Wilkins to Auburn

Submitted by Jmilan on July 18th, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Well no big shock here, but per Ace's and TomVH's twitter Jordan Wilkins is committed to Auburn. Sorry if it was already posted and you can delete if need be, but it is somewhat relevant to Michigan. So if it is OT just let me know and I will change it.



July 18th, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^

I'm perplexed as to why this staff seems to have so much more success recruiting the "tough guy" positions than the skill positions, at least in terms of competing with other programs for highly-sought-after recruits. I wonder what the reason is.


July 18th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^

When you say skill positions, do you only mean running back and wide receiver? Because I'd consider guys like Butt, Lewis and Dymonte Thomas to be skill guys, and those are big time recruits.

Also, people seem to forget that Deveon Smith picked us over OSU, and likely would have had other big options if he prolonged his recruitment a bit (not that there are bigger names than UM and OSU anyway).

Last year we got Chesson and Darboh, the latter of those had all the big time offers. So yeah, we've killed it on the lines and at LB, but it's not like our skill guys are all scrubs.


July 18th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^

OK Mr. Hair Splitter, I think that would suffice. Kyle Bosch and Chris Fox don't have USC offers either, but it doesn't mean we aren't excited to get them. My point is that many of our skill position guys over the last couple of years have had impressive offer lists. And I'd rather the Kalis and Pipkins level recruits be the positions they are anyway.


July 18th, 2012 at 2:54 PM ^

You said scrubs. I didn't. I said our staff has had much more success competing for recruits at positions such as OL, DL, LB, etc, than they've had at positons such as RB, WR and yes, QB (we landed Shane, but him being local and a M fan had a lot to with that, and this staff has missed out on its share of QB recruits).

Do you disagree they've been more competitive with the first group than the second?


July 18th, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^

Do I think the first group is stronger than the second? Probably, but not by enough to bring it up. And it's very convenient that you want to leave out Morris, but you probably still want to count guys like Ross, RJS, Dawson, Pipkins (who grew up an M fan when he lived here), Kalis who was an OSU commit until typed blew up and even Bolden, who didn't have offers from ND or OSU.

Outside of Burbridge, Michigan and Ohio haven't had any elite WRs over the last couple years, and the level of elite RBs has been similarly low outside of Dunn who grew up an OSU fan and Deveon Smith who we got. So the local talent at those positions has been lower than OL, DL and LB where we've been able to stock up on a lot of MI and OH guys.

You also left off TE, where we've done well the last couple years, as well as DB. So I bet you could look at any two recruiting classes (especially before one of them is done) and pick out a couple position groups that are weaker than the rest. And if we pick up Treadwell, which looks likely, that gap is too narrow to discuss.


July 18th, 2012 at 3:35 PM ^

I think he just means that we've been able to snag several blue chip guys at other positions, but seem to struggle to reel in those same level guys at RB and WR.  I like the guys we have but we haven't really landed a blue chipper at those spots yet and have been in on a few that have gotten away.  I attribute it more to just the way the cookie crumbles and think it'll change eventually but there's definitely truth in the statement.  


July 18th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^

We have had more success landing higher rated recruits on the Defensive side of the ball and in the trenches because the trenches and our entire defense was singled out by the staff as needing the most attention. 

I assume the attention the coaches give to each position group evens out once they have depth on both sides of the ball.  Thus, the number of "elite" recruits in each position group follows suit.

I believe this philosophy needs little debate if you were around for the RR debacle when it came to recruiting.


July 18th, 2012 at 11:23 PM ^

That's exactly what I think. Honestly if I were a Lineman I would believe I would relate to and like Hoke more. Thus increasing my chances of coming to Michigan. Linebacker and DB I think have a lot to do with Mattison as a great recruiter and the Ravens...mainly Suggs (yes I know DL), Lewis and Reed. 

The other thing I think that is being overlooked is that there haven't been as many stuf WR's and RB's in the midwest that we weren't at a major disadvantage with from the start. I guess Isaac and Burbridge are the only two i consider but include Dunn if you want. But look at other positions you are considering great...we wanted Elmer badly but he chose ND, missed on Garnett (yes from WA but still), Reeves. Local guys who we never really stood a chance with include Jaylon Smith, Adam Brenneman, Billy Price, and Cam Burrows so no one complains about that. I think your mind seems to forget guys you missed on, or would have liked if you stood a chance, as long as you end up with another "consensus 4 star" (for those who love their rankings). The problem is that your majority of 4 and 5 star WR's and Running backs haven't been in the midwest the last two years, so if you miss the guy you really wanted you end up with a "mediocre 4 star or high 3 star"** which makes you remember missing the guy you wanted more.

**- Wow we are incredibly spoiled. The fact that people think there are mediocre 4 stars and then better yet, some complain about them, is hilarious.

I understand both points and honestly think it is probably a decent combination of the two.



July 19th, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^

To Michigan State then.


Tremendous: You love Michigan. That being said, would you be committed here and now if Rich Rodriguez was still coaching in Ann Arbor?

Shane: Honestly? I hated the offense he ran. That's not how I would have wanted to play college football. I'm not saying that I would or wouldn't be committed because the coaches that are in place now are a huge reason why I made such an early commitment.



July 18th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^

I feel like our coaches have a grind it out, defense-first, victory in the trenches mentality. This works wonders for Defensive recruiting and Line-man recruiting.

It doesnt feel like a doctrine which emphasizes high-flying offensive attacks seen as being attractive to the home-run threat RB's and the take-the-top-off-the-defense WR's of the world.


