Willie Sykes CB commits

[ElComanche]

The second commit CB, Willie Sykes, came in late last night. The 2 star CB committed deciding to forgo his pending visit to Nebraska. This is the second commit i was talking about. This guy should be rated 3 stars but the rating system here is not that good in my opinion.So there was more going on this week other than the Manning hire

This post was edited on 1/20 4:29 AM by ElComanche

 

[Cougsocal]

If Shalom is a 3 star kid, Willie is correctly rated as a 2 star guy. A tweener. Not very physical for a safety, can he cover as a corner, i.e. whit his back to the ball? We just don't know. But he has good wheels, so that is why, I believe the offer was tendered.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
If Shalom is a 3 star kid, Willie is correctly rated as a 2 star guy. A tweener. Not very physical for a safety, can he cover as a corner, i.e. whit his back to the ball? We just don't know. But he has good wheels, so that is why, I believe the offer was tendered.

I don't know. I just started watching his Hudl and you see him time after time laying players out. Are we watching the same video?

 

[CougPatrol]

Looks like we're back to the Wulffonian era; offering 2-star kids.

Kidding, kidding...While I do believe that, for the most part, star rankings matter, I also think it's important to look at the other offers that kids are receiving.

Sykes holds offers from Nebraska, Minnesota, and Utah. All of those programs have performed better and have recruited at a high level defensively over the past 5 years. That tells me this kid is pretty decent.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by ElComanche:
The second commit CB, Willie Sykes, came in late last night. The 2 star CB committed deciding to forgo his pending visit to Nebraska. This is the second commit i was talking about. This guy should be rated 3 stars but the rating system here is not that good in my opinion.So there was more going on this week other than the Manning hire

You must have really good sources.

 

[CougEd]

More important than that is how they fit into your system...

Bartilone and Cracraft fit perfect into his system, much better than a guy we know that plays in the NFL. If they had one spot left and the final chair was between M Wilson and Brett B, Leach would take Brett...he fits their system. And he would be right for what he is trying to do. That slot may be the most important position in his offense.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I'm glad to have Willie, for all the reasons you guys suggest. I'm especially happy to have somebody forego a Nebraska visit to commit to the Cougs. There is a whole morning's worth of smiling for me in just that sentence.

As for Ed's thoughts on system fit, that is certainly true as far as it goes. The slot is probably the more critical WR position in the Air Raid. But the slot is far easier for the D to cover if the outside WR's don't have the necessary speed and other skills to stretch the outside DB coverage. So while I would agree with the general position that the slot is more critical, I think we also have to acknowledge that our slots are going to be limited if our outside guys are not getting it done.

My personal view is that our limitations at outside WR were a real problem this past year. I'm hoping that more, and more healthy, bodies at WR will help resolve that situation for 2015.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by ElComanche:
The second commit CB, Willie Sykes, came in late last night. The 2 star CB committed deciding to forgo his pending visit to Nebraska. This is the second commit i was talking about. This guy should be rated 3 stars but the rating system here is not that good in my opinion.So there was more going on this week other than the Manning hire

You must have really good sources.

No kidding.

 

[wazzubruce]

having Marks ready this coming year should help at WR.

Welcome Willie! You're going to love having gone Crimson !!! Go Cougs !

 

[Whitworth-Coug]

Re: More important than that is how they fit into your system...

Originally posted by CougEd:
Bartilone and Cracraft fit perfect into his system, much better than a guy we know that plays in the NFL. If they had one spot left and the final chair was between M Wilson and Brett B, Leach would take Brett...he fits their system. And he would be right for what he is trying to do. That slot may be the most important position in his offense.

I agree Ed, Leach doesn't have any room for Soft, Selfish, Lazy, Won't Block, & Physically Weak Wide Receivers on his teams.

The Michael Crabtree's & Vince Mayle's are his Ideal system types.

