Looks like scout is still tweaking their rankings a bit. RJS has jumped Biggs to be the #2 MLB. I believe Biggs is better but both are still studs.
sry if this was already posted I didnt see it.
rundown of Michigan's riser
Jenkins-Stone #2 MLB to Scout?
April 19th, 2011 at 10:03 PM
#1
Jenkins-Stone #2 MLB to Scout?
April 19th, 2011 at 10:06 PM | 
Interesting. Most people seem
Interesting. Most people seem
April 19th, 2011 at 11:45 PM |
Sounds like a few people are
Sounds like a few people are
Sounds like a few people are Ray Lewis fans...
Dreads > Lil Boosie fade
April 19th, 2011 at 10:08 PM |
He is #72 overall
He is #72 overall
not sure what he was before
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 20th, 2011 at 7:15 AM |
104
104
But don't quote me on that.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:09 PM |
We have learned our lesson
We have learned our lesson
We have learned our lesson about depth at certain positions the hard way. I am happy to say I don't see that being a problem at the LB position anytime soon.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:10 PM |
hmmmmm...
hmmmmm...
MEGA CLASS
If the haters don't hate you then you're doing something wrong. - David Cone
April 19th, 2011 at 10:23 PM |
If this could somehow turn
If this could somehow turn
If this could somehow turn into the football version of the Fab-5, I think I might smother myself with marshmellows and wash myself with the tears of Buckeye fans
April 19th, 2011 at 10:34 PM |
Hmm...
Hmm...
Let's hope there aren't too many Fab-5 comparisons to be made.
April 20th, 2011 at 2:18 AM |
I'd disagree all were poor. I
I'd disagree all were poor. I
I'd disagree all were poor. I remember a recent discussion on the forums about this being proven wrong.
Somewhere Roll Damn Tide is lurking...
April 19th, 2011 at 10:37 PM |
Minus the 15+ years worth of
Minus the 15+ years worth of
Minus the 15+ years worth of crippling sanctions, right?
April 19th, 2011 at 10:46 PM |
The NCAA didn't
The NCAA didn't
force Michigan to hire Ellerbe
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 19th, 2011 at 10:10 PM |
I was under the impression
I was under the impression
I was under the impression we'd be playing RJS more as an outside linebacker, at SAM.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 10:12 PM |
This doesn't mean he won't.
This doesn't mean he won't.
This doesn't mean he won't. But he could play MIKE and is a MLB at Cass so Scout may have felt it made more sense to list him as a MLB.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:15 PM |
that plus he
that plus he
tweeted a few weeks ago that he wanted to be listed as a MLB because he said that's what he is being recruited as.
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 19th, 2011 at 10:22 PM |
I believe he mentioned in an
I believe he mentioned in an
I believe he mentioned in an earlier interview they wanted him outside and Ross inside. Obviously, you want them where they play best, but consider Ringer and Ross/Bolder are inside, and we just picked up Morgan and Jones as MIKES...well someone has to stay outside. I would think RJS would be the best fit of the new crop.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 10:35 PM |
Jenkins-Stone is a
Jenkins-Stone is a
April 19th, 2011 at 10:46 PM |
I hate to weigh in on what to
I hate to weigh in on what to
I hate to weigh in on what to me is generally non-issue, but I've noticed people discussing Ross vs. Bolden often enough. I have not comment on Bolden's skill, but how many MIKE's could we possibly need?
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 10:55 PM |
Well, I think the coaches
Well, I think the coaches
Well, I think the coaches might be realizing that Kellen Jones could be more of a WILL linebacker. On paper we have a bunch of MIKE's (Demens, Bell, Kellen Jones, Morgan, Jenkins-Stone) and not a whole lot of talent at WILL. Bolden is being recruited as a MIKE, but I also think he has the potential to be a SAM.
So there's some position flexibility, but you're right...the MLB position is getting pretty full.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:01 PM |
Interesting. I thought I'd
Interesting. I thought I'd
Interesting. I thought I'd read, though, that Bolden and Ohio couldn't come to terms because he was and believed he should remain a MIKE. Good to know Jones can shift outside, though.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 20th, 2011 at 6:35 AM |
Jones could play WILL, but
Jones could play WILL, but
Jones could play WILL, but WILL is still an inside linebacker position (a.k.a. aligned between the tackles). They're similar players, but the MIKE is typically a little bigger.
April 20th, 2011 at 5:48 AM |
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
In our defense what are the coaches looking for in the SAM position? Is the SAM usually taller than the other lbs?
Greetings from Bolivia.
