How does Recruiting Change with Pipkins on board?
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.
I think the staff is in a position now to be much more selective, since essentially all needs but WR have been met. The next four should be the best available players, IMO. Personally, I think we'll see OL, DT, WR, RB.
We just turned away a visit this past weekend from another top DT because of Pipkins' commitment, didn't we? I'm guessing the plan is to move one or more of the DEs we have recruited to NT.
Not necessarily true. Michigan turned away a 1-tech, there may still be room for a 3-tech.
Any chance you would explain the diiference?
As far as I know a 1-tech is a two gap player and a 3-tech is a one gap players. The 1-tech NT is in charge of eating two gaps both the center and the guard. The 1-tech has to be a player who can handle double teams.
I would add that even more than just handling double teams, the NT needs to be someone who draws them on an every-play type basis. The NT should be soaking up two blockers to protect the LBs who can flow to the ball, esp. the Mike, while holding the point of attack and not getting moved out.
Pipkens looks to be qualified as an immovable object with the feet to make single-teaming not an option.
quick explanations and even has a diagram:
http://ourhelmetshavewings.com/2011/02/02/converting-back-to-the-4-3/
We turned away Schutt because he only had Michigan interest because Day took his spot before he had a chance to commit to ND. Hoke rejected his visit because he only wanted kids who truely wanted to be at Michigan, and not kids that had Michigan as a backup plan.
Was this reported anywhere or are you just assuming that this was the reasoning for the coaching staff? I agree that it is a solid reason to not accept a committment based on the reason you gave, I'm just wondering if there was a source for the information or if this is your best guess as to why Schutt's committment was not accepted.
it was probably the other way around. He was OUR backup plan to Pipkins.
I think Washington and Campbell are going to both be good players the next few years, but after those two you have a lot of guys who weren't or aren't quite at their ideal size/weight (Wilkins, Wormley, Godin, even Ash to some extent since he put on so much weight recently) to play inside. With the risk of injury and the fact that some guys just aren't going to pan out, I think the staff at this point would view another DT as a need (though this may change after getting a better glimpse of the current roster over the next few weeks/months).
I can say this with confidence.
a diary with charts for that. Otherwise it's just - like - your opinion, man
Agreed. The only "need" is one more WR. After that, we want another OL as long as it's Diamond, Garnett, Banner, or Bisnowaty.
The other 2-3 spots can either go to another CB, another WR, another DT, or Dunn.
But with that list the OP posted, it's obvious that whoever we end up with will be great. There aren't any "reaches" on that board, which is a very good thing to have. Close the class out in style.
I'm pretty sure Thompson, Stanford, and Washington are no longer considering us. Or we're not considering them.
But wasn't sure as regards Stanford and Washington. It makes a lot of sense to take the best possible recruits available. However, if there are two more or less equal WR's ready to come to Michigan, and one of them is Stanford, taking him actually gives you someone close to home, and hurts Ohio.
Here's the post on Stanford's top 5...we're not included
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/dwayne-stanford-top-5
Pretty sure Stanford came out with a top (7? 5? 3?) without Michigan in it. A poster then said that someone at Scout or Rivals disagreed with the list, and that UM was still in it. I don't think we ever got clarification on that.. Otherwise I just missed it.
EDIT: never mind, typed too slow..
I don't think it is the most significant news of the past few days in terms of a shift in focus on the rest of the class. I think Stonum back next year shifts it a bit to not pressing for 2 wr's. I think they still take O'Brien if he wants to join, based solely on Pipkins saying something along the lines of, "i'll have a chance to play early, as I am/they are only taking one NT...". All NT's are DT's, but not all DT's are NT's. Just saying.
Edited to add: should Dunn not jump on board, and two 4 star/elite WR's do, then by all means I think they take 2. My guess, based solely on my time theft during the day while on this site:
Diamond
O'brien
Dunn
WR
Go Blue!
Going on off what you talked about above, I would think (really just my personal opinion/hope) that the rest of the class will end with:
1 WR for sure
O'brien
Dunn/CB/WR
Diamond/CB/WR
The coaching staff seems to really want another elite CB in this class but I think the only way that happens if Dunn or another OL (probably Diamond) doesn't commit.
Agreed, I completely forgot the recent noise about Wright or Reeves.
Any of the scenarios being suggested (Diamond, O'Brien, Dunn and one more) would make for an AMAZING finish to the class. That would be crazy good.
I really think the meme that Stonum's *possible* return next year somehow changes WR recruiting should die. These coaches know that Stonum making it through this year without any transgressions is not something they can bank on. They are smart, and they will recruit WRs as if Stonum were not coming back.
Any smart manager would not take that risk. If they swing and miss on some WRs, and Stonum does indeed make it back, then that is a nice unintended outcome. But they cannot, in under any notion of good management, depend on that.
