Concerns over WR recruiting
What is Petersen going to do about it?
Comments
-
Hopefully run.whatshouldicareabout said:We suck at it.
What is Petersen going to do about it? -
Pettis and Lenius are only sophomores. Renfro, McClatcher, and Pounds in this year's class. LIPO with those guys. Baccallia will probably suck and likely doesn't have a high ceiling, but besides him, everyone looks like a decent prospect. I disagree with Dennis and thought the kid from Texas looked pretty good. A Reggie Williams would be great, but it's not that big of deal.
It's a lot better to be concerned about questionable WR recruiting than the OL. -
WR's are the least of the our concerns.
-
I'm happy with Aaron Fuller, too, but I'm looking at WR recruiting since Petersen has arrived, and it's lacks the big names that we've seen at the other position groups. If we're looking at 247's Composite 4*s under Petersen, we have:RoadDawg55 said:Pettis and Lenius are only sophomores. Renfro, McClatcher, and Pounds in this year's class. LIPO with those guys. Baccallia will probably suck and likely doesn't have a high ceiling, but besides him, everyone looks like a decent prospect. I disagree with Dennis and thought the kid from Texas looked pretty good. A Reggie Williams would be great, but it's not that big of deal.
It's a lot better to be concerned about questionable WR recruiting than the OL.
QB (2): KJCS, Browning
RB (1): McGrew
WR/TE (0):
OL (4): McGary, Roberts, Adams, Wattenburg
DL (1): Potoae
LB (2): Eifler, Wellington
DB (3): Baker, Hale, Joyner
Then again, stars aren't everything, but it's the one area where we haven't had a consensus 4* yet.
I think I'm nervous about WR recruiting because in the last 10 days, we've lost out on five targets to USC, ND, Louisville, Arizona, and Stanford, and I think we're on the outside looking in for a number of others. I think Petersen and the other coaches are going to start offering scholarships to some of the other kids that have committed elsewhere, to lesser schools, in hopes of flipping them.
Then again, I think we're only taking 3 WR this year, meaning only 2 more spots remain, so maybe they'll go harder after Crawford and Harry and whoever else we have a decent shot at. -
Until we prove we have anything better than the worst QB/offense in the Pac 12 it's going to be hard to convince top talent from out of the area to come north.whatshouldicareabout said:
I'm happy with Aaron Fuller, too, but I'm looking at WR recruiting since Petersen has arrived, and it's lacks the big names that we've seen at the other position groups. If we're looking at 247's Composite 4*s under Petersen, we have:RoadDawg55 said:Pettis and Lenius are only sophomores. Renfro, McClatcher, and Pounds in this year's class. LIPO with those guys. Baccallia will probably suck and likely doesn't have a high ceiling, but besides him, everyone looks like a decent prospect. I disagree with Dennis and thought the kid from Texas looked pretty good. A Reggie Williams would be great, but it's not that big of deal.
It's a lot better to be concerned about questionable WR recruiting than the OL.
QB (2): KJCS, Browning
RB (1): McGrew
WR/TE (0):
OL (4): McGary, Roberts, Adams, Wattenburg
DL (1): Potoae
LB (2): Eifler, Wellington
DB (3): Baker, Hale, Joyner
Then again, stars aren't everything, but it's the one area where we haven't had a consensus 4* yet.
I think I'm nervous about WR recruiting because in the last 10 days, we've lost out on five targets to USC, ND, Louisville, Arizona, and Stanford, and I think we're on the outside looking in for a number of others. I think Petersen and the other coaches are going to start offering scholarships to some of the other kids that have committed elsewhere, to lesser schools, in hopes of flipping them.
Then again, I think we're only taking 3 WR this year, meaning only 2 more spots remain, so maybe they'll go harder after Crawford and Harry and whoever else we have a decent shot at.
I'm not too worried about it. As mentioned we have some good looking underclassmen WR already in the program, and if Pete is who we think he is (also if Browning is who I think he is) some 4 star guys will be interested moving forward. The truly game breaking WR talent can excel as a true frosh. I'd rather have a stock pile of big uglies to be developed over a few years and roll the dice on finding a game breaker on the perimeter. -
Anyone worried about WR sizzle in July deserves @Owen12
-
Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids, Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year. Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week. -
When did lenius look good? Maybe he will turn out to be good. But he was nothing last year. Looking at his bio last year he had 7 catches for 56 yards. Half of his yards were on one catch vs ucla.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids, Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year. Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
Wr recruiting is the least of my worries too. But pettis so far is the only young one on the team worth a damn.
