Jackson State transfer Daylen Baldwin committed to Michigan on Monday afternoon. He picked the Wolverines over an offer from Ohio State (and others).
Baldwin is listed at 6'3" and 210 lbs. During the shortened spring 2021 season, he caught 27 passes for 540 yards (20.0 yards/catch) and 7 touchdowns.
Hit the jump for more.
Baldwin bounced around a little bit in high school, going from Southfield to Waterford Mott. He signed with Morgan State in the 2017 class and spent two seasons there before transferring to Jackson State in 2019. After sitting out 2019 and playing in 2020, he decided once again to switch schools. He worked out while visiting Michigan last week, an offer ensued, and it was assumed shortly after that he would pick the Wolverines, with the biggest reason being an opening for immediate playing time.
I have perhaps an irrational affinity for receivers who are roughly 6'3" and 210 lbs., because those have been some of the guys who have had the most success at Michigan, such as Marquise Walker, David Terrell, Adrian Arrington, etc. Michigan doesn't have many of those long, rangy types on the roster in 2021, with just redshirt sophomore Cornelius Johnson and true freshman Cristian Dixon approaching that type of height and length.
Baldwin has some good film from the level of FCS Jackson State, catching deep balls and outjumping some smaller defensive backs. I have not seen evidence that he is an advanced route runner, but Michigan does not really require advanced route running from its outside receivers. The Wolverines mostly need a big receiver who can run fades and posts, allowing the slot guys to run the RPO's over the middle.
Baldwin has a good chance to play immediately at Michigan. Cornelius Johnson will probably start on the outside, and he could somewhat have a breakout season. Ronnie Bell can play outside and inside, and then there are guys like Roman Wilson and A.J. Henning, who are a little smaller but faster than Baldwin. Personally, I think Baldwin is probably the fourth or fifth most talented receiver on the roster, but that should still get him on the field.
How's his speed?
ReplyDeleteI like the pickup. While I am a fan of Johnson, I do think we needed another WR who can provide size/strength, and hopefully stretch things vertically
Experience & depth, I'll take it!
He reportedly ran in the 4.5's at his workout.
DeleteGood get. We'll see how much he contributes but it's clear that the portal has been and continues to be an asset to Michigan.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do appreciate having different skillset at the WR position I do think there is too much emphasis on size in general with fans (and with the Hoke staff). Most specifically, the obsession with fade routes. For all the hype of guys like Collins and Black it was Ronnie Bell who has been the most consistent and productive WR over the last couple years. Terrell/Arrington were 20 years ago and neither produced as much as Howard (30 years ago) or Gallon (10 years ago). Even on jumpballs and fades guys like Hemingway and Gallon stood out more than say Gentry or Funchess. Of course we all would like another Braylon Edwards type who can dominate a game but these days that player is as likely to look like Rondale Moore as Calvin Johnson.
But yeah, there's not a lot of big bodies at the WR spot on this roster compared to most years. If Baldwin can prove to be field-stretching deep threat, that will be very valuable to the team.
Nice to see good news in the football program.
-LANK
As always, it's good to have a variety of players. You want tall guys, short guys, fast guys, possession guys, etc. When your WR group has just one guy who's over 6'0" tall (Cornelius Johnson), you don't have much variety.
DeleteI'm with you on the value of a varied skillset but not on height. I just don't think you have to be over 6' to be a good outside WR, jumpball guy, or deep threat.
DeleteWhile I do think height is one trait that is helpful for catch radius and helpful for straight line speed, it's a pretty soft indicator of ability in those areas. See: Jeremy Gallon and Hemingway vs every WR recruit in the Hoke era.
-LANK
Junior Hemingway is 6'1
DeleteI'm aware. The intent was to draw a contrast between the Hoke recruits (most 6'2 or more) and the shorter Rodriguez recruits that still played outside.
DeleteHemingway was neither the tallest nor the fastest but he was arguably the best deep ball guy we had over the decade because of his strength, timing, and instincts. Hoke tried to recruit a bunch of big WR to fit the bill and the closest he got was Funchess (who had a lower YPC than Gallon) and Chesson. He emphasized size instead of speed/skill. It's not that simple.
-LANK
You don't HAVE to be any one trait or another to be good at something. We've soon good tall/short running backs, good tall/short offensive linemen, good tall/short linemen, good fast/slow running backs, etc.
DeleteThe reason we always go back to Jeremy Gallon for the "You don't have to be tall to be a good jump ball guy" is that he's literally the only good jump ball receiver to play at Michigan in the last few decades.