 

[CougEd]

Well you had me until you put unselfish and Michael Crabtree in

the same sentence

 

[ElComanche]

If Bartelone and Cracraft are his starting receivers,the cougs will not go to a bowl next year. You can have one "possession "receiver,but two will just not cut it. Michael Crabtree was a big reason for a lot of the success at TT, Somehow i cannot see Bartelone or Cracraft on an NFL roster. Perhaps Cracraft may be a long shot but the other kid needs to sit period.Somehow the stereotypes of who has the best hands etc always seems to work its way in. There are no legitimate reason a guy with quickness and speed needs to be taught how to catch a football. Perhaps ,Cracraft needs to be taught how to catch a punted ball?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

We typically have 4 WR's. Our drives succeed when guys get open and catch the ball; YAC is icing on the cake. Our drives fail when guys either don't get open, don't catch the ball, or both.

Leach will start and give more PT to those who extend drives, even if they are not burners after the catch. And I fully expect at least 2 of the 4 WR's on any given play to fit the "possession receiver" description.

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
If Shalom is a 3 star kid, Willie is correctly rated as a 2 star guy. A tweener. Not very physical for a safety, can he cover as a corner, i.e. whit his back to the ball? We just don't know. But he has good wheels, so that is why, I believe the offer was tendered.

I don't know. I just started watching his Hudl and you see him time after time laying players out. Are we watching the same video?

Have you ever considered looking at this objectively? 6'0" 174# kid, according to Hudl, playing safety? Compare his play at safety to that of Shalom 6' 200#, on Hudl. Look at who he hits and the guy Shalom does? Then get back to me. Right now he projects as a CB at the the D1 level. But we just don't see much of evidence that he is a good back to the ball cover guy. (this is not to say he can't be) That is probably why he projects as a 2 star kid and Shalom projects as a 3 star. This isn't some Rivals conspiracy to devalue kids Leach recruits. However, the kid has solid speed and athleticism.

This is the type of kid that Price made a living recruiting, but we have avoided over the last decade. We have had the proclivity to sign the best available (you name the position) to play that position, without enough consideration to whether the kid was athletic enough to play Pac-12 ball. That is why we signed kids like Horton in the past, and remain the least athletic team, top to bottom, in the conference. This kid is athletic enough, the question is can we find a place where we can use him effectively. Considering how slow, and bad, our special teams coverage has been, he may be helpful right away.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
If Shalom is a 3 star kid, Willie is correctly rated as a 2 star guy. A tweener. Not very physical for a safety, can he cover as a corner, i.e. whit his back to the ball? We just don't know. But he has good wheels, so that is why, I believe the offer was tendered.

I don't know. I just started watching his Hudl and you see him time after time laying players out. Are we watching the same video?

Have you ever considered looking at this objectively? 6'0" 174# kid, according to Hudl, playing safety? Compare his play at safety to that of Shalom 6' 200#, on Hudl. Look at who he hits and the guy Shalom does? Then get back to me. Right now he projects as a CB at the the D1 level. But we just don't see much of evidence that he is a good back to the ball cover guy. (this is not to say he can't be) That is probably why he projects as a 2 star kid and Shalom projects as a 3 star. This isn't some Rivals conspiracy to devalue kids Leach recruits. However, the kid has solid speed and athleticism.

This is the type of kid that Price made a living recruiting, but we have avoided over the last decade. We have had the proclivity to sign the best available (you name the position) to play that position, without enough consideration to whether the kid was athletic enough to play Pac-12 ball. That is why we signed kids like Horton in the past, and remain the least athletic team, top to bottom, in the conference. This kid is athletic enough, the question is can we find a place where we can use him effectively. Considering how slow, and bad, our special teams coverage has been, he may be helpful right away.

Have you ever thought about not being condescending? Are you really comparing a player two years older to one still in high school? The best safety in pro football, Earl Thomas, was 5'10" 174 lbs his senior year of high school. And no, I am not comparing Willie the player to Earl the player. I am comparing the size at a similar age. So, who cares what he weighs now. He won't weigh that when he plays for the Cougars.

