Jenkins-Stone #2 MLB to Scout?

Submitted by ThatOneGuy on April 19th, 2011 at 10:03 PM

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.



April 19th, 2011 at 10:06 PM ^

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.


April 19th, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^

Oh, GFY.

Out of the Fab 5, one got us in trouble.  And that was after he played his last game.  Those kids were poor.  It was what happened after the Fab 5 stopped playing that scarred our team. 

Seriously.  GFY.


April 19th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^

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.


April 19th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^

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 20th, 2011 at 6:37 AM ^

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 20th, 2011 at 6:44 AM ^

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 10:19 PM ^

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. 


April 19th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^

So whats everyone's thought on Ross and Bolden?  I personally want Ross more so than Bolden, even though Bolden is a great prospect.  It's just that Ross has been on our radar for so long and it would be awesome to see the #2 and #3 MLB's commited to us.  I don't think we should take both because then we will be out of balance with too many linebackers.


April 19th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

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 10:43 PM ^

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.


April 19th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^

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.


April 19th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^

... 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.


April 19th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^

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.

Maize and Blue…

April 20th, 2011 at 5:39 AM ^

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 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.