Washington OT Will Reed Commits to Cal

Bearly Clad said:

---

We'll see what the season has to offer now, but if there was no COVID I think we already were winning the conference championship this year, even before the bump in recruiting. I'm a huge fan, I love California football to death, but I'm not here to be a blind optimist. The dykes years sucked; Goff was great, the offense was fun to watch, but those teams were one of the nadirs of Cal football. I won't sugarcoat that.

I'll admit that I'm probably a little bit p-r-i-c-k-l-y (sorry to spell it out like that, but the site thinks it's profanity) from a few months of shelter-in-place (not an excuse, everyone's gotta deal with it) and I was probably too much with those first posts. But this isn't about obliviously biased positivity; I really don't think that Wilcox needs a 4* laden team to field a Pac-12 champion team, but there's no doubt that recruiting is trending upward and so is this team's ceiling. It just feels like recruiting wins and commitments are a huge moment for fans but (more importantly) in these athletes' lives and it's such an easy moment to celebrate.

I don't think celebrating for recruits is blind fandom, and I wouldn't call the steady rise under Wilcox 'swimming in mediocrity', what Stanford and UC Los Angeles are doing is swimming (or drowning) in mediocrity. I'll lay off, but it would be great if you could bring a little bit more positivity to commitment threads; just those threads, I've got no right to ask you to change your opinions or personality in general and honestly I don't want you to. Cheers bud, maybe you'll make it back out to CMS after this COVID fiasco.

And (my fault) just because this thread got away from the commitment again, one more time, Welcome to the Bear Family Mr. Reed, couldn't be happier for you!

---

Back in 2001, Cal signed a kid from Redding who was not considered a sure thing (I believe he was a three star). He turned out to be a damn good player. If this kid can produce results similar to those of O'C, Cal will have found themselves a gem.

Grigsby said:

---

I think people need to understand that given Cal's academic profile Cal isn't going to be able to recruit a decent section of recruits. On top of that Cal doesn't make things easy for students like other programs do.


The factor is that Cal hasn't been top 15 top 10 team since 2007/2008.

It's going to take time to build the depth and talent because Cal can't offer 40%+ of the top 300 recruits in the country.

OL recruiting a crapshoot. Cal is bringing in better talent.

The Bay Area doesn't have a huge amount of talent this year and yet Cal got one of the best TE prospects in the country. Cal is also is a great spot with a top TE prospect for 2022 that is local.

---

While it's true Cal's academics limit the size of our recruiting pool, they are not the only (or even the main) reason Cal doesn't recruit top 10 classes. It has more to do with campus culture and the Pac 10's perceived decline in relevance.

Grigsby said:

---

I think people need to understand that given Cal's academic profile Cal isn't going to be able to recruit a decent section of recruits. On top of that Cal doesn't make things easy for students like other programs do.


The factor is that Cal hasn't been top 15 top 10 team since 2007/2008.

It's going to take time to build the depth and talent because Cal can't offer 40%+ of the top 300 recruits in the country.

OL recruiting a crapshoot. Cal is bringing in better talent.

The Bay Area doesn't have a huge amount of talent this year and yet Cal got one of the best TE prospects in the country. Cal is also is a great spot with a top TE prospect for 2022 that is local.

---

As long as the other premier academic schools can bring in five star talent (and they are), there is no excuse for Cal. Academics is absolutely a non-starter in this discussion.

Both Reed and Wilkins get a 5.7 rating from Rivals. That's a HIGH three star rating and given that it's early, there's an excellent chance that both are reclassified as four star recruits by the time the class is finalized.
Big difference between 5.5 and 5.7 rated recruits though both are "three star."

YLS Bear said:

---

Both Reed and Wilkins get a 5.7 rating from Rivals. That's a HIGH three star rating and given that it's early, there's an excellent chance that both are reclassified as four star recruits by the time the class is finalized.
Big difference between 5.5 and 5.7 rated recruits though both are "three star."

---

How would the rating change if there is no HS football season this fall?

Under Dykes, we would be ecstatic for a 3 star OL. So much stronger than usual.

Under Tedford, we would have shrugged. Not weak, but not super strong either.

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to 247

In his 4 classes Dykes brought in 17 OL scholarship recruits: 2 Four Star, 12 Three Star, 1 Two Star and 2 NR
In his first 4 classes Wilcox brought in 11 OL scholarship recruits: 1 Four Star, 9 Three Star and 1 NR

The biggest issue for Wilcox recruiting OL has been numbers. Dykes at 4.25 per year was too low but Wilcox at 3.75 per year has been near catastrophic for our depth and left us very vulnerable to injury. OL is very hard to evaluate and predict so I agree with those that say ratings don't matter much. That is one reason you have to bring in numbers. Reed is a great addition, I'd take a few more like him in a heartbeat.

