Torrian Wilson Visiting Michigan

Submitted by TomVH on November 30th, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Torrian Wilson just sent me a text saying he is visiting Michigan in December.

He said it will be an official visit. He's still committed to Stanford, but open to every school.

Coach Hopson will be visiting him tomorrow.

He said he's probably waiting until signing day to make his final decision.

I think it's safe to say that our commit list could look completely different come February.



November 30th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^

That doesn't fill me with optimism, but eventually he has to land a big name.

I agree that our commit list is going to undergo some noticeable changes by signing day.


November 30th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^

I think we could afford to drop one or two RBs and WRs, each. I know it's been beaten to death, but I agree with the crowd that thinks RichRod got a little too enthusiastic about RBs and WRs.

To be sure, every position is important, but OL and Defense are especially important, and even more so in light of our depth chart. It is much easier to let your most athletic guy run behind an awesome OL than it is to let an awesome RB run behind a crappy OL.

For example, look at guys like Mike Shanahan or Kirk Ferentz- they build sweet OLs, and the RB position just kind of falls into place.

Furthermore, WR and RB are probably the two easiest positions to find ready-to-play freshmen. Conversely, ready-to-play freshmen on the OL or on defense are much harder to find.

So, if our skill position guys aren't cutting it in 2010, we can probably try to add some freshmen to get instant playing time (i.e. Demitrius Hart). But, if our OL or defense suck, then we're looking at another two to three years to recruit these kids and get them ready to play.


November 30th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^

Then we can safely say that Mr. Wilson wont be faxing a LOI to RR on signing day.

EDIT: Fine, I'm being a little hard on Hopson. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since Torrian Wilson doesnt play defensive tackle


November 30th, 2009 at 4:29 PM ^

I had similar thoughts regarding Hopson. However I know at one point Torrian was pretty high on us. Would love to see another O-linemen in this class. It ought to be a couple of very interesting months seeing how RR and co. finagle this class.


November 30th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

one of the 7 or so WR recruits. We have multiple receivers around for a couple more years plus a ton coming in. I definitely wouldn't mind dropping one for a decent T/G recruit. One can never have too much OL depth


November 30th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

With this latest news along with the Hankins offer, perhaps a couple of our commits are in danger of not qualifying/getting the Barnes treatment. If that is true the only player I heard of having academic issues is Kinard, who else may have some?


November 30th, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^

The Hankins thing is unrelated. He would play nose tackle, and we don't have another nose tackle in this class. He's probably being offered because we don't have a shot at some big-time recruits like Sharrif Floyd, and our chances are slim with Mike Thornton and Jatashun Beachum. But Terry Talbott is the only DT in this class, and he's a 3-tech DT, not a 1-tech.


November 30th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^

It just seems weird that we have 3 spots left and a Grimes a Murphy commitment look to be just a formality. In the past couple days this and the Hankins offer happened and so it makes me think that maybe the coaches have heard bad news regarding at least one of their commits in the past couple of days...or Im just reading too much into it and everything is fine, which is probably the case.


November 30th, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^

a) We may be able to take more than 25 recruits.

b) The Hankins offer is probably more related to Beachum's unwillingness to decommit from Arkansas (I assume) and the need for another DL in this class.

c) I've maintained from the beginning that I don't think all of our WR commits will sign with us on NSD. I do think that we'll see a decommit, slow-play situation, or a position change.


November 30th, 2009 at 5:20 PM ^

a) Im so confused about this rule and whether or not its been changed, I dont think it will be cleared up until NSD.

b) Agree, Beachum looked like he may commit at one point then decided to honor his commitment. That and the coaches told Hankins at the beginning of the year that they would evaluate his senior film and make a decision on offering him (i.e. his conditioning). I dont know if he was just incredible this year or because of Beachum

c) I have to agree with you here, either Williamson or J-Rob are going to be givin an ultimatum or the Barnes treatment.


December 1st, 2009 at 6:47 PM ^

Tom did they tell you the basis for the rule? Where in the rulebook is it referenced?

Oklahoma has 25 verbals and is still in the hunt for Jefferson, Stills, Martin, and others

Oklahoma State has 26 verbals and continues to recruit.

BYU has 25 recruits and is still recruiting.

I don't doubt that compliance told you that, I just don't understand why no one else in the country seems to be concerned about the rule change.


November 30th, 2009 at 4:39 PM ^

I really detest having to "slow play" a commit in order to try and get him to decommit so we can take a higher rated player in his place. We accept a commit from a player we extended a scholarship to and we need to honor that commitment.

It wasn't difficult to see that the plethora of early WR commits, both outside and slot, was eventually going to bite us in the balls. I think that's what's happening now.


