Rising sophomore running back Kingston Davis is transferring, according to Sam Webb.
Davis committed to Michigan in April of 2015 (LINK). I initially gave him a TTB Rating of 80 before dropping that down to 70 once the recruiting cycle ended (LINK). I came to view him more and more as a fullback, despite his and his father’s insistence that he wanted to play tailback and tailback only. That’s fine if that’s your goal, but it’s tough to be a dynamic tailback at 6’1″ and 245 lbs. Davis dealt with some injury issues after enrolling early at Michigan in January of 2016 and played just a bit, carrying 2 times for 17 yards against Hawaii in the season opener.
Davis was looking up at Chris Evans, Karan Higdon, Kareem Walker, and Ty Isaac, not to mention potential sixth year senior Drake Johnson. Therefore, I don’t think this affects Michigan very much on the field. He was bound to be a backup tailback, and I suggested once again this morning (LINK) – before the news broke – that Michigan should consider moving him to fullback to back up the two co-starting seniors at the position.
Michigan is now down to 86 scholarships allotted for the 2017 season, so they have to shed at least one player before fall camp. I expect some more news of departures soon, which will get Michigan under the 85 cap.
You need to login in order to vote
Death to jumbo backs!
*
*On the roster, not in real life.
You need to login in order to vote
The good news is that it didn’t take 3 or 4 years for this to settle itself. They’ll get another guy in the ’18 class.
The bad news is that a scholarship-year is wasted. The coaches time and effort went into developing a kid who will never make a meaningful contribution. More importantly, those resources could have gone to an OL or DB that could be contributing in 2017. The RB position continues to be over-recruited while we scrape buy at other positions.
You’re not going to hit on every recruit obviously, but some misses are more frustrating than others. Some are “worth a shot”. Others are not.
Death to jumbo-backs.
You need to login in order to vote
Your second and third paragraphs could almost be cut and pasted as comments about any position at various times. I don’t know if it was you or not, but some people were strongly against recruiting a tight end in the 2017 class…but now that Asiasi is gone, we’re not particularly deep at TE (Bunting, Wheatley, McKeon, Eubanks, Gentry). That’s not a ton of depth when you consider that Michigan runs a lot of multiple tight end sets (2 or 3 guys, at least) and Gentry is kind of a quarterback/wide receiver whose potential right now is unknown.
Running back is a very important position, regardless of how the NFL utilizes them. The NFL can bring in an endless number of players off the street if injuries occur. College teams aren’t so lucky. Michigan had a RB-by-committee situation last year (Smith, Evans, Higdon, Isaac, etc.) while Johnson was hurt and Walker was essentially suspended. We were pretty lucky that no running backs actually got seriously hurt during the football season itself, such as a torn ACL, broken leg, sprained ankle, serious concussion, etc. Some teams (such as Iowa) suffer a lot of injuries at the position, and you need athletes to play there.
I wasn’t a huge fan of Kingston Davis (thus the TTB Rating of 70), but you need running backs in the pipeline.
You need to login in order to vote
I was against recruiting a TE in 17. Many factors to consider:
1. Heavily recruiting the WR position and rumors of more WR use indicate that the team can and/or will reduce 2 TE sets in favor of more WR.
2. The 2 TE sets can be manned by H-back/FBs. Hill is a TE/FB. So is Poggi. We don’t need a dozen TEs and multiple scholarship FBs. There is overlap here, not unlike overlap at other position groups.
3. Walk-ons can usually contribute here in a blocking capacity. Michigan’s almost always had walk-ons pushing the edge of the TE depth chart.
4. 5 pure TEs is adequate. And that’s after unexpected attrition.
————–
Gentry isn’t a QB/WR anymore. He’s a TE who practiced at WR – likely in an attempt to focus on his route-running. Everyone’s potential is uncertain by definition. Given his size, speed, and reported athleticism it’s obvious why coaches might see high potential. The Gentry as TE talk has been there since he was a recruit, not unlike Shallman or Davis or Denard.
You need to login in order to vote
Lanknows, “The Gentry as TE talk has been there since he was a recruit, not unlike Shallman or Davis or Denard.”
Denard would have sucked at TE.
You need to login in order to vote
Humor. I just woke up.
You need to login in order to vote
RB isn’t a very important position and you see that in NFL contracts and playing rotations. RB is very important in fans eyes because they follow the ball.
Michigan’s never come close to not having multiple scholarship backs ready to insert at any time. Last year we could have had our top 4 RBs get hurt and still brought in a 5-star RB with experience or pulled a red-shirt of another 5-star RB.
