

[TheRobotDevil]

C23D needs to get his satellite camps rolling before the Hoop bans them for everyone.

I'll get to work on the satellite camp but how do i gauge how much vCash to charge for appearances?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Michigan recruiting classes since Carr left: (According to Rivals)

2008: Ranked #10
2009: Ranked #8
2010: Ranked #20
2011: Ranked #21
2012: Ranked #7
2013: Ranked #5
2014: Ranked #31
2015: Ranked #50

Michigan's record since Carr left: 4 games over .500

Why that study may be true for other schools it certainly hasn't been for Michigan. Outside of the last two years, Michigan had 6 classes in a row ranked in the top 25 and 4 classes ranked in the top 10 and have one good season to show for it.

Also, Derrick Green even before the injury, couldn't really do anything against good competition. Sure he racked up yards against Appy St and Miami(Oh), but look at his numbers against the other teams. And he wasn't any good his freshman season either.

Also, I don't know if I would downplay the talent at Utah as it correlates to recruiting rankings, as they have more players currently in the NFL than Michigan does, and I guarantee you they never finished ahead in any recruiting ranking.

I should qualify what I said with, "should you hold onto those players". The problem with your justification is that Michigan lost like half the players (in some cases all but a few) from the 09-11 classes for one reason or another; most to transfers. So while they were great classes, their impact on the program went unseen because we didn't have the players that those classes list. This doesn't connect with what we're talking about -- players who stick on the team for their full 3-4 years before leaving for the NFL or graduating.

None of our players could do anything against good competition this past year. The team was collectively bad. But given what we know about Hoke and the regression we saw with his players, I believe that was due to the training and positions they received and were put in.

Our NFL production has dipped in the last 8 years for reasons mentioned above. Bad coaching and the inability to hold onto the talent we did recruit which at least half of that was fixed by Hoke.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Recruiting classes mean something when you consistently are near the top of class ratings each year. However getting a few high rated classes here and there mean nothing. Programs that also have a few top classes over the past few years: Florida, Texas, Miami(FL). They all suck for several reasons. Bottom line is, unless you're consistently getting top 5 classes, they don't mean as much as you're making them out to be.

Yes, you have some guys who were highly rated. However, thinking they're just going to all of the sudden become developed, good college players in year one under a brand new regime is foolish. It takes time. Even Harbaugh took a couple of years to get any success at Stanford. I'm not saying he won't be able to get you guys back, but it won't be year 1.

"A few high rated classes here an there" -- hardly. As mentioned, Michigan's classes were only dinged in the total rankings because of their small size; IE the number of spots we had open. Which is important in this case because the reason we did have so few spots open was because we held onto almost everyone from the two top 10 classes we got the few years before. As mentioned, the breakdown in class dynamic is about the same. The Average star ratings put us in the top 20. Michigan consistently, almost every year, puts together a top 20 class and a lot of the time ends up in the top 15, and at least once every four years ends up in the top 10. Plenty good enough to consistently produce talent. As mentioned in my previous post, the problem during the RR era was actually holding on to the recruited talent. I believe it was the 2008 or 2009 class where we lost all but like 4 players to transfer.

Very few teams consistently get top 5 finishes. Since the recruiting rankings have existed, Michigan's had 3 top 5 finishes and OSU has had 5.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I should qualify what I said with, "should you hold onto those players". The problem with your justification is that Michigan lost like half the players (in some cases all but a few) from the 09-11 classes for one reason or another; most to transfers. So while they were great classes, their impact on the program went unseen because we didn't have the players that those classes list. This doesn't connect with what we're talking about -- players who stick on the team for their full 3-4 years before leaving for the NFL or graduating.

None of our players could do anything against good competition this past year. The team was collectively bad. But given what we know about Hoke and the regression we saw with his players, I believe that was due to the training and positions they received and were put in.

Our NFL production has dipped in the last 8 years for reasons mentioned above. Bad coaching and the inability to hold onto the talent we did recruit which at least half of that was fixed by Hoke.

