8 sacks? Yikes...get that man an offensive line.
Sonny's tweet about Max Gilliam
45,550 Views |
266 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by BearsObserver
good thing he wasn't hurt.
correction: 3 TD passes.
video of all 3 TD passes:
http://www.tout.com/m/oqxqvq
correction: 3 TD passes.
video of all 3 TD passes:
http://www.tout.com/m/oqxqvq
last game highlights:
Max #11 in white.
Max #11 in white.
chazzed;842610501 said:
8 sacks? Yikes...get that man an offensive line.
Are you guys talking about Goff?
Gilliam got a 4th star on Rivals today
MoragaBear;842612992 said:
Gilliam got a 4th star on Rivals today
Oh yah! Is he our first?
I would just point out that Gilliam's continuing recruitment tells me that Sonny was just testing the waters, and will come back to Cal. If he really wanted to put pressure on Cal, he would get Gilliam or another high-profile recruit to make some comment about the coaching instability potentially affecting his commit. That would be a douchey, but effective move. Sonny is not doing that. Therefore, I'm assuming the recent events are just about business, and if he doesn't go elsewhere, he will come back to Cal and work his butt off to show that he deserves a better package either here or elsewhere. But I don't think the relationship is permanently damaged.
MoragaBear;842612992 said:
Gilliam got a 4th star on Rivals today
oh damn ... trying to ruin the nega narrative ...
Jeff82;842613000 said:
I would just point out that Gilliam's continuing recruitment tells me that Sonny was just testing the waters, and will come back to Cal. If he really wanted to put pressure on Cal, he would get Gilliam or another high-profile recruit to make some comment about the coaching instability potentially affecting his commit. That would be a douchey, but effective move. Sonny is not doing that. Therefore, I'm assuming the recent events are just about business, and if he doesn't go elsewhere, he will come back to Cal and work his butt off to show that he deserves a better package either here or elsewhere. But I don't think the relationship is permanently damaged.
I don't like the approach Sonny is taking with all this, but he's no Tosh. That would be Tosh-esque.
KoreAmBear;842612997 said:
Oh yah! Is he our first?
Jordan Duncan is also a 4-star on Rivals. So now we have two.
KoreAmBear;842612997 said:
Oh yah! Is he our first?
NO ...
Jordan Duncan, ATH, Hattiesburg, MS, 6'0" 193, who used to be listed only at WR.
more to come, either new or upgraded, and some, like Weaver, WA St, D MVP is still only a 3.
Star ratings are BS.
BeggarEd;842613003 said:
Jordan Duncan is also a 4-star on Rivals. So now we have two.
Looks like we're #32 on Rivals (helped by the volume, but heck it sounds pretty decent).
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2016/all/all
KoreAmBear;842613002 said:
I don't like the approach Sonny is taking with all this, but he's no Tosh. That would be Tosh-esque.
Good observation.
KoreAmBear;842613007 said:
Looks like we're #32 on Rivals (helped by the volume, but heck it sounds pretty decent).
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2016/all/all
Jordan Duncan is also an early admit ... he'll be here for spring.
SonOfCalVa;842613006 said:
NO ...
Jordan Duncan, ATH, Hattiesburg, MS, 6'0" 193, who used to be listed only at WR.
more to come, either new or upgraded, and some, like Weaver, WA St, D MVP is still only a 3.
Star ratings are BS.
I know most of these guys haven't played a down yet, but the talent in the WR corps the next few years may be better than the Treggs/Harper class: Duncan, Strickland, Singleton, Noa, Hansen, Kobayashi, Hudson, Aaron, Austin, Hawkins (if he plays WR), Laris, etc. We'll see how it shapes out.
SonOfCalVa;842613011 said:
Jordan Duncan is also an early admit ... he'll be here for spring.
So we have 4 early admits? Gilliam, Duncan, Clark and there was one more?
Curhan
MoragaBear;842613024 said:
Curhan
Thanks!
KoreAmBear;842613007 said:
Looks like we're #32 on Rivals (helped by the volume, but heck it sounds pretty decent).
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2016/all/all
they only count the top 20 commits you have, so only way Cal moves up is if other teams lose points, or we land higher ranked ones.
kinda funny/sad Oregon State is ranked right ahead of us. never thought our star-averages would be about the same. well, we got 2 months to land some big names.
beeasyed;842613031 said:
they only count the top 20 commits you have, so only way Cal moves up is if other teams lose points, or we land higher ranked ones.
Or we get a few more bumps with the guys we already have?