-
This. You can win with shitty receivers. You can't win with shitty linemen, LBs, and DBs. Petersen seems to be focusing on those positions.RoadDawg55 said:Pettis and Lenius are only sophomores. Renfro, McClatcher, and Pounds in this year's class. LIPO with those guys. Baccallia will probably suck and likely doesn't have a high ceiling, but besides him, everyone looks like a decent prospect. I disagree with Dennis and thought the kid from Texas looked pretty good. A Reggie Williams would be great, but it's not that big of deal.
It's a lot better to be concerned about questionable WR recruiting than the OL.
Also, like you said, we brought in 5 WRs to last years class (including Little). Elite receivers will come in as the offense improves. -
Lenius, for me, is my breakout pick for this season. He looked terrific in the 3 practices I saw him in during the spring. I expect some really good things from him this season.
-
Did you see UW football games last year?AtomicDawg said:
When did lenius look good? Maybe he will turn out to be good. But he was nothing last year. Looking at his bio last year he had 7 catches for 56 yards. Half of his yards were on one catch vs ucla.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids, Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year. Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
Wr recruiting is the least of my worries too. But pettis so far is the only young one on the team worth a damn. -
I did. He looked tall. And our QB sucked ass. But even with the shitty QB, Pettis flashed actual skills. Lenius flashed height.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Did you see UW football games last year?AtomicDawg said:
When did lenius look good? Maybe he will turn out to be good. But he was nothing last year. Looking at his bio last year he had 7 catches for 56 yards. Half of his yards were on one catch vs ucla.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids, Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year. Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
Wr recruiting is the least of my worries too. But pettis so far is the only young one on the team worth a damn.
I'm cautiously optimistic about him because so many here NTD, BB over him, but he didn't show me anything last year on the field. That said he was a freshman and a raw one at that. If Pete can develop like we think he can, Lenius certainly has a shot. And Cokehead's spring analysis is promising. -
2016 WR recruiting has been weird, there's a bunch of high 4star guys that wanted SC offers, but never got them as Sark took WRs from SEC land. McKinley Crawford McKnight Alloway - could be some shakeup with their preferences. I know Uw is heavily involved with some of those guys.
-
Yeah, my guess is that the staff gets one stud (4 stars like you mentioned or 5 star N'Keal Henry) and then another 3 star guy (mid to high).
Best guy they got last year was Renfro (high 3 star / low 4 star) followed by Chico (easier to find guys like him than potential #1 WRs like Renfro).
I'm most concerned with the DL recruiting this year. I think Choate is a great coach and a good recruiter but it's kind of a down year for DTs / NTs on the West Coast this year.BallSacked said:2016 WR recruiting has been weird, there's a bunch of high 4star guys that wanted SC offers, but never got them as Sark took WRs from SEC land. McKinley Crawford McKnight Alloway - could be some shakeup with their preferences. I know Uw is heavily involved with some of those guys.
-
Unfortunately I did see all the games last year. And lenius was not good. @dnc gave expert analysis. He showed size and not much else. anyone saying he is going to be good is more hope than anything. I hope he is good too. Wouldn't bet on it though. Especially since our quarterbacks are not likely to make him look better than he is.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Did you see UW football games last year?AtomicDawg said:
When did lenius look good? Maybe he will turn out to be good. But he was nothing last year. Looking at his bio last year he had 7 catches for 56 yards. Half of his yards were on one catch vs ucla.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids, Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year. Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
Wr recruiting is the least of my worries too. But pettis so far is the only young one on the team worth a damn. -
In case you didn't know, Scout overinflates their star rankings now. It used to be that if you were in the Top 51-300, you were given 4*s and everyone below was 3*s. Now Scout gives about 400 kids 4*s, so people get more excited, stroke their dicks and claim greatness on the number of shiny pictures of stars on a website.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids,
Dante Pettis looked good against Colorado and only Colorado. I wanna see a WR that can put up good numbers against the upper-tier of the conference, not fucking Colorado. He put up DiAndre Campbell's numbers last year. How the fuck is he an All Pac-12 candidate this year?Dennis_DeYoung said:Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year.
