Effect of Commitments Rcvd on Remaining Offers

Submitted by StephenRKass on May 17th, 2011 at 3:58 PM

With 11 commitments received, plus Morris as a QB in 2013, we appear to be halfway home, assuming room for 22 incoming freshmen in 2012. There has been speculation that the fact slots have been filling up has caused some recruits to commit now, in order to lock in a scholarship and a slot. It appears this may be affecting Terry Richardson.

I am curious how the current commitments are affecting both outstanding offers (whether we're pulling offers already made,) and causing others to make a commitment. I'm also trying to gauge how the remaining slots are filled.

  • OL:  we have two commitments, four more expected.
  • QB: none, one expected (could Hoke gamble with 3 QB, and one coming in 2013?)
  • RB:  no commitments, none expected.
  • FB:   no commitments, none expeccted.
  • WR:  no commitments, two expected.
  • TE:  two commitments, any more? What is happening with Thompson?
  • DE:  two commitments, any more?
  • DT:  one commitment, one more.
  • LB:   four commitments, no more.
  • CB:  no commitments, one expected.
  • S:  No commitments, one expected.
  • One extra, reserve for best athlete, any position (say, Dunn?)

This would give us a total of 22 commitments, and the following breakdown:

  • OL:  Six
  • QB:  One
  • RB:  None
  • FB:  None
  • WR:  Two
  • TE:   Two
  • DE:  Two
  • DT:  Two
  • LB:  Four
  • CB:  One
  • S:     One
  • Wildcard:  One

With the exception of the Offensive Line, and maybe Wide Receiver, the pressure seems to be growing on potential recruits to make a commitment, if you want to be at Michigan in the Fall of 2012.

Is there anyone other than Richardson who we expect to hear from soon? Are there offers we are now slow playing or pulling off the table because things are getting tight? Is the breakdown by position off? Which positions is Michigan strong enough at that it can afford to accept only the best (for example, either accepting Dunn as RB or no one at all.)




May 17th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

My understanding is that although Hoke said earlier he wanted 6 OL, he may drop that number to 5. I'm pretty sure that Hoke and company wanted at least 2 CBs, and there is even some speculation that he could want 3 CBs (possible if an elite QB is not available). Otherwise I think your list is correct.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

But yeah, I'm wondering, at what point do you become more picky, and take the 5 star/high 4 star at a position of less need over the low 4 star/3 star at a position of greater need.

While it isn't nearly as pronounced as in Basketball, having true difference makers at almost ANY position has a disproportionate affect on team success. I don't care whether it is Left Tackle, DE, DT, LB, CB, S, QB, RB, WR, there are always some freaks out there who are so good, so motivated, and so physically talented that you just have to find a way to create space for them. At some point, the best teams have the luxury of taking the best players available, because they have enough depth at most every position.

This year, for instance, once we have 4 OL commitments (given that one TE might shift over to OL,) I wonder if you then take the first high level (RIvals 100?) recruit to commit, whether at CB, S, OL, RB, or elsewhere.) I suppose that every team has a few guys that they will ALWAYS make room for, regardless of the position. I suppose, for instance, that getting enough high level commitments at one position could cause lower level early commitments at that position to see the writing on the wall and go elsewhere, actually creating space.


May 17th, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^

Take it FWIW, but I have a friend who did an internship or something as a trainer with Whitmer football. He said Wormley definitely likes Michigan the most. He also told me Chris tore up a hand written letter from Nick Saban because "it's too warm in Alabama".

He also thought he wasn't mean enough for defense and might be better suited for OL. I hadn't heard that before.


May 17th, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^

Then they are both wrong. Wormley had a pretty damn good year last year despite what some would have you believe. I would expect him to have a nice big chip on his shoulder this year and prove all of the doubters wrong. AJ Williams may move to OT, Wormley will not.


May 17th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^

I know you didn't,not your style. When I watch his film, I see a kid with all of the physical tools to be a stud, he just needs to hit the weight room. It looks like he is carrying some bad weight and it slows him down a bit but he can work that and his technique while he redshirts. I hope we get him because I see a little bit of Woodley in him.