Yes, I looked at this objectively. I just am not sure you are. You said he is not physical. In looking at his video, he is extremely physical. Deon Sanders was not physical and avoided contact. Sykes like contact. Again, I just disagree with you 100%.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
If Shalom is a 3 star kid, Willie is correctly rated as a 2 star guy. A tweener. Not very physical for a safety, can he cover as a corner, i.e. whit his back to the ball? We just don't know. But he has good wheels, so that is why, I believe the offer was tendered.

I don't know. I just started watching his Hudl and you see him time after time laying players out. Are we watching the same video?

Have you ever considered looking at this objectively? 6'0" 174# kid, according to Hudl, playing safety? Compare his play at safety to that of Shalom 6' 200#, on Hudl. Look at who he hits and the guy Shalom does? Then get back to me. Right now he projects as a CB at the the D1 level. But we just don't see much of evidence that he is a good back to the ball cover guy. (this is not to say he can't be) That is probably why he projects as a 2 star kid and Shalom projects as a 3 star. This isn't some Rivals conspiracy to devalue kids Leach recruits. However, the kid has solid speed and athleticism.

This is the type of kid that Price made a living recruiting, but we have avoided over the last decade. We have had the proclivity to sign the best available (you name the position) to play that position, without enough consideration to whether the kid was athletic enough to play Pac-12 ball. That is why we signed kids like Horton in the past, and remain the least athletic team, top to bottom, in the conference. This kid is athletic enough, the question is can we find a place where we can use him effectively. Considering how slow, and bad, our special teams coverage has been, he may be helpful right away.

Have you ever thought about not being condescending? Are you really comparing a player two years older to one still in high school? The best safety in pro football, Earl Thomas, was 5'10" 174 lbs his senior year of high school. And no, I am not comparing Willie the player to Earl the player. I am comparing the size at a similar age. So, who cares what he weighs now. He won't weigh that when he plays for the Cougars.

Yes, I looked at this objectively. I just am not sure you are. You said he is not physical. In looking at his video, he is extremely physical. Deon Sanders was not physical and avoided contact. Sykes like contact. Again, I just disagree with you 100%.

 

[Cougsocal]

So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

 

[wulffui]

Hold up- Mr. "Cult of Personality" wants to take people to task for name calling?

 

[ElComanche]

Sykes is a very physical CB. I am not an expert but it looks like he is lacking in some technique. I will say that he will improve tremendously with coaching by our new offensive coordinator.This kid likes to hit and is not lacking in physical play.I think that he just needs to smooth out technique and learn to anticipate a little more and he will play CB for the cougs

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

I called you names? I don't recall that. I did, however, think Coug1990 pointing out your comparing of a JUCO prospect and a 17-year-old was funny. Sorry if the emoji rubbed you the wrong way, I guess.

As for your question(s), come on over to the War Room and I'll make sure we have our Rivals analyst Jason Howell, who does the rankings in Texas, come answer anything you want to know about Sykes' evaluation.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

I didn't start the condescending talk, you did. Why? This is part of the problem on this and many boards. Civilized discussion has gone the way of the dinosaur and we get a lot of people just shouting at each other.

Off hand, I could think of several reasons why Rivals only gave him a two star rating. They have not evaluated him yet. He is a grade risk. They evaluated him and they are just flat out wrong. After all, there are six Big 5 schools that offered him a scholarship, plus several other D1 schools as well. Why are you taking Rivals evaluation over Utah's, Nebraska's, etc.?

You are right, for every Earl Thomas, there are thousands that do not end up where he has. Still, there is no player that is completely physically developed coming from high school. So, to compare a 17 year old to a 20 year old is not being completely fair. Myself, I gained 50 pounds while I was at WSU and got stronger and faster.

Yes, it is possible that Sykes never sees the field. All I said to you is when you look at his tape, he is physical.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by ElComanche:
Sykes is a very physical CB. I am not an expert but it looks like he is lacking in some technique. I will say that he will improve tremendously with coaching by our new offensive coordinator.This kid likes to hit and is not lacking in physical play.I think that he just needs to smooth out technique and learn to anticipate a little more and he will play CB for the cougs

You are seeing the same things that I am seeing. You can say a lot of things about Sykes, but being soft is not one of them. His tape screams out that he like contact.

