Concerns over WR recruiting
Comments
-
I'm never poasting again.
-
The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine. -
I think the WR core improves next year simply by the addition of John Ross and the subtractions of Jaydon Mickens and Marvin Hall. However, thats not saying much as we had the worst receiving core in the Pac 12 this past year. It was bad.
Lenius was a major disappointment. He disappeared the majority of the season. On paper he checks off all the boxes yet his production has been anemic and his blocking a major liability. We can't chalk it up as a sophomore slump because he didn't do anything his freshman year. Approaching myth status. Possible transfer to East Vancouver Community College.
Pettis has been more consistent at receiver and gives us a solid punt returner. My biggest problem with him is lack of physicality in terms of yards after catch and blocking. Really needs to get bigger. Goes down instantly. Ideally I would like to see him in the slot.
Pounds and Baccellia are dead weight midgets. Not sure what Petersen and Pease were thinking when they brought these guys in. Both have a high probability of transferring. I actually think Renfro could develop into a productive player - he flashed a bit as a true freshman and he can play on the outside. But overall last year's WR class was a disaster and that's on Petersen.
If Darrell Daniels can take the next step and replace Josh Perkins' production it should help to mitigate the dependance on our wideouts. Connor Griffin is another guy I'm keeping my eye on. Very athletic and tall. I liked what I saw in the bowl game. Daniels and Griffin should receive lots of opportunities in the middle of the field with Ross and Pettis clearing things out. Chico might develop more into our slot guy with the departure of Mickens.
Until Washington starts to get double digit wins we're not going to be stealing LA receiver talent from the likes of Notre Dame, Michigan, USC etc. It's not happening so I don't see why people are upset when we lose out on Mckinley, Crawford, Vaughns etc. Petersen is going to have to develop and get the most out of what he's got. -
It's weird that you think it's weird. First, southern miss only stayed in the game because of their WRs.RoadDawg55 said:The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.
Second, if we had Clemson's talent at other positions, I doubt WR would get as much attention here. But we don't.
Right now we have nobody (perhaps John Ross) that can take the lid off the defense and consistently get separation. As a result, Browning's throwing windows are much tighter. -
Agree for the most part but our wr's can't even block adequately too often. Scheme can get you open but you can't drop the fucking ball.RoadDawg55 said:The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.
Summary....
Just don't screw up the position and if you get a playmaker that's a plus.
-
Least important doesn't mean unimportant. The Seahawks receivers might not be elite but they make the plays they're asked to make (three in the top ten in catch rate including two in the top 5) and they're willing blockers, too. Alabama has had Julius Jones (h/t to sachiko for the edit: Julio, dammit) and Amari Cooper during their run, I doubt Saban agrees that receivers don't matter.RoadDawg55 said:The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.
UW doesn't win the 91 title without Super Mario.
I don't think this bored is obsessed with WR's, if anything I think this bored has overcorrected on WR's because Sark attracted 4 star wideouts like ISIS attracts homocidal psychopaths. "Sark thought receivers were most important, therefore they don't matter at all."
They aren't everything, but they do matter. UW isn't going to make the leap to a playoff caliber team unless they either do a better job of recruiting receivers or a better job of developing them. Or probably abundance. -
Losses last year...
Boise: The whole offense didn't do shit. OL and the running game were really bad. Hard to single out the WR's for anything.
Cal: I doubt even the most ardent Petersen supporter could keep a straight face and say Petersen wasn't to blame for this loss. Browning was terrible yet we were pass heavy despite being able to run it down Cal's throat. Dwayne Washington lost what would have been a huge play in the sun and had a costly fumble. Otoh, the only thing that kept UW in the game was a fumble returned for a TD.
Oregon: It's been debated by this board, but Gaskin should have gotten more carries. We went pass happy to try and exploit a terrible Oregon secondary and got away from what we did well, which was give Gaskin the rock. Cooper, not a WR, dropped a TD that would have made a difference.
Stanford: They were better than us in every phase and Carta-Samuels started at QB.
Utah: Dwayne Washington's fumbles and bullshit penalites were a way bigger reason for the loss than the WR's.d
ASU: The WR's absolutely sucked in this game and you can make the case they cost the game. I couldn't believe some of the passes that were dropped. I'm still pissed about the run pass ratio in this game. I'm cautiously optimistic that will never happen again. The actions in the last three games seemed to show that the coaches knew that wasn't acceptable.
I want better WR's. They would obviously help. We already have plenty of talent though. We have the best defense in the conference, a rapidly developing young OL that should become one of the best in the conference, a great RB, and a promising young QB that played a lot better late in the year. -
Julius Jones? Is that Julio's younger brother?
-
Orlando McKay is often over looked but he stretched defenses big time on that 91 team. We also had at least two great tight ends that could block and catch and probably chew gum as well.dnc said:
Least important doesn't mean unimportant. The Seahawks receivers might not be elite but they make the plays they're asked to make (three in the top ten in catch rate including two in the top 5) and they're willing blockers, too. Alabama has had Julius Jones (h/t to sachiko for the edit: Julio, dammit) and Amari Cooper during their run, I doubt Saban agrees that receivers don't matter.RoadDawg55 said:The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.
UW doesn't win the 91 title without Super Mario.
I don't think this bored is obsessed with WR's, if anything I think this bored has overcorrected on WR's because Sark attracted 4 star wideouts like ISIS attracts homocidal psychopaths. "Sark thought receivers were most important, therefore they don't matter at all."
They aren't everything, but they do matter. UW isn't going to make the leap to a playoff caliber team unless they either do a better job of recruiting receivers or a better job of developing them. Or probably abundance.
McKay and Mario were small and over looked but could actually play the game. to me, Mario not winning the Heisman is the biggest gripe ever in that category for the Huskies. It was a field devoid of an obvious superstar and Mario was the best player on the best team -
You think Mario was better than Stan Empterman??RaceBannon said:
Orlando McKay is often over looked but he stretched defenses big time on that 91 team. We also had at least two great tight ends that could block and catch and probably chew gum as well.dnc said:
Least important doesn't mean unimportant. The Seahawks receivers might not be elite but they make the plays they're asked to make (three in the top ten in catch rate including two in the top 5) and they're willing blockers, too. Alabama has had Julius Jones (h/t to sachiko for the edit: Julio, dammit) and Amari Cooper during their run, I doubt Saban agrees that receivers don't matter.RoadDawg55 said:The WR obsession on this board is weird. It's still one of the least, if not the least important position group. Of course we should want better WR's, but they really weren't the problem this year. And if you believe they were, the real problem was poor development. None of the WR's got noticeably better from last year despite better QB play, which is a good reason for Pease getting axed.
Clemson has their worst WR corps in years and they are in the title game. Alabama's #2 option was Oregon State's #2-3. 2000 UW. The Seahawks.. You get the point. Once we started emphasizing the run the last few games, actually starting the game featuring Gaskin and giving him 25-30 carries instead of 18, the WR's were fine.
UW doesn't win the 91 title without Super Mario.
I don't think this bored is obsessed with WR's, if anything I think this bored has overcorrected on WR's because Sark attracted 4 star wideouts like ISIS attracts homocidal psychopaths. "Sark thought receivers were most important, therefore they don't matter at all."
They aren't everything, but they do matter. UW isn't going to make the leap to a playoff caliber team unless they either do a better job of recruiting receivers or a better job of developing them. Or probably abundance.
McKay and Mario were small and over looked but could actually play the game. to me, Mario not winning the Heisman is the biggest gripe ever in that category for the Huskies. It was a field devoid of an obvious superstar and Mario was the best player on the best team