May 17th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^

I just kind of feel like the kid has gotten a bad shake as of late is all. Maybe he does end up at OT. I am rooting for him and look forward to watching him grow into whatever position he plays over his next 4-5 years at Michigan hopefully.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

Not trying to be a dick, but in your title "Affect" should be "Effect."

Also, the way things are trending, I think they are planning for a class larger than 22. I would not even be surprised if they signed a full 25.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

I don't think taking three DB's (or two CB's and a S/CB type person) is a bad idea, seems to be one of the positions you can never have too much depth at.  Considering where we currently are at that position, i wouldn't mind sacrificing on OL to take another DB at all.


May 17th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^

"Considering where we currently are at that position, i wouldn't mind sacrificing on OL to take another DB at all. "

Um, you realize we're worse off at OL than we are at DB, right?  I know everyone was unhappy with our DB play last fall, but we have a lot of young talent in the defensive backfield and only one senior.  Woolfolk will be a senior this fall, Kovacs and Floyd will be juniors, but everyone else will be around in 2013.  Offensive line, on the other hand, is very thin once the guys who are juniors right now take off.  If anything, we should sacrifice a DB to take another OL, not the other way around.

Last year we took 5 DBs for 4 positions, whereas we took 3 OL for 5 positions.  The year before, we took 4 DBs (not counting the transfers) and one (1) OL.  I hope it's clear which is a higher need.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

OL - 5 to 6 (2 in the fold)
QB - 1
RB - 1 (elite RB's only - Dunn, Marshall, Garmon or Wes Brown)
FB - 0 to 1
WR - 2
TE - done. I don't think Thompson is coming here anymore (2 in the fold)
DE - 1 to 2 more. (2 in the fold)
DT - 1 to 2 more (1 in the fold)
LB - done. (4 in the fold)
CB - 2
S - 1
Wildcard - 1

That brings max total to 25 which we have been hearing is more and more likely, with 11 already committed.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^

My wish list off this: 

  • OL - Diamond, Banner, Magnuson and Simmons (if we take 6)
  • QB - Kiel, I know we have Morris for 2013, but the way I see it, if you have the best of the best that only makes your team better. I would love to see the battle between players like Kiel and Morris, for example.
  • RB - Dunn or Garmon
  • FB - I think this is a position we can fill with someone like Hopkins or a preferred walk-on
  • WR - DGB and Burbridge
  • TE - I agree, even if WIlliams moves to OL in the future
  • DE - Washington and Spence
  • DT - Can't really think of any right now for some reason.
  • LB - obviously I agree with you
  • CB - Richardson and Standifer
  • S - Jarrod Wilson
  • Wildcard - any other big time player


May 17th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^

Not my wish list, but an early predicition based on what we know so far:

OL 6 (Braden, Stacey, Diamond, Denman, Thurston, Magnuson)
QB 1 (Kiel)
RB 1 (Dunn)
WR 2 (Burbridge, Stanford)
TE 2 (Funchess, Williams)
DL 6 (Brown, Godin, Ojemudia, Wormley, Pipkins, Washington)
LB 4 (Bolden, Ringer, RJS, Ross)
DB 3 (Richardson, Reeves, Morgan)



May 17th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

Not a wish list, huh?  Not sure how that could get much better, outside of simly listing the top 25 players in the country.  I think we'd all be very happy with that class, and we'd certainly be in the top 10, if not the top 5, with that class.


May 18th, 2011 at 1:59 AM ^

I agree, it looks like a very good class, but I didn't just list the recruits I would take if we could have anyone (e.g., Keith Marshall, Dorial Green-Backham, Stefon Diggs, Yuri Wright). Instead, I looked at where we stand with each of our highest priority remaining realistic possibilities and guessed as best I could how each of those would play out.

Most of the names on my list are either current commits (the 11 names in bold), UM leans (e.g., Diamond, Wormley, Richardson) or guys who seem to have us in their top 2 or 3 (e.g., Burbridge, Reeves, Morgan, Pipkins).