 

[ElComanche]

If the analyst,Jason Howell ,thinks that Sykes is soft. Then i suggest that he buy new glasses or the service hire a new analyst. I will guess that the colleges offering him liked his aggressiveness and toughness.That is why the coug coaches went all out to try and land this guy.

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

I didn't start the condescending talk, you did. Why? This is part of the problem on this and many boards. Civilized discussion has gone the way of the dinosaur and we get a lot of people just shouting at each other.

Off hand, I could think of several reasons why Rivals only gave him a two star rating. They have not evaluated him yet. He is a grade risk. They evaluated him and they are just flat out wrong. After all, there are six Big 5 schools that offered him a scholarship, plus several other D1 schools as well. Why are you taking Rivals evaluation over Utah's, Nebraska's, etc.?

You are right, for every Earl Thomas, there are thousands that do not end up where he has. Still, there is no player that is completely physically developed coming from high school. So, to compare a 17 year old to a 20 year old is not being completely fair. Myself, I gained 50 pounds while I was at WSU and got stronger and faster.

Yes, it is possible that Sykes never sees the field. All I said to you is when you look at his tape, he is physical.

Maybe this should be directed to Britton, since he called me it, what exactly was condescending? I challenged you, 1990, to compare a Rivals 3 star DB, with a Rivals 2 star DB. Yes, Shalom is a JC guy, but if you recall I was responding to El C and his questioning why Sykes got two stars. Shalom is bigger and played very well against better competition, JC conference defensive player of the year, as I recall. I pointed out that that at 174# (Hudl) Sykes wasn't very physical of a safety (probably should have said small), and we just can't tell if he can cover with his back to the ball because there is virtually no footage of him doing that as he played safety. I also said he had we probably gave him an offer because of his wheels, he has good speed, a atribute we are in dire dire need of.

Can Sykes gain 25# and maintain his quickiness, it is possible, but we just don't know. If he does a Monroe, he is a bust at safety. If he can't play well with his back to the ball well, he is a bust at CB. With Shalom there are fewer questions, but he is only available for two years. Both may be very successful, both may be a bust. Who knows. But if you are going to sign just 1 kid right now, which one are you going to take? Basically all recruiting services say you should take Shalom.

Bear in mind that the best safety in school history, was a 1 or 2 star, late signee, kid, who became a starter as a true freshmen on a Rose Bowl team, he was a natural.

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by wulffui:
Hold up- Mr. "Cult of Personality" wants to take people to task for name calling?

Is poking a little fun at "group think" name caming? Comrade? That was a joke, Wulffui.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

I didn't start the condescending talk, you did. Why? This is part of the problem on this and many boards. Civilized discussion has gone the way of the dinosaur and we get a lot of people just shouting at each other.

Off hand, I could think of several reasons why Rivals only gave him a two star rating. They have not evaluated him yet. He is a grade risk. They evaluated him and they are just flat out wrong. After all, there are six Big 5 schools that offered him a scholarship, plus several other D1 schools as well. Why are you taking Rivals evaluation over Utah's, Nebraska's, etc.?

You are right, for every Earl Thomas, there are thousands that do not end up where he has. Still, there is no player that is completely physically developed coming from high school. So, to compare a 17 year old to a 20 year old is not being completely fair. Myself, I gained 50 pounds while I was at WSU and got stronger and faster.

Yes, it is possible that Sykes never sees the field. All I said to you is when you look at his tape, he is physical.

Maybe this should be directed to Britton, since he called me it, what exactly was condescending? I challenged you, 1990, to compare a Rivals 3 star DB, with a Rivals 2 star DB. Yes, Shalom is a JC guy, but if you recall I was responding to El C and his questioning why Sykes got two stars. Shalom is bigger and played very well against better competition, JC conference defensive player of the year, as I recall. I pointed out that that at 174# (Hudl) Sykes wasn't very physical of a safety (probably should have said small), and we just can't tell if he can cover with his back to the ball because there is virtually no footage of him doing that as he played safety. I also said he had we probably gave him an offer because of his wheels, he has good speed, a atribute we are in dire dire need of.

