Looks like a solid player ... runs the double moves very easily
He looks fine, but he's running those double moves against little white kids that run 5.0's.
If you think I'm judging his ability to get in/out of double moves by judging how your typical Washington slow white kid reacts against the foreign concept of the double pass, then you are a giant fucktard.
Looks like a solid player ... runs the double moves very easily
He looks fine, but he's running those double moves against little white kids that run 5.0's.
If you think I'm judging his ability to get in/out of double moves by judging how your typical Washington slow white kid reacts against the foreign concept of the double pass, then you are a giant fucktard.
Tomahawk Jam to the FACE! You gonna take that RD55?!?!?!
Looks like a solid player ... runs the double moves very easily
He looks fine, but he's running those double moves against little white kids that run 5.0's.
If you think I'm judging his ability to get in/out of double moves by judging how your typical Washington slow white kid reacts against the foreign concept of the double pass, then you are a giant fucktard.
He's a decent prospect. A little lumbering and slow in and out of his cuts (in the actual game film), but he's big and looks to have good hands.Those double moves look good because he's either running them on air or against kids that run 5.0's with no concept of how to properly cover.
WR prospects in the State of Washington IMO are some of the most difficult prospects to judge since the quality of QB play at the HS level in this state is flat out highly questionable.
What I look for when I watch a WR when making cuts is whether or he has to noticeably change his speeds. In game film, it can be hard to really make an accurate read on this if the player doesn't have confidence in his QB to throw anything more than a jump ball (which is what I saw a lot of in the game film). On the other hand, if you know that you have a QB that can drop the dime as you run away from your defender, it's much, much easier to do the right things and go from there.
All in all, I'd say a good get for Oregon State and he fits the kind of player that I typically associate with going to Oregon State. Normally you see guys go there that are often just a bit overlooked for one reason or another (maybe not as fast, consistent, big, etc) as you'd like. Yet, by the time they are in their 3rd to 5th year in the OSU program, they've been sufficiently coached up to the point that you wonder why you didn't recruit them (see Scott Crichton).
WR prospects in the State of Washington IMO are some of the most difficult prospects to judge since the quality of QB play at the HS level in this state is flat out highly questionable.
What I look for when I watch a WR when making cuts is whether or he has to noticeably change his speeds. In game film, it can be hard to really make an accurate read on this if the player doesn't have confidence in his QB to throw anything more than a jump ball (which is what I saw a lot of in the game film). On the other hand, if you know that you have a QB that can drop the dime as you run away from your defender, it's much, much easier to do the right things and go from there.
All in all, I'd say a good get for Oregon State and he fits the kind of player that I typically associate with going to Oregon State. Normally you see guys go there that are often just a bit overlooked for one reason or another (maybe not as fast, consistent, big, etc) as you'd like. Yet, by the time they are in their 3rd to 5th year in the OSU program, they've been sufficiently coached up to the point that you wonder why you didn't recruit them (see Scott Crichton).
Sark saw Josh Shirely had 4 stars and Crichton had 2 stars. Not a hard decision for Sark.
For athleticism and size, he's an great. For football playing skills, he's a project. He will need some serious player development to be a great Pac 12 receiver
All in all, I'd say a good get for Oregon State and he fits the kind of player that I typically associate with going to Oregon State. Normally you see guys go there that are often just a bit overlooked for one reason or another (maybe not as fast, consistent, big, etc) as you'd like. Yet, by the time they are in their 3rd to 5th year in the OSU program, they've been sufficiently coached up to the point that you wonder why you didn't recruit them (see Scott Crichton).
Not to dispute your point, but Scott Crichton had 14.5 TFLs and 6 sacks after his redshirt season.
It wasn't so much that OSU's coaches developed Crichton as Sark and his shitty band of evaluators passed on a local kid to chase a 4-star recruit in SoCal who turned out to be very overrated.
WR prospects in the State of Washington IMO are some of the most difficult prospects to judge since the quality of QB play at the HS level in this state is flat out highly questionable.
What I look for when I watch a WR when making cuts is whether or he has to noticeably change his speeds. In game film, it can be hard to really make an accurate read on this if the player doesn't have confidence in his QB to throw anything more than a jump ball (which is what I saw a lot of in the game film). On the other hand, if you know that you have a QB that can drop the dime as you run away from your defender, it's much, much easier to do the right things and go from there.
All in all, I'd say a good get for Oregon State and he fits the kind of player that I typically associate with going to Oregon State. Normally you see guys go there that are often just a bit overlooked for one reason or another (maybe not as fast, consistent, big, etc) as you'd like. Yet, by the time they are in their 3rd to 5th year in the OSU program, they've been sufficiently coached up to the point that you wonder why you didn't recruit them (see Scott Crichton).