The proof is in the pudding. The best coaches in college football and the NFL seek out guys of varying heights. No team out there runs out 5'10" receivers on every snap, and no team out there plays 6'4" guys exclusively.
The differences in height on different teams doesn't prove your point because it's also true for orchestras, auto mechanics, and most anything else. The managers/bosses don't seek out a variety of heights - they seek a variety of skill.
DeleteGo back through the many tall Hoke WR recruits and ask how often jump balls came up? With most of them. That Gallon is the only good one proves the point. Though I would say Edwards, Hemingway, Collins, and Butt were also excellent at jump balls.
-Lank
So why doesn't Alabama end up with a bunch of 5'10" receivers with those varied skill sets? If Gallon proves the point, then a repository of 5-star receivers surely could find a 5'10" jump ball guy, a 5'10" possession guy, a 5'10" speedster, etc.
DeleteInstead, the receivers on Alabama's roster are anywhere from 5'8" to 6'3".
*and every other roster across the country. Height is not the 'only' or 'most important' trait, but one of many to spread across the Receiver room
DeleteSome want to twist that, and pretend the discussion is about 'only' or 'most important' just to argue about something
All due respect but this is a nonsensical line of debate that I already answered above. There is no reason to try to get everyone to be the same height. That goes for an orchestra just as for a WR group. What would it achieve?
DeleteIt is about skill.
Could Alabama get a full range of skills with an all 5'10 crew - yes, because they are Alabama. They managed to be absolutely elite at downfield throws without a single guy over 6'1. Michigan could also probably be pretty successful with Bell, Henning, Wilson, etc. who are similar in height.
Could most schools succeed this way - probably not. They have to pick and choose and accept tradeoffs. So they might not be able to find the 5'10 burner who is a great downfield threat just as they're also probably not finding the 6'4 guy who has quickness to be successful working on inside routes either. Most schools will settle to fill their range of needs, and thus probably take some bigger slower WR and cross their fingers that he can make plays - this was the Hoke approach.
-LANK
Let's get down to the heart of it instead of some weird fantasy where everyone is the same height. Your argument is that taller guys tend to be better at jump balls. I don't disagree with that part. There's a correlation. Catch radius is helpful (though wingspan is more important than height just like in basketball).
DeleteWhat I disagree with is extending that argument to: you need big guys to win jump balls. I disagree for 2 reasons - 1 is that jump balls are overrated - it's really about having downfield threats which speed can achieve just as well, especially if your QB is accurate - and 2 is that being tall doesn't mean you are good at jump balls or downfield even, though that assertion is made every time there's a big guy who can just outsize people in high school.
Ronnie Bell is a better deep threat than Drake Harris or Csonte York. Desmond Howard and Jeremy Gallon were tremendous downfield threats despite their size. Alabama's Jaylen Waddle was one of the best deep threats in college last year at 5'10. Etc.
Height's not entirely irrelevant, but it's not something you have to go out and target. It's not a need you have to fill. Especially when you use tight ends.
Having a downfield threat - you DO need THAT, at least most teams.
It's just like basketball - you need certain things - rebounding, defense, toughness inside. But you don't have to fill that need with height just to be tall. And basketball is a game where height/length absolutely is a critical part of the game.
So yes, it's nice if you have a 7 footer inside but the 6'9 guy who boxes out, plays smart defense, and has long arms (Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman) is going to address the rebounding and defense you need. Wallace was special yeah, but there are only so many Shaqs and Yao Mings around.
Right now, the biggest guy out there for most of the remaining playoff teams is around 6'10 and only one of them has a guy who is 7' (Lopez). The Clippers just beat the Jazz using a 6'9 guy at Center (Batum) opposite the 7'1 DPOY. If their coaches said, I have to put a 7' guy out there right now to get defense and rebounding needs met - they would have lost.
So, back to football, height can help at certain parts of being a good WR. But jump balls are a TINY part of the game. Height helps there, but it's no guarantee and it's not even a particularly good indicator overall.
The Hoke approach - size for sizes sake led to a steady decline in offensive production. The Rodriguez approach - height is irrelevant - led to the best offense in the last 20 years and arguably the 2 best jump ball receivers we've seen in that time, both under 6'2.
-LANK
The proof is in the pudding. When Michigan has focused on WR height they have performed poorly at WR. The best offense in college football, one that thrived especially on downfield success, didn't have any tall WRs.
DeleteHeight is not a characteristic that needs to be recruited for at WR.
