No offense but....
Comments
-
I don't believe there is any question Mcgrew is a talent and a great weapon
The point was,its unlikely he ends up a feature tailback at this level...if he is thats great,outside of Gaskin there isn't another one on the roster.
You can minimize the 7-7 play all you want vs the highlight reel you watched on your phone...coaches from across the country get a ton of info off these passing leagues...you know UW actually holds one of their own so they can meet,greet and actually evaluate these kids for free!
I actually attended the last 2.......3 2 1....come on troll say it LOL
-
For fuck sake! That guys a jock sniffing tool!Baseman said:devildawg said:I obviously love poasting about UW/college football
I've been participating since they invented this shit...occasionally I post a few things I've seen or heard along the way,ive been involved with coaching,personel training,7-7 and the now shut down high school arena football leauge for the last 7-8 years
I've had this dip stick Troll on two web sights now stalking every post...asking for name,number,school,fucking SSN, facebook account? Ima bout to give it to him just to shut his fucking mouth!
Nuff said
His rep with some of the real boosters is a running joke! -
Calling anyone a jock sniffing tool is rich.
-
I saw him a few times down here and McGrew is a solid runner with lots of strength. I like the Sproles comparison. I think he'll be perfect to replace gaskin in 2 years as a feature back getting the rock 20+ times a game.
-
Do telldevildawg said:
For fuck sake! That guys a jock sniffing tool!Baseman said:devildawg said:I obviously love poasting about UW/college football
I've been participating since they invented this shit...occasionally I post a few things I've seen or heard along the way,ive been involved with coaching,personel training,7-7 and the now shut down high school arena football leauge for the last 7-8 years
I've had this dip stick Troll on two web sights now stalking every post...asking for name,number,school,fucking SSN, facebook account? Ima bout to give it to him just to shut his fucking mouth!
Nuff said
His rep with some of the real boosters is a running joke! -
People would be WAY more pumped about McGrew, despite his Liliputian stature, if he weren't pigmentationally challenged.
-
Okay, I was going to post this earlier, but didn't get a chance to...devildawg said:Agree Dennis!
Lotta coaches are fucking idiots! I've always chuckled with the Trolls obsession over my supposed "insider" status or my claim of superior knowledge becuase I coach high school football?
Self employed business owner who donates my time for free to help out coaching 15-18 year old stoners....nothing fucking glamoures about it.
Mcgrew is a midget he's also fast,with great feet he's going to make some plays I just don't think it will be with 15-20 carries a game at tailback and don't bring up Nip that's just retarded he was a once a decade back and one of the best high school players in the country! Mcgrew just a little guy who slipped out of LA becuase both schools have stacks of guys with his speed that all stand over 6 ft
Now if UW joins a 7-7 conferecne look out! Between Mcgrew and the smurf crew WRs and Smiffs ability to dial up 60 passes a game we just might break .500
In general I agree with you, but you're not helping yourself with this one.
For the last two years (which shouldn't really be different than any other years) height of running backs is normally distributed around a mean of 5-10.22 and a SD of ± 1.72.
Assuming no correlation between quality and height (this is favorable to your argument), this means that about 68% of the best running backs should be between 5-8.5 and 6-0. And that only about 15% should be above 6-0 and below 5-8.5; Importantly it says that only .1% of the best backs should be below 5-7 and above 6-3.
Now, if you assume that the RBs that play correspond to the RBs recruited in height (again, favorable toward your argument), that means that the Pac-12s all time rushing leaders should be distributed evenly through those buckets.
It turns out that about 15% of the players on the top 50 list are below 5-9; and 4% (2 players) are below 5-7. This is all while there's only 1 player above 6-3 on the list.
All of this is to say that what you find is that there doesn't seem to be any particular relationship between height and top-end performance once kids get scholarships. So, McGrew's being 5-7 (or whatever he is) shouldn't concern you any more than getting a kid 6-3.5 should.
Now... this is just opinion, but... I'd like to go one step further. My guess is that many people are biased against short people for playing time, etc. and they don't get the opportunity to play unless they are particularly good.
In the end, here's the rub... there's no evidence that says that, given he was offered a scholarship by many power 5 schools, that he will be any worse than anyone else. -
If McGrew puts up numbers similar to Jacquizz Rodgers, I'll be happy
-
Dennis_DeYoung said:
Okay, I was going to post this earlier, but didn't get a chance to...devildawg said:Agree Dennis!
Lotta coaches are fucking idiots! I've always chuckled with the Trolls obsession over my supposed "insider" status or my claim of superior knowledge becuase I coach high school football?
Self employed business owner who donates my time for free to help out coaching 15-18 year old stoners....nothing fucking glamoures about it.
Mcgrew is a midget he's also fast,with great feet he's going to make some plays I just don't think it will be with 15-20 carries a game at tailback and don't bring up Nip that's just retarded he was a once a decade back and one of the best high school players in the country! Mcgrew just a little guy who slipped out of LA becuase both schools have stacks of guys with his speed that all stand over 6 ft
Now if UW joins a 7-7 conferecne look out! Between Mcgrew and the smurf crew WRs and Smiffs ability to dial up 60 passes a game we just might break .500
In general I agree with you, but you're not helping yourself with this one.
For the last two years (which shouldn't really be different than any other years) height of running backs is normally distributed around a mean of 5-10.22 and a SD of ± 1.72.
Assuming no correlation between quality and height (this is favorable to your argument), this means that about 68% of the best running backs should be between 5-8.5 and 6-0. And that only about 15% should be above 6-0 and below 5-8.5; Importantly it says that only .1% of the best backs should be below 5-7 and above 6-3.
Now, if you assume that the RBs that play correspond to the RBs recruited in height (again, favorable toward your argument), that means that the Pac-12s all time rushing leaders should be distributed evenly through those buckets.
It turns out that about 15% of the players on the top 50 list are below 5-9; and 4% (2 players) are below 5-7. This is all while there's only 1 player above 6-3 on the list.
All of this is to say that what you find is that there doesn't seem to be any particular relationship between height and top-end performance once kids get scholarships. So, McGrew's being 5-7 (or whatever he is) shouldn't concern you any more than getting a kid 6-3.5 should.
Now... this is just opinion, but... I'd like to go one step further. My guess is that many people are biased against short people for playing time, etc. and they don't get the opportunity to play unless they are particularly good.
In the end, here's the rub... there's no evidence that says that, given he was offered a scholarship by many power 5 schools, that he will be any worse than anyone else.
-
All you fucking fleenor types evaluating our offense seem to forget that Myles fucking Gaskin is returning next season
