2019 Recruiting: Mike Sainristil
[Note: based on what Quintel Kent posted and Steve Lorenz's follow-up post we are operating under the assumption he's going to be on a medical scholarship. Thus he won't get a profile here, which is a shame because I was just talking myself into him.]
Previously: Last year's profiles. S Quinten Johnson, S Daxton Hill, CB DJ Turner II, CB Jalen Perry, LB Joey Velazquez, LB Anthony Solomon, LB Charles Thomas, DE David Ojabo, DE Gabe Newburg, DE Mike Morris, DT Chris Hinton, DT Mazi Smith, OL Jack Stewart, OL Nolan Rumler, OL Zach Carpenter, OL Karsen Barnhart, OL Trente Jones, OL Trevor Keegan, TE Erick All, WR Giles Jackson, WR George Johnson III.
| Everett, MA – 5'10", 179 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
24/7 | 3*, #513 overall #52 CB, #1 MA |
|||||||||||||||||
| Rivals | 3*, 5.6 rating #56 ATH, #2 MA |
||||||||||||||||||
| ESPN | 4*, 80 rating #25 ATH, #1 MA |
||||||||||||||||||
| Composite | 3*, #595 overall #59 CB, #1 MA |
||||||||||||||||||
| Other Suitors | VT, BC, Wisc, UNC, IU, Ole Miss | ||||||||||||||||||
| YMRMFSPA | JD Spielman | ||||||||||||||||||
| Previously On MGoBlog | Hello post from Seth. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Notes | Twitter. Early Enrollee. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Film |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Senior Year: |
|||||||||||||||||||
There was a recent internet kerfuffle about the feasibility of a random man winning a point off Serena Williams in tennis. 12% of dudes in a silly poll thought they could. None of these people have ever seen the highlight film of a nondescript three-star recruit who happens to play in New England. Anyone who has seen the #595 recruit in a particular class absolutely annihilate a field of supposed peers knows that a real athlete is a different species of human, and Serena Williams is another thing entirely.
Anyway: Mike Sainristil is a nondescript three-star recruit from Massachusetts who appears to be running at double speed in the video embedded above. How much does that mean? If you ask the recruiting sites, not much. ESPN did offer up a fourth star, but naturally provided no explanation.
[After the JUMP: let's find some explanation]
The sites that do try to say things about recruits both had Sainristil in middling three-star territory. That's understandable since he was playing bad competition, did no camps, and didn't have an all-star appearance to overturn opinions. Those opinions that did get offered spent a lot of time arguing with themselves about whether he was a receiver or a cornerback. Per old friend Tim Sullivan, VT wanted him as a nickel corner. Sullivan was higher on Sainristil as a receiver, though:
…takes him only a couple strides to get to full speed, and few in the nation would have the ability to run him down. …decent amount of vision … adjusts his body well to set up defenders to be juked … surprising amount of tackle-breaking ability. … vision he shows does come to him a beat late at times …game boils down to "here is a very fast guy," …. going to be an adjustment skill-wise and in adding more precise technique … while VT seems to have him slated for corner, I'm higher on him as an offensive playmaker.
Sainristil is in the same boat, asserting that if WR Sainristil met up with DB Sainristil the WR would win:
“I feel like I am very hard to cover off the line. I also have the technique (on defense), but I am still taking the receiver.”
This is close to a consensus. Rivals:
…a little on the small side but is fast, quick, agile …very smooth and quick in and out of his breaks … phenomenal ball skills. On defense, he's sticky and pretty physical for a smaller defensive back.
…stop-start ability …athletic and he is loose. He changes direction well and has good ball skills. He high-points the ball well. …gets off the line of scrimmage quickly … Against zone, he finds the holes and sits in them. He is in tune with his quarterback and knows how to work back to the ball when plays are extended. … ability to get out of his breaks and his ability to track the ball (and high point it, when need be) make him a tough matchup.
Trieu also mentions Sainristil's savvy, albeit on D:
Below-average height … strong lower body. … ball skills … athleticism to create separation. Shows awareness and smarts when playing zone and tends to be in good position to make plays…. good burst and closing speed. Can still improve quickness and footwork with his transition and change of direction. … Smart, dependable.
Sullivan again:
…likely the fastest member of Virginia Tech's 2019 class … ability with the ball in his hands is exciting. He has a slippery sort of athleticism that allows him to turn short gains into open space …
Fast, probably slippery. There are occasional notes that he needs to develop some more polish—I bet a dollar there are some incidents this year where he gives up yardage trying to score a touchdown instead of getting seven yards. Some hints of Dileo third and medium chops. Overall: a little more positive than you'd think given the ratings but not too out of order. The verdict: just a fast guy.