---

2020 Roster:

Seniors (5): Henry Bazakas, Valentino Daltoso, Gentle Williams, Jake Curhan, Michael Saffell
Juniors (3): Poutasi Poutasi plus walk-ons Jack Beeman and Sami Nazzal (JC transfer)
Sophomores (5): Matt Cindric, Mckade Mettaeur, Brandon Mello, Will Craig, Nisich
Freshman (6): Everett Johnson, Ben Coleman, Brayden Rohme, Brian Driscoll, Ender Aguilar plus walk on Cal Frank

19 on Roster - Cal likely to add 4 to 5 in 2021 class.

---

Thank you for the numbers & names! 4-5 in a class and 19 on roster appears to be a little thin...

It seems that the challenges of projecting P5 level OL, the attrition of the bigger bodies and the time it takes (most OL) to grow into being P5 starter caliber (whether weight, technique or understanding the system) would combine to make 5-6 per recruiting cycle the ideal...

This would correlate to 20-25 on roster comprised of 5-10 in development, 5-10 (capable of) starting and 5-10 potential starters in the wings, ready to step up if/when the injury bug strikes, which it seems to 1-2 times a decade ('Furd & UCLA last year iirc).

Are my numbers off?

Oski87 said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

I agree with Chapman and 71Bear that ratings do matter, but one question to those two posters. When J. Michael Sturdivant and Jermaine Terry, two highly rated national recruits committed to Cal this year, did you post anything positive about their high ratings?

---

No - they both posted negative comments in both of those stories as well. It is at this point just a joke, right? I mean - they really can't be serious about this stuff - no one is that self-important are they?

---

Please cite my negative comment re: Sturdivant. You can't because it wasn't negative. As for Terry, I have no recollection of whether I posted something positive or negative about him (and neither do you).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing other posters comments when you accurately quote their comments. OTOH, when you make sh*t up, you only make yourself look like a fool.

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Under Dykes, we would be ecstatic for a 3 star OL. So much stronger than usual.

Under Tedford, we would have shrugged. Not weak, but not super strong either.

---

According to 247

In his 4 classes Dykes brought in 17 OL scholarship recruits: 2 Four Star, 12 Three Star, 1 Two Star and 2 NR
In his first 4 classes Wilcox brought in 11 OL scholarship recruits: 1 Four Star, 9 Three Star and 1 NR

The biggest issue for Wilcox recruiting OL has been numbers. Dykes at 4.25 per year was too low but Wilcox at 3.75 per year has been near catastrophic for our depth and left us very vulnerable to injury. OL is very hard to evaluate and predict so I agree with those that say ratings don't matter much. That is one reason you have to bring in numbers. Reed is a great addition, I'd take a few more like him in a heartbeat.

---

Calumnus posting STRONG today . . . like Cal . . . and Cal Strong! Calumnus bring the strong stats!

This appear to be true for OL. But for the rest of the positions, Cal Strong recall that the occasional four star was the best we could hope for with Dykes. Many classes were filled with 2 and 3 star recruits, if Cal Strong remember correctly.

There was time under Tedford that we would shrug at a 3 star. And then during Dykes era we all of a sudden thought that was the best he could do. Wilcox seem somewhere in between.

Cal STRONG!!!!!!

Oski87 said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

I agree with Chapman and 71Bear that ratings do matter, but one question to those two posters. When J. Michael Sturdivant and Jermaine Terry, two highly rated national recruits committed to Cal this year, did you post anything positive about their high ratings?

---

No - they both posted negative comments in both of those stories as well. It is at this point just a joke, right? I mean - they really can't be serious about this stuff - no one is that self-important are they?

---

- Cite my "negative comments" about Sturivant. Just like 71Bear, I'm waiting. And, I 100% support 71Bear's post in the Sturivant thread, which was along the lines of "we need to get to the point where we expect 4 star and 5 star recruits if we want to compete with the conference's best." His post was not in any way critical of Sturivant.

- Thanks to BearGreg for saying he'll make an improvement to the write-ups to include recruiting rankings, although I notice the new LB commitment write-up does not have worthwhile recruiting ranking information other than the rather vague and unhelpful "3 star" label. So, I guess I'll believe it when I read it.

- I appreciate the positive comments from NYCGoBears and 71Bear, two of this site's best posters, and any others. I can't believe how some clowns turned my initial factual post into this dramafest.