You mean, Lenius looked good during one play last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
I don't get all this bullshit where we're doing fine. Right now, pretty much everyone is unproven at the WR position heading into this year except for Mickens and Hall. Pettis and Lenius really didn't do much at the WR position. Yeah, Pettis shit all over Colorado and Lenius had one catch against UCLA and that's it. And all these new WRs haven't proven they can compete against the Oregons, Stanfords, USCs or UCLAs yet.Dennis_DeYoung said:What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
We need better talent at the WR position if we ever want to break out of 3rd place in the Pac-12 North. We need better talent everywhere, and we're getting it everywhere else, but we're still striking out at WR. -
I guess we just shouldn't play this year. It's hopeless.whatshouldicareabout said:
In case you didn't know, Scout overinflates their star rankings now. It used to be that if you were in the Top 51-300, you were given 4*s and everyone below was 3*s. Now Scout gives about 400 kids 4*s, so people get more excited, stroke their dicks and claim greatness on the number of shiny pictures of stars on a website.Dennis_DeYoung said:Uh, Renfro and McClatcher were 4-star kids,
Dante Pettis looked good against Colorado and only Colorado. I wanna see a WR that can put up good numbers against the upper-tier of the conference, not fucking Colorado. He put up DiAndre Campbell's numbers last year. How the fuck is he an All Pac-12 candidate this year?Dennis_DeYoung said:Pettis had a good year for a true frosh and has been mentioned as a possible All Pac-12 candidate this year.
You mean, Lenius looked good during one play last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:Lenius chose us over Miami and looked really good in limited time last year.
I don't get all this bullshit where we're doing fine. Right now, pretty much everyone is unproven at the WR position heading into this year except for Mickens and Hall. Pettis and Lenius really didn't do much at the WR position. Yeah, Pettis shit all over Colorado and Lenius had one catch against UCLA and that's it. And all these new WRs haven't proven they can compete against the Oregons, Stanfords, USCs or UCLAs yet.Dennis_DeYoung said:What the F do people want?
Look, I think Fuller sucks, I think Little sucks, I think Andre B. is likely to suck and Pounds makes me yawn... but give it a rest.
If there are ever topics that overlap here and at doogman the poaster should be banned for a week.
We need better talent at the WR position if we ever want to break out of 3rd place in the Pac-12 North. We need better talent everywhere, and we're getting it everywhere else, but we're still striking out at WR. -
I know you've been holding out hope for Harry, but I don't see him going to UW, as SC has been backing away from him due to academis. If SC can't take a guy academically, UW usually can't either.HFNY said:Yeah, my guess is that the staff gets one stud (4 stars like you mentioned or 5 star N'Keal Henry) and then another 3 star guy (mid to high).
Best guy they got last year was Renfro (high 3 star / low 4 star) followed by Chico (easier to find guys like him than potential #1 WRs like Renfro).
I'm most concerned with the DL recruiting this year. I think Choate is a great coach and a good recruiter but it's kind of a down year for DTs / NTs on the West Coast this year.BallSacked said:2016 WR recruiting has been weird, there's a bunch of high 4star guys that wanted SC offers, but never got them as Sark took WRs from SEC land. McKinley Crawford McKnight Alloway - could be some shakeup with their preferences. I know Uw is heavily involved with some of those guys.
UA, ASU or somewhere random in big12 or SEC would be my guess.
-
I know nothing about him, but I do know a 5 star from Arizona isn't coming to UW.BallSacked said:
I know you've been holding out hope for Harry, but I don't see him going to UW, as SC has been backing away from him due to academis. If SC can't take a guy academically, UW usually can't either.HFNY said:Yeah, my guess is that the staff gets one stud (4 stars like you mentioned or 5 star N'Keal Henry) and then another 3 star guy (mid to high).
Best guy they got last year was Renfro (high 3 star / low 4 star) followed by Chico (easier to find guys like him than potential #1 WRs like Renfro).
I'm most concerned with the DL recruiting this year. I think Choate is a great coach and a good recruiter but it's kind of a down year for DTs / NTs on the West Coast this year.BallSacked said:2016 WR recruiting has been weird, there's a bunch of high 4star guys that wanted SC offers, but never got them as Sark took WRs from SEC land. McKinley Crawford McKnight Alloway - could be some shakeup with their preferences. I know Uw is heavily involved with some of those guys.
UA, ASU or somewhere random in big12 or SEC would be my guess. -
So SC, ASU and UA all have different academic standards than UW? That's news to me. It's my understanding that in the P12, only Stanford and possibly UCLA have standards that differ from NCAA standards.