Then Sainristil enrolled early. By doing so he became the only spread H on the roster. He took maximum advantage of that status. Harbaugh:
"He’s on his way to cementing in the starting lineup. Doing a fantastic job at all of the receiver positions. …he’s getting open. He’s fast. He’s added a level of speed and quickness to our offense that has been outstanding. Josh talks about ‘speed in space,’ and that’s (him)."
You could not throw a rock this spring without hitting a guy who'd recently said something nice about Sainristil. The most relevant and impressive bit of praise came from Josh Gattis, one of the top WR coaches in the country, highlighting a true freshman's route:
Some times in order to teach you must show! If you know me you must master the details on 2nd level releases!
— Josh Gattis (@Coach_Gattis) April 1, 2019
Head/eyes/hips ✔️
Inside foot stays in the ground✔️
Re-stem snap the head pin the shoulder on the out✔️#Crafting101
ft: young @MikeSainristil pic.twitter.com/IA92zbJKVL
In addition to the coaches, his teammates took notice. Tru Wilson brought him up as a "jitterbug" when asked about young players; Dylan McCaffrey said he's "awesome," "playing great," and a guy who "first day he walked in here, [he] started making an impact"; Jalen Mayfield said he's "done an unbelievable job." His starting QB also had a take. Shea Patterson:
"I knew he was going to be legit as soon as I started throwing with him when he got here, before spring ball and during winter workouts. Great athlete. Speed like no other and he's football savvy as well. He's made numerous plays this spring."
For our part I said he is "noticeably more smooth than many of his colleagues at WR" after an unpadded open practice. After the spring game in which he caught an angle route out of the backfield and dusted Metellus—an established high-end Big Ten starter—on a crossing route, the hype has only intensified. Harbaugh named him the starting H and there's no indication that's going to waver unless Giles Jackson or George Johnson is a superstar. This is going to be tough to pass:
"He has a level of quickness, change of direction, speed that has been really eye-opening and really good for the team. But he’s also tough. He’s blocking. There’s probably three examples where you can really just see him second, third, fourth effort down the field, sometimes 20, 30, 40 yards downfield blocking for whoever does have the ball."
FWIW, Harbaugh did broach the possibility Sainristil would play both ways but that was "further down the line." For now he's a slot. And a starter.
Etc.: Born in Haiti. Coach's name is the spectacular Theluxon Pierre.
Why JD Spielman? The dearth of effective slot receivers in recent Michigan history compels me to reach outside the program for Nebraska slot JD Spielman, who's listed at an identical size and has the combination of downfield chops and run-after-catch that it seems like Sainristil has:
Spielman was also a three star guy ranked around 500th.
If Sainristil can't go downfield, Eddie McDoom.
Guru Reliability: Low. New England Blindness disease strikes. No camps.
Variance: Very low. Spring changed the equation here. Sainristil blew away competition level concerns and drew universal praise; he's going to be a player. Immigrant status is also a positive: Michigan has had plenty of strikes (Darboh, Chesson, Paye, Mesko) there and few off-field issues.
Ceiling: High-minus. Sainristil is very small and doesn't have the eyepopping testing numbers Jackson does, so it's probably asking too much for him to be a national star.
General Excitement Level: High. Sainristil was disqualified from Sleeper of the Year consideration because he is too much of a slam dunk to contribute. I cannot demonstrate my powers of prognostication by touting a guy every Michigan fan already expects to start the opener.
Projection: Starting H against MTSU. Fights with Giles Jackson for the spot for the duration of his career. The safe bet is that Sainristil is a nose or two ahead.
Very excited about him of course, but can’t shake off skepticism given the complete lack of hits by any player like him in UM history.
Also, not to be a dick, but Kent’s injury is a shame for many reasons, but your ability to talk yourself into him is not one of them.
That was my initial reaction also, but to be fair if you re-read, the comment was that Kent not getting a profile is a shame because Brian was just talking himself into it (i.e., it would have been more positive than he originally expected). I think he was just trying to say something positive about him when bringing up he wouldn't be getting a profile, although it reads a bit awkwardly.
But he literally did not say anything specifically about whether how or why Kent's injury is a shame. Of course the injury obviously is a shame, a much bigger one, for much more obvious reasons...but arguably that goes without saying.
