rockydude

June 19th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

There are too many great DEs in Ohio this year for us to take them all. He was nothing more than an insurance policy for us at this point, in the event that we miss on the guys that we have ahead of him on the wish list. I think we have all seen what can happen when you go chasing, and take a guy that doesn't have his act together. 

Best of luck to him getting his academics together so that he can play at MSU, and not be one of those sad footnotes. As for us, it would seem clear that we are looking to Wormley and Washington, which would make sense, given that it is SDEs that we could use, and WDEs that we have already gotten plenty of. I can't say I feel too bad for us at this point.

I think there are some posters here that are seeing this as some kind of contest between us and MSU, and are really upset, some of them communicating this in childish ways. We don't win by taking players that we don't need, just because that feels more like a head to head win. We win by taking players that fit our needs, and I am not sure that Pittman was one of those, given the realities of signing limits. He wasn't at a position of dire need (based on our other signings), and he comes with too many question marks. We will sign the SDEs we like and go our merry way.

Lutha

June 19th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

I'm surprised given his offer list.  Maybe he wanted to stay close to home and didn't like that we were slow-playing him.  Would've loved to have him in the class.

AAB

June 19th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

including Tom, was that Michigan started slowing things down with Pittman in the last few weeks.  No way of knowing whether he would have ended up here absent that, but this is a great pickup for MSU.  Hats off to Dantonio on this one.   

This is also further evidence that OSU is in serious trouble here.  Strobel, Dodson, now Pittman.  It's not just that top in-state kids are going elsewhere.  It's that they're not even waiting to see what happens with OSU first.  

vaneasy2338

June 19th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

that's a good get for them. Even though we slowed down on him, it still stings a bit. But then again we do have four solid de commitments (although my gut tells me Godin will play DT). 

B Edwards 17

June 19th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

Wish he would have gone to the SEC instead.

Also first win for Dantonio over Hoke, whether we denied his commitment or not. Would have loved to have him in this class.

ryebreadboy

June 19th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^

There was talk that Washington and Pittman absolutely don't want to play together, also.  That could be a large part of why Michigan didn't want to accept his commitment, because they want (or think they have) a good chance to get Washington.

goblueritzy92

June 19th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

how they can only get commits from us after they wanted to commit to us but were told there was no spot for them. Which technically isn't getting him from us.

Broken Brilliance

June 19th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^

I can totally picture dantonio playing off the angle of us slow-playing him. I wish pittman the best but it never quite sits right with me to see one of our offerees sign up to play for the grinch.

NJblue2

June 19th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^

This is kind of disappointing, I wish we got him, or he went to the SEC. Now State fans will brag because he had a Michigan offer.

turtleboy

June 19th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

for this class, though 2013 we'll load those positions. We already have 2 TEs this year and will only take 1 WR (or maybe a 3rd TE instead.) Oline is our remaining biggest need. Even if Hoke takes 6 OTs in 2012 by 2013 we'll only have 13 on scholarship, and many of this years OTs will redshirt so 2011-2012 depth could get sketchy if there are injuries. Right now we've got 8 receivers, 5 TEs, and 8 RBs who'd love to catch a ball for a little playing time. People are expecting us to lose some of those guys because now we have too many.

turtleboy

June 19th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

Hoke's offered nearly 175 kids now. If we get all the recruits we want and our class fills up and then sparty gets a few of the 150 or so remaining who we had previously offered we wouldn't lose them to sparty, they just picked up the kids Hoke passed on. If we backed off of Pittman and then he went somewhere else I wouldn't say he was stolen away. You can still say 8-0. Now if Diamond or Pipkins or Wilson or Wormley went all sparty on us that would be a loss.

UMaD

June 19th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^

I believe you're going off rumors and innuendo, mostly from biased sources.

If it wasn't a direct loss, it was probably a strategic error, given that Pittman is almost universally considered to be a better prospect than Ojemudia, Brown, and probably any other DL commitment that Michigan has.

Mlegacy

June 19th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

I'd much rather slow play and lose a recruit than sign him and not have a spot for him when he gets on campus. I hope this doesn't come back to bite us, but I can't blame a kid for having his own best interest in mind.

animals77

June 19th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

I did not see this as a big shocker.  His final schools were Auburn, Alabama, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Notre Dame.  He did not want to go far, so the two schools from Alabama were out.  The problems occuring at OSU altered his interest in them, and he mentioned that in saying he was to mature to have interest in OSU.  The talent level ND picked up last year at the DE position probably did not help them out much for Pittman.  So, that left U-M and MSU.  With the latest rumors that Michigan may have pushed him away for the time being, the only school left in his interest was MSU.  I would like to see U-M, OSU, ND and MSU up there in grabbing talents.  That would make U-M's wins against these teams more exciting knowing they beat the best that their rivals have to throw at them.