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.
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.
Sounds like a few people are Ray Lewis fans...
not sure what he was before
But don't quote me on that.
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.
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
Let's hope there aren't too many Fab-5 comparisons to be made.
I'd disagree all were poor. I remember a recent discussion on the forums about this being proven wrong.
Minus the 15+ years worth of crippling sanctions, right?
force Michigan to hire Ellerbe
I was under the impression we'd be playing RJS more as an outside linebacker, at SAM.
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.
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.
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.
Jenkins-Stone is a MIKE.
Ross is a WILL.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In our defense what are the coaches looking for in the SAM position? Is the SAM usually taller than the other lbs?
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.
RJS at #72
O'Brien up to #99
Ross at #115
TRich down to #154
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.
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.).
That's kind of what I figured, hopefully he turns out better than Boo Boo
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.
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.
RJS is being recruited for MLB and Ross is being recruited as a WLB
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.
.. then RJS should be nicknamed Wedge.
Wouldn't that mean Ross gets blown up?
Whoever get carried off that field first, I guess.
Does Terrence Cody still have eligibility?
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)
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.
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.
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.
if you think he's a better player, not because of what his home state is
Well it's important to get guys instate... I thought that was a widely accepted concept, I guess not
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
The coaches disagree with you. I'll listen to them
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.
I think that's perfectly valid. I was speaking more in the abstract than to the specific scenario of Bolden vs. Ross.
that you aren't going to recruit in Michigan though. Don't get me wrong (not that you did). But I'm gonna cherry pick in-state and take the kids that i REALLY want.