KoreAmBear;842613034 said:
Or we get a few more bumps with the guys we already have?
i believe there is one more adjustment at the end of the recruiting cycle, but that's typically for the guys playing in the AA bowl games (if they do really well or tank).
other than that, our current guys are more or less set at where they are now.
beeasyed;842613031 said:
they only count the top 20 commits you have, so only way Cal moves up is if other teams lose points, or we land higher ranked ones.
kinda funny/sad Oregon State is ranked right ahead of us. never thought our star-averages would be about the same. well, we got 2 months to land some big names.
define 'big names' ... stars? :rollinglaugh:
I kinda like 'little names', like Weaver ... D MVP for the state. Only one of those, stars be damned.
Will Weaver become a 'big name' if whatzit rating service gives him another 'star'? :p
Or Laris, also from WA, first-team all league (tough league), but 'only' 3 stars so he's a 'little name' too?
KoreAmBear;842613007 said:
Looks like we're #32 on Rivals (helped by the volume, but heck it sounds pretty decent).
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2016/all/all
Considering we are barely in the top 50 when looking at average stars for the class, I wouldn't get too excited.
calguru;842613042 said:
Considering we are barely in the top 50 when looking at average stars for the class, I wouldn't get too excited.
It's not about averages, we need depth now, I don't mind packing in a bunch of 3-stars if it means we can finally have 1-2 guys come out of our secondary and our defense doesn't collapse.
SonOfCalVa;842613040 said:
define 'big names' ... stars? :rollinglaugh:
I kinda like 'little names', like Weaver ... D MVP for the state. Only one of those, stars be damned.
Will Weaver become a 'big name' if whatzit rating service gives him another 'star'? :p
Or Laris, also from WA, first-team all league (tough league), but 'only' 3 stars so he's a 'little name' too?
big names as in guys the staff desperately want, first and foremost--who also happen to be highly ranked. you can fool yourself all you want, but reality is this staff would love to get the big names like:
Tagaloa
Asiasi
Brown
Robertson
Stovall
using examples of good pick-ups but underrated guys like Weaver does not contradict that point. all it means is that they've been good at scouting, but on-the-whole poor at landing more sought after guys.
and most of the "big names" we missed on are now starting at our rival schools.
Strykur;842613044 said:
It's not about averages, we need depth now, I don't mind packing in a bunch of 3-stars if it means we can finally have 1-2 guys come out of our secondary and our defense doesn't collapse.
We used to fill depth with 3 stars, now we are relying on them to be the playmakers and are bringing depth from the 2 star guys (who make up a quarter of the class). I'm not saying that some of these guys don't bring some talent, but recruiting is the lifeblood of college football and the higher rated guys pan out a lot more often than do the lower ranked ones. I know people like to say that stars don't matter, but a team of three star guys is not going to beat a team of 4 star guys unless you can out-coach like crazy.
Strykur;842613044 said:
It's not about averages, we need depth now, I don't mind packing in a bunch of 3-stars if it means we can finally have 1-2 guys come out of our secondary and our defense doesn't collapse.
average quality and depth aren't mutually exclusive.
we already had a good, sizable core of 3* guys months ago. staff then said they wanted to get those "glue guys," so to speak, in place before focusing on the big fish to wrap up the class. since then, Jordan Duncan is the only commit who fits that mold.
calguru;842613047 said:
We used to fill depth with 3 stars, now we are relying on them to be the playmakers and are bringing depth from the 2 star guys (who make up a quarter of the class). I'm not saying that some of these guys don't bring some talent, but recruiting is the lifeblood of college football and the higher rated guys pan out a lot more often than do the lower ranked ones. I know people like to say that stars don't matter, but a team of three star guys is not going to beat a team of 4 star guys unless you can out-coach like crazy.
don't look now, but i think this is the first time we've ever had five 2*s at any point.
beeasyed;842613046 said:
big names as in guys the staff desperately want, first and foremost--who also happen to be highly ranked. you can fool yourself all you want, but reality is this staff would love to get the big names like:
Tagaloa
Asiasi
Brown
Robertson
Stovall
using examples of good pick-ups but underrated guys like Weaver does not contradict that point. all it means is that they've been good at scouting, but on-the-whole poor at landing more sought after guys.
and most of the "big names" we missed on are now starting at our rival schools.
