3-27-17 Recruiting Update: Flippin’ Minnesota

3-27-17 Recruiting Update: Flippin’ Minnesota


March 27, 2017

Jalen Mayfield (image via MLive)

In case you missed it, there was some site news posted yesterday about a new contributor and a new way to get an avatar (LINK).


ADDED TO THE BOARD: 2018

Grand Rapids (MI) Catholic Central offensive guard Jalen Mayfield, a Minnesota commit, was offered by Michigan. Mayfield is a 6’5″, 255 lb. guard/tackle prospect who chose the Gophers on February 18, but he also has offers from Arizona, Iowa, and Michigan State, among others. He’s a 3-star, the #57 offensive tackle, and #797 overall. As of Sunday afternoon, Michigan owns 83% of the Crystal Ball picks on 247 Sports, including that of the trustworthy Steve Lorenz. UPDATE: I already had this post written, but Mayfield decommitted from Minnesota on Sunday evening, and I took that as a ripe opportunity to also put in a Crystal Ball for Michigan. He’s now at 100% for the Wolverines.

St. Louis (MO) Lutheran North defensive end Ronnie Perkins was offered by Michigan. Perkins is a 6’4″, 250 lb. strongside end prospect who’s a 4-star, the #12 weakside end, and #254 overall. He has offers from Georgia, Iowa, LSU, Missouri, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, and UCLA, among others. Perkins is a guy who might bulk up and play 3-tech tackle at the next level, but I don’t think he’ll be a weakside end like his rankings indicate.

Hit the jump for another offer, a commitment elsewhere, and some random bits.

ADDED TO THE BOARD: 2019

Flowood (MS) Jackson running back Jerrion Ealy was offered by Michigan. Ealy is a 5’8″, 171 lb. prospect with offers Louisville, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Tennessee. As a sophomore in 2016, he ran the ball 106 times for 971 yards and 16 touchdowns, and he caught 34 passes for 609 yards and 10 scores.

OFF THE BOARD

Bradenton (FL) IMG Academy running back T.J. Pledger, uh, pledged to Oklahoma. Pledger is a potential 5-star as the #2 all-purpose back and #32 overall player, and Michigan had made an effort to get in on him. However, he has been pegged for the Sooners for a while.

MISCELLANEOUS

Michigan had a pretty solid group of visitors on campus this past week/weekend (LINK).

A few top lists were released this week:

17 comments

  1. Avatar
    Comments: 1166
    Joined: 8/13/2015
    Roanman
    Mar 27, 2017 at 7:05 AM

    I like Jalen Mayfield. He’s mean and pretty athletic. He’s got those skinny legs that Thunder likes in a tackle, although he needs to grow an inch or two. He looks like he could play the strong side end as well.

    I think I’m seeing a different type of lineman being offered already with Frey around, although i’m prepared to concede that this might be a function of the type of guys that are around this year. The list of tackles either interested in us, or that we have an interest in, I’m not 100% clear on which, has a decidedly less massive bent … maybe lean is the better word.

    I’d be interested on Thunder’s opinion on Sammy Faustin as well. i liked him ok and would take him, but he looks a lot like a kid who will cause a mess of pissing and moaning about why are we offering these unranked kids when we should be taking all 4/5 star kids.

    • Thunder
      Comments: 2910
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Mar 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM

      I like Faustin as a boundary corner or maybe a safety. His skills/size remind me of Channing Stribling, though I think Faustin is more physical.

      I agree on Mayfield. He looks like a solid prospect. He’s going to be in my next batch of in-state prospects, #6-10.

    • Avatar
      Comments: 13
      Joined: 3/18/2017
      coop
      Mar 28, 2017 at 10:38 PM

      frey is going to be great for m. last piece of the puzzle that is this coaching staff

  2. Lanknows
    Comments: 4557
    Joined: 8/11/2015
    Lanknows
    Mar 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM

    So are we at all concerned that this early in the cycle we are trying to flip dudes from Minnesota and most of the blue-chippers seem headed elsewhere?

