UCLA pushing for trio of Louisiana natives

Three Louisiana recruits are currently visiting UCLA, a thought that could make SEC loyalists feel some mixture of disbelief, indignation and nausea.

Over the last 10 nine years, only one player from the Bayou State — three-star prospect Jeremy McGee — committed to the Bruins. This time around, UCLA is gunning for a trio of top-100 recruits: receiver Malachi Dupre, linebacker Kenny Young and defensive end Davon Godchaux.

How coveted are they? LSU offensive coordinator Cam Cameron took the time to book the same flight to Los Angeles. Landing even just one of the three could do much for the Bruins’ profile in the Deep South, especially with an announcement coming on ESPNU.

Here’s a look at how they might fit on the roster.

Malachi Dupre, 6-3, 195, #2 WR, #15 overall

UCLA has talent at receiver, but no one that can single-handedly flummox opposing defenses. In 10 seasons, only one Bruin wideout has broken the 1,000-yard mark, which speaks to the pre-Hundley revolving door at quarterback as well as the dearth of top-end targets. Over that same span, only two UCLA receivers were drafted: Matt Slater, used primarily as a returner, and Terrence Austin.

Devin Fuller or Devin Lucien could jump into gamebreaker status as juniors, but Malachi Dupre has the size advantage that pushes his ceiling up even more.

There’s no doubting his athleticism either. As a sophomore, Dupre broke the 2A state record with a 6-7.25 high jump. As a junior, he again added a title in that event, as well as long jump and triple jump.

Kenny Young, 6-2, 225, #5 OLB, #95 overall

Listed as both a middle linebacker or outside linebacker depending on which list you check, Young — who is Dupre’s teammate at state champion John Curtis High — should plug nicely into an already deep unit. UCLA already signed four-star linebacker Zach Whitley out of Galena Park, Texas, and still has a shot at five-star Rashaan Evans despite a cancelled visit.

If all three end up in blue and gold, Jeff Ulbrich can send more of these out to Penn State.

Davon Godchaux, 6-4, 270, #9 strongside DE, #114 overall

Godchaux missed essentially his entire senior season at Plaquemine High with a torn ACL and LCL, and committed to LSU in late September when the Tigers kept their scholarship offer on the table. He’s taken official visits elsewhere, but has said publicly that he intends to stick with his commitment.

If he flips to the Bruins, his post-surgery rehab would likely bury him on the depth chart for the upcoming season.

  • jpucla

    Hey Jack, there were more players from LA in the last ten years to commit to UCLA: Chris Markey, Aaron Meyer, Fred Holmes and Chris Johnson. Thanks.

    • Ted

      Chris Horton?

      • jpucla

        He was the first one I thought of but he was class of 2003 so I didn’t include him since Jack noted “over the last 10 years.”

  • Bruin 34

    There are rumors that an elite recruit from.SoCal is visiting today! Go Bruins!

  • SUCC de trop

    I am shocked. Jack actually coughs up semi-relevant FB recruiting news.

    • Peter Lay

      this site has fallen off so much since Brian Dohn and even Miguel Melendez

      • SUCC de trop

        I’m sorry to say – I second the motion.

    • gotroy22

      Scot Wolf posts 4 or 5 stories every day. You ruins are lucky to get one story every 2 days.

    • jameskatt

      I disagree. I think Jack Wang is doing a great job. He has been on top of the football news. This past year, he had more information about UCLA football than the previous writers. His analysis and prediction has also been spot on.

      If you are shocked, then you obviously haven’t been reading this blog. Your name

      Go Bruins!

      • ProbationU

        I read this blog all the time and Wang is far from prolific. Gold was better. And they guy that was here temporarily, Miguel Melendez I think….was much better than Wang.

        I sense a lack of interest/commitment from Mr. Wang.

        • jameskatt

          You have to realize that the insidesocal job is probably only a starter job. Journalism pays so little that writers have to be on the lookout for higher paying positions – like John Gold did.

          I certainly wouldn’t want someone who lives in poverty with his parents, running the show like a dictator in emotional compensation – banning anyone who disagrees with him.

          I appreciate the openness of the discussion on this blog.

          • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

            It’s not an either-or situation.

            The alternative to Melendez (or Gold) is not Nestor.

  • jameskatt

    Go Bruins!

    Where is Joe Blowe when you need him…

    • Joseph B. Lowe

      I love the Big Wang.

      • ProbationU

        So the rumors are true? Thank goodness we Bruins are more liberal than our Trojan counterparts and support gay marriage.

        • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

          Valuing freedom (libertas) does not require endorsing sin.

          (And ironically, “liberalism” is anything but freedom-loving.)

          • ProbationU

            There is a difference between social liberalism..similar to libertarianism than political liberalism.

            Your “sin” comment speaks for itself and the amount of people making that argument are shrinking in the face of scientific evidence about sexuality. You may need to move to SEC country.

          • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

            Calling homosexual unions “marriage” is neither Liberty nor libertarianism; no one is denying anyone their freedom to do what they want with other consenting adults.

            I oppose only violating truth and language.

            And neither an appeal to numbers (“shrinking”) nor authority (“scientific evidence”) is an appeal to fact.