Agreed Beeasy. Don't think that the lower rated guys are the staff's first pick if they had their choice.
calguru;842613050 said:
Agreed Beeasy. Don't think that the lower rated guys are the staff's first pick if they had their choice.
i wasn't worried throughout the season; in fact, i was telling people it wasn't a big deal we had a lot of...questionable takes.
i figured with the big class we're taking, Dykes would push some guys out (as he did with Winchester and Outing) once we win a few games and get some recruiting momentum. well, we've kind of sputtered on that front as well.
i hope we can actually close strong this year. last season we were in play for a lot guys, and pretty much came home empty handed with Meeks, Buncom Williamson, Spencer, Meadors, Washington, Imatorbhebhe, Buchan.
beeasyed;842613046 said:
big names as in guys the staff desperately want, first and foremost--who also happen to be highly ranked. you can fool yourself all you want, but reality is this staff would love to get the big names like:
Tagaloa
Asiasi
Brown
Robertson
Stovall
using examples of good pick-ups but underrated guys like Weaver does not contradict that point. all it means is that they've been good at scouting, but on-the-whole poor at landing more sought after guys.
and most of the "big names" we missed on are now starting at our rival schools.
don't forget
Yarborough
Bisharat
Butler
Martin
akingbulu
etc
Robertson (Demetris) reported to be favoring furd
Stovall I think we are still in contention for
AJ Brown is intriguing as well....
Tagaloa eliminated us and Asiasi I would highly doubt
moonpod;842613067 said:
don't forget
Yarborough
Bisharat
Butler
Martin
akingbulu
etc
Robertson (Demetris) reported to be favoring furd
Stovall I think we are still in contention for
AJ Brown is intriguing as well....
Tagaloa eliminated us and Asiasi I would highly doubt
yeah i was just thinking about the ones who are still uncommitted, and have been interested in Cal at some point. however slim that interest may be. realistically, we'll get 0/5 of that list. maybe 1.
calguru;842613047 said:
We used to fill depth with 3 stars, now we are relying on them to be the playmakers and are bringing depth from the 2 star guys (who make up a quarter of the class).
That's not really a fair portrayal of this class. 5 of the 21 in this class are 2 stars on some service -Goode, Paul, Williams, Wright and Udeogu. But Goode, Paul, Udeogu and Williams are all 3 stars on ESPN and 247 and Wright is 3 stars on Scout and 247 so we're not talking about a quarter of the team being reach guys. All of those guys were 3 stars by half the services. Many of those 5 will probably get bumped to 3 stars in the end, too.
http://bearinsider.com/football/recruiting/index.php?filter=commit
The area lacking right now is 4 star guys. We'll see how they finish this year. Last year, they added 4 stars Hawkins, Uluave and Strickland late. Wouldn't be surprised to see more of that this year as well as some services bumping guys like Weaver, Perez, Gilliam (already 4 stars on Rivals) and Beck with his 9 int's against top competition (if they can get over his 5'10" height, which is silly).
MoragaBear;842613085 said:
That's not really a fair portrayal of this class. 5 of the 21 in this class are 2 stars on some service -Goode, Paul, Williams, Wright and Udeogu. But Goode, Paul, Udeogu and Williams are all 3 stars on ESPN and 247 and Wright is 3 stars on Scout and 247 so we're not talking about a quarter of the team being reach guys. All of those guys were 3 stars by half the services. Many of those 5 will probably get bumped to 3 stars in the end, too.
http://bearinsider.com/football/recruiting/index.php?filter=commit
The area lacking right now is 4 star guys. We'll see how they finish this year. Last year, they added 4 stars Hawkins, Uluave and Strickland late. Wouldn't be surprised to see more of that this year as well as some services bumping guys like Weaver, Perez, Gilliam (already 4 stars on Rivals) and Beck with his 9 int's against top competition (if they can get over his 5'10" height, which is silly).
MB, you know recruiting way more than I. is this the type of class that, if Cal consistently gets, it's reasonable to expect dykes to win his fair share of games vs the big 4 (stanford, ore, usc, ucla)? Or is it unrealistic to expect that because they are bringing in significantly more talent?
watermelon;842613115 said:
is this the type of class that, if Cal consistently gets, it's reasonable to expect dykes to win his fair share of games vs the big 4 (stanford, ore, usc, ucla)? Or is it unrealistic to expect that because they are bringing in significantly more talent?
It should be like this, due to the academic requirements. Will this be enough to beat UCLA/Furd/Oregon/$C -- that remains to be seen. It is better than getting Top 25 and taking questionables (the downfall of Tedford). But like many have said on this board, we can get Top 25 and solid kids. You have to believe it can be done ... here.
watermelon;842613115 said:
MB, you know recruiting way more than I. is this the type of class that, if Cal consistently gets, it's reasonable to expect dykes to win his fair share of games vs the big 4 (stanford, ore, usc, ucla)? Or is it unrealistic to expect that because they are bringing in significantly more talent?
He'll have more talent than he had last year and the year before. I'm not sure about this year but the coaching stability is helping. Cal is not that far off from beating USC and UCLA. Oregon and Stanford are leagues ahead of Cal and have been for 5+ years. Dykes hasn't made enough immediate impact to be at their level in 3 years. It is going to take more as long as he keeps making progress.
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics