Gosh I hope so! That kid is so immensely talented. We must be checking all the boxes before the inevitable offer, because he’d be the most explosive player on our roster if he came here.
My absolute number 1 dream recruit for 18. Bar none.
Why haven’t we offered Dwayne cohill?
Well it’s clear that UM has prioritized Ryan and Johns for the two open scholarships for next year. Wonder what kind of timeframe they will have before widening their offer net for guys like Cohill.
I think there is a scenario where that exists at least on the surface. Say this year all we see are Donnal/Wagner getting pt but Donnal doesn’t get a 5th year. Going into next year they would have 3 bodies but Wagner the only one with any experience.
1 Like
If that kid eventually wants to come here and we don’t make an opening for him, I’ve run out of excuses for JB’s recruiting.
He’d be the most talented kid on our roster the moment he walks into the gym and an absolutely dynamic attacking lead guard.
The way that kid can finish with either hand in the lane is uncanny. He’s a super player on both ends of the floor as well as an improving passer.
He be an outstanding addition for 18. OFFER NOW!!
1 Like
He looks very good to me and I’m not sure why we haven’t yet, doesn’t make a whole lot if sense.
I’d offer now and pray he bites before the Bluebloods inevitably start sniffing.
He is going to end up a top 30 player before he’s done with HS. This is a kid you dream is interested in your program.
Speaking of dreaming … Cohill, Ryan, and Johns. Oh my!!
Technically we only have 2 scholarship JRs. Wilson is still classified as a RS-SO.
So unless UM banks a scholarship in the 2017 class, Beilein only has 2 scholarships to offer for the 2018 class.
Recruit with unknown attrition in mind. This kid is exactly what the program lacks, someone who can beat you off the bounce and finish at the rim.
He’s a dynamite player right now and is only going to get better. Xavier and Eli don’t possess his physical gifts.
2 Likes
We have what, 4 or 5 offers out now for 1 slot in 17. There is no reason you can’t extend 3 for two slots. It is actually what JB seems to do most often. Offer multiple and force them to act on their interest.
Generally Beilein’s MO has been to prioritize a small group at this point of the Junior class and slowly expand the offers through the season, offer some more after the season wraps up and then summer before the Senior year push the group up to 4 or 5 offers per scholarship available.
My guess is the coaches scouting evaluations have Ryan as the clear top choice for their guard/wing spot in '18. And the feedback they are getting probably indicates they have a good shot at landing Ryan.
If the coaches thought there was a 1a/1b situation, then they’d probably offer both.
But 18mos out, no reason to go to option 2 or 3 or 4 if option 1 is still a decent possibility.
1 Like
That is a reasonable summary of how they have operated with the exception of the 2016 class where they handed out like 6 offers at the JB green light date.
What I disagree with or would at least extend my answer on is your comment of “no reason to…” There is an absolute reason to: to keep Cohill engaged and appreciated. This isn’t some project or some 100+ guy who can be slow played.
I like Ryan but he is going to be a competitive recruitment, just the same that everyone who is super pessimistic on any of the top tier 17 kids. It feels like we are giving up a 50-70% chance at Cohill for a 20-30% chance at Ryan, only we wouldn’t even be giving up the chance at Ryan, we are just putting both in parallel. Obviously those numbers are just my read on the commentary and likely wrong, but I hope they got a much better read from Ryan, or Cohill is less warm than he sounded. Only way this would make sense to me.
Remember Josh Langford…
one last point - this also assumes no unplanned attrition for the next 24m. Something that I think would be an exception
1 Like
I was there on Saturday. I’m as excited about Cohill as anyone–I love his athleticism, motor, shooting ability and ability to get to the hole. Personally, I would offer him now, and pursue him relentlessly…as a wing. However, if, as he says, he wants to be a PG at the college level, or even a combo, then I understand, though do not fully agree with, the decision to watch him more. He does not have the handle, right now, of a PG, and his passing and vision, while pretty good, is not PG level. I think he’ll get there–he appears to have a great attitude and a big time desire to improve, to go with his obvious skill set–but he’s not there yet.
One other thing of note–for whatever reason (and I can think of a number, different ones of which apply to different kids), John Beilein gets kids willing to pull the trigger within 60 days of an offer being extended, and generally does not get those who aren’t willing to do so. In 9 recruiting years at Michigan, I can think of exactly 4 kids who have gone more than 60 days from offer to commitment (5 if you count Battle who then decommitted)–Morris, Stauskas, McGary and Chatman–and over 30 who were prompt commitments. I can also think of a dozen plus long recruitments which looked liked they were going Michigan’s way for a substantial time only to end up badly. I get the sentiment that Beilein should offer kids earlier (and offer more kids), and I agree with it in some respects, but I don’t know whether it would help much. Beilein is very, very good at recruiting kids and parents on visits–kids like Livers, Brooks, Cain, Eastern from this class (and their families), and many others from past recruitments have spoken glowingly of the presentation at the campus–and not as good in many instances after the visit recedes. I’m sure Beilein would love to be able to win long recruitments as much as anyone, but the pattern does seem to be stark.