I'm very excited for Sainristil, but what about the "freshman WRs always suck" analysis from a couple years ago? Does that not apply as cleanly to slot WRs because they operate in space and don't have to learn as much technique with regard to winning off the line and running routes?
It is easier to play in the slot..the routes are a bit different, not as long, and the guy lining up across from you is typically not as athletic...usually also off the line as well so you can get into your route before contact.
Also, Gattis is an elite WR coach, something we haven't had in forever. I feel like given a specific set of plays and good coaching most freshman with the requisite talent can be pretty successful.
He seems to be a willing and able blocker too, which is often one the of the things keeping Fr WRs from seeing the field.
Freshman WRs suck except when they light up Alabama in the national championship game.
Or score TDs against Pony's defense in The Game.
"There was a recent internet kerfuffle about the feasibility of a random man winning a point off Serena Williams in tennis. 12% of dudes in a silly poll thought they could."
The best part of this for me was that not only did it show how dumb the general public is about the skill level in women's tennis, but it also pointed how uninformed the people dunking on the poll respondents are. Truly, a blessed day on the internet for tennis teaching pros.
I dipped into that link for a moment, then correctly decided things like this are why this is the dumbest time to be alive in human history.
But I did see that 3% of women also believed they could score a point. There seemed to be much, much less "discussion" on this part of the survey.
When I first saw it, I figured it was a poll of tennis players. The numbers would have been relatively close then, and would have actually made for an interesting conversation.
I think the 3% isn't discussed b/c it falls into the realm of: crazy/clicked the wrong button/English as a 3rd language. But 12% is high enough to warrant a critical mass of idiots that deserve derision.
I would say that's a charitable reading to women.
In fact, in the world of stupid ass debates, I think it may be more interesting to understand if it's dumber for 12% of men to think they can score a point or dumber for 3% of women to think they can score a point. I'd have to see some data. Did they ask the same question about scoring a point against Federer? If men responded at 3% I'd say the gender defenders can put down their swords. This also doesn't recognize that machismo - in some cases real, in some cases feigned - is part of the male reality. We're expected to say tough and overly dumb things related to competition, and in that way we're a product (and prisoner, to an extent) of our own environment just like everyone else.
However, in either discussion it's impossible to avoid misogynists, internet tough guys, flamers, the truly stupid, virtue signalers, white knights, and all the rest of the awfulness that is twitter.
And of course someone in this thread is going to call me a rapist for even suggesting the question above.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:01 AM ^
Actually as somebody with a fair amount of experience in tennis when I was younger, I'm not sure if they deserve derision. There's quit a gap in ability between men's and women's tennis. Any decent high school varsity male tennis player should be able to get a point against Serena. I just don't know what percentage of men that might be - it likely depends on the sample. In fact, I would imagine quite a few could beat her. I would not say the same about the top male tennis players, lol.
But I'm not demeaning the talent of female tennis players. There's just a difference compared to men. The genders are not equal. That being said, she's an amazing athlete and could probably destroy most male tennis players. I have great respect for her ability and accomplishments.
This isn't the dumbest time to be alive, it's just easier than ever for dumb people to share their opinions.
I assume you think the people that said yes are crazy, but is it really that out there to think you could get a point across a two or three set match?
I guess I was looking at it in terms of statistics, not skill (and you could switch out Serena with Nadal, Federer, whoever; I don’t think it really changes anything). All you need is for the pro to make a single error, and that doesn’t seem that far fetched. If you flip it around, and ask if you’d bet that Serena/Nadal/Federer wouldn’t make a single error across a two or three set match against some random person, I certainly wouldn’t put money on that...
It's hard for me to believe that you don't think it would change anything to switch out Serena with Nadal or Federer. It would change drastically of course, but more importantly it doesn't need to be stated. Do you propose that just to shield yourself from criticism, a la "I can't be a sexist for thinking a point could be scored, I said playing Serena is the same thing as playing Nadal!". You don't need to do that. This is not an insult to Serena in any way, and does not alter the original discussion on how stupid (or not stupid) it is to believe a point could be scored.
I'm trying to understand if you really believe what you've said, or have another motive. Not that I'd blame you for the latter, in these social media times.
Both, I guess? Like I said, I’m looking at it in terms of statistics, and while I may be just way off base, it doesn’t seem that unlikely to be able to pick up an error across 48 or 72 opportunities. I certainly couldn’t return a serve from Serena let alone a male pro (the only way I could even make contact would be blind luck or the tennis equivalent of a bunt), and getting a point without an error would take similar blind luck (like getting a friendly bounce off the net), so my only realistic hope would be an error. And if you’re banking on an error by the opponent, I don’t think it really matters who the opponent is. Either they screw up once, or they don’t. Only difference would probably be if you played Serena in a three set match vs playing a guy in a five set match, in which case you’d actually have better odds against the guy (more chances for an error).