- This notion that there is a TRADITION of a "welcome thread" on this website is false, and this notion has IMO only surfaced in the past few years. It is a notion I don't subscribe to, especially if it means I can't make objective comments in the thread and that only fluffer comments are allowed. See, the problem is, that thread is usually the only thread in which that particular player is discussed. So, if only flulffer comments are allowed, you're trying to silence anyone who has constructive comments. This is a message board, not a family commitment party with balloons, a cake, and the family Golden Retriever. If the player or family is coming on here and reading posts about themselves, for their own health, they need to stop doing that immediately. God willing, I will continue to make objective comments wherever I want. And I challenge you to find any posts where I take unwarranted cheap shots at Cal or at individual players other than Ryan Jamison (which is a running joke, in case you have no sense of humor). That's not how I roll. If you truly want to shine your light on the darkest corners of Cyberbears, I encourage you instead to revisit the posts made in the game chats -- that is where the negative, hurtful stuff is posted. You may also want to visit the manatee section of Cyberbears.com, where there is also some very hurtful stuff going on that you'll probably enjoy. (That's a bear without hair, in case you're wondering).

- "Bearly Clad," take a break, buddy. You've (apparently) been around since March 2020. And you question whether 71Bear is a Cal fan? That just about says it all to me. Know your place. You want to know what I find annoying? Posting BS like:

"By the time (Sturivant) goes on to the NFL I think his name is up there with (or above) Keenan Allen and DeSean Jackson."

Not only is that statement completely unwarranted and unjustifiable, and a bit disrespectful to the hard work that Allen and the jew-hating Jackson put in, it reveals that you are a FLUFFER. I'd rather be a realist than a FLUFFER any day.

Same goes for the people who post "Recruiting rankings don't matter...if the Cal staff wants him, that's good enough for me." How naive is that. See, here's the deal, folks...Cal's staff has wanted every Cal recruit signed over the past 62 years, and that hasn't done a bit of good getting Cal back to the Rose Bowl. If they signed a recruit they didn't really want, you think they're going to say something to that effect? So, you can put blind faith in the Cal staff if you want, but again, that's not how I roll. These are comments of a realist, not a "negabear." I am a big fan of Wilcox.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

I agree with Chapman and 71Bear that ratings do matter, but one question to those two posters. When J. Michael Sturdivant and Jermaine Terry, two highly rated national recruits committed to Cal this year, did you post anything positive about their high ratings?

---

No - they both posted negative comments in both of those stories as well. It is at this point just a joke, right? I mean - they really can't be serious about this stuff - no one is that self-important are they?

---

- Cite my "negative comments" about Sturivant. Just like 71Bear, I'm waiting. And, I 100% support 71Bear's post in the Sturivant thread, which was along the lines of "we need to get to the point where we expect 4 star and 5 star recruits if we want to compete with the conference's best." His post was not in any way critical of Sturivant.

- Thanks to BearGreg for saying he'll make an improvement to the write-ups to include recruiting rankings, although I notice the new LB commitment write-up does not have worthwhile recruiting ranking information other than the rather vague and unhelpful "3 star" label. So, I guess I'll believe it when I read it.

- I appreciate the positive comments from NYCGoBears and 71Bear, two of this site's best posters, and any others. I can't believe how some clowns turned my initial factual post into this dramafest.

- This notion that there is a TRADITION of a "welcome thread" on this website is false, and this notion has IMO only surfaced in the past few years. It is a notion I don't subscribe to, especially if it means I can't make objective comments in the thread and that only fluffer comments are allowed. See, the problem is, that thread is usually the only thread in which that particular player is discussed. So, if only flulffer comments are allowed, you're trying to silence anyone who has constructive comments. This is a message board, not a family commitment party with balloons, a cake, and the family Golden Retriever. If the player or family is coming on here and reading posts about themselves, for their own health, they need to stop doing that immediately. God willing, I will continue to make objective comments wherever I want. And I challenge you to find any posts where I take unwarranted cheap shots at Cal or at individual players other than Ryan Jamison (which is a running joke, in case you have no sense of humor). That's not how I roll. If you truly want to shine your light on the darkest corners of Cyberbears, I encourage you instead to revisit the posts made in the game chats -- that is where the negative, hurtful stuff is posted. You may also want to visit the manatee section of Cyberbears.com, where there is also some very hurtful stuff going on that you'll probably enjoy. (That's a bear without hair, in case you're wondering).

- "Bearly Clad," take a break, buddy. You've (apparently) been around since March 2020. And you question whether 71Bear is a Cal fan? That just about says it all to me. Know your place. You want to know what I find annoying? Posting BS like:

"By the time (Sturivant) goes on to the NFL I think his name is up there with (or above) Keenan Allen and DeSean Jackson."

