LA's DT Brousard - Recent UM Offer?
http://michigan.scout.com/a.z?s=162&p=8&c=1&nid=4092876
According to Scout.... Brousard, a 3-star DT from Loiusiana (and an April 2009 commit to Tennessee) is "looking around." More interesting, Scout shows that UM has offered him. I have not seen/heard about him before today (today is the first time I've noticed him on UM's Scout page as offered).
Is he a recent offer? At 6'2" and 278, he could be the NT this class is looking for (to go with Ash, Talbott, possibly Black as 3-techs).
Any info?
January 21st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
That page lists Tennessee as a school of interest but that they haven't offered.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
Rivals has him listed as having offers from both Tennessee and Oklahoma.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
This would be a very solid pick-up. Better than Knight or Parker? I don't know. But it's nice to have options.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
Rich Rods airplane was in Louisiana a couple days ago and we were trying to figure out why.
It sounds like that question has been answered.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
.....you also include "having in-home visits with commits Carvin Johnson and Drew Dileo" as part of your answer.....
January 21st, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
but how do people know where Rich Rods plane is and when?
January 21st, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
Tail Number: N64DC
Flight Aware: http://flightaware.com
January 21st, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
Looks like a solid player, and has some impressive offers. I'm not sure I like the idea of losing out on Parker or Knight if RR abides by his 26 commits comment. However, it is my understanding that the D line is the most important aspect of any defense, so lets hope he goes Blue!
January 21st, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
There's no question the D-line is important, but last year we had a competent-to-good D-line along with less than stellar linebackers and defensive backs. As we all know, that didn't work out so well.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
I know what you mean, I don't want to not get Parker or Knight, but we are losing BG who basically was our line. If it helps our D out I'll be happy.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 AM ^
FWIW, when Rodriguez said that they would probably take 26, he said "We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy." To me, that meant that they COULD go over 26 if they wanted, but that there are some players who had been offered whose commitments would no longer be accepted.
In other words, if both Parker and Dorsey wanted to come, they could probably still fit. But if Cassius McDowell or Adrian Coxson wanted to come (names picked at random), they'd probably be told "Thanks, but no thanks."
January 21st, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
"Broussard, who is considered by many to be the top defensive tackle in the state, transferred from Washington-Marion to LaGrange in October of his junior season, and had to sit out due to transfer rules.
(So.) Played in only four games due to a broken foot, but still logged 33 tackles and registered five sacks in his limited action. "
-Looks like he is another "potential" standout that has yet to prove himself due to injury and transfer rules.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
I think if he wants to come, along with Parker and / or Knight they will find room.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
Saw this via ESPN Insider on Broussard:
Expected to attend prep school or junior college to improve academics...
Don't know if that's recent, but it doesn't sound like a good sign considering our academic standards and all...
January 21st, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Purely speculation here , but maybe that is why they are offering him even though we have little space left this year. They realize he might have to go to prep school or juco and are speaking with him in hopes of getting him to enroll early next year once he gets his academics in line and where they need to be. Just a thought.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
it would be nice to develop a good presence in the Louisiana.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^
It seems like we've sort of taken this "we're taking 26" statement as gospel. I'm not sure on the exact quote, but I thought Coach Rodriguez said something to the effect of, "We plan on bringing in 26 guys," as opposed to, "We can only take 26," or "No way in hell are we taking 27." Since we have so many offers still outstanding, few if any candidates for non-qualification, and so many of our lesser-rated prospects signing up late in the process (it seems weird to peace-out a recruit a few weeks/months after you offered him), I would not be at all surprised if at the end of the day we enroll more than 26. Unless the coaching staff knows something we don't about qualification or a potential de-commitment, their actions suggest they are planning (or at least hoping) to enroll more than 26 guys.