Maize and Blue…

January 9th, 2015 at 4:16 PM ^

The coaches sell it as an N.F.L. prepatory toughening up.

For instance; Tom Brady, a soft kid from California, would never have been able to take advantage of his one chance to seize the starters job in New England if he could not, and was not used to playing in the snow, and cold. By coming to the cold of Michigan, it gave him the edge to step in, and being prepared for the cold, grow into his full potential as a great Q.B. If he had gone to a warm weather school, he would have struggled with the cold, not being prepared for it, as well as all the other challenges he faced in becoming successful at that level, and might have possibly failed his one chance, and may be something quite a bit less than what he is now.

There is no telling where you will be drafted in the NFL. What if you are drafted by: New England, Buffalo, N.Y.J., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cinncinnati, Washington, Chicago, Minnesota, Green Bay, Kansas City, Denver, or N.Y.G.

That is about half the league, and even if you are drafted by a warm weather team, you will still have to be able to play in the cold during the playoffs, so being accustomed to, and being able to excell in the cold is an advantage, not a detriment to any and all future NFL aspirations that you may have.

That is how you sell it - take a perceived negative and make it into a positive.

M-Dog

January 9th, 2015 at 10:17 PM ^

Tom Brady is known as a cold-weather ace, but people forget that he is from California.  His Michigan experience really did toughen him up and make him fearless of the cold.  

The Superbowl may be in warm weather cities, but the playoffs certainly aren't.  Boston at night in January is just a typical venue. 

 

Avon Barksdale

January 9th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

Lewis, Peppers, Countess, Marshall, Richardson, Stribling doesn't sound half bad at all. Hopefully Jarrod Wilson and (maybe) Dymonte can finally "get it" this year and turn up their game to a different level.

MChem83

January 9th, 2015 at 7:29 PM ^

being a stud from Day 1. Thomas has bust written all over him. As does Delano Hill and every other safety recruit we've had in recent memory. Our coaching at that position as been abysmal.

Avon Barksdale

January 9th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^

I know we have this conversation a lot on the board, but redshirts are truly a waste of time if you want to be an elite program with elite players. Michigan, like Ohio State, should not have to worry about "burning redshirts." Urban has done quite well with the "We don't redshirt players" mantra, and I'm a firm believer that "blue blood programs" shouldn't have to.

Redshirts are great for the Sparties, Minnesotas and Wisconsins of the world who have to develop three star guys. Michigan recruits elite talent that should be ready to go from day one ala Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, and USC. No excuse for Dymonte. He was a track star in a safeties body and didn't need a redshirt physically to be a backup safety.

The University of Tennessee just went 7-6 with 24 freshmen playing and basically everyone in their two deep as an underclassmen, and I can assure you they looked like a good football team down the stretch. That's what happens when you bring in a new coach (Butch Jones) that recruits elite talent. You play them, develop them, and let them learn.

Fortunately for us, we are in a different situation than UT. We have most all of our elite recruiting class starters back from a year ago unlike the Dooley/Jones Tennessee transition. We have starters that were all highly coveted out of high school, and our elite recruits under Harbaugh should be ready to go in the two deep to challenge them from day one. That's how you win championships  - like Alabama and Ohio State.

CorkyCole

January 9th, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^

Do you seriously think Alabama doesn't redshirt any of their players? A team like Alabama who not only recruits well but also develops well should have very few freshmen play in a given year because their depth chart is stacked with talented guys who have been developed. You are wasting years of players' eligibility (and player development) by burning through redshirts just because "it's not what elite programs do."

So much wrong with this one.

UMaD

January 9th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^

Ignoring attrition, No redshirts = 20% more players than 100% red-shirts. 20% more players means 20% more chance of landing Heisman winners and all-americans.

But you are going way too far. The reality is that some guys are going to be bench players and there is no sense 'spending' a scholarship on guys who don't play, if it affords you the luxury of adding a more experienced player.

And for QBs, OL, LBs and Safeties, these extra seasons can be particularly beneficial.

So, instead of one extreme or the other, we could be an intelligent program that weighs the pros and cons.

I do think the extreme "no red-shirts" stance actually makes a lot of sense to communicate. It's a huge recruiting advantage and it imparts a sense of urgency. 

Fans (and coaches) should stop thinking of them as "burned red-shirts" and start thinking of red-shirts as a Plan B option for kids who have no chance to see the field do to health, inexperience, lack of strength, etc.

 

Space Coyote

January 9th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^

Really wanted a true NB, something that they thought Thomas could learn in his FR year. He played a ton of special teams. On top of that, less playing time would not have made him a better safety option right now.

This is one of those "wasted redshirt" claims that doesn't really add up in the real world. Michigan really needed special teams players (they had terrible depth); they really needed a NB and from an athletic standpoint, Thomas fit that bill; and Thomas needed experience because they needed safety depth rather badly as well.