Is Auburn a Dark Horse for 5-Star DT Montravius Adams?
One of the biggest fish left in the recruiting pond in the class of 2013 is Dooly County (Ga.) High School defensive tackle Montravius Adams.
Adams will announce his decision on national signing day on Feb. 6, with Georgia, Alabama, Clemson and Florida all squarely in the mix for his services.
What about Auburn?
The Tigers were in the mix for Adams prior to their miserable 3-9 season and coaching change. Now that former Georgia recruiting coordinator Rodney Garner has joined first-year head coach Gus Malzahn's staff, Auburn could be a dark horse to land Adams' services.
"I think he [Garner] immediately put Auburn back in the game for a kid like Montravius Adams,” Fox Sports recruiting analyst Chad Simmons told the Athens (Ga.) Red & Black.
Apparently that's the case. Members of Auburn's coaching staff met with Adams at Dooly County High School on Thursday, according to Rusty Mansell of 247Sports.com.
Auburn staff meeting with 5-Star Montravius Adams now and Clemson in the hall waiting to go in. Alabama and UGA are up after that..Wild one!— Rusty Mansell (@Mansell247) January 17, 2013
Adams could make an immediate impact on first-year defensive coordinator Ellis Johnson's defensive line. The Tigers do return all five defensive tackles from their end of the season depth chart, but keeping those players fresh is key for any defense—especially late in the season.
Where will Montravius Adams sign?
Adams' size and quickness off the ball could land him in the rotation of the interior line from the moment he steps foot on campus.
But just how seriously is Adams considering Auburn?
He has visits set up with his four favorites, but the weekend of Feb. 2—the last weekend before national signing day—is noticeably open on Adams' calendar.
Could Adams let Auburn have the last at-bat?
Either way, it's clear that the Tigers making a late push for his services—and the stellar staff Gus Malzahn has hired on the Plains—could pay immediate dividends on the recruiting trail.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?