Can Sykes gain 25# and maintain his quickiness, it is possible, but we just don't know. If he does a Monroe, he is a bust at safety. If he can't play well with his back to the ball well, he is a bust at CB. With Shalom there are fewer questions, but he is only available for two years. Both may be very successful, both may be a bust. Who knows. But if you are going to sign just 1 kid right now, which one are you going to take? Basically all recruiting services say you should take Shalom.

Bear in mind that the best safety in school history, was a 1 or 2 star, late signee, kid, who became a starter as a true freshmen on a Rose Bowl team, he was a natural.

I'm struggling to find where I called you condescending. I haven't been the the eye doctor lately, so maybe I'm just having trouble reading today.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
So Britton, why does Rivals give the kids only 2 stars? Someone who doesn't give a rat's arse about WSU, i.e. someone who is relatively objective, looked at the tape and saw a two star recruit. I said that it was likely because he is too light to play safety at the D1 level who, despite his speed, we haven't seen play with his back to the ball. Why is Rivals so wrong? I'll try to be less condescending, if you can give me a objective reply. Why do I think your prior response was not particularly objective? Because for every Earl Thomas, there is a long line of kids who don't contribute, let alone go all pro. Its recruiting. Ideally you want a kids who is can't miss prospect, not a kid who if he gains 15-25#, and doesn't lose his quickness, can play at the Pac-12. As for Deon, he was a CB, the position for kids who are athletic as all hell, but who tend to shy away from contact.

Finally, stop the name calling. Come on.

I didn't start the condescending talk, you did. Why? This is part of the problem on this and many boards. Civilized discussion has gone the way of the dinosaur and we get a lot of people just shouting at each other.

Off hand, I could think of several reasons why Rivals only gave him a two star rating. They have not evaluated him yet. He is a grade risk. They evaluated him and they are just flat out wrong. After all, there are six Big 5 schools that offered him a scholarship, plus several other D1 schools as well. Why are you taking Rivals evaluation over Utah's, Nebraska's, etc.?

You are right, for every Earl Thomas, there are thousands that do not end up where he has. Still, there is no player that is completely physically developed coming from high school. So, to compare a 17 year old to a 20 year old is not being completely fair. Myself, I gained 50 pounds while I was at WSU and got stronger and faster.

Yes, it is possible that Sykes never sees the field. All I said to you is when you look at his tape, he is physical.

Maybe this should be directed to Britton, since he called me it, what exactly was condescending? I challenged you, 1990, to compare a Rivals 3 star DB, with a Rivals 2 star DB. Yes, Shalom is a JC guy, but if you recall I was responding to El C and his questioning why Sykes got two stars. Shalom is bigger and played very well against better competition, JC conference defensive player of the year, as I recall. I pointed out that that at 174# (Hudl) Sykes wasn't very physical of a safety (probably should have said small), and we just can't tell if he can cover with his back to the ball because there is virtually no footage of him doing that as he played safety. I also said he had we probably gave him an offer because of his wheels, he has good speed, a atribute we are in dire dire need of.

Can Sykes gain 25# and maintain his quickiness, it is possible, but we just don't know. If he does a Monroe, he is a bust at safety. If he can't play well with his back to the ball well, he is a bust at CB. With Shalom there are fewer questions, but he is only available for two years. Both may be very successful, both may be a bust. Who knows. But if you are going to sign just 1 kid right now, which one are you going to take? Basically all recruiting services say you should take Shalom.

Bear in mind that the best safety in school history, was a 1 or 2 star, late signee, kid, who became a starter as a true freshmen on a Rose Bowl team, he was a natural.

I'm struggling to find where I called you condescending. I haven't been the the eye doctor lately, so maybe I'm just having trouble reading today.

You didn't. I did. He began a post making a statement in the form of a question, "Have you ever considered looking at this objectively?" I did. From reading what he said to me, I am not sure he does.