-LANK
Wow...this argument is all over the place. I'm going to try to trim it down.
DeleteI think we're saying roughly the same thing when it comes to size. It doesn't matter - IF you get the right guys - but the right guys (to win jump balls) are more likely to be the taller guys. Sure, Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman were good defenders/rebounders as undersized front-line guys, but the 7'1" guys automatically alter shots and get rebounds WITHOUT having to expend so much effort, without having to be so technical, etc.
"When Michigan has focused on WR height they have performed poorly at WR" is false. Lloyd Carr, Gary Moeller, etc. did not bring in short receivers, and they had GREAT receivers. Small guys either were not recruited or did very little (Tyrone Butterfield), while big guys put up great numbers and got drafted (Braylon Edwards, David Terrell, Marquise Walker, etc.). Steve Breaston and Jason Avant, both of whom were 6'0", were probably the smallest relevant players during that Moeller and Carr recruited at WR. Players who are 6'0"+ have been Michigan's best receivers under Harbaugh, too, such as Chesson, Darboh, Collins, Bell, Peoples-Jones, etc. Guys like Grant Perry, Giles Jackson, A.J. Henning, etc. have not done much at all as receivers.
Michigan's "best offense in the last 20 years" (I assume you mean 2010) scored 17, 28, 7, and 14 points against four ranked teams for an average of 16.5 points per game.
Michigan averaged 26.4 against ranked teams in 2015, 30.2 in 2016, 27.3 in 2011, etc.
That Rodriguez offense was the absolute definition of beating up on cupcakes and then failing against anyone with a pulse.
Taking the topic in many (mostly off point) directions is intential
DeleteWhen I made the statement about height I was referring specifically to the post-Carr era. But if you're going back there I would say the focus was not height for height sake back then at all.
DeleteGuys like Walker/Terrell were absolutely elite blue chip recruits. After Moeller modernized the offense out of Bo's clutches, Michigan was a powerhouse that recruited QBs and WRs at modern Alabama levels. As always, if you can get a typical 5'11 guys skillset in a 6'4 package - do it! If you can get a typical 6'4 guys skillset in a 5'11 package - do it. You take the blue chip talent in whatever package it comes in (you dont worry about size in that case). That wasn't what Hoke did at all. Anyway, the best WR of that era was 5'11.
I like arguing but I'm not going to rehash the Rodriguez era. No one is going to change their mind about any of it. I'd just wonder which Michigan offense was producing against elite defenses better than 2010's.
As for Harbaugh - Chesson and Darboh were not his guys. I praised Harbaugh for not focusing on size in recruiting like Hoke did, and indeed he hasn't with most guys, except for the Black/DPJ/Collins class. DPJ was a blue chipper and generational athlete - so great. Black and Collins not too far off... Otherwise the leading Harbaugh receivers have been Grant Perry and Ronnie Bell. Bell you described as undersized and compared him to small Perry. Harbaugh recognizes that height isn't a need and has recruited accordingly. The leading receiver has been 6' or less in 3 of the last 5 years, despite DPJ and Collins being around for much of that time.
-LANK
The point you're missing in the basketball analogy is that that teams who try to force it and put a 7' guy out there are losing. Height for height sake doesn't work, even where height has clear advantages.
DeleteI don't think "expending effort" or "being technical" are bad things. Wallace and Rodman played more minutes than most 7 footers can. The game of basketball has evolved so that centers are getting shorter and quicker.
Same as WR in football - if you can get a 7' guy who is athletic as those guys - do it. You probably can't - so don't go around forcing it. You probably won't succeed.
There's still value in shot-blocking of course and size still helps you but the most effective center in basketball is more likely to be 6'10 than 7'2.
Being able to guard a PG on a switch is more important than being able to defend a post up.
The 90s are over. In basketball and football.
-LANK
To be clear - it is basketball and size will always matter. Length will always help. But even in that context there is a recognition that just throwing out guys who are tall for the sake of it doesn't work. You have to have a wider range of skills - which is why you see guys like Draymond Green closing games at center and most teams leaning on guys who look like power forwards did 25 years ago.
DeleteIn football, where height is only relevant on a small percentage of plays (i.e., jump balls) that logic applies even more. WRs need to be able to run the entire route tree, not just win jump balls. Height can be an equalizer on deep balls and fades, but speed, strength, body control, route running skill, instincts, and hands are all vastly more important overall. This is why there are no WRs over 6'5 in the NFL. It's just not that important.