"It's special how the real true people hang together. And if you don't support the program you're not a true Michigan guy. It's that simple." - Gary Moeller
April 20th, 2011 at 6:37 AM |
Rather than post the entire
Rather than post the entire
Rather than post the entire explanation, I'll just tell you that a post with an explanation of the linebackers will be going up at Touch the Banner at 8:00 a.m.
But yes, the SAM would typically be taller than the other linebackers. The shortest would be WILL, then MIKE, then SAM.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:15 PM |
Just skimming through,
Just skimming through,
RJS at #72
O'Brien up to #99
Ross at #115
TRich down to #154
"Son tell me if I'm right, but its probably better without a big ugly rectum in front of you, and there are some big ugly rectums here. Am I right?"
-Mike Barwis
April 19th, 2011 at 10:28 PM |
TRich seemed overrated to me,
TRich seemed overrated to me,
TRich seemed overrated to me, he's pretty small and not a burner either. I'd love to have him don't get me wrong he just doesn't seem to have an elite quality.
"And they'll never catch him..."
April 19th, 2011 at 10:37 PM |
Richardson doesn't have great
Richardson doesn't have great
Richardson doesn't have great measurables...
...but he's a playmaker. He needs to get stronger, but his ball skills are better than Cass Tech's other recent corners (Cissoko, Mathis, Hollowell, etc.).
April 19th, 2011 at 11:14 PM |
That's kind of what I
That's kind of what I
That's kind of what I figured, hopefully he turns out better than Boo Boo
"And they'll never catch him..."
April 19th, 2011 at 11:48 PM |
I respect your opinion, but
I respect your opinion, but
I respect your opinion, but how do you make a call like that? Is it from camp film? Does that provide enough of a sample size? I assume all those guys got thrown at very little in actual games.
Galileo was also chastised.
April 20th, 2011 at 6:44 AM |
That's my judgment based on
That's my judgment based on
That's my judgment based on having looked at all three as they were being recruited, but it's also reflected in their statistics. Cissoko had something like 3 picks in his entire career. I think Mathis only had a couple as a senior.
Meanwhile, Richardson had 4 interceptions as a sophomore, 12 picks as a junior, and scored 5 touchdowns on 11 receptions.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:17 PM |
RJS & Ross
RJS & Ross
RJS is being recruited for MLB and Ross is being recruited as a WLB
April 19th, 2011 at 10:18 PM |
I think RJS has more of a
I think RJS has more of a
I think RJS has more of a body type of MLB. I just saw TR dropped too, I thought he was a little bit over rated.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:18 PM |
If James 'Biggs' Ross comes to Michigan
If James 'Biggs' Ross comes to Michigan
.. then RJS should be nicknamed Wedge.
GMAT score =800 = Defensive POTY
April 19th, 2011 at 10:29 PM |
Wouldn't that mean Ross gets
Wouldn't that mean Ross gets
Wouldn't that mean Ross gets blown up?
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 11:37 PM |
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
Who's Porkins?
"[T]here were a lot of people predicting glorious heights for Rich; mostly the same people who are predicting doom and gloom [for Hoke]. Excuse me if I doubt their prognostication skills." -- M-Wolverine
April 19th, 2011 at 11:40 PM |
Whoever get carried off that
Whoever get carried off that
Whoever get carried off that field first, I guess.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 11:45 PM |
Does Terrence Cody still have
Does Terrence Cody still have
Does Terrence Cody still have eligibility?
April 20th, 2011 at 12:50 AM |
I saw an
I saw an
awesome successories pic of Wedge 'Red Leader' Antilles that said:
BALLS: You don't need the force to make it through a trilogy
Just thought I would share...(can't embed)
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:19 PM |
I'm not gonna look in to
I'm not gonna look in to
I'm not gonna look in to ranking too much since these guys still have there whole entire senior year to play but were definitely getting a good player in RJS. I think Caleb Ringer is gonna suprise some people too.
"And they'll never catch him..."
April 19th, 2011 at 10:29 PM |
Unless we're hit with some
Unless we're hit with some
Unless we're hit with some serious attrition, I'm not so sure we have room for 4 LBs, nor do we really have a desperate need to take that many (we'd have 7 LB recruits in 2 years with 2 or 3 returning starters next year).
If spots open up then absolutely take both if we can.
April 19th, 2011 at 10:32 PM |
I'd rather have Ross just
I'd rather have Ross just
I'd rather have Ross just because he's an instate kid and they're always nice to grab. I definitely like both of them though. Ross seems more of an impact player to me, I want him to be our Ray Lewis... I just can't help it.
"And they'll never catch him..."
April 19th, 2011 at 10:35 PM |
You should want Ross
You should want Ross
if you think he's a better player, not because of what his home state is
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 19th, 2011 at 10:38 PM |
Well it's important to get
Well it's important to get
Well it's important to get guys instate... I thought that was a widely accepted concept, I guess not
"And they'll never catch him..."
