Mavric

Yeah, it's always a bit of speculation. But Stoltenberg played some last year and they were close to burning one of the Davis' redhsirts. So the coaches already thought they could contribute last year. I'm hoping that means they're not that far off. I do try to keep that updated. But apparently I need to get my 2017 tab added now.

Have a great one!

I don't think we need a JUCO DT. I'd bet we get 2 for sure and hopefully 3. The Davis twins will carry us for the next four years. Need a couple this year for depth behind them then a couple more next year to start re-stocking.

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

LJS Spring Practice Questions

WR Jamire Calvin says he'll be here.

Visiting for the Spring Game

I'm not sure our secondary improved much as the year went on, as much as we simply started playing teams that were incapable of taking advantage. Iowa was never going to light us up through the air. I would argue that UCLA had plenty of success throwing the ball, our offense simply did a good job of keeping Rosen & Co. off the field. I do agree that the pass defense should improve, there's simply nowhere to go but up. I'm uncertain if the improvement will be enough, however, to really think they've turned some kind of corner. Hopefully I'm wrong. Nat'l Final ranking Avg YPA Diff from Average MSU 24-39-1 348 6th 234 +114 Rutgers 14-28-2 170 NR 203 -33 Iowa 9-16-0 97 9th 203 -106 UCLA 26-41-2 319 NR 289 +20 Total 73-124-5 934 Yards Compared to: BYU 28-46-1 379 NR 287 +92 USA 26-45-1 313 NR 199 +114 Miami 25-42-1 379 NR 284 +95 USM 26-42-0 447 NR 334 +113 Total 105-175-3 1,518 Yards Not sure how you can say we didn't improve. I mean ... technically we did "improve." We were the worst passing defense in the country through the first half of the season and we finished #122 so we were up six spots. But I do think most of that had to do with who (and when) we were playing. We were allowing teams about 100 yards over their average in those first four games. We still let MSU get over 100 yards better than their average, it's just that their average wasn't as high. We held UCLA to closer to their average but they still got above it despite only having the ball for about 21 minutes of game time. But the Rutgers and Iowa games don't tell me a lot. Rutgers was a train wreck who's best receiver - who was about half their offense - could barely run. And the Iowa game was a bitterly cold and windy day. I I'll concede that we may have "improved." But since we literally couldn't get worse, I don't take a lot of solace in that.

Yeah, I think the OP was a bit exaggerated.

My mistake on the town. I heard he was a lot bigger weight wise and the redshirt helped him out. Sure looked good in the game I watched but a ton of things can change from your senior year to two years in college The bolded part says most of it. Fact is, from time to time a kid from out here is going to be overlooked. Especially when he may have been a little undersized coming out of HS. Sounds like a kid whose body didn't fully mature till into his Freshman year in college. I can relate to that. So you are saying he was undersized coming out of high school but fully matured by his Freshman year? How is that even possible, isn't that typically in the same calendar year? I supposed he could have waited a year before enrolling. He is a redshirt freshman so he's been in college for over a year and a half. Daum is 6-9, 230 lbs. Michael Jacobsen is 6-8, 222 lbs as a true freshman. Daum is more of a wing than Jacobsen. Jacobsen was listed as a power forward out of high school but the coaches see him as more of a small forward as he develops an outside shot. Daum is definitely a small forward. So even if he did come here, he wouldn't be solving our issues of having a "big man." He would simply be adding more depth at our deepest position - playing a similar position as Shields, White, McVeigh, Fuller and Jacobsen.

Is there some hidden reason why you are asking this question?

Here's the timeline I found from last years thread: Feb 18 - 40,000 Mar 4 - 44,000 Mar 17 - 51,500 Apr 7 - 62,500 Apr 8 - 65,000 Here's this year: Feb 3 - 24,000 Feb 17 - 32,000 Mar 28 - 48,000

Is there a way to shut down the poll when a kid commits? Just wondering because shutting down the poll could be a way to prevent this. I think the only way is to lock the thread, which we don't want to do. It's only a problem from the time someone commits until I get to the thread. The last couple it's been obvious that a couple people are voting after the announcement. They didn't receive points for their vote but it needs to stop. I don't want to have to ban anyone from an internet contest with no prizes.

Done

https://twitter.com/hunterrison/status/707735513873195008

https://twitter.com/hunterrison/status/714773513987616768

Player: Hunter Rison Hometown: Ann Arbor, Michigan School: Skyline Position: Wide Receiver Height: 6-0 Weight: 185 40 time: Offers: Akron, Alabama, Arizona State, Arkansas, California, Central Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Louisville, Miami, Michigan State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Texas A&M, UCLA Visits: Twitter 247 Composite: #291 Overall; #40 WR; .8954; Rivals: #219 Overall; #35 WR; 247: #463 Overall; #67 WR; Scout: #254 Overall; #37 WR; ESPN: Hudl

You are allowed to vote or change your vote up to the when the commitment is announced. If he decommits, you can change your vote if you like.

Just a note: You are not allowed to vote after a commitment has been made. That would seem to be obvious and it mostly on the honor system but COME ON, MAN! I've had some suspicions for a bit and there's been a report or two but I ran across a spot where I found a couple after-the-fact votes. Consider this a general warning. You may or may not get a PM warning if found doing it again before being banned from the contest.