The biggest stretches on my list are Washington, Stanford, Dunn, Kiel, Denman, Thurston and Magnuson:

  1. Washington and Stanford have mentioned they would like to go to the same school, if possible, but OSU has not yet offered Stanford. Also, Stanford has had some very positive things to say about UM recently and the duo supposedly is planning to visit A2 together very soon. "Package deals" rarely work out, so I am taking their talk with a grain of salt, but given that OSU is likely to be hit with serious sanctions this fall (possibly even resulting in Tressel's termination), it is not crazy to think we might "luck into" these two.
  2. Similarly, Dunn (not to mention his father) has publicly stated more than once that he is concerned about OSU's situation and pending sanctions. Specifically, he has said that if OSU is hit with a bowl ban and/or Tressel is terminated he might reopen his commitment. We appear to be Dunn's #1 backup of he decides not to go to OSU.
  3. Kiel ... well, we are in his top 4 and he is coming up to A2 for a second visit. I give us 3:1 odds on that one.
  4. As for Denman, Thurston and Magnuson, we seem to have as good a shot as anyone based on their public statements, and I could just as easily have picked three other names who are as highly rated that we are pursuing heavily. These three just seemed to me to be the most likely to go Blue at this point in time.

Obviously, my list will not be 100% correct. In fact, if we don't land Dunn or Kiel, we might not even take a QB or RB in this class (I assume it will depend on who else is available). Similarly, if we don't get Stanford, we might only take one WR (e.g., Burbridge, who I think will eventually pick us over MSU). If we miss on all three of those guys, maybe we end up with 22 or 23 guys in this class instead of a full 25. Still, unless something goes very wrong over the next 9 months, this class is going to be one of our best in years.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^

I think with Wormley we'll have 2 SDE, 2WDE, and we'll need at least one true DT.   That's 5 DL.

4 LBs.

1 CB and 1 true Free Safety.  We could use 1 CB/S type (Morgan would fit this perfect)

I don't think we need a true SS in this class, definately not a S/LB tweener.

We need at least 3 more OL, 2 true OTs.  I think we need 2 WRs.


That would be a class of 21 without a TB, FB, QB, and only 1 DT.   We'll be able to sign at least 21.  Last spot for DT - TB - QB - FB in that order.

Even with this numbers crunch, I still think you take Ron Thompson if he wants in (maybe at a cost of losing a WR).  However, the clock is ticking.


May 17th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^

Tom VH said the other day (yesterday?) that the coaches have cooled on Thompson and that Thompson's coach was going to call and see what was going on. 

As to the OL, if you look at the depth chart, Michigan likely cannot afford any less than six OLs - and I don't count AJ Williams when I say that. 

FWIW, I think RB is the position that is most likely to go unfilled.  There are already eight on the roster if you count the incoming freshman.   Only Shaw and possibly Cox will be gone next year. 


May 17th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^

Man that's a bummer about Thompson, I really want him.

I just can't imagine the coaches saying no to a guy like that...  esp. with their desire to run 2 TE sets, and the good chance (based on his "Hello" post) that Williams moves over to tackle.  Even if Williams doesn't move over to tackle, sounds like he'll still be primarily a blocking TE, so I'm hoping we can fit Thompson in.


May 17th, 2011 at 6:33 PM ^

Personally, I don't want us to pick up Thompson until it's a little more clear we'll have more spots and once more of our bigger needs (OT, OG, DT) get filled.  Even if AJ Williams moves over to OT, I'd rather get a second TE who is a bigger guy like him, rather than two thinner, receiving TE types.  I'm not sure I like Funchess better than Thompson, but Funchess jumped first, so before we take Thompson I'd like to see what other needs we can fill.  A third TE is not near the top of that list. 


May 17th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

You're the 3rd person I've seen bring up Bellomy in the past day, albeit I post on 2 boards.

Don't worry, he's no one's forgetting him. Bellomy will have a fair shot at the starting job, so let's not start the whole "Matt Gutierrez is a better QB than Chad Henne" meme, again.


May 17th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

yes, three with Denard, Gardner, and Bellomy.

Generally, I agree with the theory of ALWAYS taking a QB, but we have three on the roster, plus Morris. There actually is another option available:  a Walkon (or Redshirt.) IIRC, we had a walkon QB from Pioneer in the last few years. For all I know, he might still be on the roster. And because of High Schools who put their best athlete at the position of QB, we could have a redshirt position player focus on QB in 2012.

