TomVH: An Interview with Armani Reeves

Submitted by TomVH on August 2nd, 2011 at 6:43 PM

At one point in his recruitment Massachusetts DB Armani Reeves and Michigan had parted ways. He then named Notre Dame and Penn State as his top two schools and figured to decide between the two. Today might have changed his plans however as he talked to a few of the Michigan coaches about their future plans and his recruitment. Here's a look at Reeves' film and what he had to say about the conversation with Michigan's coaches.

TOM: Where are you at right now with your recruitment, and what did you talk to Michigan about today? 

ARMANI: I talked to Coach Hoke, Mattison, and Mallory. They told me that before they wanted me to commit and I wasn't ready. When the last DB committed that closed the deal to go our separate ways because they already had two corners committed. When they talked to us today they said that they wanted to bring in another high caliber cornerback and they felt I was the guy they want. Not only am I a great athlete, but they think I'm a typical Michigan player. They feel comfortable with me being the guy.

TOM: What was your reaction to that?

ARMANI: I kind of had mixed feelings because I wished I could have avoided the way everything happened, but they've always been one of my favorites. There was happiness and relief in there too. Penn State and Notre Dame are my top two so this shakes things up a little bit. It changes my path. It makes me want to think about everything and how I like the school so much with the academics. My major is there and the campus is great and all the guys there are really cool.

TOM: I imagine this is a lot to process all at once, do you know what you're going to do one way or the other yet?

ARMANI: I kind of have mixed feelings but I can't really say much about it right now. If you give me a couple days I'll have a better sense for it. 

TOM: Did they tell you why they are recruiting you again? Did something change?

ARMANI: I wasn't because of anyone going anywhere else, it was more because of the group of guys that they have now. They want another prime time corner. They want to get a top ten guy in there that can hold their own. 

TOM: I'm sure you have practice coming up and school starting, do you think you'll be able to visit Ann Arbor again before that starts?

ARMANI: We start practice in a couple weeks. I'm thinking about visiting, but we just got back from vacation yesterday. We're still trying to grasp everything and figure it out. We haven't crossed that bridge yet. We haven't really talked about it yet. If I do decide to continue everything with Michigan then I'll put them in the top three. I would definitely take my officials to the three schools [Notre Dame, Michigan, and Penn State] and then decide.

TOM: Do you think it helped or maybe showed how serious they are with what coaches were talking to you?

ARMANI: It definitely helped to talk to Coach Hoke and Mattison. Coach Mattison broke down the situation as far as continuing with everything. They explained everything to me very thoroughly. I felt very comfortable and they were very up front and honest with me. That helps and I'll get back to them in the next couple days if I want to continue or stick with the schools I have now.



August 2nd, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

do you really think a HC would tell a recruit "yeah, we don't think one of our recruits is going to stick with us so we're going to push hard for you again"?  of course hoke told him it wasnt because of any rumors a commit might leave, its not any business of reeves what trich is thinking one way or another, even if hoke does know something we don't



August 3rd, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^

I was on record before the TomVH update in a battle with Waggles.  I agree 100% with this.  

While the interview makes it seem like there could be other reasons for them pursuing Reeves - it certainly sounds like the truth (from the Michigan side is):

"We can recruit this guy and get him to take an official here.  We're going to need to start that process right now if Terry decommits.  And if Terry does not decommit, what is the harm in having another top flight CB in this class?"


August 2nd, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Back to the subject, reeves would be a great get. I can totally respect where he is coming from with the mixed feelings, just have to wait and see if that bridge can be strong again.


August 2nd, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^

It would be tough choosing from such great institutions. M offers his major and he likes the academics and campus... I think he may go blue after all.


August 2nd, 2011 at 7:09 PM ^

I think if 2 out of Pipkins, O'Brien, Day, Shittu, etc want to come, they'll take him.

If they take another DB, it may come at the expense of QB, RB, WR, OL, DE.

IMO, people are way too concerned right now about fine-tuning the allocation of scholarships to positions.