There are so many ways to screw up a point (hit it short, hit it long, double fault, etc.) that if I had to pick between betting on either error free tennis over a full match, or at least one error, I’d bet on the error.
Oh, I gotcha. I was thinking you were saying there's no difference in the skill of Serena vs. Nadal/Federer, i.e. Serena was just as good as either of them. You're talking about the likelihood of error being equal. I wonder if that's true. I wouldn't think so, IOW I'd think the skill level of the male top player would be superior such that he'd be more accurate against the same level of foe, such that he'd be less likely to make errors. For example if Serena could dial it down to 60% in order to eliminate errors and beat you, Nadal could dial it down to 30%. Given it's easier to operate at 30% than 60%, Nadal would be less likely to error.
But it kind of sucks we're using this kid's post to debate a dumb tennis question. Thank you for your reply and I will withdraw from the conversation.
Kick Ass this year Sainristil!!!!
You'd have to have played tennis competitively -- and well -- for a number of years to even have a chance, which gets the potential candidates well under 12%.
As for mistakes, they're forced to take risks against their peers because of the level of competition. A pro in a "one point" match wouldn't go into Grand Slam mode and rack up the double faults. Against anyone who isn't a world-class player, all she'd need to do is stay in second serve mode to get 100% accuracy. On rallies, similarly, she wouldn't need to paint the lines with full-strength strokes like she's playing her sister. Just return everything to the amateur's backhand and force the errors. This would reliably work against at least 99% of the population.
If second serve accuracy was 100% there wouldn't ever be double faults. The number of unforced errors would certainly drop if not pushed by the level of competition, but it likely still wouldn't be zero.
He's arguing if she only hit a second serve for entire match, her double fault rate would be effectively zero. For someone that skilled, I'd agree. Serena could go out and hit a 1,000 consecutive second serves tomorrow against amateur/rec league competition and the odds of her missing two in a row would be incredibly low. Could it happen? Sure. Yes, it's not literally zero. But I think the point stands -- for all intents and purposes, she could remove "error" from the equation against most of the world.
By my math, 3 sets of tennis without yielding a point would require 72 straight points. She would have to have around a 99.8% chance of winning each individual point to get to around 88% chance of winning 72 in a row. Even playing easy and given she is a great player, but even then she could certainly make a mistake, or her opponent could hit some type of fluke shot.
I think a lot depends on which population you're considering when you're talking about the 12%. Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the folks that bothered to respond to the poll probably, as a group, have much more tennis ability than the population as a whole. Obviously this matters a lot.
A 2 or 3 set match wasn't the premise, though, the way I read it. I don't think anyone would be talking about this much if the response was 12% affirmative to the question, "Do you think you could win a point out of a minimum 48 (or 72) chances against Serena Williams?" But I don't think that was the question, and thus here we are.
I found it funny that James Fallows weighed in via a couple tweets.
I mean, her metrics are right there on the Internet as well. She's past her prime but her serve at one point (if not still) topped 120mph. But 12% of men apparently think they could return that, or I guess drop a serve in-bounds that she wouldn't just crush into the opposite corner.
The Internet is a tragic disconnect between an immense wealth of facts, and immensely arrogant idiots who reject them.
I was more amused by the people commenting about it that understand nothing about tennis. The amount of people who don't understand the difference in level between the top 10 on the men's tour and the top 10 on the women's tour is astounding.
Right now, Serena's UTR is around 13.3. This is the DIII Top 10 from a couple of years ago.
https://twitter.com/USCollegeTennis/status/873678961687056388/photo/1
In other words, even DIII men would be playing competitive matches against Serena.
Serena would have a good chance against a lot of guys playing high level college tennis because of her experience, but on a pure skill and power comparison, it probably doesn't go well for her.
Anyone who doubts that just has to tune in when she's playing mixed doubles matches and watch her return serve.
All of that said, any random dude off the street isn't going to return her serve or be able to rally with her if she's hitting over 50% on her ground strokes.
But the question wasn't whether you could beat her, the question was whether you could get a point off of her. You don't have to be able to return her serve or be able to rally with her to get a single point. You need to have her make one mistake or you need to hit a fluke shot just once.
