Cream of our crop?

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:27 am

Last year, Anthony Turner was clear cause for excitement. The year before, it was Omar.

Some of you are pointing out that our blood just isn't going to race like it did those past two years considering how strongly we focused on defense on our O-line.

The more I look, the more I agree that is a good point.

It also seems clear that J.D. intentionally did not put 40 times into his release or list schools who were rejected in our favor -- two things I always look for.

(I'm not sure I blame him on the 40s; I wouldn't trust a 40 I hadn't timed myself.)

It may be that if we had 15 of these kids locked in before the season started, maybe other programs weren't running at our commits quite as hard.

Anyway... these names jump out to me when I study the list:

Luke Alexander, WR, 6-0, 170, Springfield, Ohio (South)
He was all state and played in the Big 33, which are nice resume stuffers. Going for 1,100 yards his senior year shows he was getting it done. Also, six feet is decent size for a receiver. He ran track.

Aaron Davis, WR, 6-2, 182, Seffner, Florida (Armwood)
I really like this kid's size. He played for two state champion football teams and he also ran track. Obviously, he wasn't catching many passes, but if he has speed, I'm sure we can teach him to catch.

Kevin Mahoney, OL, 6-6, 295, Springfield, Ohio (Springfield North)
This kid is already the prototypical size... and he lettered in basketball, so he isn't just a big lug.

Phillip Pollard, OL, 6-3, 270, Westerville, Ohio (Westerville South)
He's close to where we need him on size and he was all-Ohio. Sounds good.

Shane Steffy, OL, 6-3, 290, Oakmont Pennsylvania (Riverview)
He's already at the right size and he was all-state Pennsylvania. Sounds good.

Bobby Thomas, DB, 5-9, 200, Warrensville Hts., Ohio (Warrensville Hts.)
All state two years in a row as a RB, four letters in track -- and if they thinking about putting him in the defensive backfield, he must have skills.

Calvin Wiley Jr., DB, 5-11, 185, Detroit, Michigan (Harperwoods Notre Dame)
This is pretty good height for a DB, and he was on that Michigan Top 50 list.

Stephon Thompson, CB, 6-0, 175, Franklin, Michigan (Southfield-Lathrup)
Very nice size for a corner -- and he was all state and on that Blue Chip list -- and he played quarterback, which implies he's pretty smart about the game.

Guy Williamson, OL, 6-4, 300, Mahomet, Illinois (Mahomet-Seymour)
Once again, he has the size to play now. First team all state in Illinois.

Cody Basler, LB, 6-3, 225, Auburn, Michigan (Bay City Western)
All-State Dream Team (we're talking about Top 22 territory here), Top 50 Blue Chip list.

Bottom line: I look at this group and I figure we did well based on what few objective measures we have to go on. It seems like we are getting more right-sized OLs. A few years ago, we used to get more projects -- right height, but hadn't filled out.

I've mentioned no DLs. One impression: They are taller than usual, meaning we might be hoping to fill 'em out and create monsters the likes of which we haven't seen in these parts in a while. In other words, we are getting projects with more potential high side than before. Again, good.

No one is going to rank our class first in the MAC -- we just don't have that jaw-dropper to put the exclamation point on the whole thing. But we very well may have a very solid bunch here.

Anyway, fire away, because I know some of you are much more studious about The Game than I am.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:40 am

RB Chris Bullock looks like a bigger version of PJ Pope. He has great hands, good feet and he runs north/south (at least he did on the film we saw).

QB Freddie Barnes might be the best athlete of the bunch

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:57 am

I agree with Flip on Bullock. I was very impressed with him on the films we saw. He is VERY hard to bring down and has very good size already. I also like the receiver from Florida. Great size and a tremendous athlete, and just because he didn't catch alot of balls in his HS system, certainly doesn't mean he can't!

duckunder53 · Post by **duckunder53** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:24 am

Just a thought, I'm pretty sure that Omar wasn't the year before Turner, but the year before that. So that makes him an incoming freshman two years before we got A.T. Jacobs will be a redshirt junior and Turner will be a redshirt freshman. Correct me if I'm wrong.

*Thanks...I was thinking faster than I can type, lol

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:35 am

duckunder53 wrote:Just a thought, I'm pretty sure that Omar wasn't the year before Turner, but the year before that. So that makes him an incoming freshman two years before we got A.T. Jacobs will be a redshirt sophomore and Turner will be a redshirt freshman. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Your right about the classes that Turner and jacobs came in, but Jacobs will be a redshirt Junior next season, not sophomore.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:42 am

Schade:

Good "second" post on the recruiting class. In NFL terms, it seems we were definitely "drafting for need." We're pretty loaded at the offensive skill positions, which tend to get everyone hyped up. But we have potentially addressed some real holes.

As always, time will tell.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:46 am

1987alum wrote: Good "second" post on the recruiting class. In NFL terms, it seems we were definitely "drafting for need." .

