Thanks, Scout had a recent article that mentioned those 3 teams I think but was no mention at all of us.
Has anyone heard anything about Kevin Easley? Thought for sure heād receive an offer today
This is the only thing I can find about who contacted him.
Also what will the class be made up of: PF, Wing and PG or 2?
Trust me, he certainly likes UM. Donāt care what Scout article said (no offense). Not saying heās on the verge of committing, but no doubt legit interest.
Probably depends on how 2017 shakes out before we can say exactly what spots.
This is where the debate about too many versus too few offers gets interesting. By all accounts, Easley loves Michigan and might commit very promptly. However, by offering Johns today, it seems clear to me that he is the first priority among '18 forwards. How many forwards we take in '18 may well depend on how the class shakes out for '17, but it could be only one if we take three '17 forwards/bigger wings, or it might be more. Do you offer Easley before giving Johns some time and run the risk that he jumps on it and takes a spot we might rather give Johns or a '17 kid first crack at? Do you not offer and risk offending Easley and losing all? Do you offer both and take whomever commits first? How close are they in terms of our evaluations?
This is what I mean about putting together classes. There are a lot of moving pieces to consider and questions to answer.
1 Like
If its me, Iām offering Easley ASAP. Think heās just as good as Johns, if not better, to be blunt.
1 Like
I get that, Matt, but if they disagree, then what? If they think theyāre at about the same level, then I think they offer both and take whomever commits first. If they donāt offer Eadley soon, then evidently they think Johns is substantially better or thereās some other factor in play (in-state vs. out-of-state, cousin of '19 recruit Cobb, maybe something else).
I absolutely agree, you offer both and take the first to commit. As you say though, the staffās thinking may be very different in relation to my own. However, reasonable minds can probably agree that you have a better chance of obtaining a quality player (both Johns and Easley are quality IMO) at a position of need if you offer both based on simple math. Just my 2 cents, and probably the most reasonable take
Tim Finke was contacted by Michigan today. Top 50 player in '18
1 Like
I think you offer Easley. Worrying about space is probably overthinking this. Wilsonās fifth year isnāt guaranteed, so youāre looking at 7 spots remaining, assuming Wagner makes it to his senior, and with really no forwards at this point. Easley is probably versatile enough to play either forward spot at Michigan. Kind of reminds me of the Vince Edwards situation. Worrying about various scenarios if so and so commits is just too risk averse in my opinion considering the relative paucity of our outstanding offers.
Again, Iād offer Easley based on my review of them off film, because I donāt think thereās a significant difference between them. However, many apparently do, given rankings, and if the staff sees such a difference, then for the reasons I stated earlier, itās not an easy call. Respectfully, I donāt agree with the Vince Edwards analogy at allāwe did offer Edwards in the winter of his junior season, recruited him hard into the summer, then dropped him because (a) heād had a bad summer, and (b) we were not, and had never been, his leader. Clearly, focusing on newer offers like Chatman and Wilson turned out to be a mistake vis-a-vis Edwards, but even if we hadnāt made that mistake, I never saw anything to indicate weād get himāhis mom was solidly in Purdueās corner throughout the recruitment. By contrast, I think thereās a good chance Easley would have jumped at an offer yesterday.
If we donāt offer Easley quickly, it could be a mistakeāEasley might be the better player, and even if heās not, we might piss him off by waiting to the point where we donāt wind up involved with him and, since Johns is no sure thing, wind up with neither. It might also work out just fine. Iām not defending the decisionājust saying that itās not an easy call, as there are risks both ways.
2 Likes
I respect the heck out of you - expressly admitting that offer timing does impact certain prospects. I can certainly tell you this is true.
Kithier update
Well, itās not winter yet, so we could still offer Easley on the Edwards timeline. Regardless of the exact analogy, I worry about the same type of recruitment. I donāt remember all the details and never had any inside info on the recruitment, but I think we made it a little too clear that weād take him but didnāt love him. We stopped recruiting him and he committed to PU before Chatman or Wilson committed. In summer of '13 we were coming off the championship game led by a guy from Ohio. I could be totally wrong, but I think (and always thought) that we couldāve nabbed Edwards but PU made it pretty clear they wanted him a lot more than we did.
A quick search of the archives reveals this link, which suggests he was pretty interested in us and at least was having a good May.
Similarly, for Easley, I think he may not have the perceived ceiling some others do (as perhaps Edwards didnāt in comparison to Chatman, etc.). But with offers from ND, IU, PU, etc., he may not want to come to Michigan if we make it too clear heās a fallback. Iām a big JB supported and not a guy hung up on āshowing the love,ā but I think weāve been a little too risk averse in not offering and then not staying on quite hard enough some of the guys who mightāve been a notch below on our list ā and wound up with guys a couple notches down.
I think I may prefer Johns (bigger; instate; looks like better shooter) over Easley, but I think itās close enough that we should offer both and take first come first serve. Not like Easley is a guy with only MAC offers, heās got offers from the B1G instate schools IIRC. Heās a good player too.
Vince Edwards was considered a heavy Purdue lean from the very start so not sure thatās a great example. One of those cases where everyone said he was heading to Purdue, then Michigan got involved and was sort of the clear No. 2, but in the end it became clear that he was heading to Purdue in the end.
That being said, Iād probably offer Easley. The argument not to would be that heās still kind of a tweener and it will be interesting to see where his game ends up.
Edwards was kind of a tweener too, which was part of what reminded me about him. Like I said, I may be wrong about Edwards. But at that time PU was coming off a losing season and we were coming off the championship game with the player of the year. Often people are considered heavy leans but that may not always be right ā e.g., Towns was considered a heavy Michigan lean for a long time. My vibe on Edwards was that he wanted UM to show that we really wanted him and wouldāve come if we did, otherwise he was going to UM. I will concede others here have a better grasp of the situation.
I still think my point holds true generally on the risk aversion/sticking with the slightly below ideal recruits. We seem a little too worried about or to overthink room/ideal scenario issues.
Seems like my two points got confused there. And Iām a fan of Vince Edwards so donāt get me wrong.
But the question with Easley is that he physically matured early and dominated everyone as an 8th/9th grader. Now heās not as physically dominant and is working to transform the skill element of his game. Players that peak early like that can be a bit of a risk because it is sometimes hard to guess how they end up.