I'm an average recreational players who has played a few sets against far better, competitive players. They didn't have the goal of winning every point, of course, but I suspect the way I won points would be the same way someone better than me might win some off of Serena.
Go for winners at every opportunity, drop shots, lobs, cross-court passing shots. I'm pretty good at lobs, that's about it. But I can hit the occasional fluke passing shot, even off of a decent serve. The pro will get a lot of easy points off of these shots, but it's hard to stop them all. I think it takes a pretty good player to return a pro's 2nd serve. Most players would just be praying for a double fault.
Apparently 12% of men believe they could win a point. Out of 72+
Not that 12% of men think they can return a 120 mph serve. (Internet and tragic disconnect right back at you).
I expect Giles Jackson to be a touch better, but I think they both corner the market on that spot for 3-4 years.
I find the height/weight concerns always to be a little overblown for wide receivers. Sure it will change the type of receiver and limit to the slot in many ways, but it's more about build and the ability to produce power with quickness than strictly height/weight. Sainristil and Jackson both look to have low to the ground quick power on film. Rondale Moore was 5'9 175 on his recruiting profile. Antonio Brown is 5'10 180 currently.
I almost never watch the HUDL highlights for recruits, because I know they are BS - just a hand selected highlight film selected from games against poor competition.
But I watched this one because of all the Sainristil hype in camp, and because Brian went out of his way to point out how fast he looked.
My takeaway - no one in the state of Mass. knows how to pursue or tackle... or even give effort, for that matter. Like seriously every TD was due to poor tackling or effort, not so much Sainristil's ability. This isn't meant to be an indictment of ALL defensive football players in the Granite state, but - well OK yes it is. I mean shitty defensive effort throughout the entire highlight reel. Crazy.
I am sure he is awesome and I can't wait to see him this year but sheesh.
Lol you think everyone in that video wasn't putting in effort to tackle him? If you play football, it's not like you don't just not try to tackle someone. This is a take from someone who has never played a down of real football before
August 6th, 2019 at 10:38 AM ^
Holy shit you're an idiot. Take off your maize-colored glasses and watch the video again, Also, I was HS state champion QB for a program that has won 13 of them. And I was a student manager for the football team for 4 years at UM so attended every single practice and game in the mid 90s. Not that I give a shit what you think, but there it is.
I'm not sure what is making me more excited:
1) Sainristil and Giles Jackson joining the team this season.
2) Gattis' kick ass double moves to get the speedy ninjas wide open across the middle of the field.
Probably both things.
Oh Eddie McDoom. Makes you think how things would have turned out for him if he stuck around. I’m sure Gattis would have been happy to have a senior slot bug type this season.
It seemed pretty clear to me that he was never going to be a B1G receiver, especially after the red zone drop in 2017 against MSU on the potentially game winning drive. He didn't have the hands
Lawd, I'd forgotten about that. How many ways did we give that game away. -5 turnovers. And a long touchdown from O'Korn that gets called back for a holding penalty.
If memory serves (and its certainly possible that I have the wrong game and/or drive), M drove the length of the field on its first drive, got to 1st and goal, and threw a fade to McDoom on 3rd down. I bent over with my hands on my knees. My son said, "you ok?" I said, "No, they fucking threw a fade to Eddie McDoom on 3rd and goal." I've whistled past the graveyard every day since then that it was Drevno or Pep that called that horseshit, and not Harbaugh.
I get what you're saying, but 12% of guys doesn't seem that far off from reality. High school boys teams beat professional womens teams. I know even the low tennis players are good, but still.
Mike seems like a very nice kid. My son had him on his podcast this summer and he is impressive. Looking forward to seeing some speed on the field! Take a listen
August 11th, 2019 at 1:11 AM ^
Kudos to your son. Enjoyed the interview, and agree with your assessment.
August 5th, 2019 at 11:13 PM ^
I could win a point against Serena ( if she double faulted)
August 6th, 2019 at 10:24 AM ^
Looking forward to him blazing past our opponent's secondary like he's Sainristil and they're standing still!
August 6th, 2019 at 10:04 PM ^
The top 1000 men would beat serena.
August 7th, 2019 at 12:38 AM ^
Why are we saying he is too small? Our last Heisman winning WR was 5' 10" and around 180. And the other guy challenging for best WR in school history (AC) was 5' 11' 180. And hell, Jeremy Gallon set a school record for receiving in a season and he was 5' 8" 185.
Not saying he is going to be anywhere that good, but small and really fast works just fine as WR in college if you have good hands.
Probably the most excited Ive been for a Freshman slot receiver since.............uh............
Comments