Story Poster
Photo by Twitter / DJ Rogers
Cal Football

Bears Snag Top 4 Star TE Target DJ Rogers as 2020 Class Nears Completion

December 14, 2019
29,051

The Bears struck gold with one of their top recruiting targets in years with Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA) High School tight end DJ Rogers‍’ verbal commitment to Cal.

The 6-4/235 tight end, rated as high as 7th nationally at his position, presents a nightmare matchup for defenses with his combination of size, speed, strength and athleticism.

Rogers announced his commitment via twitter video, simply saying, “I chose Cal because of the opportunities it presented,” said Rogers. “Cal’s one of the the best institutions in the country. They have a top-notch education and the connections and networking you have in the Bay Area is unmatched. 

“Not only will Cal help me succeed off the field and help me earn my criminal law degree but also I’ll play in a program that will utilize me in their offense. In all those ways, Cal’s a great fit. They have a great coaching staff and they have something kicking up there in Berkeley.

“I believe that the coaching staff will help me develop into a dominant football player but also a good man. Cal checked off all the boxes for me.

“Go Bears, baby!”

“DJ is one of the most athletic kids I have been around,” said FSP coach Reggie Ford.  “His combo of size and speed and body control is unreal! What makes him unique is he can run and catch like a wide receiver -he can actually play receiver if you need him to- but has the body of a tight end.

“DJ is in the mold of the new age tight end, where he is probably best detached and/or split out, where you can utilize his skills best creating mismatches in the red zone throwing it top-shelf or using his speed to run away from linebackers and safeties.”

Off the field, Ford’s just as big a fan.

“I have had a lot of time to be around him since 8th grade and he has always been a respectful young man who worked his butt off to get to where he is at. He is always working out and working on his craft, catching jugs running routes. He is probably one of the most athletically-gifted kids I’ve been around with the combo of size and speed. He is also the type of young man that’s an alpha and leads by example. He is not just unique on the field. He has a charismatic personality, with a sense of calm about him that makes you think everything is going to be okay. He is a special talent that has the ability to play on Sunday’s if all goes right.”

Rogers’ commitment reunites FSP Sports teammates Justin Baker‍, Trey Paster‍ and Rogers, pictured below.

Rogers, who hauled in 42 catches for 599 yards and nine touchdowns as a junior, had earlier narrowed down his long list of impressive suitors to a top ten of Oregon, USC, WSU, ASU, Georgia, Penn State, LSU, Miami and West Virginia and Cal. He also held offers from Alabama, Ohio State, Florida and many other top national programs.

The 4 star tight end took late season official visits to Cal and ASU before making his decision for the Bears.

Other stories:

Mangum Makes it 24 For Cal

Redbox Bowl Press Conference -Wilcox Praises Departing Baldwin

Discussion from...

Bears Snag Top 4 Star TE Target DJ Rogers as 2020 Class Nears Completion

26,408 Views | 66 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by LACalFan
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WhipItOutJoe said:

tequila4kapp said:

This is great news on a few fronts. Obviously the O needs as many weapons as possible and adding a playmaker at TE will really help. But also, he made the commitment after the BB announcement. Maybe he knows who the next OC is and the person is good enough that it allowed him to close the deal with us.

Yeah, it's interesting that even with the OC heading out and a new one on the way that we don't know who he will be yet, he chose us. Speaks well of our current coaching staff and likely means most of the offensive staff stays.
He clearly committed to the school first and also to the overall football program. Having a new and improved OC will only be an added bonus.

I don't think anybody knows who the new OC will be because I don't think that has been decided. There may be a short list, however, that is not being disclosed for obvious reasons.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:


Number of Cal recruits in ESPN's Top 300 (Top 150 prior to 2013)

2020: 0/300 C'mon Wilcox...
2019: 0/300
2018: 0/300
2017: 2/300 Chase Garbers (#176), Taariq Johnson (#269)
2016: 2/300 Demetrius Robertson (#62), Melquise Stovall (#233)
2015: 1/300 Carlos Strickland (#182)
2014: 1/300 Devante Downs (#206)
2013: 1/300 Jared Goff (#267)
2012: 2/150 Zach Kline (#32), Darius Powe (#66)
2011: 5/150 Todd Barr (#48), Avery Walls (#68), Maurice Harris (#91), Viliami Moala (#97), Jason Gibson (#131)
2010: 2/150 Keenan Allen (#33), Cecil Whiteside (#116)
2009: 1/150 Steve Williams (#75)
2008: 0/150
2007: 0/150
2006: 2/150 Darian Hagan (#78), Derrick Hill Jr (#120)