August 2nd, 2011 at 7:15 PM ^

I was watching film of the '97 Rose Bowl a couple days ago and looking at what looked like a 4-2-5 defense going up against WSU and their 5-wide sets. Do you think Mattison might want to be able to put out a 4-2-5 considering so many teams run the spread now? I know his base D will be a 4-3 under, but if you have some awesome corners, you might be able to put out a 4-2-5 instead of a dime package and keep an extra LB out there to spy a QB (remember, we're in a league with Dan Persa, Braxton Miller, Nathan Scheelhaase, etc.) 

Blue in Seattle

August 2nd, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^

in the 98 Rose Bowl game (Jan after the 97 season) I did notice they put strong safeties/fast LB's in at LB, at least from how the defense got listed in the initial plays of the game.  So I don't think they changed the scheme away from 4-3, they just knew that they needed faster Will and Sam LB's to cover the extra WR lined up.

Interesting that WSU had such a "spread" offensive alignment.  I also think Michigan got away with that because the WSU RB was injured and while he tried a couple of plays, he left the game early.


In other words, the positional responsibilities didn't change, but WSU had lighter faster players lining up, and Michigan had to respond.

Keep in mind that Mattison wasn't the DC that year.  Hoke was there, but Mattison was already at ND in 1997.  I know that Lloyd Carr had more of a DB/secondary position background, and I think Herrman did as well (who was the DC in 97)  So if the scheme was changed, it wasn't Mattison's genius changing it.



August 4th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^

When our D hit the field, we definitely only had two LBs on the field. We had four D-linemen (Steele, Renes, WIlliams, and Hall); two linebackers (Dhani and Tommy Hendricks--who was a FS but played LB the whole game probably, as you alluded to, to matchup with WSU's receivers); and the rest were real DBs who were covering their receivers 1-on-1 when WSU put out a 5-wide set.

I guess all I'm saying is that the coaches might want to have DBs that they feel confident in single coverage with no safety help in case they ever wanted to run a similar formation against all the teams that run the spread now.


August 4th, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

Continuing your totally off, but right now running a 4-3 with Cam Gordon at linebacker is almost like running a 4-2 with a 3rd safety playing on, or close to the line.  Also, I believe they're going to run a few 4-2 packages on long 3rds with a Nickel Corner.  Has already  been said, but Thomas Gordon is great for that position, Reeves looks too much like a full time lockdown corner to just come in on 3rd downs IMO.

Still, continuing your off, I was wondering if Mattison might've wanted to eventually put out some 3-4 packages with the way linebackers have been recruited the last two years.  If we still had Jones, that'd be 8 in the past two years..  If they really only want one interior lineman in this class, instead of rotating a lineman out with a lineman in, maybe they'll send in a linebacker for 3rd down or just a change of pace.  Thinking about it, last class, 0 DT.  This class, only 1?  Ravens run a 3-4....

Either way, staying on topic, I was really excited for Reeves before there was the "falling out".  He'd be a great pick-up.  If we wanted to take only 5 OL in this class, I feel the reallocation of the scholarship to Reeves would be awesome.   




August 2nd, 2011 at 7:16 PM ^

Frankly, QB is not a position I see us filling...who is even a candidate at this point?  RB likely is Brionte or bust at this point.  WR will fill one spot, OL one more, and then likely 2 at DT.   I think in that scenario there would possibly still be one spot open...

...that said, I still think this says more about the situation with current guys, then overall numbers.  


August 2nd, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^

I didn't want to make a separate thread for this but Allen Trieu just tweeted:


 Allen Trieu 



August 2nd, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

This was debated in another forum post weeks ago.

Missouri is basically midwest, even though they have funny So' accents and the proportion of hot girls to the general population is the same rate as southern states.  (That's based on observational evidence, by the way.)

St. Louis is a midwestern city.  No debate about that, right?

Kansas City is a midwestern city. Also no debate there?

Those cities are bookends of the same state.

Mizzou also borders three foundational Midwestern states, IA and IL and NE, and its other borders are non-southern states (or not really deep-southern states, at least).

So, Pipkins, you are UP, go BLUE!