FWIW, the kid's HS coach stated this past week that Henry is on track to be fully qualified. -
Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
-
I remember hearing UCLA had slightly higher standards than other schools back in the day. USC is private, but they care about winning.Gladstone said:Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
-
Not everyone has to be Reggie Williams as a freshman. I'm sick of these doogy overinflated expectations for people.
Pettis was a freshman! He's supposed to dominate upper tier teams? Did you notice he was the whole reason we were in the game against Stanford?
Since when do freshmen dominate against great competition? Jesus.
Every criticism you have of Pettis could've been made about Sankey after his first year. So dumb.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For f's sake. -
Yeah there's NCAA minimum standards and self-imposed university minimum standards. Im not trying to do academis smack, but there are obviously guys that go to ASUs OSUs or WSUs that UW UCLA Cal and Stanford don't touch. So there's some other standard being imposed at those schools. Which is stupid, but that's what they do.RoadDawg55 said:
I remember hearing UCLA had slightly higher standards than other schools back in the day. USC is private, but they care about winning.Gladstone said:Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
Cal over the years has let in some real sketchy qualifiers - Jason Kidd Russell White and Marshawn Lynch being prime examples. -
Agree with a lot of it, eppecially your opinions on WR recruiting and recruiting in general, but some of this is major pressing. Was the stuff about Pettis and Stanford a typo? Shaq was the main reason we were in the game against Stanford.Dennis_DeYoung said:Not everyone has to be Reggie Williams as a freshman. I'm sick of these doogy overinflated expectations for people.
Pettis was a freshman! He's supposed to dominate upper tier teams? Did you notice he was the whole reason we were in the game against Stanford?
We get it: you want sizzle. If you look at Renfro and McClatcher's tapes and don't see guys who have impressive physical skills then you don't understand HS players.
Lenius looked good every single time he was targeted. He should've redshirted.
Your poast is so stooooopid. You want everyone to be Reggie? Okay, me too.
By your standards every frosh WR we've ever played outside of Reggie is useless.
Also: we're talking about the most useless position.
We're getting better OL recruiting than in the past 20 years and you are grousing about the lack of splashy WRs: which is a hot topic on doogman... nice.
Here's what matters in recruiting: DL, OL, QB, fast guys.
This discussion is not only inaccurate (we are doing fine at WR recruiting) it's dumb.
Lenius played a decent amount and didn't make an impact. He was a freshman and he's an intriguing player, but that's about it. I like him, but I also don't fault anyone that doesn't want to crown his ass yet either. -
Cal can't take those risks anymore now either. Their student advisory board or something like that passed a new requirement that takes effect in phases. I can't remember it exactly but the football team has to take 3.0 students or better by a certain point. It was actually a pretty tough rule and hurts the football program, but what do you really expect from Cal?BallSacked said:
Yeah there's NCAA minimum standards and self-imposed university minimum standards. Im not trying to do academis smack, but there are obviously guys that go to ASUs OSUs or WSUs that UW UCLA Cal and Stanford don't touch. So there's some other standard being imposed at those schools. Which is stupid, but that's what they do.RoadDawg55 said:
I remember hearing UCLA had slightly higher standards than other schools back in the day. USC is private, but they care about winning.Gladstone said:Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
Cal over the years has let in some real sketchy qualifiers - Jason Kidd Russell White and Marshawn Lynch being prime examples. -
Ugh, I'm going nuts so I just took that stuff out.
It's not major pressing: Pettis' punt returns were a serious part of why we did anything against Stanford.
Again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I got in fights with so many morons saying the same thing about Sankey after his freshman year.
When he was on the field he looked good. What else do you want?
People said if he were better he would've clearly wrested the backup RB position from Callier.
This doogy crap always has the flavor of uninformed/random skepticism.
For whatever reason Callier had one decent fly sweep and people thought he was good. I spent he whole year saying Sankey was much better and people would make the same arguments "he choked at Neb" "it was two runs!" Whatever.
Pettis and Lenius looked good to me. You can say they didn't look good, but you can't say them failing to dominate in the Pac-12 is evidence of anything.
Sankey didn't even win the starting RB job in camp! Saying 'the coaches know' and taking who plays as a rule about who is good is foolish.
Pettis and Lenius both flashed in limited time. That's all you can ask.
I swear to god, when I revisited this topic re: Sankey during '13 they were all saying "we were just saying he hadn't DONE anything yet."
Uh, that's not an opinion, that's a statement of fact. Using it is as justified skepticism that someone won't do anything in the future is like saying, "well Jimmy hasn't learned how to read and he's had 5 years on the earth..."
It's just totally ignorant of the natural course of development. -
That's because Tedford was really bad at monitoring graduation and progression rates for his players during his tenure. The APR figures during his tenure I believe were dead last in the conference.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Cal can't take those risks anymore now either. Their student advisory board or something like that passed a new requirement that takes effect in phases. I can't remember it exactly but the football team has to take 3.0 students or better by a certain point. It was actually a pretty tough rule and hurts the football program, but what do you really expect from Cal?BallSacked said:
Yeah there's NCAA minimum standards and self-imposed university minimum standards. Im not trying to do academis smack, but there are obviously guys that go to ASUs OSUs or WSUs that UW UCLA Cal and Stanford don't touch. So there's some other standard being imposed at those schools. Which is stupid, but that's what they do.RoadDawg55 said:
I remember hearing UCLA had slightly higher standards than other schools back in the day. USC is private, but they care about winning.Gladstone said:Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
Cal over the years has let in some real sketchy qualifiers - Jason Kidd Russell White and Marshawn Lynch being prime examples.
-
And they won more games than in the last 40 years. Go figureBallSacked said:
That's because Tedford was really bad at monitoring graduation and progression rates for his players during his tenure. The APR figures during his tenure I believe were dead last in the conference.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Cal can't take those risks anymore now either. Their student advisory board or something like that passed a new requirement that takes effect in phases. I can't remember it exactly but the football team has to take 3.0 students or better by a certain point. It was actually a pretty tough rule and hurts the football program, but what do you really expect from Cal?BallSacked said:
Yeah there's NCAA minimum standards and self-imposed university minimum standards. Im not trying to do academis smack, but there are obviously guys that go to ASUs OSUs or WSUs that UW UCLA Cal and Stanford don't touch. So there's some other standard being imposed at those schools. Which is stupid, but that's what they do.RoadDawg55 said:
I remember hearing UCLA had slightly higher standards than other schools back in the day. USC is private, but they care about winning.Gladstone said:Did you mean to say USC instead of UCLA? USC is private. UCLA's minimum is the UC minimum, same as Cal.
Cal over the years has let in some real sketchy qualifiers - Jason Kidd Russell White and Marshawn Lynch being prime examples. -
I like our WR's & TE's. Sorry to keep mentioning it but you add a String to that group and it would be championship quality. Thats a huge caveat but thats all we are missing, a big legit #1 WR.
John Ross- If he returns healthy in 2016, he's an all-league guy
Jaydon Mickens- Quietly picked up his game the last 4 games of the year. 21 catches for 286 and 2 TD's plus 2 TD's on reverses. I think he can be Honorable Mention All-Pac12 this year. He will mitigate the loss of Ross which I think is biggest on kick returns.
Dante Pettis- Flashed like Dennis said. 16 catches for 200 yards the last 6 games. Thats 400 yards over a full season. Will get 500-600 this season if he gets the touches. Is going to be a solid player who gets better and better.
Brayden Lenius- See the article below. Has great bloodlines. 6'5 217. Has physical tools and good hands. Get this guy roided out while keeping his speed and he could develop into a #1 WR.
http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/23714790/grandson-has-the-potential-drive-to-create-nfl-legacy-that-dickey-was-denied
Moving onto the TE's
Josh Perkins- Only played last 8 games of the year...25 grabs for 315 yards and 3 TDs. Was a good safety target last year. Does he get passed by better guys?
Darrell Daniels- Really want to see him breakout this year more than any other player. Can't believe they wasted his redshirt. As far as big play potential, he's #2 behind Ross. He has the ability to turn catches into big gains.
Drew Sample & David Ajamu- I know they played well in Spring and can block.
Overall this could be a top notch group in 2016 if Ross is back to self, Daniels develops and so does Lenius. Ross-Pettis-Lenius, Daniels at TE. Plus you have the guys to do 2 or 3 TE sets.
As far as WR recruiting I hope we can find a 6'3 or 6'4 type guy. Too many smurfs. But as others have said, WR isnt very important and its easy to replace guys. I like the near future at WR & TE.