You want versatility, but it doesn't need to be height. Give me a WR corps of Jaylen Waddle, Rondale Moore, and Elijah Moore all day. I've got the one of the best deep threats in the country, I've got a YAC artisan who can win any route, I've got a quick slot ninja, respectively.
I can do this at Michigan too. Give me Carter, Howard, and Gallon. You can go ahead and have Edwards, Funchess, and Walker. I'll concede on fade routes in the end zone (low percentage play anyway), but my guys are going to win more deep balls, because they can win every route and have speed and all those other things too. Except height.
-LANK
Seriously can't make this BS up:
Delete"it's like in basketball, height doesn't matter"
also, "nevermind basketball, football is different"
just foolishness ... on to the countdown!
"I'd just wonder which Michigan offense was producing against elite defenses better than 2010's."
DeleteBut...but...I just told you the answer!
Michigan's leading receiver has been 6'0"+ for all six years of Jim Harbaugh's tenure, including Perry (6'0", though I thought he was 5'11").
No one is suggesting that Michigan should recruit "height for height's sake." I haven't seen anyone touting Jaron Dukes as a success story, nor has anyone been suggesting that Michigan should only find 6'6" receivers. Height has diminishing returns. BUT there's still a sweet spot in that 6'0"-6'3" range.
Of the top 10 wide receivers in the NFL last year, 8 of them were 6'0" or taller. Were D.J. Moore, Justin Jefferson, and Davante Adams blue-chip recruits?
Again, nobody is saying that Michigan should only recruit ridiculously tall receivers. But a guy who is 6'3" is more likely to win jump balls and with physicality than a guy who is 5'9". For every impressive A.J. Henning jump ball catch, there are multiple jump ball wins for the likes of Collins, Peoples-Jones, Cornelius Johnson, etc.
Are we talking about 6'3 or not. Because 6' isn't tall for a WR. You called Perry and Bell small and have called out the need for people taller than our current pool of mostly guys under 6'2. So if you are saying 6' to 6'1' is plenty tall what is the problem with our current group?
DeleteSorry I missed your line about 2015 and 2016 offenses. I think we went through this debate before and you drawing the line at ranked teams was suspect. (I think it had to do with overall ranking vs defensive ranking and ranking at the time we played them vs ranking at seasons end. And including the shell of Florida in the math too).
I don't want to rehash the details of all that but the 2015 and 2016 offenses both struggled badly against elite defenses just like 2010 did. 2015 OSU - 13 points. 2016 Iowa - 13 points. 3 INTs vs Utah in '15. The debacle turnovers by Speight against OSU in '16. That's why they are called elite defenses. The nice thing about the fancy stats is that they do this math for you.
Bottom line is I think we have a range of skills in the WR corps already including a speedy deep threat in Roman Wilson, who is only 6'.
I have no problem with adding Baldwin of course but I'm responding to your affinity for guys that are 6'3. Add 3 inches and you've got almost nobody. Subtract 3 inches and you've got about 75% of the talent pool.
The diminishing returns argument doesn't hold any water because a 6'3 guy is winning maybe 50% of his jump balls. A 6'9 guy would win way more. Problem is the other 98% of plays that ARE'NT jump ball. The 6'9 guy with the agility and speed and skill needed is so rare he doesn't exist.
-LANK
Who set the arbitrary size at 6'3"?
DeleteI think it's kind of funny that when you picked your Michigan receivers, you literally had to use about a 35-year span in order to pick three "undersized" receivers. So yeah, about once in a decade, Michigan finds a good sub-6'0" guy...
...and once every few classes, Michigan finds a good 6'0"-plus guy (Collins, Peoples-Jones, Johnson, Funchess, Hemingway, Darboh, Chesson, etc.).
There must be a huge drop off in play from Michigan to Jackson St. if hes like 5th at Michigan.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't ypu list Mike. Sainristil?
Sainristil hasn't shown a ton in his first couple years, despite some growing practice hype from this spring.
DeleteStill hopeful for Sainristil but I tend to agree with Thunder here. We've heard hype both offseasons and he's had two reasonably productive seasons, but he hasn't looked like an impact playmaker yet.
DeleteHenning and Wilson (and Giles Jackson, sigh) showed more promise IMO.
-LANK
I just watched his highlights. He seems better than #5 at Michigan. But you're the football guy. It seems he's going to be a good WR though.
DeleteI think this guy has a chance to start.
ReplyDeleteI'll come back here in the Fall and fess up to being wrong if he's at 5 like you say.