I agree, but for a different reason. If Stonum comes back and plays his fifth year season, he'll still be gone after 2012 no matter what. The coaches aren't recruiting receivers in this class for 2012, but for 2013, 2014, and 2015. We didn't recruit a WR in 2011, and only one of the guys from the 2010 class redshirted (and stayed on the team). Our concern here isn't next fall, it's the few falls after that, and Stonum redshirting has no effect on those years.
Thus, 2012 WR recruiting strategy remains unchanged.
My reasoning is based on logical speculation, yours on facts. I like yours better.
August 8th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
in 2013 all we have is Dileo, Gallon, Jackson and Robinson. IMO we should take two WR and the next best two. Unless Hoke and co think they can get two of the top WR in the 2013 class, Which is quite possible if Morris ends up close to the top QB in his class.
August 9th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
We don't need two. In 2013, we'll have two more classes of guys in there. Meaning we'll have Dileo, Jackson, Robinson, a 2012 guy, and two 2013 guys. Taking two guys in this class wouldn't be a bad thing, but it's not necessary. WR is a spot guys can contribute early, and it sounds like whatever guys we get this year and next will be highly rated types, both because of Morris and the depth chart.
Don't be surprised if a guy like Justice Hayes ends up as a WR as well. With Hoke looking at more power running types and Hayes having good speed and hands, that's a switch I would support.
EDIT: Also don't forget about Baquer Sayed and Bo Dever. I know these guys are walk-ons, but they're not scrubs and they'll each have a couple years in the program by then. We don't need either of them to start, but don't be surprised if one of them steps up and becomes a guy who gets half a dozen snaps a game, maybe a few catches over the season.
August 8th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
I think part of the speculation that Stonum's potential 5th year will change recruiting is based on numbers. We were counting on his scholarship opening up to get us up to the 26 we are looking for. Assuming Talbott's career is over (which I have not heard definitively - does anyone know?) then we are currently at 22 for next year. If Stonum comes back, that puts us down to 21 available for next year, meaning we still need 5 more to open up to get to the magical 26 number that we are all planning on right now.
(i.e. Sam Webb), you can probably take Diggs off the list.
I thought we just back in with Diggs ???
Have you heard something?
Might be a grade thing. Michigan isn't not interested... they're just not that interested. Know what I'm saying?
I hope it can all work out.
I really don't feel like we need another DT, I'm thinking either Wormley or Strobel (probably Wormley) will grow into a 3-tech. However, O'Brien's tape is great and I would love to have him on board. I'd like the last 4 spots to go to Dunn, Garnett (doesn't look like diamond is coming anymore), Wright, and Madaris.
I hadn't heard that Diamond is no longer interested in Michigan. Do you have a source, or is this just a gut feeling? Must say, I NEVER would have thought a year ago that it wouldn't matter that much if Diamond didn't come to Michigan. (of course, he would still be welcomed, but he has to do what is best for him.) How things change, and for the positive.
Apparently you two haven't seen his tweet following his visit to campus this past weekend... definitely sounds like he's still interested.
Michigan, with his mom, checking in on Chris Bryant.
I think UM leads, but they might have to wait awhile.
Assuming that the staff is comfortable with taking 5 OL if necessary, my best guess would be...
1.Madaris or Payton
2.Reeves or Wright
3.O'Brien or Shittu
4.Dunn
Now, if we can't get Dunn to flip, I gotta believe that the extra spot goes to an OL be it Diamond or the PA dude whose name I won't even bother trying to spell without looking at it.
And we have a slew of top tier guys to recruit hard, in hopes that one of them picks Michigan, which I think will happen.
After that, it becomes the three best prospects that commit.
Much more likely that we're in a Dunn/Juwan Lewis scenario. This might annoy people because he doesn't have oMg 4STARZ! but the prevailing logic is that we will take a tailback in this class. Because his offer list is so blah, the coaches know that they can spring an offer on him at the last minute and snag him if Dunn doesn't jump aboard.
The people who have seen him play say that he has all the tools to be a good back, just that he isn't particularly flashy.
I don't think he ends up in this class, barring no major issues with our current young RBs. If we get Dunn, Lewis it completely out of the picture, and even if we don't, I think we would take another WR or O'Brien or elite CB du jour before Lewis.
At this point, RB isn't that big of a need, and we are in on a lot of other elite players at positions of bigger need.
That said, I like Juwan Lewis, and would be happy taking him. I think he's wildly underrated and would be perfect in our power offense. But I think it would take Reeves, Wright, Dunn, O'Brien and a few WRs to pass on us before we take him.
I really hope that Danny O gets into this class. Pipkins and Danny on the interior would be freakish.