            If you want to appeal to Science, no species on Earth engages exclusively in homosexual activity. The occasional observation of such behavior means that it is, by definition, abnormal.

          • ProbationU

            The Constitution is not a religious document and it provides everyone equality under the law. It is not to be confused with the Old Testament.

            Show me were Jesus addresses homosexuality. it isn’t there. However, he does talk about love often. Who are you to cast the first stone? Marriage equality is not about the Bible, it is about the Constitution.

          • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

            Are you aware of the source of “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”? Is the Word of Christ valid only when it is used to endorse those sins It expressly forbids?

            (And where am I “throwing stones”? Did you read my comment above?)

            The Constitution exists to protect every citizen’s God-given, unalienable rights, a few of which are listed in the Bill of Rights. (Do you support as vigorously the Freedoms of Speech — even that which you find objectionable — and Religion and the Right to Bear Arms?)

            One’s lust does not constitute a civil right.

            Where does the Constitution address marriage at all? The federal government’s authority extends only to those powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and marriage isn’t one of them.

            But suppose it was; where would your tolerance-as-coercion end? Would you allow siblings to “marry”? What about polygynists? What about a man and his sheep?

            (Or worse? In some societies, a man in his mid-fifties “marrying” a nine-year-old is considered “holy.”)

            Would you deny anyone from “marrying” whomever or whatever he desires? Would you deny him society’s legal endorsement? If so, then on what basis?

            As for Christ, He declared that any sexual relationship outside of the marriage of one man to one woman was sin:

            from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Mark 10).

          • c2blum

            “From the beginning of creation”? Is that where Adam & Eve find a talking snake or was it a unicorn? Your pre-enlightenment basis needs to evolve a few centuries…

          • Sean Zavala


          • Sean Zavala


          • c2blum

            Truthful or factual, your fallback bible is neither. Biology 101 called, they want their book back.

          • http://amillennialist.blogspot.com Santiago Matamoros

            No one who believes that explosions build things and that incredibly-complex machine systems and their programming more sophisticated than anything created by Man pop out of the ground by accident should be mocking others.

            Your comments on Scripture show only your utter ignorance (or dishonesty) regarding them.

            Let’s talk about Bio 101. The source of your absurd condescension is Darwinism. No doubt, you’re quite satisfied with your empirical and rational outlook on life.

            If only it were true.

            Science has value only as long as it deals with what is observably true, that which can be tested, falsified, and repeated.

            So, who observed the first living cell arise by only random, natural processes — in other words, accidentally! — from the muck?

            Who observed that first, miraculous, Von-Neumann-type metabolic machine gain newer, more sophisticated genetic program, structure, and function by only accidental copying errors?

            And when that first bird (for example) hatched miraculously from its reptilian egg, with what did it reproduce?

            Even more importantly — and horrifically — when the first modern Man arose from his more primitive parents, with what did he mate?

            You want us to believe that he glanced over at an especially attractive simian and asked, “Hey, good-lookin’! What you got cookin’? Seriously?

            The answer is, of course, no one’s ever seen any of that.

            In the last century, despite all of your fellow evolutionists’ best efforts, no one has ever seen a living cell pop out of the ground by accident. No one has ever seen one type of organism acquire accidentally new programming and produce newer and more sophisticated offspring. We’ve only ever seen life arise from Life and Life’s programs.

            Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is atheistic naturalism, a godless philosophy that requires a man to turn off his brain, to believe as fact that which is contradicted by what we actually do observe.

            It’s Gaia in a lab coat.

            In other words, Darwin’s creation myth isn’t Science, it’s science fiction.

  • jameskatt

    OFF TOPIC: According to Richard Sherman, who himself uses it, HALF of the NFL uses Adderall. Adderall is amphetamine – a stronger version than regular dextro-amphetamine. It is obviously a performance enhancing drug. It is banned in the Olympics. NFL players get a medical exemption for it so the NFL allows them to use it.

    Obviously, Adderall can make the player ultra sharp and ultra aggressive. And it can make him look crazy like Richard Sherman did on national TV when taken in higher than prescribed doses.

    The NFL doesn’t do drug testing on game day. And even if caught, the use of Adderall is allowed. A player can even make the excuse they forgot and accidentally took a higher dose.


    From my point of view, the football team that is the most aggressive, which injures the most opponents players, particularly taking them out of the game, wins.

    I suppose, since Adderall is also the most commonly used performance enhancing medication in college, and you can suppose football players by college already have head injuries that impair attention, that coaches should encourage players to seek medical attention to see (take advantage) if they would need Adderall (ahem, 100%). Obviously SEC and other top football programs already know about Adderall and it isn’t illegal with a medical exemption. Perhaps, under the surface it is already done.

    But the lack of Adderall use may explain why UCLA is such a slow starter as a team. They are so sleepy in the beginning of the game I yell for them to drink some coffee before the game.

    • ProbationU

      Aggressive..yes. That is true in many sports. Causing injuries, no. I don’t buy that half of your theory. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is not. Many injuries have nothing to do with aggressiveness and contact, i.e the linemen who have someone fall on an ankle of a tweak a knee. Some with no contact at all. So, i don’t buy that correlation.

      As far as aggressive, absolutely. Even in basketball with regards to defense, rebounding and attacking the hoop.


      tl; dr