    I know that a) it’s early, b) it’s a small class and c) M is in on a few elite guys. But if this is a both a small class and one that has a bundle of 3-star and low-end 4-stars that’s going to be disappointing. A smaller class should typically have a higher average star rating.

    Trust in Harbaugh and all that but there seems to be a lot of move-to-plan-b happening already for this early in the cycle.

  3. Avatar
    Comments: 209
    Joined: 12/19/2015
    Extrajuice
    Mar 27, 2017 at 12:37 PM

    Yeah, I sort of agree. Doesn’t seem like we are shooting for the stars in 2018. One of the concerns I have is that new hires (like Frey) from smaller colleges tend to settle for the lesser recruits because those guys were always out of reach in the past. Now, those lower 3-star types are salivating when it comes to a Michigan offer.

    I know, I know… Harbaugh.

    • Lanknows
      Comments: 4557
      Joined: 8/11/2015
      Lanknows
      Mar 27, 2017 at 1:29 PM

      Frey helped Michigan land Oneil, Lewan, and Schofield who were all pretty highly rated and had Jake Fisher lined up too.Frey’s development is more impressive than his recruiting, but I don’t think that’s a deficiency we have to worry about. And if it was, Drevno should be able to fill the gap, in theory.

      That said, the “in theory” part should be stressed. Michigan whiffed on a whole lot of elite OL recruits last year. They did get Filiaga but Ruiz was the only real PLAN A target. One can wonder why some of the elite pro style types are choosing stanford over michigan, for example.

    • Thunder
      Comments: 2910
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Mar 27, 2017 at 1:38 PM

      We literally say this type of thing every year, during the spring and summer. And then by the time January or February rolls around, these guys will be playing at all-star games or getting a fourth star, or they’re playing as true freshmen. We said this about O’Maury Samuels, Benjamin St-Juste, J’Marick Woods, Andrew Stueber, Josh Metellus, etc.

      I don’t believe in the star thing as a great indicator as of March of the player’s junior year. Stars represent good things coming in the future, yes, but star ratings, offer lists, etc. tend to fluctuate or improve over time. For all we know, Mayfield will be in the UA All-American Game and Faustin will end up as a 4-star.

      • Lanknows
        Comments: 4557
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Mar 27, 2017 at 5:08 PM

        IMO this is sort of backwards. Just because guys get bumped up in the ratings after they commit to Michigan doesn’t make them better players. It means the rankings are ‘rigged’ in Michigan’s favor.

        There are legit cases (like St. Juste) where people are under-scouted for whatever reason and there are players who develop later too. By all means trust the coaches, consider context, and take the rankings with a grain of salt. But don’t stop doing it only when you get the result you want to hear.

        If this March rankings are irrelevant is a thing every year shouldn’t there be a bunch of examples beyond the ’16 and ’17 class that prove the case? And shouldn’t this happen more often than examples like Mo Hurst (who either stayed neutral or moved down between his June ’12 commitment and his final rankings)?

        My point: take the rankings with a grain of salt, but not because they will be adjusted later.

        The real issue is if Michigan is getting the guys it prioritizes and targets. I don’t have a great sense for if that’s happening at OL, but it seems that they aren’t doing so at QB, RB, and TE.

        • Thunder
          Comments: 2910
          Joined: 7/13/2015
          Mar 27, 2017 at 8:43 PM

          Why does it matter whether the rankings are rigged in Michigan’s favor or not? I believe you’ve argued in the past that star rankings DO matter, based on the success of those players over the long haul, as well as how the teams perform that haul them in. If that is indeed the case – and I think there’s some truth to that – then why is this different in 2017 or 2018 than it was in 2005 or 2008 or 2010? Players who commit to or sign with big programs are probably given the benefit of the doubt by Rivals/Scout/ESPN/247 when it comes to questions of whether they’re 3-stars or 4-stars, whether they’re #20 at their position or #25. Sure. But if that has always been the case, then it doesn’t really matter. The only reason it might be significant is if you think that’s a new phenomena, and somehow Michigan’s upgraded 4-stars will somehow be worse than, say, Ohio State’s upgraded 4-star from 2010 or USC’s upgraded 4-star from 2004.