You need RBs “in the pipeline”. You also need non-freshman starters on the OL and secondary and not talking about starting walk-ons at multiple LB spots.
You need to login in order to vote
“RB isn’t a very important position” is a pretty silly statement. It sure seems like the guy who touches the ball 15-25 times a game would be pretty important. Also, this isn’t the NFL. As I mentioned above, if you don’t have an elite RB or if your guy(s) gets hurt, you hire them off the street. That’s the nature of being a professional organization and only having a 53-man roster.
You’re right that Michigan hasn’t had to worry about inserting non-scholarships backs – because they typically have a stable of playable backs, plus some guys who don’t play…which sounds a lot like other positions. Walker didn’t play last season, but neither did Stephen Spanellis. Davis didn’t play much last year, but neither did Jared Wangler. There are players who don’t or barely play at literally every position.
You need to login in order to vote
The primary determinants of successful offenses are scheme, QB, and OL. Elite WRs and TEs make more impact than RBs do. RBs tend to get outsized credit for the offense because they get the ball.
Generally if an elite WR or TE changes teams he stays productive, while elite producing RBs who change teams do not, more often than not.
Obviously you need a baseline of physical competency – like you would at any other position.
You need to login in order to vote
Michigan has a ‘stable’ at RB because they overrecruit the position. They generally do not have a ‘stable’ at other positions. OL is the most obvious example where that’s simply not the case, and has been a problem spot for the majority of the last decade.
You need to login in order to vote
Our problem at OL is significantly under par player development, not numbers.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree with WCB for the most part. The year when we only took Christian Pace was problematic, but otherwise, I think we’ve recruited fine, numbers-wise. We recruited 6 offensive linemen in the 2013 class, who reasonably should have been able to contribute from 2015-2017. The problem is that Tuley-Tillman, Samuelson, Bosch, Dawson, and Fox all disappeared for their own individual reasons, and Kugler hasn’t played a ton. It’s four years later, and the guy who played the most from that class still might be Bosch…who only spent one year on campus.
You need to login in order to vote
Attrition is part of the game. Why is it necessary to plan for at RB but not OL?
You need to login in order to vote
You do plan for attrition. That’s why you recruiting several players on the offensive line each year. But you can’t really project that 5 guys are going to depart early and the 6th guy is going to not pan out. I mean, that’s a ridiculously low hit rate.
You need to login in order to vote
Is it really ridiculous? Looking at the big picture across classes Michigan is at about historical norms. That one class was (very very) bad, yes, but Michigan was 2/2 the following year and 3/4 the year before.
Historically our hit rate with OL recruits is about 50/50. So you can argue the combined 5/6 around 2013 was almost as unlikely as the combined 0/6.
Considering there was a coaching transition (which always leads to increase in attrition), I think you can argue Michigan has been somewhat fortunate.
You need to login in order to vote
More importantly, Michigan kind of knew what is had and didn’t have but didn’t react accordingly.
With a lack of proven players and deficient numbers, taking only 2 OL in 2014 was a travesty. The next year they took 3 which was probably even worse from a strategic perspective.
By then, they knew that Kalis and Braden were struggling and Bars wasn’t a starting caliber player. Bosch was let go and Fox was hurt. Ready-to-go Kugler wasn’t so ready. etc.
There were a few guys in the pipeline who could be counted on but attrition has to be accounted for.
This is happening over and over again, so it is systematic. Coaching stability should help but we’re in year 3 of Harbaugh and still looking at throwing true freshman into the starting lineup.
You need to login in order to vote
Yes, we’re LOOKING at throwing true freshmen into the starting lineup – just like Alabama was looking at throwing Jonah Williams in as a starter last year, and how they’re looking at throwing in freshman Alex Leatherwood this year. And before you say, “Well, it’s Alabama so they’re getting elite recruits who can play as freshmen,” Ben Bredeson was #39 overall in 2016 and Cesar Ruiz is the country’s #1 center. Even good teams are starting true freshmen, or they’re at least putting them on the two-deep with a lot of opportunities to play. This isn’t 1990. Freshman linemen play.
You need to login in order to vote
There is a difference in playing freshman out of necessity vs. merit.
Bredeson started after losing a competition to Newsome and then because JBB faltered. And Michigan had a bad OL.
The situation at Alabama is nothing like it.
You need to login in order to vote
I knew this would be your response. So Alabama STARTS with plans to play a freshman, and Michigan’s BACKUP option is to insert a freshman. But somehow Michigan doesn’t plan things out correctly.