Not only is that statement completely unwarranted and unjustifiable, and a bit disrespectful to the hard work that Allen and the jew-hating Jackson put in, it reveals that you are a FLUFFER. I'd rather be a realist than a FLUFFER any day.

Same goes for the people who post "Recruiting rankings don't matter...if the Cal staff wants him, that's good enough for me." How naive is that. See, here's the deal, folks...Cal's staff has wanted every Cal recruit signed over the past 62 years, and that hasn't done a bit of good getting Cal back to the Rose Bowl. If they signed a recruit they didn't really want, you think they're going to say something to that effect? So, you can put blind faith in the Cal staff if you want, but again, that's not how I roll. These are comments of a realist, not a "negabear." I am a big fan of Wilcox.

---

I'm assuming the bolded part is aimed at me. I didn't just say Reed was a recruit that the staff wanted, I said it was a plan A target of theirs. It's a big difference. If they landed a class full of plan A recruits, they'd be very very successful.

LACalFan said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

I agree with Chapman and 71Bear that ratings do matter, but one question to those two posters. When J. Michael Sturdivant and Jermaine Terry, two highly rated national recruits committed to Cal this year, did you post anything positive about their high ratings?

---

No - they both posted negative comments in both of those stories as well. It is at this point just a joke, right? I mean - they really can't be serious about this stuff - no one is that self-important are they?

---

- Cite my "negative comments" about Sturivant. Just like 71Bear, I'm waiting. And, I 100% support 71Bear's post in the Sturivant thread, which was along the lines of "we need to get to the point where we expect 4 star and 5 star recruits if we want to compete with the conference's best." His post was not in any way critical of Sturivant.

- Thanks to BearGreg for saying he'll make an improvement to the write-ups to include recruiting rankings, although I notice the new LB commitment write-up does not have worthwhile recruiting ranking information other than the rather vague and unhelpful "3 star" label. So, I guess I'll believe it when I read it.

- I appreciate the positive comments from NYCGoBears and 71Bear, two of this site's best posters, and any others. I can't believe how some clowns turned my initial factual post into this dramafest.

- This notion that there is a TRADITION of a "welcome thread" on this website is false, and this notion has IMO only surfaced in the past few years. It is a notion I don't subscribe to, especially if it means I can't make objective comments in the thread and that only fluffer comments are allowed. See, the problem is, that thread is usually the only thread in which that particular player is discussed. So, if only flulffer comments are allowed, you're trying to silence anyone who has constructive comments. This is a message board, not a family commitment party with balloons, a cake, and the family Golden Retriever. If the player or family is coming on here and reading posts about themselves, for their own health, they need to stop doing that immediately. God willing, I will continue to make objective comments wherever I want. And I challenge you to find any posts where I take unwarranted cheap shots at Cal or at individual players other than Ryan Jamison (which is a running joke, in case you have no sense of humor). That's not how I roll. If you truly want to shine your light on the darkest corners of Cyberbears, I encourage you instead to revisit the posts made in the game chats -- that is where the negative, hurtful stuff is posted. You may also want to visit the manatee section of Cyberbears.com, where there is also some very hurtful stuff going on that you'll probably enjoy. (That's a bear without hair, in case you're wondering).

- "Bearly Clad," take a break, buddy. You've (apparently) been around since March 2020. And you question whether 71Bear is a Cal fan? That just about says it all to me. Know your place. You want to know what I find annoying? Posting BS like:

"By the time (Sturivant) goes on to the NFL I think his name is up there with (or above) Keenan Allen and DeSean Jackson."

Not only is that statement completely unwarranted and unjustifiable, and a bit disrespectful to the hard work that Allen and the jew-hating Jackson put in, it reveals that you are a FLUFFER. I'd rather be a realist than a FLUFFER any day.

Same goes for the people who post "Recruiting rankings don't matter...if the Cal staff wants him, that's good enough for me." How naive is that. See, here's the deal, folks...Cal's staff has wanted every Cal recruit signed over the past 62 years, and that hasn't done a bit of good getting Cal back to the Rose Bowl. If they signed a recruit they didn't really want, you think they're going to say something to that effect? So, you can put blind faith in the Cal staff if you want, but again, that's not how I roll. These are comments of a realist, not a "negabear." I am a big fan of Wilcox.

---

I'm assuming the bolded part is aimed at me. I didn't just say Reed was a recruit that the staff wanted, I said it was a plan A target of theirs. It's a big difference. If they landed a class full of plan A recruits, they'd be very very successful.

---

No, not aimed at you. It's something that many people post here over the years.