OT Dan Samuelson [Michigan Commit]

Mavric said:
So, to use your analogy, wouldn't that mean we need to give the staff some time to work on improving their game? Not talking about the development side because I think your walk-on argument the other way as well - if we are developing walk-ons into starters on a very good offense, I don't think the development side is terrible.

I see the recruiting side as lacking to start but improving. The problem is, you don't see the results of improved recruiting for several years, especially on the oline. Not like your golf game where you can improve year-round. You only get one shot in recruiting then have to wait a year to try again. Bo's first class that was really his was 2009. We got a three-year starter (Sirles) and a two-year starter (Qvale) out of the four OLinemen in that class. Perhaps not great results but pretty solid. In 2010, we got a solid starter (Hardrick) and a three-year contributer (ARod) out of three lineman. You could argue the number of recruits was lower than we would have liked but we again got decent results from the guys we got. I would argue that we got a great recruiting class in 2011 but that class has fallen apart with two transfers. Results as of yet haven't been good - remember that the other three were only redshirt freshmen this past year - but I would count that as a big improvement on the recruiting side. The 2012 class was handicapped by being a small class overall and we obviously needed all the defensive help we could find - 10 out of 17 recruits were on the defensive side of the ball - and the near-miss with Peat would have made a lot of difference on the OLine.

Of the guys who've been on campus for at least three years, we have three solid starters, one contributor and three "misses". That's a pretty common bell curve. I think it might seem a little worse due to the two transfers but that seems to be more of a personality issue rather than recruiting or development.
Click to expand...
Yeah, things would be very different with Peat and without the transfer of Moore. Those two events really impacted our OL. We likely wouldn't be having the conversation. 50% washout though, which is why I think we need a minimum of 4 OL each year, regardless of class size. A bigger class could see 5 and I'd be even happier. We're paying for taking 2 a year with a JUCO here and there. Most people right off losing Klatcho, or losing Samuelson - but we really need some bodies in there at this point. It will be interesting to see how the staff closes on this class. I think it's going to include a huge emphasis on the OL.

 
kchusker_chris said:
Mavric said:
So, to use your analogy, wouldn't that mean we need to give the staff some time to work on improving their game? Not talking about the development side because I think your walk-on argument the other way as well - if we are developing walk-ons into starters on a very good offense, I don't think the development side is terrible.

I see the recruiting side as lacking to start but improving. The problem is, you don't see the results of improved recruiting for several years, especially on the oline. Not like your golf game where you can improve year-round. You only get one shot in recruiting then have to wait a year to try again. Bo's first class that was really his was 2009. We got a three-year starter (Sirles) and a two-year starter (Qvale) out of the four OLinemen in that class. Perhaps not great results but pretty solid. In 2010, we got a solid starter (Hardrick) and a three-year contributer (ARod) out of three lineman. You could argue the number of recruits was lower than we would have liked but we again got decent results from the guys we got. I would argue that we got a great recruiting class in 2011 but that class has fallen apart with two transfers. Results as of yet haven't been good - remember that the other three were only redshirt freshmen this past year - but I would count that as a big improvement on the recruiting side. The 2012 class was handicapped by being a small class overall and we obviously needed all the defensive help we could find - 10 out of 17 recruits were on the defensive side of the ball - and the near-miss with Peat would have made a lot of difference on the OLine.