I sure hope it works out for us. In the NFL drafting for need is a surefire way to ruin your team. Always take BPA.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:26 am

hammb wrote:
1987alum wrote: Good "second" post on the recruiting class. In NFL terms, it seems we were definitely "drafting for need." .
I sure hope it works out for us. In the NFL drafting for need is a surefire way to ruin your team. Always take BPA.

The analogy has flaws because the parallel between the NFL and college doesn't necessarily work, but I guess what I'm saying is it looks like we got some very good players where we needed them most.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:18 pm

1987alum wrote:
hammb wrote:
1987alum wrote: Good "second" post on the recruiting class. In NFL terms, it seems we were definitely "drafting for need." .
I sure hope it works out for us. In the NFL drafting for need is a surefire way to ruin your team. Always take BPA.
The analogy has flaws because the parallel between the NFL and college doesn't necessarily work, but I guess what I'm saying is it looks like we got some very good players where we needed them most.

Yeah, I know. I was just saying how bad an idea drafting for need is. I highly doubt that we turned down any great prospects just because they didn't fit our "need" positions.

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:49 pm

What do you mean "we recruited for need." We didn't even recruit a kicker, eh hammb?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:18 pm

I think you guys are really going to like Frericks. He has a motor! You don't see too many DT's going accross the field and 10-15 yards up the sideline to bring down a tailback....

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:13 pm

factman wrote:What do you mean "we recruited for need." We didn't even recruit a kicker, eh hammb?

A kicker would've been nice, but my #1 recruit would've been some 5 star defensive coordinator

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:45 pm

Hammb,

I couldn't agree more. The write-ups on these guys give you a lot of prospects that you would want your daughter to bring home, but not too many that "wow" you in terms of outstanding football accomplishments. I think the biggest thing that hurt us was UC's ability to sell the BCS. If the internet guru's have any validity, early on and throughout the process, we lost several guys to UC. I would think in most years, these guys give us more of "coin-toss" situation, but with the appeal of playing against the best in the BCS, albeit distant, the Bearcats were able to pick-up several key players.

I do find it hard to believe that our class is bad. We have too many All-State guys and solid credentials to fly completely under the radar.

Luke Alexander and Michael Ream are the only two I've seen "live." Neither blows you away with anything they do, but both are very, very solid fundamentally. Alexander, despite an erratic QB, catches most things thrown his way. He runs solid routes and manages to outposition DBs. He does not, from what I saw, have tremendous game-breaking speed. I think he's has above average speed and great hands. Ream has a high motor and many times was the best athlete on the field in a 3 team conference featuring many mismatches the other 7 weeks. Blaine Maag, in my opinion was the most impressive player in the NWC though.

The two things that come to mind are these:

1) Deaudre Perry. Looking at the depth chart, you can make the argument that Tim Arnold is perhaps an option if Perry is unable to go because of grades. Arnold would give us four seniors in the secondary (Jordan, Mayberry, Crumpler and Arnold). With the recent signings and last year's class, the backfield for '06 would be extremely competitive, but awfully young. I look forward to how well Dozier, Waldron, Antonio Smith,Bobby Thomas, Chris Wright, Calvin Wiley, Stephon Thompson, Bryan Jackson and all the others (Magner?) can push this group of seniors. At least on the surface depth has been addressed acrossed the board as we are three deep at most positions. The true test will be how much the 2nd and 3rd units can competitively push the 1st string and how competitive the coaches dictate those match-ups to be.

2) Dan Macon. Again, as I've posted several times, there are three situations that come to mind with Macon who will be a junior in the fall.
a.) Our opinion of him is much higher than his actual ability versus the rest of the team which is entirely possible.
b.) He fits a tremendous need at one of the WILL or SAM positions with his speed and athleticism.
c.) My personal choice, REDSHIRT him. We have used two years of eligiblity on a guy for special teams. Perhaps that is his contribution and his potential/ability limit him to that. If and there is much debate, Petey Hood projects as a running back or Chris Bullock projects which is where he is slated, your number one option next year, seniority-wise, is a senior with his only carries coming in mop-up duty. Pope, Lane and perhaps even Petey Hood can carry the load this year while redshirting Macon and Bullock. This perserves an additional year for Macon and allows Bullock to get more acclimated to D-1 football. There is something that tells me Bullock is the gem of this class.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:00 pm

Option---Petey Hood is a DB.....

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:15 pm

As I stated, there is much debate as to his actual position. One roster lists him as a DB, the other lists him as a RB. I am not taking a firm stance on the matter and was merely speculating. It would not surprise at all to see him as a DB as long as Magner is too

Chris Bullock's arrival gives me a much better feeling if Hood is indeed a DB.

So now I pose this, wouldn't it be interesting to see Van Johnson (as rumored) or even Freddie Barnes added to the RB mix as well.

Cream of our crop?

Cream of our crop?

Omar

Re: Omar