Sark Kem saw Josh Shirely had 4 stars and Crichton had 2 stars. Not a hard decision for Sark Kem to get Sark on board with.
14.5 TFLs and 6 sacks doesn't get you in discussion to be an all-conference player.
You basically just described Andrew Hudson's RS Soph season where he had 9 TFLs and 6.5 sacks ... that was good enough for Seven to basically banish him to the bench.
14.5 TFLs and 6 sacks doesn't get you in discussion to be an all-conference player.
You basically just described Andrew Hudson's RS Soph season where he had 9 TFLs and 6.5 sacks ... that was good enough for Seven to basically banish him to the bench.
There have been plenty of players with those kind of stats that are all-conference. Dion Jordan had 10.5 TFL and 5 sacks his senior year. He was first team All Pac and the #3 pick in the draft. Leonard Williams is another example. Stats, especially for a DL can be misleading because some guys get double and tripled, coverage sacks, etc. A DL can get constant pressure all game and not get a sack, but force a couple bad throws, hits right after the QB releases, etc. Another guy can get stonewalled all game, but luck into a coverage sack or two.
Perhaps I was overly simplistic in my assumption about 14.5 and 6 ... it may turn out to be slightly better than I was expecting. The point that I was trying to make was that 14.5 and 6 doesn't scream to me as being a dominant DE type player. Good player yes. Dominant player no.
I'd be interested in a list of guys that were high end DL in the last 10 years or so in the PAC.
14.5 TFLs and 6 sacks doesn't get you in discussion to be an all-conference player.
You basically just described Andrew Hudson's RS Soph season where he had 9 TFLs and 6.5 sacks ... that was good enough for Seven to basically banish him to the bench.
It gets you into the discussion for future all-conference when you put up 14.5 and 6 as a redshirt freshman.
Unless you're Josh Shirley most players improve as they get stronger and more experienced.
It isn't like Crichton was a nobody for three years and then exploded- he was very good as a redshirt freshman and continued to get a little better each year for the next two years.
I don't know if Penn is any good, but if you take fliers on kids they better have extraordinary physical characteristics. It seems he meets that criterion.
I tend to think of kids as falling in to one of three categories:
1. This kid should be good unless something unforeseen happens (Buttah, Trey Adams). 2. This kid has a chance to be good (Hilbers). 3. This kid sucks (Bacchanalia).
I would put Penn in #2, but not super far out of #3. His tape is terrible, he is not a natural receiver and totally fights the ball. OTOH, he just has that physicality that looks like it could develop into something special.
Reminds me of the kind of guys WSU would turn into pros under... wait for it... Mike Price. (This may be the first positive Mike Price comment ever on this bored).
All that said, he makes Nik Little look like a slug in the middle of a salting.
Comments
I like the hire though.
What I look for when I watch a WR when making cuts is whether or he has to noticeably change his speeds. In game film, it can be hard to really make an accurate read on this if the player doesn't have confidence in his QB to throw anything more than a jump ball (which is what I saw a lot of in the game film). On the other hand, if you know that you have a QB that can drop the dime as you run away from your defender, it's much, much easier to do the right things and go from there.
All in all, I'd say a good get for Oregon State and he fits the kind of player that I typically associate with going to Oregon State. Normally you see guys go there that are often just a bit overlooked for one reason or another (maybe not as fast, consistent, big, etc) as you'd like. Yet, by the time they are in their 3rd to 5th year in the OSU program, they've been sufficiently coached up to the point that you wonder why you didn't recruit them (see Scott Crichton).
It wasn't so much that OSU's coaches developed Crichton as Sark and his shitty band of evaluators passed on a local kid to chase a 4-star recruit in SoCal who turned out to be very overrated.
You basically just described Andrew Hudson's RS Soph season where he had 9 TFLs and 6.5 sacks ... that was good enough for Seven to basically banish him to the bench.
I'd be interested in a list of guys that were high end DL in the last 10 years or so in the PAC.
Unless you're Josh Shirley most players improve as they get stronger and more experienced.
It isn't like Crichton was a nobody for three years and then exploded- he was very good as a redshirt freshman and continued to get a little better each year for the next two years.
I tend to think of kids as falling in to one of three categories:
1. This kid should be good unless something unforeseen happens (Buttah, Trey Adams).
2. This kid has a chance to be good (Hilbers).
3. This kid sucks (Bacchanalia).
I would put Penn in #2, but not super far out of #3. His tape is terrible, he is not a natural receiver and totally fights the ball. OTOH, he just has that physicality that looks like it could develop into something special.
Reminds me of the kind of guys WSU would turn into pros under... wait for it... Mike Price. (This may be the first positive Mike Price comment ever on this bored).
All that said, he makes Nik Little look like a slug in the middle of a salting.