Ahmir Mitchell (#2)
Previously: Quarterbacks, Running Backs
WIDE RECEIVERS (5):
Kekoa Crawford – Rancho Santa Margarita (CA) Catholic: 4-star, #19 WR, #119 overall
Brad Hawkins, Jr. – Camden (NJ) Camden: 4-star, #54 WR, #291 overall
Nate Johnson – Thompson’s Station (TN) Independence: 3-star, #94 WR, #589 overall
Eddie McDoom – Winter Garden (FL) West Orange: 3-star, #64 WR, #405 overall
Ahmir Mitchell – Egg Harbor City (NJ) Cedar Creek: 4-star, #9 ATH, #166 overall
Hit the jump for the rundown on Michigan’s 2016 recruiting efforts at the wide receiver position.
Commits: Hawkins is a 6’1″, 202 lb. possession receiver who was the first of the bunch to commit last summer. Some have speculated that he could also play safety at the next level, but his speed is a bit of a question mark. Mitchell enrolled this winter, and his build and skills have already earned pretty good reviews. Observers have said the 6’3″, 205 lb. Mitchell already looks like a college junior, and I can vouch for that. However, he does have consistency issues with catching the ball, which could either make or break his career as a wideout. Like Hawkins, he could also be a safety at the next level. Johnson is a 5’11”, 175 lb. slot guy who was committed to Purdue at one time. He decommitted when some bigger offers came pouring in, and Michigan was the recipient of his second commitment of the cycle. Then it looked like he would flip to Notre Dame or maybe Miami, but he went ahead and signed with the Wolverines. With his size and skills, he’s the one prototypical slot receiver of the bunch. Crawford is a combo receiver at 6’1″, 186 lbs. who played in the U.S. Army All-American Bowl; he’s stronger than but not quite as quick as Johnson. The final piece of the wide receiver puzzle is McDoom, an Under Armour All-American who stands 5’11”, 170 lbs. He, too, could play inside or outside and has some value as a potential kickoff returner.
Biggest miss: The Wolverines missed out on a couple high-profile targets they put themselves in position to potentially reel in at one point or another. The first and most obvious was Detroit (MI) King wideout Donnie Corley, Jr., who was high on Michigan at one point but was ignored for a long time by the Wolverines. Brady Hoke’s staff did not make him a priority, but Michigan worked extra hard to try to get back in his good graces, as well as repair relationships with King’s staff. He ended up choosing in-state rival Michigan State instead. The other high-profile target Michigan whiffed on was Elbertson (GA) Elbert County athlete Mecole Hardman. Hardman visited Michigan last winter and gave them a shot, though he always seemed bound for either Georgia or Alabama. He ended up choosing the home-state Bulldogs. Corley was the bigger miss since he lived an hour away from Ann Arbor, although Hardman is the superior athlete.
Decommits: None.
Other wide receiver offers:
Korey Banks, Jr. (North Carolina)
Scott Bracey (Duke)
Sam Bruce (Miami)
Cameron Chambers (Michigan State)
T.J. Chase (Clemson)
Devaughn Cooper (Arizona)
Donnie Corley (Michigan State)
Nate Craig-Myers (Auburn)
Tren’Davian Dickson (Texas)
Devin Duvernay (Baylor)
Simi Fehoko (Stanford)
Demetric Felton (UCLA)
Desmond Fitzpatrick (Louisville)
Joshua Hammond (Florida)
Mecole Hardman (Georgia)
Grant Holloway (Florida)
Theo Howard (UCLA)
Josh Imatorbhebhe (USC)
Jailyn Ingram (Florida Atlantic)
Michael Irvin, Jr. (Miami)
Joshua Jackson (Virginia Tech)
Collin Johnson (Texas)
Jack Jones (USC)
Velus Jones, Jr. (Oklahoma)
Justin Layne (Michigan State)
Austin Mack (Ohio State)
Steffon McKnight (undecided)
Tre Nixon (Ole Miss)
Diondre Overton (Clemson)
Demetris Robertson (undecided)
Steven Smothers (West Virginia)
Kevin Stepherson (Notre Dame)
Donald Stewart (Stanford)
Eli Stove (Auburn)
Freddie Swain (Florida)
Binjimen Victor (Ohio State)
Daevon Vigilant (New Mexico)
Keyshawn Young (USC)
Grade: A. Michigan may not have pulled in any truly elite receivers, but they got numbers at the position. And I think the best part of this position group is that the coaching staff brought in a variety of weapons: the big outside receiver with impressive athleticism (Mitchell), the tiny slot guy (Johnson), the possession guy (Hawkins), and a couple guys who could play inside or outside (Crawford, McDoom). Furthermore, a few of those guys could play other positions or help on punt or kickoff returns.