In fact, I can think of one already:  Pharaoh Brown is playing QB in HS, and has already committed for 2012. Couldn't he redshirt and take reps as a QB in 2012 (while red-shirting.) He would only really be pressed into service if God forbid, two of the three roster QB's were injured. My point is that we already have a bit of insurance with Morris, and unless Kiel commits, why waste a scholarship and roster spot which locks up a spot for four years?


May 17th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^

In terms of actual depth chart, I think he was including Bellomy. He said we have 3 QBs already and Shane Morris coming in 2013. I assume he was thinking the 3 deep would be:

Robinson, Gardner, Bellomy.

We have other QBs, but none that will actually be a reasonable or conceivable idea for a starter should the others go down to injury.

In reality, at this stage in the game, if Robinson + Gardner get hurt we're pretty screwed anyway.


May 17th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^

I don't think he is being overlooked, just maybe people are not overly excited about him.  I'm not saying he will be bad, I actually hope he can come in and compete with the guys and push everyone to become better.  I just think he is not generating too much excitement because he was not a highly rated 5 star prospect.


May 17th, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^

He was a very versatile QB, physically has not matured and has potential, and his scouting report praises good things.  There is only upside for him based upon these reasons (and likely since expectations are already low).  


May 18th, 2011 at 1:56 AM ^

He is a better passer than either Denard or Tate and he is a pretty good scrambler. He is also taller and more comfortable under center. I think we got a steal when we snagged him from Purdue. If we didn't have Gardner (who is a total stud and, I think, will turn out to be the best out of all of them), Bellomy would have a good chance to be the starter after Denard graduates. People on this board are underestimating Bellomy's abilities IMO.


May 17th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

Am I crazy for thinking Hoke wants a FB commit for this class? I know FB's don't generally get rated very high, but I could see him offering a kid a scholarship for a position of need. The coaches have constantly talked about our lack of a true FB during the spring. 


May 17th, 2011 at 7:16 PM ^

Fullbacks can be created.  That's the easiest position on the field to fill, IMO.  Find a failed linebacker, a failed tight end, a failed defensive end, a chubby tailback, something.  If a kid is promised a chance to actually get on the field and he'll block hard, there's not much of a reason to go out and recruit a guy specifically for fullback.

I do think that the coaches want a fullback, but I don't think it's a high priority.


May 17th, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^

  • The guys on scout are saying that Ronald Thompson has grade issues/didn't take an opportunity to commit before Funchess. So as of now, our staff is assuming that he will not be part of our class.


May 17th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^

I like the idea of the coaches moving Frank Clark to a TE/FB/H-back type position as well.  He'd be perfect for that, he has experience on offense both carrying the ball, catching the ball, and blocking, his frame is perfect for it, and we will have a ton of LBs on the roster by the time he starts his RS frosh year.  If there was one position move from what has been projected, this would be my move.


May 17th, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^

A look at the curren depth chart screams two things: Offensive Tackle and Defensive Tackle.

Godin is a SDE who could move inside some day but we need real DTs now.  Getting two from  among Day, Pipkins, Obrien, Jaleel or similar is a top priority.


May 17th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^

I think 22 is reasonable, but you're talking about a lot of attrition to get up to 25.  With that kind of attrition, other than LB, you're going to be using your scholarship largely for damage control.

I'd guess there won't be 2 WR, but 1.  Funchess (like Miller) is a bit of tweener and there are 12 WR on the roster right now and 7 or 8 will return.  I realize that other than Roundtree none of them are proven players yet, but they're mostly youngsters and still have plenty of potential.

-Roundtree - proven player inside or out.  Good route runner, mostly reliable hands till OSU.

-Jackson - was only a freshman and potentially fits the offense a lot better as a big reliable target.

-J.Robinson - good reports coming out of his RS season

-Dileo - Wes Welker is white too!  ...Seriously, again, good reports.

-Stokes - already servicable and entering his two upperclass seasons.

I didn't mention Gallon or T.Robinson because they don't seem to fit, but the 5 guys above all project to be usefull players. All you're really looking for is a high-end talent to bring into the mix.  Michigan may be using more multiple TE sets and FBs, meaning less emphasis on WR.

We're fine here...really.  Someone's going to emerge beside Roundtree.