3 Likes
First point, I fully get, and haven’t seen the kid so speaking more from a philosophical position based on those who have. Appreciate the perspective.
Second point, a few things at play or to consider here:
-
Ryan looks like he will be a long recruitment given who is kicking the tires. That stark point could lead one to think that keeping Cohill at arms reach for lower probability with Ryan is a risk. Or it could mean that they give Ryan 60d and then expand which is fine/fair so long as the risk/reward is considered.
-
“John Beilein gets kids willing to pull the trigger within 60 days of an offer being extended, and generally does not get those who aren’t willing to do so” But consider why… when you have given offers to Ibi, Dawkins, Maar, spike, Caris, Davis, etc, one could argue that we are good at fast recruitments b/c we spend our capital too easily on players where we are their best offer and who may be more inclined to quickly say yes (even if some of the lower ones pan out at a better than avg rate). Not knocking the players specifically but being good at being fast could be a bad thing if the targets are below what we could otherwise get by fighting and waiting. If one doesn’t think we could win those fights with the current staff, then there is another/broader question in play.
-
Final point - the names you mentioned who took longer are great names. Give me a lower batting average but connecting on one of those types every couple years all day. Even if you strike out 9 of 10 times it needs to be part of the overall recipe. Need to get one of those guys with some frequency if you want to play 2nd/3rd weekend tourney games [or be exceptional at everything else]. I may have conflicted my point #1 here on Ryan
but didn’t think a guy of Cohill’s caliber could be a casualty of the preferred strategy (more like brooks/ibi/etc).
but didn’t think a guy of Cohill’s caliber could be a casualty of the preferred strategy (more like brooks/ibi/etc).I’m not saying that being good at fast recruitments, but not as good at long recruitments is optimal–it’s not. But, it is reality, and IMO, it’s not just limited to guys like Ibi, Dawkins, etc. Tim Hardaway, Trey Burke, Glenn Robinson III, Derrick Walton, Zak Irvin, Xavier Simpson and more were all quick recruitments, and everyone in this class including Matthews, all of whom had big time alternatives, was a quick recruitment as well. Again, I’d like for us to be better at short recruitments and long ones, and I’m not excusing our low batting average in long recruitments, but it is what it is.
Frankly, I can’t think of many situations where we threw over a much better guy in a long recruiting situation to take a lower rated guy rather than fighting and waiting. We stopped recruiting Winston, but Simpson was essentially an equivalent player rating wise; same with Young and Livers. Maybe Ibi instead of waiting for Huerter–we’ll see how that one turns out. Maybe I’m missing some.
1 Like
within the same year, i would agree. not a lot of examples, and overall agree with your assessment – many good players took the offer quickly.
The only situation I could reference (and it is just one) would be space/position management of 2016 and langford. Either taking fewer of the late adds in 2014 or not taking Davis would have given us some flexibility even with Battle’s flip flop (as would not being so rigid on having to have a PG in 16) and Langford could have been considered. That could be equal parts overall strategy and specific slot management, but it keeps me thinking about how to avoid those scenarios.
Probably counter to the dialogue, I’m actually quite happy with the 17/18 options and commits so far, but do want the gap in top tier recruiting to be remedied. I don’t agree with Jalen Rose very often, but his comment on the next step being recruiting all american talent is spot on. I think Donlon and Saddi really complement each other very well, and just want them to push for higher aspirations b/c I think they have the right composite makeup to do more than the past regime.
1 Like
I think most would agree that, out of the 2017 class (including Matthews), Eli Brooks might cause the most pause. Considering your thinking on pursuing 5-star talent, do you think his commitment was a good one to take?
I am, admittedly, wavering. I was very happy with the commitment at the time, mostly because of his offers list. But, seeing how much promise there is for ‘top’ talent, and still reasonable hope for the elite guys (Wilkes, Bowen, Jackson), in both 2017 and 2018, I am wondering if Brooks may be occupying a scholarship of a more talented, and more needed, player, from either class.
I know some could say that the same could be said of Livers, but I think our GLARING need at the 4 easily justifies taking Livers, especially considering how well his skill-set fits into our system and needs.
BleedBlue I hear what you are saying but what I see in Brooks is a combo with a diverse game. I don’t know personally but would bet JB does not want to get caught again without more than a couple of ball handlers who can run the point like he has been the last two years. I see value in Brooks game with its versatility. And I may be wrong but I can see him tracking after a true point in 2018 because of transfers injuries and the like.
I don’t see any of those elites running the point Maybe that person is Cohill but he has not seen enough of those skills to offer as a point. And Livers is a bird in the hand for an area of desperate need.