You need to login in order to vote
They certainly wanted Corley and Hardman a bunch but everything I have heard suggests that McDoom was near or right at the top of the receiver board and was a great, late surprise. To me, that pickup really moved this from an A-/B+ class to a solid A.
You need to login in order to vote
Generous considering they whiffed on the top instate guy. Mitchell and Hawkins come in with high recruiting rankings and are good athletes, but I’m not sure either of them is going to end up being a go-to WR in the Chesson, Edwards, Manningham mold.
I do love the “slot” WRs they got and believe at least one of them will end up starting outside. Oregon and Michigan both seemed to value McDoom over Crawford, despite their rankings difference.
You need to login in order to vote
It doesn’t matter where the talent comes from. It only matters that you get the talent. Regardless, I don’t think it’s the goal to turn all five of these guys into superstars. But the fact that they recruited five well regarded players who all have a chance to be good is an important thing. Michigan needed an influx of receivers, and here they are. I’d say that’s a job well done.
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah, I agree with that in general. But, in this case they didn’t replace Corley with another elite player, he went to MSU instead, and losing elite in-state guys is a larger trend that Corley was just the latest example of. Unlike Hardman, Michigan had an advantage in being the nearest significant program to Corley. That makes the loss more meaningful because their chances are better. Given all that context, the Corley loss is disappointing. If Michigan landed a top 10 recruit instead of Corley, I have no problem with any of that stuff, but they didn’t.
If your argument is that they needed a lot of guys and got a lot of guys, then I don’t buy that. Michigan can recruit 25 WRs if they want – it doesn’t mean they did a good job. The roster is what the roster is and you have to identify your target # at the position. It’s about HOW you fill that need, not the number you need. If you apply that logic you can say they did a good job everytime they have a high need pretty much in advance, as long as they don’t start reaching for guys below-caliber for Michigan.
I do agree that, considering they took 5, they did a good job in recruiting 5 quality prospects. I don’t see anyone on the list who is an obvious head-scratcher or reach like we saw with Hoke. They deserve credit for that.
Still, the average ranking is mediocre. While I agree the lower ranked guys seem undersold in the rankings, the higher ranked guys seem a little overrated, so overall the rankings are reasonable. I’m basing that opinion on offers and how their recruitment’s played out. Top schools wanted them but they didn’t seem to be prioritized by many elite schools. (Though McDoom might be an exception to that.)
I’d give them a B+. Consider history. There was a time when Michigan recruited the top 2 WR in the country when both were 5-stars and top 20 overall recruits (regardless of position). Walker and Terrell — That’s an A+. In 2004 they got two Top 15 guys (Dutch and Arrington) and in 2005 they got two Top 10 guys (Bass and Manningham) – That’s an A.
This is Michigan. You don’t get an A unless you land at least one top 10 caliber guy. Don’t go soft on em Magnus. You have a reputation to uphold.
You need to login in order to vote
I think it’s just about impossible for Michigan to get an A grade in the ’17 WR class if they don’t land DPJ. In-state kid that they can’t replace out of state. Depth not an issue so they can focus on an elite talent, especially a big guy (given all the smaller guys in the last class). DPJ is exactly what they want and need. If they don’t land him, it’s a failure.
You need to login in order to vote
Also you gave Michigan an A- for getting their 2nd choice at QB (3rd if you want to view Eason as a reasonable option), who was still a top 10 national player. And a B+ at RB where they got 4 guys for 1 spot including a top 5 ranked recruit. Not that the rankings are all that matters but it seems a bit inconsistent to give WR an A.
Those other grades seem on point. This one seems quite generous.
