TomVH: WR AJ Jordan Update

Submitted by TomVH on May 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 PM

I spoke with AJ Jordan (WR/Trotwood, OH) today, and he told me that he'd like to commit to a school before his senior season starts. When I asked him if Michigan will be that school, he said, "There's a good chance it might be them." 

AJ is going to try to make it up for the BBQ on the 21st, but might have a track meet on the same day. 

To offer my two cents, I really like Jordan, I think he'd be a really good addition as a wide receiver to complement what we already have. 

Comments

aaamichfan

May 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the staff is higher on Jordan than they are on Arnett. They are looking for the ultimate deep threat WR, and Jordan appears to have the speed necessary to fulfill this role. Personally, I'd be very happy with either player...........but I imagine the coaches see Conway having more upside than Arnett once he learns certain nuances of the position.

jg2112

May 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 PM ^

You might be right. I'll give you that.

But I don't think we have any idea what the corches think of these kids re: hierarchy. The only thing we know is that Conway accepted Michigan's scholarship offer, and Arnett has not, as of yet. Without the corches talking about these kids, I think it's just fair to say that they think highly enough of these two, along with Jordan and Watkins, that they are worth being on the Wolverines. Going beyond that is putting words in mouth that aren't backed up at all.

Hell, if we've learned anything from the Cullen Christian experience, we could very well speculate that Arnett is a silent commit just doing the rounds to get exposure / fifth star / free visits to colleges before he commits publicly in the fall.

BOOM RANK SPECULATION.

spacemanspiff231

May 4th, 2010 at 8:07 AM ^

Given that the coaches offered Arnett a LONG time ago and have been on him constantly since, whereas they JUST offered Jordan within the last 2 weeks, I'm pretty sure they're higher on Arnett.  Much higher.  Jordan is a great prospect and I'm sure the coaches like him, and I would absolutely love to have him on the team, but do you really just transform everything in your head to make it seem that the coaches get every player they want all the time and the players they don't get they just weren't as high on?

Jedelman11

May 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^

In the cases of Watkins and Arnett, I believe the general rule is "If a high 4* or 5* prospect wants to come to Michigan, we make room for them"

while RR and the staff might not be aware of a players actual star rating, player's with Arnett/Watkin's type of high profile are almost always known by most programs. Its not like arguably the best WR in midwest and best WR in florida are flying "under the radar"

Now, I'll be the first to say we need not take more than 2 WR, I'd be totally OK if we took Conway, Jordan, Arnett, and Watkins.

Yeah, its a lot of WR, and yeah, we already have a truckload, but it always seems to work itself out.

MGoObes

May 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^

but you simply cannot take all those receivers. you just can't, there are already more than enough of the them currently on the team and there are holes to be filled at other spots. you just can't do it

CWoodson

May 4th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^

Totally agree.  We're not going to turn into Alabama and bouncing scholarship guys who aren't panning out, so you can't have ~19 (!!) scholarship WRs on the roster.  There are STILL no senior WRs on this team.

ommeethatsees

May 4th, 2010 at 9:17 AM ^

We have too many decent WR's but no standout along the lines of an Edwards or Manningham.   Hopefully someone will put it together this year and really distance themselves from the pack. 

I watched Conway play last year and what I like about him is his great hands, size, positioning and leaping ability but I didn't necessarily see exceptional speed.   I think Arnett has the potential to be that elite receiver.

Jedelman11

May 4th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^

So am I to understand that all you guys would take only 2 of these WR? 3 of them?

Is it just a "first come first serve" deal? If Arnett/Watkins commit how should we handle it?

I totally agree that we shouldn't go "receiver crazy" but I'm not sure what you all would do insofar as they've all been offered.

I think turning away Watkins/Arnett [in the big picture] is not a smart move. This is TOTALLY different that the Lions drafting a bunch of WR because taking a highly regarded receiver in the class does not negate getting other high level players. Unlike the draft in which a team generally has one crack at the "first round talent" we have the ability to take 19ish "first round talent" if the right players committed. My contention was that accepting the commitment of a 5* WR instead of a lower level recruit who may never is probably better in the long run...

Its more of a "take the best player available" rather than needs. Unlike the draft, we can (and hopefully will) do both.

Magnus

May 4th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^

You can't just take 4 or 5 wide receivers when you need defensive linemen, offensive linemen, etc.  You only have 85 scholarships (and approximately only 15 this year).

It's not just a talent grab.  You're building an entire team.  Even though we've offered a bunch of wide receivers, if we get commitments from 2 or 3, then the rest will be told, "Thanks, but no thanks.  Go somewhere else."

WolvinLA2

May 3rd, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^

I like this kid.  AJ Jordan and Shawn Conway would be a great pair to pick up at WR.  One big, athletic possession receiver with wheels, and another tall burner for a deep threat.  These guys are exactly the types that RR needs at outside receiver to complement the slot ninjas.  

Pull the trigger, AJ.

goody

May 4th, 2010 at 7:52 AM ^

Arnett is a silent commit, he may want to make it known before he loses his spot to Jordan or another WR that the coaches are high on. I really can't see a situation were this coaching staff takes more than two WR in this small of a class, even if they are the caliber of Arnett and Watkins.

Magnus

May 4th, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^

The term "silent commit" means that the player has told the coaches but has not told the media.  So if he's a silent commit (which I'm almost certain he isn't), then he definitely won't lose his spot to another receiver - the coaches would have already reserved his spot.

jamiemac

May 4th, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^

Why do we think Arnett is so much better than Jordan. The Jordan kid is taller and faster.

Both are 4-stars on Scout, although its the #6 vs #25 WR in favor of Arnett, but its not like there's a star difference. The ranking differential is similar to Stonum/Roundtree and both are beginning to pan out, perhaps the lower rated one first.

I'm not sure much separates either of these guys--perhaps the benefit of Arnettt not going to MSU, but Jordan has offers from most of the Big 10--and I'm glad Michigan is recruiting both.

I love kids from southwest Ohio who can ball and want to play at Mchigan. They come in with a healthy disdain and chip on their shoulders towards OSU. I think  this kid can play, hope he comes aboard.

MGoObes

May 4th, 2010 at 9:13 AM ^

if given a choice i'd rather have sammy watkins who is taller, faster, has just as good hands, and runs routes just as well. i'd also say we may already have arnett in someone like stokes (same height, speed, etc.) nice avatar btw

Logan88

May 4th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

When you speak to recruits do they know that you are a UofM fan, thus prompting them to only give "good news" to you re: their relationship with the UofM staff?

I'm just curious if we are hearing the kids true feelings in your reports or if those reports should be viewed with some caution as they might be "self-screened" by the player speaking to you with his knowledge of your feelings re: Michigan.

TomVH

May 4th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^

They know that I cover Michigan, not that I'm a fan, per se. There's always going to be some bias in an interview, with any team. They usually aren't lying when they tell you they might commit to a school, though. I'm not saying he's going to, but it looks like we have a good shot.