It's interesting to turn the clock back 10 years and visit Cyberbears...there aren't too many recognizable handles. Lots of turnover!
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/37404
I do wonder what happened to so many of these old time posters. Take Vandalus, for example...a Hall of Fame Bear with 5,410 career posts. Did he jump to the premium board, never again to mingle with the riffraff on this board? Did he change his handle? Did he turn his back on the Bears, with the Cheez-It Bowl simply being the last straw (his last post was on 12/24/18 -- "I'm officially ready for the Cheez-It Bowl")? Certainly, a few old time posters are buried in Blueblood's cellar -- especially some of the younger, blond-haired ones -- but Vandalus, I hope you're alive and well!
One interesting thing about this list is how many of these guys never even spent a full college career at Cal or were injured* for most of their career.
Whiteside
Gibson*
Kline
Strickland
Robertson
Stovell
T. Johnson
Barr*
Walls*

Also a major disappointment:
Moala

Pleasant surprises or meeting expectations:
Hill
Allen
Harris
Powe
Goff
Downs
Garbers?

At about 33% success rate, I don't think that players recognized by ESPN represent a good fit for our program, even if their talent evaluations are spot on.

I have a strong hunch that the problem with most of these guys is that they are just not going to cut it academically. Rogers, on the other hand, sounds like a real winner mentally speaking and I think that he should be on somebodies top 300 for that reason.

Unfortunately grades matter as much as stars at Cal. When you factor in academics, probably only about 50 of those 300 would qualify as a decent or good fit at Cal. It would be nice if Cal could start pulling more of the guys that end up at Furd and UCLA, but our last 2 wins are nice step in that direction. Before that, we had some major losing streaks against them. We need to make a habit of playing our best football against our California rivals, but, until recently we really seem to be more hyped against the Washington schools and the OOC schools. I like to think that Wilcox is beginning to change that.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

While you all make a few good points about ESPN's Top 300 rankings, I still find most of the counter arguments unconvincing, biased and self-serving (pro Cal), and with flawed logic.

- Yes, many of the Cal recruits ESPN had in their Top 300 didn't go on to have great careers. In some cases, no careers at all. And, yes, Goff outperformed the higher-rated Kline. All of that proves nothing. If you examine any of the other recruiting services, you'd see a similar "miss rate" on their projections. Projections are difficult, and quite simply, many players don't pan out. The question to ask is: which recruiting service has a better projection rate? ESPN might be #1, you simply don't know unless you've done the study.

- Arguments that ESPN is intentionally biased against the West, against the Pac 12, or against Cal, are hard for me to accept. Why go to the effort to have such a bias? It would actually be far easier, with less effort, for ESPN to give 100% effort and produce unbiased rankings, or outsource the task to an unbiased third party, than go to the effort to intentionally bias the rankings to favor select teams in order to drive clicks. That type of conspiracy seems unlikely to me. There may be unintentional bias whereby ESPN would raise a player's ranking after that player verbals to an impressive school -- but then how do you explain that Cal got 5 out of 150 spots in the Tosh era? Certainly, Cal wasn't one of the "chosen few" schools that ESPN would tend to bias upwards. It seems more likely that our Tosh-era players were simply projected to be great players.

- I can see how systematic bias could be possible by region...for example, if ESPN is on the East Coast, they might have a bias towards East Coast talent and schools. And so some of you suggest to look at different recruiting services...let's say, ones that have a bias towards the West, perhaps? How is that more fair and less biased? Don't we want to know the unbiased truth?

- I agree it is interesting if ESPN hadn't updated their Rogers page in more than one year. That would indicate they're not investing sufficient resources into their recruiting ranking efforts. I still don't see how that would result in a systematically bias against Cal, however. Unless you were to make the argument that players that Cal prefers tend to develop later in their high school careers, or whatever you want to spin. But you can't have your cake and eat it too: the authors of this site suggest Rogers got offers from the top top schools. If that is the case, it flies in the face of the suggestion that many of you make that ESPN only updates/upgrades the rankings of those players getting offers from the top schools. If that is true, Rogers' page should have been updated based on the offers he received.

- Ask yourself: Does it make intuitive sense that the "best pass catching TE" in the recruiting class wouldn't make the Top 300? I would view that claim with some suspicion. Look, the posters on this site can be ridiculous. In men's bball, I pointed out when he committed that Paris Austin was a mediocre player who wouldn't elevate the program, and posters ripped me a new one. The bias is strong in these parts.

Finally, I do find it funny that people continue to suggest that "the stars don't matter," suggesting that those of us who believe that stars do matter must prove the Earth isn't flat. How absurd. For the "stars don't matter crowd," if you look at the Top 25 or so player rankings each year, they are stock full of future NFL players. If the stars don't matter, and if the ESPN recruiting rankings are systematically biased against Cal (and therefore we should just ignore them), then one would have expected Cal's performance in the real world to frequently have exceeded what the ESPN recruiting rankings would have forecast. Yet, in the real world, while I will grant you that Cal has had more NFL players than the rankings would have suggested would occur, Cal's performance in the standings has generally sucked, and at the same time, the schools typically at the top of the rankings have strongly outperformed Cal.