April 19th, 2011 at 10:43 PM |
The reason you recruit
The reason you recruit
instate is because it's easier to convince a kid to go to school to somewhere closer to his home, in general, than it is to get him to go far far away. But if you have a legit shot at two kids who are equal, then why would it matter which one is from where?
Which is why I said, if you want Ross more, it should be because you think he's better.
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 19th, 2011 at 11:03 PM |
It matters. As a rule it is
It matters. As a rule it is
It matters. As a rule it is important to solidify your base. Obviously, you want to draw in the best class you can, but aside from the ease of getting kids close to home, there's also the necessity of building relationships with their schools and their coaches. That's something Michigan has really struggled with recently, albeit the slide started more than three years ago.
There's a price you pay for that. Not only does it make it harder to recruit your ostensible base, it makes it easier for your rivals close at hand to fill the void. Thus, the less Michigan recruits Michigan players, the easier it becomes for Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsi etc. to fill that void. That's why Ross' school has become a feeder for Ohio and Penn State, in part. If you lose a recruiting battle for, say, athree star kid in Texas, he goes to Baylor, or A&M, or LSU or TCU...if you lose a kid in Michigan, he winds up at State or Iowa. Or worse, winning the Heisman at Alabama.
It's also hard to build those relationships with schools far abroad.
Given two kids entirely equal, I'd take the local kid every time. There's less chance they'll get homesick, or hate the weather, etc., but most of all, it reinforces your grip on what is and what ought to be the cradle of your efforts.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 19th, 2011 at 11:29 PM |
Just stop...
Just stop...
... I hate that this board is being infested with the "must win the in-state recruiting battle" meme. It's NOT true. You take the best players, every time. During Michigan's greatest days, we took limited number of Michigan recruits. Do not let the MSM shallow analysis cloud the truth.
You can just as easily make an argument that you take the Ohio kid because Ohio is a better pipeline. This crap about having to win the state of Michigan is bullshit that was started by MSU and I'm embarrassed that the false premise is making it onto these boards.
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:36 PM |
My argument extends to Ohio.
My argument extends to Ohio.
My argument extends to Ohio. I was taking a regional look, which is why I mentioned schools out of state. For us, recruiting Ohio is very important, especially as you can't make a winning program on Michigan talent alone.
And no. It's not a myth. You go for the best talent, but you try to keep a grip on home. It matters. Track the success of continuously powerful programs. They keep a good grip on recruits at home before looking around. Even when SMU was buying their entire team, they bought the best players in Texas before shopping abroad. Why? Because they didn't want to see them wind up at Texas and A&M, playing against them.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
April 20th, 2011 at 5:39 AM |
Seriously
Seriously
If you're getting the best players in Texas you don't need to go anywhere else. McGuffie's senior year in HS the Houston area alone had 150 D1 recruits. It takes Michigan usually around 5 years to put out that kind of talent. Throw in another 150+ throughout the rest of state and comparing Texas to Michigan is just plain stupid.
April 20th, 2011 at 5:51 AM |
There is some truth to it, as
There is some truth to it, as
There is some truth to it, as long as you are not just looking at total number of recruits. I don't think it matters at all if Michigan takes MORE instate recruits than MSU or other Big Ten teams, but it matters how we do on the elite talent. We will always lose the occasional kid, but we can't let it become a rule. I am not overly concerned about the last couple years of top players going to MSU because Thomas is a legacy for them and Gholston's guardian is now on the MSU staff (plus I think Gholston seems to dissapear in games, anyway), but we need to be picking up more than our fair shair of the top 4-5 players in Michigan every year. This is all stuff that has been said before, but you brought it up.
April 20th, 2011 at 8:00 AM |
posted from iPhone
posted from iPhone
The coaches disagree with you. I'll listen to them
April 19th, 2011 at 11:50 PM |
Again tho
Again tho
my point is that you want Ross because you think he's better than Bolden, not because he's from Michigan and Bolden is from Ohio. Hell, I want Ross more than Bolden personally.
But if Ross was from Florida, and Bolden was from Michigan, and everything else was the same as it currently is--i.e. same playing ability and same chances of landing them as we have now--I'd still take Ross.
Follow me on Twitter @gfraley05
April 20th, 2011 at 12:03 AM |
I think that's perfectly
I think that's perfectly
I think that's perfectly valid. I was speaking more in the abstract than to the specific scenario of Bolden vs. Ross.
Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords.
-Pompeius Magnus
Interesting. Most people seem to think Ross is the better of the two.
That said, we currently have 2 top 10 MLB's and are in a decent position with a third.
Twitter