 

[Cougsocal]

Britton, I quote you from above, "Have you ever thought about not being condescending?" While it is not a direct accusation, as written, it assumes that I was. I wasn't trying to be. All this non-sense over my response to EL C, and a defense of a 2 star evaluation made by Rivals, with whom you are associated. Now if Rivals had rated Shalom a 4 star kid, an argument might be made that Sykes was more than a two star kid, ala Brand X. But you know that rating are meaningless if critical evaluations are not made. Rivals rated Shalom a 3 star kid and Sykes a 2 star kid, it wasn't me.

 

[YakiCoug]

No offense, Cougsocal, but not only are you comparing a high school senior to a JC star quite a bit older, you're assuming Willlie Sykes will play safety in college. The subject header, btw, read, "Willie Sykes CB commits." But if he ends up at safety, he's no smaller than Hameed, who saw action as a true frosh last season.

 

[wulffui]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
Britton, I quote you from above, "Have you ever thought about not being condescending?" While it is not a direct accusation, as written, it assumes that I was. I wasn't trying to be. All this non-sense over my response to EL C, and a defense of a 2 star evaluation made by Rivals, with whom you are associated. Now if Rivals had rated Shalom a 4 star kid, an argument might be made that Sykes was more than a two star kid, ala Brand X. But you know that rating are meaningless if critical evaluations are not made. Rivals rated Shalom a 3 star kid and Sykes a 2 star kid, it wasn't me.

If you look a little more carefully, I think you'll see you've attributed that quote incorrectly.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by YakiCoug:
No offense, Cougsocal, but not only are you comparing a high school senior to a JC star quite a bit older, you're assuming Willlie Sykes will play safety in college. The subject header, btw, read, "Willie Sykes CB commits." But if he ends up at safety, he's no smaller than Hameed, who saw action as a true frosh last season.

Sykes is actually bigger than Hameed. He is also bigger than Budda Baker who started at safety for the uw.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
Britton, I quote you from above, "Have you ever thought about not being condescending?" While it is not a direct accusation, as written, it assumes that I was. I wasn't trying to be. All this non-sense over my response to EL C, and a defense of a 2 star evaluation made by Rivals, with whom you are associated. Now if Rivals had rated Shalom a 4 star kid, an argument might be made that Sykes was more than a two star kid, ala Brand X. But you know that rating are meaningless if critical evaluations are not made. Rivals rated Shalom a 3 star kid and Sykes a 2 star kid, it wasn't me.

Take a closer look at who made that comment, dude. My original comment in this thread was this: "

." I'm actually not even sure why I'm attempting to defend myself here, but carry on with your misplaced accusations.

Sorry for taking away from the thread, everyone else.

 

[ElComanche]

Everyone has an opinion and everyone has sources for their opinions. There is an ascribed authority and that usually means an association with an organization which makes some people think that the evaluation is the correct one. Usually the best evaluators are the coaches who make the offers to these kids Willie Sykes had a lot of offers for" only" being a 2 star recruit.. The only true evaluation comes after they don the pads when they arrive on campus. I really could care less of how many stars are given to a particular kid by scouting services.. The true point of my first post was to show that the information of two pending new commits would happen prior to the "official " announcement by the two boards.I guess opinions and sources will always be around.

 

[Cougsocal]

Appologies to one and all

Sorry 1990, if you thought my comments were condescending. Probably should not have used that language.
Sorry, Britton for the misattribution. I should have read more closely.
Sorry, Wulffui and 1990 et al, for poking fun at your positive spins, equating it to a "cult of personality." I

Yaki, I agree with you right now this kid projects at a CB right now. I would have liked to have seen more footage on him playing with his back to the ball, rather than facing it. If I were Sykes and his coach, and listed my own weight at 174# on Hudl, I would have focused on video showing my back to the ball coverage skills. I agree with you analysis re Shalom. My point all along has been if Shalom is a 3 star kid, Sykes is a 2 star kid. Shalom is bigger strong and has proven himself to be a JC star. Some say he is the best JC safety in the country. Sykes may become all of these things, and more, but the opperative word is "may."