Michigan Wolverines | SportsHoopla.com Sports Forums

 

[TheRobotDevil]

"A few high rated classes here an there" -- hardly. As mentioned, Michigan's classes were only dinged in the total rankings because of their small size; IE the number of spots we had open. Which is important in this case because the reason we did have so few spots open was because we held onto almost everyone from the two top 10 classes we got the few years before. As mentioned, the breakdown in class dynamic is about the same. The Average star ratings put us in the top 20. Michigan consistently, almost every year, puts together a top 20 class and a lot of the time ends up in the top 15, and at least once every four years ends up in the top 10. Plenty good enough to consistently produce talent. As mentioned in my previous post, the problem during the RR era was actually holding on to the recruited talent. I believe it was the 2008 or 2009 class where we lost all but like 4 players to transfer.

Very few teams consistently get top 5 finishes. Since the recruiting rankings have existed, Michigan's had 3 top 5 finishes and OSU has had 5.

Michigan Wolverines | SportsHoopla.com Sports Forums

 

[Wamu]

Because based on recruiting rankings we have more potential talent on this team than at least 8 or 9 teams on the schedule.

I think it's reasonable as a Michigan fan this year to expect to beat teams like:

UNLV
BYU
Oregon State
Maryland
Northwestern
Minnesota
Rutgers
Indiana

Expect a good chance to beat:
PSU
Utah

And be in the games against:
MSU
OSU

When I say that "7 wins is our bottom", I'm counting only the teams we should, key word is should, have little problem taking care of and that's assuming we lose to one of them. 8 wins counts all of them. Could that change? yes. But that's my expectation as a fan.

 

[Across The Field]

"A few high rated classes here an there" -- hardly. As mentioned, Michigan's classes were only dinged in the total rankings because of their small size; IE the number of spots we had open. Which is important in this case because the reason we did have so few spots open was because we held onto almost everyone from the two top 10 classes we got the few years before. As mentioned, the breakdown in class dynamic is about the same. The Average star ratings put us in the top 20. Michigan consistently, almost every year, puts together a top 20 class and a lot of the time ends up in the top 15, and at least once every four years ends up in the top 10. Plenty good enough to consistently produce talent. As mentioned in my previous post, the problem during the RR era was actually holding on to the recruited talent. I believe it was the 2008 or 2009 class where we lost all but like 4 players to transfer.

Very few teams consistently get top 5 finishes. Since the recruiting rankings have existed, Michigan's had 3 top 5 finishes and OSU has had 5.

It actually is entirely irrelevant. You didn't finish with top a 20 class, you finished where I listed. Having a small class with higher star guys doesn't mean you can just extrapolate the rest of the spots out that would have been required for you to have a higher class. Part of having a highly rated class is having a deep one and you didn't have that. You also didn't get much individual talent once they got to school and onto the field, so the end ranking doesn't mean anything.

When all is said and done, you have no proven, developed talent outside of maybe a couple of guys. Otherwise, your recruits have been either just average or busts. As I said, Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford around in year 1, and he won't do it for you either. Underachieving juniors and seniors aren't all of the sudden gonna become good just because you have a good coach in his first year.

 

[7Samurai13]

It actually is entirely irrelevant. You didn't finish with top a 20 class, you finished where I listed. Having a small class with higher star guys doesn't mean you can just extrapolate the rest of the spots out that would have been required for you to have a higher class. Part of having a highly rated class is having a deep one and you didn't have that. You also didn't get much individual talent once they got to school and onto the field, so the end ranking doesn't mean anything.

When all is said and done, you have no proven, developed talent outside of maybe a couple of guys. Otherwise, your recruits have been either just average or busts. As I said, Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford around in year 1, and he won't do it for you either. Underachieving juniors and seniors aren't all of the sudden gonna become good just because you have a good coach in his first year.

You forgot about the Harbaugh factor.

 

[4down20]

Nick Saban lost to LA Monroe his first year at Alabama.


I hate that I had to say that, and that's all I got to say about 1st year new coaches.

And while we weren't pulling in #1 recruiting classes before Saban, we weren't doing terrible either. We actually had a 10 win season with Shula.