You need to login in order to vote
sorry 3 backs, not 4, but you get the point. Michigan addressed the need and got at least one top target.
The RB and WR recruiting was similar IMO where they got highly ranked guy(s)who probably not quite as good as rankings indicate and some 3/4 star guys who fill team needs. Heavy numbers for both spots assuming no position flips.
You need to login in order to vote
I think QB and WR are different positions. There might be only a couple players who can fit your offense at QB, but there are so many quality receivers around the country that you don’t have to get your #2 choice to get an “A”, in my opinion.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree. That’s why M getting their 2nd pick at QB seems like a bigger success. I’d give them an A for QB recruiting.
You need to login in order to vote
I guess it all depends on your perspective. You’re approaching it from a recruiting site rankings perspective. You gave the 2004 class an “A” even though Arrington was pretty good and Doug Dutch did absolutely nothing. In retrospect, that’s not an “A,” in my opinion. Maybe it would have been at the time, but I wasn’t covering recruiting at the time.
I’m approaching it from the perspective of my own view of the site. I have a higher opinion of some of these recruits than some of the recruiting sites, and I like the mix of players. Therefore, I give it an “A.”
You need to login in order to vote
Well, you have to compare apples to apples. Can’t include what you know about the careers of Dutch and Arrington at Michigan because we don’t know the same for current recruits. All we can go on is the quality of the prospect coming out of HS. This isn’t an after-the-fact grade obviously.
I think you certainly have a right to – and should – include your assessment. I know you’re not as high on Peters as the sights so the A- ranking is totally reasonable, but I don’t really remember you being that blown away by any of our WR recruits or arguing that they were better gets than Corley. I could have missed that though.
You need to login in order to vote
I can’t compare “apples to apples” when it comes to Dutch/Arrington, because I didn’t follow them as recruits. I realize it’s not an after-the-fact grade, which is why I refuse to reach back that far. I can’t erase from my brain that Doug Dutch just wasn’t an effective college football player.
I didn’t really argue that our guys were better than Corley, but I also don’t think Corley is a can’t-miss future superstar. There were 38 players who had 1,000-yard receiving seasons last year. Obviously, they weren’t all rated as highly as Corley, so there are other players in this class who will almost certainly be as productive or more productive in college than Corley. Did any of those guys sign with Michigan? I don’t know. We’ll just have to see.
You need to login in order to vote
Yes of course “we will see” – that’s recruiting. But the whole concept of this column is not that. You are grading them before they play.
I’m not asking you to make a comparison to those early aughts recruits – I made the comparison. They were both top 15 players (by recruiting rankings). Whether you would have agreed or not is impertinent. What they did after they were recruits is impertinent too. You don’t have that info for these 2016 guys but you’re grading them anyway.
What matters is that Michigan can get two top 15 caliber prospects in one class. They’ve shown they can do that. They can do that even in back-to-back years. In the 2016 class, they did not. They could have gotten Hardman and Corley, but they didn’t. They wanted them – they didn’t get them – they moved on. I don’t think you’re arguing anyone of these guys is that caliber of a player. Corley may not be ‘can’t miss’ but he’s a consensus top 15 national WR prospect – rankings, offers, pundits, effort put into recruitment, etc. Michigan missed on it’s “A-list” targets.
If you give Michigan an A for filling their need with typical or average (for Michigan) caliber recruits, you will be giving them an A almost every year. To me that’s an “easy A” and not consistent with your more stringent grading at other positions.
I think that even if you like these guys more than their recruiting ranks indicate (and it sounds like you do) that still doesn’t get them up to an A grade. There is no can’t-miss prospect and there isn’t even a highly-likely-to-not-miss prospect of Corley’s caliber. It’s a deep WR group and fills the need in the class but I don’t think it exceeds expectations for a Michigan-level of talent.
I get where you are coming from – since there are 5 guys and a need at the position it’s likely that someone from this class, probably a couple guys,are going to have very productive careers at Michigan. But I think in grading how good of a job Michigan did in recruiting in a class you have to take context (numbers) into consideration. You have to take into consideration who they WANTED vs who they got.
You need to login in order to vote
is evans officially starting out at RB or D rather than WR?
You need to login in order to vote
He’s supposed to start off at running back.
You need to login in order to vote