ELC and Britton, we need only look at the Bruggman/Falk situation to realize that recruiting services are not as good as a decent coach, who spends hours on film and who career depends on evaluating talent well. Even the few 5 star kids we have signed over the years, Rypien, Bledsoe, Sanders and Sparks, were out shone by a wide margin by lesser star kids like Leaf, Gesser, Patterson, Ike, DD, Wright-Fair, Broussard et al.

I assume that Leach et al, did due diligence on Sykes and obtained footage of him covering with his back to the ball. Then again, even if he can't cover without facing the line of scrimmage, it isn't like we don't need his wheels in kick coverage. Speedy Cougs right now is an oxymoron. Bottomline is I think Leach has finally realized that at WSU you don't recruit the best CB, LB, DE etc available, you recruit kids who have talent and heart to play at this level, first, then determine later how best we can use their talent. Call it the Price MO.


,

 

[froropmkr72]

Re: Appologies to one and all

Willie Sykes also ran a 21.92 200 last year as a junior in Texas. That would place about 10th fastest in Washington...just ahead of Austin Joyner who had a 22.07 fastest. The guy possesses the wheels to be a good defensive back. There's no way that Sykes is going to "have to" see the field as true freshmen did last year at the defensive back position......so he'll be bigger in 2016'.

 

[britton ransford]

Re: Appologies to one and all

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
Sorry 1990, if you thought my comments were condescending. Probably should not have used that language.
Sorry, Britton for the misattribution. I should have read more closely.
Sorry, Wulffui and 1990 et al, for poking fun at your positive spins, equating it to a "cult of personality." I

Yaki, I agree with you right now this kid projects at a CB right now. I would have liked to have seen more footage on him playing with his back to the ball, rather than facing it. If I were Sykes and his coach, and listed my own weight at 174# on Hudl, I would have focused on video showing my back to the ball coverage skills. I agree with you analysis re Shalom. My point all along has been if Shalom is a 3 star kid, Sykes is a 2 star kid. Shalom is bigger strong and has proven himself to be a JC star. Some say he is the best JC safety in the country. Sykes may become all of these things, and more, but the opperative word is "may."

ELC and Britton, we need only look at the Bruggman/Falk situation to realize that recruiting services are not as good as a decent coach, who spends hours on film and who career depends on evaluating talent well. Even the few 5 star kids we have signed over the years, Rypien, Bledsoe, Sanders and Sparks, were out shone by a wide margin by lesser star kids like Leaf, Gesser, Patterson, Ike, DD, Wright-Fair, Broussard et al.

I assume that Leach et al, did due diligence on Sykes and obtained footage of him covering with his back to the ball. Then again, even if he can't cover without facing the line of scrimmage, it isn't like we don't need his wheels in kick coverage. Speedy Cougs right now is an oxymoron. Bottomline is I think Leach has finally realized that at WSU you don't recruit the best CB, LB, DE etc available, you recruit kids who have talent and heart to play at this level, first, then determine later how best we can use their talent. Call it the Price MO.

I don't disagree with this assessment at at all, and there's 100 more situations that back this claim up, too. I've never been a star chaser and hardly use it in my evaluation of a prospect. I do use it to sell subscriptions, because the more stars the more intrigue, the more excitement and whatnot.

We do know that higher rated recruiting classes translate into program success, but there's always going to be outliers. I like to use a prospect's offer sheet as a good indicator, as well. I, for one, have no impact on the star rating system other than a few suggestions here and there, which at a school like Washington State in this network, typically get ignored, unfortunately.

Anyway, I've always stressed that the majority of star rankings really don't mean anything. Washington State linebacker commit Logan Tago has offers from three Power Five programs, not including Washington State, and is assigned the lowest rating possible. Recruiting services, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job with the top 250 prospects in a class, but it's impossible to scout all 1,500 prospects evenly, which is why you end up with a lot of "underrated" prospects in certain classes.

This post was edited on 1/23 7:35 AM by Britton Ransford

 

[YakiCoug]

Re: Appologies to one and all

Originally posted by froropmkr72:
Willie Sykes also ran a 21.92 200 last year as a junior in Texas. That would place about 10th fastest in Washington...just ahead of Austin Joyner who had a 22.07 fastest. The guy possesses the wheels to be a good defensive back. There's no way that Sykes is going to "have to" see the field as true freshmen did last year at the defensive back position......so he'll be bigger in 2016'.