I get it. Alabama’s OL is better. Nobody’s arguing that. But the fact that we’re talking about potentially starting a true freshman on the OL? That’s pretty common, among good teams and bad teams.
You need to login in order to vote
It’s both of course. But, more importantly, if you know you have development issues then quantity is one way to address it. Can’t just shrug the ol shoulders and say “We need to execute”, “the expectation is for the position”, etc.
You need to login in order to vote
If development was better we could take fewer numbers.
There’s two sides to attacking that problem. Given that they’ve hired Drevno and Frey they probably have done as much as they reasonably can to attack the first part. They need to hit the second too.
There was a user post on here a few months back that illustrated how many more OL Alabama took than Michigan. There’s a reason why their run game is successful and that’s part of the equation. Arguably the biggest.
You need to login in order to vote
not nearly the biggest part of the equation.
OL #s are great (and a vital component) but talented #s reign. bama may sign a ton of prospects but included in those hauls are numerous 4-5 star nationally sought after prospects each cycle. sure, theyve added numbers but many are all american prospects, junior college stars, etc.
#s are great but dudes like cam robinson often offset the significance, it certainly helps to sign the top players in the country at their position. michigan has signed talented prospects too (and i agree not enough of them) but bama signs more top end national talent.
theyve also had the best defense almost every single year, great coaching staff, smart & efficient QBs, etc.
and theyve also had nfl RBs every year, more often than not several pros at a time. sure, deveon smith mightve topped 1000 yards at bama but it helps to roll thru guys like trent richardson, derrick henry, etc.
so while i get what youre saying and agree #s are vital (not many preach roster balance & management more than me), bamas run game success and status as one of the nations premier running squads does not rely on sheer #s as biggest factor in equation
You need to login in order to vote
The fact that Bama, despite landing multiple blue-chip OL every year, goes with a numbers-heavy approach supports my point.
I do agree quality is relevant, but OL is a particularly hard-to-peg position. So, even if you land elite guys you have to still get numbers.
Numbers aren’t the only factor, but they are probably the biggest.
I think where blue-chippers tend to be most differentiated is in how quickly they can contribute.
You need to login in order to vote
As for the elite RB thing – I’ve seen Alabama RBs go to the NFL and look great and I’ve seen them go to the NFL and do nothing. None of them have been the standouts they appeared to be when running behind the Alabama OL.
There’s no way to disentangle OL and RB production and credit, except looking at how they do at when separated. The ‘Bama OL produces for whoever is back they rarely struggle when the backup comes in. Ingram, Richardson, Lacy, Yeldon – indistinguishable at Alabama, but different in the NFL.
So yeah, Michigan isn’t going to be Alabama just by having 20 + OL on the roster. But it is a way that they can be better than Kansas State or Purdue level OL play. That has been the reality over the last half decade.
And I know people want to put that on the RB, but Michigan’s had NFL RBs here and blue chip talents and they’ve all struggled to run the ball at Michigan.
I think it’s pretty obvious that if you put Thomas Rawls, Deveon Smith, Fitz Toussaint, Mike Cox, heck even Ty Isaac behind any Alabama OL of the last decade you’d have a 1,500 yard back at 5 to 6 ypc.
You need to login in order to vote
There were some of us who pushed for recruiting a TE in 2017, simply because it’s silly to leave one out completely in a class this big, and because shit happens. And now shit has happened, and people are twisting themselves into pretzels spinning it.
RB is a far more important position in college than in the NFL. You can be an excellent team in college running the ball as much or more than you pass it. If you find a team that does that in the NFL, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they suck, record-wise.
You need to login in order to vote
It’s not silly to skip a recruit when you have too many guys at a position. You’ll see a lot of that in the 2018 class.
Michigan is more than fine at TE. TE remains a position of strength and depth. There is no spin needed.
You don’t need an elite RB to have an elite rushing offense. OL, scheme, and QB are bigger factors.
You need to login in order to vote
Yes, it is silly to skip a recruit when you’re expending 30 scholarships, because your opportunity to replace guys that leave will be far more limited in upcoming classes.
And how are we “more than fine”, with “strength and depth” at TE? We have essentially no proven production at that position, let alone multiple guys with proven production that would give us “depth”. Last year, you could have said we were “more than fine”, but not remotely this year.
You need to login in order to vote
We took multiple TEs in the 2016 class and 2 of them red-shirted, making them essentially part of the ’17 class.
Wheatley and Bunting are proven players. McKeon has impressed everyone and was supposedly pushing for time last year. Hill and Poggi are proven players too. Michigan can easily put Bunting/Hill/Poggi on the field in 2-TE sets.