          “The real issue is if Michigan is getting the guys it prioritizes and targets.” This is incorrect, IMO. Whether they get their #1 guy or #5 guy, the real issue is whether they progress and perform when they get on campus. I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that teams who don’t get their #1 target are destined to fail.

        • Lanknows
          Comments: 4557
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Mar 28, 2017 at 11:16 AM

          Star rankings are useful indicators.

          Star rankings have limitations and high degree of uncertainty.

          —————–

          One illustration of their limitations is the favoritism toward big name schools that, not coincidentally, have the biggest fanbases and will result in the most clicks and subscriptions. A form of #fakenews, if you will. People being told what they want to hear.

          I’m saying the March rankings should be taken just as seriously the December rankings and that cheering for dudes to move up in the rankings is a bit deluded.

          • Lanknows
            Comments: 4557
            Joined: 8/11/2015
            Lanknows
            Mar 28, 2017 at 11:25 AM

            In other words the Michigan commit bump undermines the credibility of the rankings.

            If you believe it happens, you might consider the March rankings MORE instructive than the post-commit ones.

            • Thunder
              Comments: 2910
              Joined: 7/13/2015
              Mar 28, 2017 at 12:01 PM

              Well, the March rankings have Penn State at or near the top of the country. So in three or four years, we’ll see if PSU is in the midst of a national championship run.

            • Lanknows
              Comments: 4557
              Joined: 8/11/2015
              Lanknows
              Mar 28, 2017 at 1:54 PM

              I’m saying the March player rankings may be just as good or better than the December rankings.

              Like i said, player and team rankings are different.

              The March team rankings are flat out irrelevant. And I said so when everyone was going nuts about how great the class was when Brady Hoke had 20 guys committed by early Spring and Michigan was ranked #1.

        • Lanknows
          Comments: 4557
          Joined: 8/11/2015
          Lanknows
          Mar 28, 2017 at 11:17 AM

          Not following what you mean by 2005 vs 2016.

          • Thunder
            Comments: 2910
            Joined: 7/13/2015
            Mar 28, 2017 at 11:24 AM

            We look at the final rankings for the class of 2005, and in 2007 or 2008, we say, “Well, the reason __________ won the national championship is because they had a bunch of good players. Just look at those star ratings from 2005!” We don’t look at the March 2004 rankings of the 2005 class.

            In like fashion, the March 2017 rankings are largely irrelevant when we’re looking back at the class of 2018 and saying, “Well, the reason ________ won the national championship here in 2021 is because of that awesome 2018 class’s final star rankings!” It doesn’t matter where you start. It matters where you finish. Lots of kids have yet to hit the camp circuit or be ranked by the recruiting services.

            We literally have this discussion every year, and Michigan still ends up with a highly ranked class. (Most of the time. You know, except when an underperforming head coach is on his way out like in the 2015 or 2011 classes.)

            • Lanknows
              Comments: 4557
              Joined: 8/11/2015
              Lanknows
              Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM

              Team rankings and player rankings aren’t the same thing since quantity influences them so much.

              I take your point if a dude is unrated or hasn’t been scouted (e.g., St. Juste) but that’s not generally the situation.

              I wonder if the sites ever published their March player ratings – would they be more accurate than the final ones? Maybe. The preseason AP basketball poll is famously more accurate for tournament predictions than the final regular season one.

      • Lanknows
        Comments: 4557
        Joined: 8/11/2015
        Lanknows
        Mar 28, 2017 at 11:24 AM

        “the real issue is whether they progress and perform when they get on campus.”

        Of course, but in the context of following recruiting we have no idea if that will happen or not. When we follow recruiting we follow it based on star rankings, stats, reports, highlight reels, etc.

        I’m a “trust the coaches” guy once the coaches have proven themselves, but I don’t believe they are infallible. I’m also not going to view every commitment as a victory for the program like some. I think the coaches have a Plan A, a Plan B, and so on. This hierarchy is important and meaningful. It’s also not entirely transparent (and perhaps very far from it) but you can make some reasonable guesses based on context (e.g., 2018 QB is pretty damn clear, as was the top target at 2017 RB)

You must belogged in to post a comment.