Speaking of Joyner, are there any concerns that a guy who played safety - who rarely had his back to the ball - can play corner in the Pac-12? Of course, he's a mutt now, so WGAFA, right?

 

[YakiCoug]

Re: Appologies to one and all

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:
Sorry 1990, if you thought my comments were condescending. Probably should not have used that language.
Sorry, Britton for the misattribution. I should have read more closely.
Sorry, Wulffui and 1990 et al, for poking fun at your positive spins, equating it to a "cult of personality." I

Yaki, I agree with you right now this kid projects at a CB right now. I would have liked to have seen more footage on him playing with his back to the ball, rather than facing it. If I were Sykes and his coach, and listed my own weight at 174# on Hudl, I would have focused on video showing my back to the ball coverage skills. I agree with you analysis re Shalom. My point all along has been if Shalom is a 3 star kid, Sykes is a 2 star kid. Shalom is bigger strong and has proven himself to be a JC star. Some say he is the best JC safety in the country. Sykes may become all of these things, and more, but the opperative word is "may."

ELC and Britton, we need only look at the Bruggman/Falk situation to realize that recruiting services are not as good as a decent coach, who spends hours on film and who career depends on evaluating talent well. Even the few 5 star kids we have signed over the years, Rypien, Bledsoe, Sanders and Sparks, were out shone by a wide margin by lesser star kids like Leaf, Gesser, Patterson, Ike, DD, Wright-Fair, Broussard et al.

I assume that Leach et al, did due diligence on Sykes and obtained footage of him covering with his back to the ball. Then again, even if he can't cover without facing the line of scrimmage, it isn't like we don't need his wheels in kick coverage. Speedy Cougs right now is an oxymoron. Bottomline is I think Leach has finally realized that at WSU you don't recruit the best CB, LB, DE etc available, you recruit kids who have talent and heart to play at this level, first, then determine later how best we can use their talent. Call it the Price MO.

I don't disagree with this assessment at at all, and there's 100 more situations that back this claim up, too. I've never been a star chaser and hardly use it in my evaluation of a prospect. I do use it to sell subscriptions, because the more stars the more intrigue, the more excitement and whatnot.

We do know that higher rated recruiting classes translate into program success, but there's always going to be outliers. I like to use a prospect's offer sheet as a good indicator, as well. I, for one, have no impact on the star rating system other than a few suggestions here and there, which at a school like Washington State in this network, typically get ignored, unfortunately.

Anyway, I've always stressed that the majority of star rankings really don't mean anything. Washington State linebacker commit Logan Tago has offers from three Power Five programs, not including Washington State, and is assigned the lowest rating possible. Recruiting services, for the most part, do a pretty damn good job with the top 250 prospects in a class, but it's impossible to scout all 1,500 prospects evenly, which is why you end up with a lot of "underrated" prospects in certain classes.

This post was edited on 1/23 7:35 AM by Britton Ransford

Wasn't Richard Sherman a 3-star coming out of high school? And aren't there numerous other "3 stars" collecting NFL paychecks these days? As for evaluations, I'd rely more on the number of offers prospects are getting. It's not fool proof, of course, but I'd rather rely on a college coach's evaluation of video, in-game play, and his conversations with a prospect's coaches than on Orson Fetters projecting that J.R. Hasty is just as good as Jonathan Stewart.

 

[Cougsocal]

Re: Appologies to one and all


I still miss taking the afternoon of work and watching the new kids during fall ball. Let's face it, in Pullman, if you are good and are a difference maker, you are a walking neon sign, you don't need stars. My first jaw dropper was Broussard, He was fast carrying 208, at 180 and fresh legged, he was warp speed nothing but knees and shoulder pads. My last was Gesser, Bambi among a herd of water buffalo.

Alas, I moved to the darkside, Socal, for a better job paying 3 times as much. Not really sure it was worth it.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Looks like we might not even have to worry about Sykes at all.