Of the guys who've been on campus for at least three years, we have three solid starters, one contributor and three "misses". That's a pretty common bell curve. I think it might seem a little worse due to the two transfers but that seems to be more of a personality issue rather than recruiting or development.
Click to expand...
Yeah, things would be very different with Peat and without the transfer of Moore. Those two events really impacted our OL. We likely wouldn't be having the conversation. 50% washout though, which is why I think we need a minimum of 4 OL each year, regardless of class size. A bigger class could see 5 and I'd be even happier. We're paying for taking 2 a year with a JUCO here and there. Most people right off losing Klatcho, or losing Samuelson - but we really need some bodies in there at this point. It will be interesting to see how the staff closes on this class. I think it's going to include a huge emphasis on the OL.
Click to expand...
I totally agree about the numbers. I would say three a year would be a minimum, four would be a lot better and I wouldn't argue with five here and there. If you don't have three per class - 12 in a four-year period - you barely have enough for a two-deep roster. 15-18 on scholly plus a few walk-ons sounds about right to me, considering a few will be redshirting each year.

 
kchusker_chris said:
Mavric said:
So, to use your analogy, wouldn't that mean we need to give the staff some time to work on improving their game? Not talking about the development side because I think your walk-on argument the other way as well - if we are developing walk-ons into starters on a very good offense, I don't think the development side is terrible.

I see the recruiting side as lacking to start but improving. The problem is, you don't see the results of improved recruiting for several years, especially on the oline. Not like your golf game where you can improve year-round. You only get one shot in recruiting then have to wait a year to try again. Bo's first class that was really his was 2009. We got a three-year starter (Sirles) and a two-year starter (Qvale) out of the four OLinemen in that class. Perhaps not great results but pretty solid. In 2010, we got a solid starter (Hardrick) and a three-year contributer (ARod) out of three lineman. You could argue the number of recruits was lower than we would have liked but we again got decent results from the guys we got. I would argue that we got a great recruiting class in 2011 but that class has fallen apart with two transfers. Results as of yet haven't been good - remember that the other three were only redshirt freshmen this past year - but I would count that as a big improvement on the recruiting side. The 2012 class was handicapped by being a small class overall and we obviously needed all the defensive help we could find - 10 out of 17 recruits were on the defensive side of the ball - and the near-miss with Peat would have made a lot of difference on the OLine.

Of the guys who've been on campus for at least three years, we have three solid starters, one contributor and three "misses". That's a pretty common bell curve. I think it might seem a little worse due to the two transfers but that seems to be more of a personality issue rather than recruiting or development.
Click to expand...
Yeah, things would be very different with Peat and without the transfer of Moore. Those two events really impacted our OL. We likely wouldn't be having the conversation. 50% washout though, which is why I think we need a minimum of 4 OL each year, regardless of class size. A bigger class could see 5 and I'd be even happier. We're paying for taking 2 a year with a JUCO here and there. Most people right off losing Klatcho, or losing Samuelson - but we really need some bodies in there at this point. It will be interesting to see how the staff closes on this class. I think it's going to include a huge emphasis on the OL.
Click to expand...
Definitely a big emphasis on oline to close out the class. 3 of em visiting this weekend, and we are in the hunt on the 4th (cochran) who has visited but hes been quiet lately. Hoping for atleast 2 of them all 4 would be ideal. It has also been said that 3 OL walkons that RS last year are developing nicely. We have some decent depth, just not experienced depth. If we got Finnin, arod could move back to guard, with Long, Cotton, Reeves, Moudy. Pelini, Pensick, Thurston at center. Quale, Sirles, Finnin, Price, Sterup at T. This season we will need to build depth, we will lose alot after the 2013 season. Almost 3 deep at every position, just need to get them some PT. Cotton Reeves and Pelini played in the bowl game and did just fine. Kondolo would only add to the depth if we pulled him.

It would be extremely awesome to have Moore and Peat right now thou. Our line would go from good to great next year, especially pass blocking where we need the most help.

 
I think our OLine play will improve more this year and over the next few years because at the start of the year last year we went back to running two offensive groups in practice - as Osborne used to do - so it's getting the #2s and, I assume, even some of the #3s a lot more reps. I really think that will pay off going forward.

 
I just went back and read the first posts on this player. It really puts it into perspective how fickle of a game recruiting is and no one should be counted on until they sign the papers.

And, as evidenced here, sometimes you can't even count on that either.

 
Back
Top