Concerns over WR recruiting
Comments
-
Wasn't Lenius raw coming out of HS, only having played a year or two? He really should've redshirted but UW had no big WRs (KW was 3" shorter than him and coming off a bad leg injury from the 2013 season) so he pretty much had to play. Only hope for Lenius is that he's a CFB late bloomer who will also benefit from a position coach change.
Pettis should be pretty good in 2016 but I agree with those who say he needs to improve his physicality. He has decent size, pretty good speed, good hands and good quickness but he's not top tier in any one area so having subpar physicality hurts him more than, say, a John Ross.
As for Ross, I'm hoping a year off and a healthy spring with Bush will lead him to be a more complete WR. He is a speed merchant but IIRC, his route running was basic and pretty raw so I'm looking forward to seeing him in the spring.
One guy I'm still really high on is Renfro...wouldn't surprise me to see him starting next year (supplanting Lenius). He has good size for the fade (Browning has to improve on his deep ball) but also good athleticism for slants, outs, and sitting down in zones.
Beyond Browning and a-now-veteran OL, Hamden and Petersen can sell Chris Taylor-Yamanoha on the idea that he could come in right away and compete for a spot in the two-deeps.
A deep sleeper is Jamon Jones....a 6'2" 227 lbs preferred walk-on who redshirted in 2015. He was a QB in high school, was also a track guy (high jump, long jump and triple jump...sprints and hurdle too), and also was a 2nd team All-League basketball player. If that doesn't scream potential for vertiginously loose hips, I don't know what does. -
I didn't know Stan was eligiblednc said:
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 -
If my memory serves he finished fourth, second most first place votes. Can't remember if he got invited to New York but I want to say he did.RaceBannon said:
I didn't know Stan was eligiblednc said:
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 -
The WRs should have been better. Mickens had the talent of a #1 but coaching never got through to him. Lenius and Pettis did not make the big leap from year 1 to 2 that many good freshman do.FremontTroll said:@HeretoBeatmyChest you still like our WRs? Lenius developing into a #1?
-
As a person who also doogishly predicted big things from P&L I appreciate this understated back away that makes it seem like we weren't completely wrong.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
The WRs should have been better. Mickens had the talent of a #1 but coaching never got through to him. Lenius and Pettis did not make the big leap from year 1 to 2 that many good freshman do.FremontTroll said:@HeretoBeatmyChest you still like our WRs? Lenius developing into a #1?
-
I can fix your receiver problem. I'm tanned, rested, and ready -
Well, Eklund just said that 'scouts questioned CTY's toughness' - which, in my 81% accurate Eklund translating algorithm, means, "he's a good player and I'm not quite sure why he hasn't gotten better offers so I will talk about something that can't be seen on his film like I did with Bishop Sankey."
Pretty sure that means he's really good. -
Fetters WDWHA'd Taylor Mays because he wasn't "tuff" enough for safety. Mays was about 5 times the safety anybody we? had on our? roster was back then.Dennis_DeYoung said:Well, Eklund just said that 'scouts questioned CTY's toughness' - which, in my 81% accurate Eklund translating algorithm, means, "he's a good player and I'm not quite sure why he hasn't gotten better offers so I will talk about something that can't be seen on his film like I did with Bishop Sankey."
Pretty sure that means he's really good.
The LPT evaluating tuffness is almost as funny as them evaluating athleticism. -
Pat hill is the only person that should be allowed to evaluate toughness quite frankly.
-
crispenenedAtomicDawg said:Pat hill is the only person that should be allowed to evaluate TUFFness quite frankly.
-
And the desire to compete.dnc said:
Fetters WDWHA'd Taylor Mays because he wasn't "tuff" enough for safety. Mays was about 5 times the safety anybody we? had on our? roster was back then.Dennis_DeYoung said:Well, Eklund just said that 'scouts questioned CTY's toughness' - which, in my 81% accurate Eklund translating algorithm, means, "he's a good player and I'm not quite sure why he hasn't gotten better offers so I will talk about something that can't be seen on his film like I did with Bishop Sankey."
Pretty sure that means he's really good.
The LPT evaluating tuffness is almost as funny as them evaluating athleticism.
-
Very intrigued in what you're talking about here. Those are some big numbers for a true freshman WR. I think Marcel Reece was 6'2" (UW listed him at 6'3" but the Raiders list him at 6'2") and 240 as a Junior or Senior. This Jones kid probably puts on another 5-15 pounds over the next couple of years and will be in that Reece range. Have you seen him play?
A deep sleeper is Jamon Jones....a 6'2" 227 lbs preferred walk-on who redshirted in 2015. He was a QB in high school, was also a track guy (high jump, long jump and triple jump...sprints and hurdle too), and also was a 2nd team All-League basketball player. If that doesn't scream potential for vertiginously loose hips, I don't know what does.
-
I remember the good old days when coaches like Sark and Slick got us 10-15 WRs per class....
-
DuckHHunterisafag said:
Very intrigued in what you're talking about here. Those are some big numbers for a true freshman WR. I think Marcel Reece was 6'2" (UW listed him at 6'3" but the Raiders list him at 6'2") and 240 as a Junior or Senior. This Jones kid probably puts on another 5-15 pounds over the next couple of years and will be in that Reece range. Have you seen him play?
A deep sleeper is Jamon Jones....a 6'2" 227 lbs preferred walk-on who redshirted in 2015. He was a QB in high school, was also a track guy (high jump, long jump and triple jump...sprints and hurdle too), and also was a 2nd team All-League basketball player. If that doesn't scream potential for vertiginously loose hips, I don't know what does.
I remember seeing Jones at one of the practices I attended and being impressed by his size. Then I watched him try to catch passes. Stone-hands Mickens puts his hands to shame.
Maybe he all of a sudden learned how to catch a football, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. -
Heard a rumor that Dylan Crawford will be visiting next weekend
-
After hearing about Eddie McDoom, I can see this rumor actually materializing.HuskyClaws said:Heard a rumor that Dylan Crawford will be visiting next weekend
Then he RTs:
Not to mention this cryptic tweet: -
Michigan is also bringing another WR in for an official visit this weekend and Michigan is in his final 2.
http://www.scout.com/college/football/recruiting/story/1633524-stewart-down-michigan-and-stanford -
The entire "Long is a lock to Michigan" contingent on this bored has cited Crawford's commitment as a impetus for David Long choosing Ann Arbor.
This wide receiver development doesn't really feel like Harbaugh is really prioritizing Crawford. He's found a new toy. Time to sell the couch.
It's certainly good news for UW if Crawford does in fact visit this weekend. We need WR help badly. -
-
I think it is just a way for them to.dnc said:
Fetters WDWHA'd Taylor Mays because he wasn't "tuff" enough for safety. Mays was about 5 times the safety anybody we? had on our? roster was back then.Dennis_DeYoung said:Well, Eklund just said that 'scouts questioned CTY's toughness' - which, in my 81% accurate Eklund translating algorithm, means, "he's a good player and I'm not quite sure why he hasn't gotten better offers so I will talk about something that can't be seen on his film like I did with Bishop Sankey."
Pretty sure that means he's really good.
The LPT evaluating tuffness is almost as funny as them evaluating athleticism.
