How does Recruiting Change with Pipkins on board?

Submitted by StephenRKass on

I am curious how recruiting will shift now that there are 22 recruits on board, and most critical needs have been filled.

There are many "offers" still out there. Some of them I have heard nothing about from Tom VH or Tim's recruiting update. Still on the board I see the following, all of whom have visited, or expressed interested, or we have had interest in.

EDIT:  Per comments below, I have removed Diggs & Thompson, added Powe & Bisnowaty, and questioned whether Stanford & Washington should remain.

  • RB - Dunn
  • RB - Garmon
  • WR - Diggs
  • WR - Stanford - ??
  • WR - Darboh
  • WR - Chesson
  • WR - Madaris
  • WR - Payton
  • Add:  WR - Powe
  • TE - Ron Thompson
  • OL - Diamond
  • OL - Banner
  • OL - Peat
  • OL - Garnett
  • Add:  OL - Bisnowaty
  • DE - Washington - ??
  • DT - O'Brien
  • DT - Shittu
  • CB - Reeves
  • CB - Wright

I'd be interested if any of you know who of these are not interested in Michigan anymore; who of these we have no need for, who of these we're not interested in anymore.

Tom has said we are interested in another CB, per Reeves & Wright. The party line has always been that we wanted six on the OL. And we have heard we need a WR.

That would leave one opening total for a RB or DE or DT. Something's gotta give.

Don

August 8th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^

Seeing as how our current first-string punter doesn't seem to have much interest in actually punting in games, this isn't as crazy an idea as it might sound to some people.

IncognitoWolverino

August 8th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^

I think the combo of Hagerup (eventually getting his act together) and Wile (filling in for punting duties if needed) makes it unneccessary to use a scholarship on a punter this year. That is assuming Hagerup gets his act together and Wile can adequately handle punting duties, both of which are not stretches to assume.

Section 1

August 9th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^

I just wish it wasn't that funny.

btw, I am not so sure that the backup/first-four-games role goes to Wile automatically.  I think Seth Brookhuizen might have something to say about it.  Punting is still a skill position, even though there aren't many "reads," and it means something to have a guy who is an upperclassman and who has been on the field before, versus a true freshman.

white_pony_rocks

August 8th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^

regardless of how highly ranked they are I hope we don't get another CB.  We had a large haul last year, 2 good guys this year.  I really hope that we take 2 WR.  There are only going to be 2 CB on the field at any time but there will be times when we have 3 WR, and to only take 1 in 2 classes while taking 6 CB in those 2 classes just doesnt seem safe.

True Blue Grit

August 8th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

There's a little flexibility with the last 4 spots, but not a lot.  A WR is a must.  I'd say if they take another corner, a DT is probably out.  With the OL, with 5 commits plus 2 preferred walk-ons, do we actually need another one?  I guess if one of Garnett, Banner, Peat, or Diamond says yes, we'd probably take him.  But, however this plays out, I'd REALLY want to see us hold a spot for Dunn if he wants to come here.  He's too good to turn down and we could really use a good, big back. 

thisisme08

August 8th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^

DT at this point is a luxury unless we get word that Ash goes the same way as DT Terry Talbot as I believe Wormley will end up inside, while yes this does short change us on DT you cannot address every depth issue at once and its a hell of a lot easier to get burned for a TD in your secondary than it is to run past 7 players in the box (insert 2010 defense joke).   

I think you will end up seeing Dunn, Diamond and either Wright/Reeves playing for the good guys, that 4th spot is an utter toss up. 

UMaD

August 8th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^

Counting '12 verbal commits (Wormley and Pipkins), there would be 6 DTs on the '12 roster.  This for 2 spots that rotate reglarly.  None of them are remotely proven at the college level.

For RB, the same number is the same (6) - but it's one position, and decent options like Hopkins and Smith remain.

For WR, there are 8 guys for 2 positions (assuming a pro-style offense), plus backs and TE that can be used as receivers in multi-receiver sets.

What I'm saying is that going after RB or WR is a far bigger luxury than adding another DT.

I'd argue OL is the biggest remaining need, since only about 50% of recruits pan out, and the need for early contributions is acute.

Mr. Yost

August 8th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^

WR is the only guaranteed spot..I think everything else is more "first come, first serve." CB may be one, but I have a hard time thinking that if Reeves and Wright say no, we keep looking. However if Payton and Madaris say no, we've still got 3-4 more other guys we're looking at.

neoavatara

August 8th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^

With 4 spots remaining (assuming 26), I still think we take a WR and DT (likely O'Brien assuming he wants to come).  After that, it is a crap shoot.  Elite CB looks like the next spot, and I wonder if the last spot will be held for a RB.

MichiganExile

August 8th, 2011 at 5:36 PM ^

I'm pretty sure the staff has said multiple times they are taking 6 OL in this class. The most likely candidate is Diamond so lets pencil him in. That leaves three spots. With recent scuttlebutt about the staff wanting an elite corner I think we have to assume either Wright or Reeves will be a top target. That leaves two spots. The roster needs a WR and the staff seems to be trying pretty hard to get at least one. My best guess is either Darboh, Madaris, or Payton. That leaves one spot. That final spot is probably the only real flexible position left in this class. If I had to guess the last spot will be left to either Dunn (if he decommits from OSU), O'Brien, Shittu, or a second wide receiver. The real question is whether the staff will hold the final position for the best talent or the fastest on the draw. My best guess for the rest of the class OL-Diamond CB-Wright WR-Darboh DL-O'Brien

ross03

August 8th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^

I wonder how much of a hurry they will be in to fill those last few slots.  If several of those top guys are asking for time they might be able to give it to them and that could impact who they really target.

For instance if a few receivers step up do they only go after 1 receiver?

If 1-2 young backs emerge and look great all year does that change the calculus with Dunn?

 

By slowing down some for the last few slots it may help them better target those slots.  If we start hot and really build momentum they may even expand their list, or consider any fast risers that tear up their senior seasons.

WolvinLA2

August 8th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^

I think at this point the pace will be dictated a lot more by the recruits, partly because there is a much smaller pool that we're going after, and partly because I think the coaches will want things to slow down, but probably won't turn away a commitment. 

At the beginning the process, I think the coaches were encouraging guys to commit early, mostly because they needed to fill 26 or so spots.  Now, the coaches would probably prefer things to slow down, that way they can see how their young players look over the season, and see who, if anyone, transfers, gets injured, or is off the team for any reason.  If Richard Ash has a career ending injury and Raymon Taylor becomes a fantastic CB, the coaches might opt for signing O'Brien over Yuri Wright, for example. 

JLaBell2

August 8th, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^

Much about Aziz Shittu?  Does the commitment from Pipkins take him off the board as well?  Or did he already declare he wasn't interested?

Umichmadness

August 9th, 2011 at 1:29 AM ^

hopefully we can snag o'brien too...thats priority #1 I think. After that, I think we don''t need the other DT prospects even if their elite, we should try to get one reciever in this class even with stonum's redshirt and maybe an elite RB