November 30th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^

Chad U. Bacon, uhhhhh how is it biting us in the balls? a couple scenarios play out here. 1. We slow play a WR recruit and get a DT or a G/T/LB commit we weren't really projecting. 2. We don't slow play anyone and keep our commits we have and we're trying to see where we stand with players X,Y and Z. Either way we already have the commits. It is not going to bite us in the balls. What would bite us in the balls is putting all our eggs into 1 basket (think Mallett or even Montana at OSU) and having only Miller committed because he is supposed to be awesome.


November 30th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^

I get that and it will look bad but it happens at a lot of places Alabama for one and they aren't team ramrodded by the media. I'd rather not do it, Id rather go with what we have and I think we do have an underrated class but if it is the difference between a Beachum or Furman or Wilson I wouldn't be against it.


November 30th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^

I get that and it will look bad but it happens at a lot of places Alabama for one and they aren't team ramrodded by the media. I'd rather not do it, Id rather go with what we have and I think we do have an underrated class but if it is the difference between a Beachum or Furman or Wilson I wouldn't be against it.


November 30th, 2009 at 7:25 PM ^

I just think it's really shady and a place like Michigan should be above it. Maybe that's my Michigan elitist attitude speaking but it's how I feel. I won't ever complain about a decommit because of how we slow played Barnes and if that happens again, I'll be ashamed of this coaching staff. I would be against slow playing a recruit even if it meant that Charles Woodson would be able to come back to Michigan for four years. The situation is irrelevant when it comes to ethics IMO. And don't tell me it happens everywhere because I have only seen this in a few instance. Does Jim Tressel do it? JoePa? Sad that I have to retort to the sweatervest on an issue of ethics *shudders*


November 30th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^

I picked Michigan and never really looked back or floundered on my commitment and frankly there isn't much of a difference. Decommitments are becoming so frequent that coaches have to count on guys decommiting from them when figuring out how many guys they can recruit for their class.

Why do athletes get a pass and can completely hang out coaches out to dry at the last minute? At least the coaches let them know before-hand and it's also a LOT easier for a recruit to find a new home than for a coach to find a new recruit.

I'm not saying that we should screw over kids on signing day but I have no problem slow playing kids before the end of the year because as was seen last year kids screw over colleges and the coaches too.


December 1st, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^

1) Some kids aren't as decisive as others. Some know exactly what they want and go for it, others are unsure of what they want. I switched my major twice in college before finding what I wanted to do. Wasted 25 unnecessary credits and money because I didn't know what to do with my life. I remember feeling that the decisions I had to make as an 18 year old were unfair. These guys have even more to take into account. Coaches are MEN (cue Mike Gundy speech). They should know their needs and do their scouting and know which players they want before they offer. I'm holding a 50 year old man much more accountable than someone less than have his age. Coaching is their job, playing is only a "hobby" for the players. It is not their whole life.
2) They have so many people in their ear telling them what they should do. College coaches, high school coaches, parents, peers etc. Each telling them a different thing. It's a really stressful and confusing process. Recruiting has turned into a monster.
3) I'm a huge signing day de-commitment hater. Those are inexcusable IMO. If you don't know where you're going, open up the recruitment and don't tell your coaches you are still committed to them. It leaves the coaches out to dry. Jack Campbell, the uber goalie, is one name that comes to mind. Our goalie depth is abysmal now that he won't be coming next year.
4) The kids can get screwed when the coaches "decommit" from them. Say a recruit really only likes 2-3 schools and makes his decision. Then the coach he committed to slow plays him. He looks at the other teams he was interested in and the spot he could have taken is locked up. Now he's gotta look at all new schools and maybe places he won't like. Sucks. And could happen at any time in the recruiting process.
5) I think a nice solution to some of these situations is an early signing day. You could have one right before the high school seasons start and keep the other in February. It would be easier on both coaches and players. Players wont' have to worry about crazy coaches contacting them even after they've made a solid commitment. Coaches know they have part of their class locked up and have less to stress about. It's a win on all sides IMO. Prevents some of the decommitments and if one of your early commitments doesn't sign in August, you know he's wavering so you can be prepared to look at other options available.

Blue in Yarmouth

December 1st, 2009 at 8:29 AM ^

After reading your post I am not sure what you are trying to say. The debate seems to be whether it is "ok" for a coach to "decommitt" from a player (as bouje has put it) or whether that right should rest soley with the player.

I guess I am just confused which side of the debate your post is supposed to support. If what you are saying is true, it makes me think that coaches should be able to do this without feeling very guilty if kids are committing just so they don't get left out in the cold and will bolt as soon as a better offer comes around.