2016 3* DE/OT Micheal Boykin (Louisville commit)

[augolf1716 21,120]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

Yet another report that a recruit wasn't a take even though the day before it was thought that he was. Spin it.

[cole256 17,051]

Lol, he just made it up?

[gravejd 3,270]

You saying a recruit has never said he had an offer from a school when he didn't?? I remember a couple years ago a guy committing to a school during a ceremony and he never had an offer.

Now I have no idea if he was a take or not but its not out of the realm of possibility that he THOUGHT he was and wasn't.

[ellitor 33,092]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

[aujeff11 6,243]

You saying a recruit has never said he had an offer from a school when he didn't?? I remember a couple years ago a guy committing to a school during a ceremony and he never had an offer.

Now I have no idea if he was a take or not but its not out of the realm of possibility that he THOUGHT he was and wasn't.

It was thought that Muschamp considered him a take yesterday. Now supposedly he isn't a take. I don't care about what the recruit thinks. Some people just need to admit that we screwed the pooch and slow played him.

[ellitor 33,092]

You saying a recruit has never said he had an offer from a school when he didn't?? I remember a couple years ago a guy committing to a school during a ceremony and he never had an offer.

Now I have no idea if he was a take or not but its not out of the realm of possibility that he THOUGHT he was and wasn't.

It was thought that Muschamp considered him a take yesterday. Now supposedly he isn't a take. I don't care about what the recruit thinks. Some people just need to admit that we screwed the pooch and slow played him.

Reporters can have bad sources. The stuff about Boom calling Boykin to say he was a take did not come from Boykin.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

What are you talking about?

[ellitor 33,092]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

What are you talking about?

Boykin.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

What are you talking about?

Boykin.

thanks, Since when have we recruited him as OT though?

[ellitor 33,092]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

What are you talking about?

Boykin.

thanks, Since when have we recruited him as OT though?

Reports are that is where we always were recruiting him.

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

The confusion may be that this AU football recruiting thread is entitled 3* DE Michael Boykin.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The confusion may be that this AU football recruiting thread is entitled 3* DE Michael Boykin.

Yep. I don't get the nonchalance behind it like everybody already knew he was being recruited as an OT.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

Boykin was not a "take" on the DE. CWM did not call him and tell him he was like is being reported. FWIW.

So were we recruiting him at offensive tackle instead of DE as is now being reported? I'll hang up an listen.

No clue about the OL.

[ellitor 33,092]

The confusion may be that this AU football recruiting thread is entitled 3* DE Michael Boykin.

Yep. I don't get the nonchalance behind it like everybody already knew he was being recruited as an OT.

I was not being nonchalent about it nor acted like everyone knew. The report came out last night that we were actually recruiting him at OT instead of DE. All the sites are saying that now. I was asking if WDE could confirm it since it's so new and seems totally off the wall from everything we heard on this recruitment before yesterday.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

Lol, he just made it up?

This^^^^^^

[augolf1716 21,120]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

Yet another report that a recruit wasn't a take even though the day before it was thought that he was. Spin it.

No spin from me and I never said he was a sure fire take. Just going by what I've been told. I will agree we may have slow played him

[AU Counsel 64]

A 3 star in July...relax, people.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

Yet another report that a recruit wasn't a take even though the day before it was thought that he was. Spin it.

No spin from me and I never said he was a sure fire take. Just going by what I've been told. I will agree we may have slow played him

I'm not saying you are spinning it. I'm saying time after time, sour grapes always show up in some way or fashion. Can we not call a loss a loss?

[aujeff11 6,243]

A 3 star in July...relax, people.

I drank coffee this morning, ate some toast and jelly and read the paper. Just because I can discuss something without going complete sunshine pumping mode doesn't mean I'm standing on a ledge.

[Tivo48 31]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

Yet another report that a recruit wasn't a take even though the day before it was thought that he was. Spin it.

No spin from me and I never said he was a sure fire take. Just going by what I've been told. I will agree we may have slow played him

I'm not saying you are spinning it. I'm saying time after time, sour grapes always show up in some way or fashion. Can we not call a loss a loss?

Just my opinion, but if he wasn't actually a take (which there seem to be plenty of mixed reports on) then it's not sour grapes for anyone to say it. After losing Martez Ivey, CeCe Jefferson, Terry Godwin, etc in last years class I didn't see anyone saying they weren't takes. It was pretty much unanimous that we gave it our best shot and things didn't work out.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Hope we can flip him, if not we blew this one

Yup! I don't like the way we played the game on this one for the moment. With that said, if we can get him for the cookout this weekend he seems easily flipable.

I'm not so sure he is a take even now on the DL. Could be wrong but I think AU wants to wait a little longer.

Yet another report that a recruit wasn't a take even though the day before it was thought that he was. Spin it.

No spin from me and I never said he was a sure fire take. Just going by what I've been told. I will agree we may have slow played him

I'm not saying you are spinning it. I'm saying time after time, sour grapes always show up in some way or fashion. Can we not call a loss a loss?

Just my opinion, but if he wasn't actually a take (which there seem to be plenty of mixed reports on) then it's not sour grapes for anyone to say it. After losing Martez Ivey, CeCe Jefferson, Terry Godwin, etc in last years class I didn't see anyone saying they weren't takes. It was pretty much unanimous that we gave it our best shot and things didn't work out.

Youre not paying attention then. I've seen reports that several recruits were either not takes, or the players were bad apples, or the players were bad fits. And all these reports are subsequent to the commitments.

[ellitor 33,092]

And all these reports are subsequent to the commitments.

Most have been well before commitments actually. Only Boykin & AU truly know if he was a take. If he was then it's a loss. If he wasn't then it's not. Plain and simple.

[aujeff11 6,243]

And all these reports are subsequent to the commitments.

Most have been well before commitments actually. Only Boykin & AU truly know if he was a take. If he was then it's a loss. If he wasn't then it's not. Plain and simple.

Alright E. Next time I hear something along the lines of "Keith doesn't believe he is a take anyway," after we waited for the player to commit, thinking he was a take, I'm calling you on it. But for now, that's fine.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

And all these reports are subsequent to the commitments.

Most have been well before commitments actually. Only Boykin & AU truly know if he was a take. If he was then it's a loss. If he wasn't then it's not. Plain and simple.

Alright E. Next time I hear something along the lines of "Keith doesn't believe he is a take anyway," after we waited for the player to commit, thinking he was a take, I'm calling you on it. But for now, that's fine.

I do believe AU wanted the kid but he was not a take on the DE. Great athlete who could play several spots. AU slow played him and Louisville made him a priority. All I said were the reports of CWM calling him and telling him he was in on the DE were not true. It was a loss but not a huge loss.