Kids are just doing their best to look out for their football futures in the only way they know how.


July 18th, 2012 at 1:50 PM ^

I agree, but let's keep in mind that Hoke hasn't had long to recruit elite recruits.  He's struck out on several (Ty Isaac, Eldridge Massington, etc.), but there's still a chance with Laquon Treadwell and Derrick Green.  If those two guys end up picking Michigan, then this argument is null and void.  I'll give credit or blame to Hoke for the guys who signed in 2012, but we should remember that he only had a chance to start recruiting those kids in January of their junior years, so he was a little behind the game...


July 18th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^

The jury is still out on this question. My hypothesis might (and probably will) be proven trash when Treadwell commits.

I hadn't thought about your other point of how long Hoke has been recruiting these elite guys. A significant point considering that these type of elite players have been on the radar of major programs longer than Hoke could have been recruiting them. 


I think it also has to do with the fact that other major programs seem more willing to make extravegant promises to players concerning the offensive plan being built around them that Hoke and Co. seem unwilling to make. 



July 18th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^

Personally, if i were a RB/WR recruit, I would look at Michigan's 1) depth chart 2) recent Oline recruits and 3) Shane Morris (moreso for WR), and see an incredible opportunity to play and succeed down the line.

But obviously the kids are turned off by something. Im willing to bet its not the coaches. My guess would be:

1. We havent had a WR put up big numbers in a few years (since manningham). Obviously, this has a lot to do with WR and QB personnel. 

2. We havent had any recent RBs with a lot of NFL success


July 18th, 2012 at 1:54 PM ^

If I were a recruit, I would be more inclined to look at the coaches' and school's recent products.  Hoke and Borges did well at SDSU, but none of those guys are household names.  And while Borges coached Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Cadillac Williams at Auburn, that was back when these kids were in 3rd or 4th grade.

There are a lot of good recruiting pitches, but "See this NFL superstar? I coached him" can only really be used by Mattison (Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, Ray Lewis, etc.)...and we're not having many issues recruiting defensive backs, linebackers, or defensive linemen.

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

July 18th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

Magnus makes more than a salient point.  Offensively, we just don't know who we are yet.  It reasonably could take 3-5 more years before things "stablize", if such a thing truly happens anymore in CFB recruiting and scholly/rosters openings.  Hopefully sooner, where kids like Treadwell commit on the spot like York and Stribling (SP?), but things will be fine for us.  We need to just focus on the now.  This will be a very exciting fall.  


July 18th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

3. As someone pointed out yesterday we are still in the whole offensive transition period in regards to MANBALL so its a lot like "Hey, were going to do awesome things" rather than "We've done this and had this success". 

Flip side; with the line we've recruited I would have thought blue chip RBs would be knocking our doors down, instead of having to turn blue chip lineman away because we were full.   


July 18th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

As far as the OL, that might take a year or two to bring in the RB recruits. Right now, the big OL recruits aren't even on campus yet, will likely take a redshirt year, and maybe another year or two before they are ready to plow big holes. These top RBs are looking at what the OL will look like as soon as they get to the school they pick, and that's not as favorable for us. The 2014 backs might see it better.


July 18th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

Is that some of these big recruits people are speaking of typically, not all of them, but most are looking at the type of offense a team runs and how they use certain positions...we are still in transition...some spread, some pro, possibly some don't know how they will be used at Michigan because our offense now is kind of a hybrid and probably not what it will be in 2 years...they will eventually come...that being said, I am very pleased with the playmakers we have brought in...all teams miss out on "sure playmakers..."

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

July 18th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^


On a seriously note, most likely the issue is just time and seeing "what" "things" we become consistently on the field -- in particular offensively.  The 5 stars, elite players (WR, QB, RB mostly speaking) want to know that they will shine and play in big time games in prime time consistently.  We did well last year, but they want to see more.  Plus, UofM has the stigma of midwestern winters.  Lastly, its easy to see that going to school, being revered as a demi-god, with scantly clad co-eds in sunny places is hard to resist. 

I mean, it could just be also that UofM isn't that first school that one thinks of as a place they want to go to school.  I know that seems so unlikely, but its possible people may percieve UofM as not ideal.  Impossible, I know!


July 18th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

Auburn is just handing out ducketts left and right.. Smells of the SMU glory days.. Stealing players from Bama.. Something is up..Nobody wants to play for Dooley and Rocky Top anymore


July 18th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^

The thing that continually puzzles me is the number of recruits whose finalists include Michigan and Auburn. Could there be two more disparate schools/campuses/programs? Does Auburn even qualify as a school?


July 18th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^

wants a "school".  Some kids just want to play football and have fun, without having to bother with inconveniences like studying.  Auburn is in the south, is supposed to have a pretty campus full of willing coeds and alums/boosters willing to pay the going rate.  We, on the other hand, want kids who will actually go to class and study (even if they are not taking the hardest courses available) and get nothing outside of what the NCAA allows.  Personally, I am glad I went to Michigan and glad the school has a coaching staff with the right priorities.


July 18th, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^

I don't know if this is true at all, but it might have something to do with where Auburn concentrates its recruiting efforts and where their coaches have ties.  Perhaps Michigan and Auburn are recruiting similar areas/kids and perhaps the coaches have similar backgrounds.


July 18th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

teams like Auburn, Oklahoma, FSU, Miami (YTM).  If it's a final three with that ilk we usually don't get them.  Why?   I suspect because we are being used to classy up the kid's list.  We are much more likely to win in a battle where finalists include....well....the group not including those I listed above.