Last year, Michigan was overloaded at TE – where capable players like Bunting and Wheatley would barely play, Alabama-offered recruits are red-shirted, and high-potential talents are moved to WR.
Contrast Bunting or Wheatley’s profile (age, experience, hype, play) vs the fact that we put raw-ass freshman on the OL AS STARTERS every dang year.
When TE was actually light (after Rodriguez didn’t recruit the position at all) we had a brief period of problems that led to TE snaps for guys like Funchess and Williams. The equivalent of this is what happens EVERY YEAR on the OL.
Yes, development COULD fix it. It hasn’t since Rodriguez. Attrition continues to be an issue on OL and it always will be. They need more numbers.
Until they can prove they can underrecruit the position and be successful, they need numbers.
You need to login in order to vote
Unfortunate that he isn’t interested in Fullback. While I wish him luck on & off the field, I consider this good news for UM: he wasn’t getting on the field, and will no longer take up a scholly
You need to login in order to vote
I remember how adamant some were during his recruitment that he’d play running back. I guess he had his heart set on that, but it just wasn’t going to happen given the relative depth there. I agree with je93 – He wasn’t getting on the field, but was taking up a scholarship. Seems like a win-win, as Davis may be able to get on the field as an RB somewhere else.
You need to login in order to vote
What is happening at OL number-wise is the program sticking it’s head in the sand. We can hope attrition doesn’t happen and insist that development will solve it. Both assumption fly in the face of the reality, logic, and the experience of the last decade.
You’re seeing the costs of numbers on development right now. Instead of guys getting their footwork and timing down we’re shuffling seniors around all over the line and crossing our fingers that true freshman can come through. We all want development – Inconsistency hinders it.
The inconsistency is the direct result of too small numbers in the ’14-’16 classes just as much as the evaporation of the ’13 class.
Michigan needs to stop pretending like the best case scenario is right around the corner for the OL and start recruiting for the worst case scenario instead.
The approach they currently take at RB is a readily available model. At that position, attrition is addressed by asking: what if we lose our top 2 guys and freshman aren’t ready? At that position, high level starting talent is insisted upon, with multiple options for an all-conference caliber starter.
They can ask the same questions and insist on the same quality at OL. The economies of scale that apply to 5 starters at the position group are meaningful, but they are getting way overvalued, as is accounting for the development time required for Michigan’s power scheme.
You need to login in order to vote
You’re really reaching now to try to change my argument. I did not say “freshman should never plan on the OL”, I said you can’t rely on them to.
“Alabama STARTS with plans to play a freshman”
No, Alabama is well prepared to not HAVE to play freshman. If a blue-chipper starts as a freshman it’s because they earned it, beating out a solid veteran or 5.
Alabama gives itself a choice. Michigan does not:
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/02/michigan_ol_coach_darrell_funk.html
“somehow Michigan doesn’t plan things out correctly.”
Correct. Despite having a higher caliber of recruit, Alabama recruits more numbers at OL. Their strategy leads to their success. Alabama has proven they have a strong OL time and time again. Most of their blue chip recruits don’t start as freshman.
Michigan should try to emulate rather than scraping by and counting on superior coaching/development. Given that they probably can’t recruit the same level of talent (at least for now), that’s an argument that they should get even MORE numbers than Alabama. Instead, they take less.
We have started (or played) freshman OL every year and none of them have been great or really even good unless you add the qualifier “for a freshman”. Bosch, Cole, Newsome, Bredeson all struggled as freshman. Michigan played them because they had to. The best OL that have come out of Michigan in recent history (Lewan, Schofield, Molk, Omameh, Glasgow, Magnuson) — none of them were ready to start as freshman and needed to red-shirt — and that’s completely normal. Some guys will break that mold, but it’s not something you want to be counting on. Numbers are the way to get there.
You need to login in order to vote
Michigan has taken 12 offensive linemen out of 73 total prospects (16.4%) in 2015-2017. Alabama has taken 14 out of 78 (17.9%). That’s 1.5% of a difference, which is not particularly significant. Furthermore, Cyrus Kouandjio left early for the NFL – which Michigan has not had happen in recent years – so that opened up one of those scholarships for an offensive lineman. If not for that, Alabama might have taken just 13 out of 77 linemen, which would be 16.9%. The difference is rather negligible.
The difference between Michigan and Alabama is more than 1 or 2 additional linemen over the span of three recruiting classes. You keep pointing to numbers, but that’s not necessarily the determining factor.
You need to login in order to vote