I'll stop now. Every year I make my annual ESPN Top 300 post, and every year I find the counter arguments unconvincing.



If your comment was directed at me, I never claimed that stars don't matter. While they provide some sort of data point, I understand that they also have their limitations. Those limitations are made even more apparent when a recruit's profile hasn't been updated at all throughout his senior year.

While I have no idea how good a player DJ Rogers is nor how great he'll prove to be as a Bear, it seems that a number of recruiting services that provide more frequent updates (relative to ESPN)* have ranked him as a four star TE. While I'm not suggesting that this means he's definitely a four-star recruit with the equivalent talent, skills, and potential, it does seem odd that you would insist on arguing that he's only a three-star recruit based on the word of a recruiting service that failed to update its analysis of him at all during his senior season. If anything, it would appear as if you're cherry-picking the worst recruit rankings in order to put down Cal student-athletes (and potential Cal student-athletes). Maybe I'm misreading you and your intent, but I can't fathom why you would insist on relying on a recruiting service's outdated (by over a year) assessment of an athlete (regardless of whether he's committed to Cal) unless you just want to poopoo the player.

*This isn't all that difficult, given that ESPN's recruit page for DJ Rogers hadn't been updated for over fourteen(!) months.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ilovetogobear said:

May this please be the break in the logjam of lack of 4 star recruits.
The other comments in this thread clearly prove ESPN's ranking/stars process is ridiculously stupid. As is the whole stars ranking business imo. The only question I want answered is: Did our coaches get the players that they wanted, or did we lose them to other schools? Everything else is BS.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Rogers, Hunter, Street and Casey are rated 4 stars on at least one of the three services.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear19 said:

ilovetogobear said:

May this please be the break in the logjam of lack of 4 star recruits.
The other comments in this thread clearly prove ESPN's ranking/stars process is ridiculously stupid. As is the whole stars ranking business imo. The only question I want answered is: Did our coaches get the players that they wanted, or did we lose them to other schools? Everything else is BS.

Okay, well, we rarely get the first choice players we want. Even Rogers is a guy that we would have (I don't know for a fact, but based on the rankings) preferred Redmen over - and we did offer Redmen. That said, if they are offered by the Bears then we want them!

If your criteria is "how many guys did we land that were our top choice (i.e., we wanted them and outrecruited all other schools for) then the recent list would be short and would consist of probably Desean Jackson, Keenan Allen, Andre Carter, and (sad story) Chris Martin.

About 2500 players sign each year and only maybe 30 are considered 5 star. That is top 1%. Of those, just under 50% were drafted into the NFL and about 16 percent were drafted in the first round.

The stars aren't everything, but they are pretty good predictors. You want as many of them as you can get.

What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.

MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Wrong. Rogers was by far their top tight end target from day one.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

Wrong. Rogers was by far their top tight end target from day one.

I said: "I don't know for a fact, but based on the rankings"

Redmen is ranked higher than Rogers and UW took Redmen over Rogers (they offered both as well) even though Rogers is from WA state. Redmen committed to the Huskies back in April while Rogers was still considering other schools until recently.

I think Cal would have been happy with either which is why they offered both. The difference is slight.

If we can allow for a second that maybe Rogers was their second choice pick... so what?! At Cal sometimes we have to go much DEEPER to find a guy we like that commits. That's ok. They are all Bears and hopefully now so will Rogers be.







MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
dimitrig said:


What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.
I was responding to this statement. It's not correct.

Lots of second choices are great players but in this case, Rogers wasn't a second choice. Not for a minute. Neither athletically or with program fit. And Redman is not ranked higher with all the services.
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

MoragaBear said:

Wrong. Rogers was by far their top tight end target from day one.

I said: "I don't know for a fact, but based on the rankings"

Redmen is ranked higher than Rogers and UW took Redmen over Rogers (they offered both as well) even though Rogers is from WA state. Redmen committed to the Huskies back in April while Rogers was still considering other schools until recently.

I think Cal would have been happy with either which is why they offered both. The difference is slight.

If we can allow for a second that maybe Rogers was their second choice pick... so what?! At Cal sometimes we have to go much DEEPER to find a guy we like that commits. That's ok. They are all Bears and hopefully now so will Rogers be.








Udub did not offer Rogers per Rivals and 247
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

Rogers, Hunter, Street and Casey are rated 4 stars on at least one of the three services.
I was doing some research but could not determine if Cal has had any consensus 4 star players recruited out of high school under Wilcox that are still on the Cal roster.

I am guessing that Craig was/is.
Garbers and Johnson don't count because they were recruited prior to Wilcox's hiring in 2017, although Wilcox retrained them.
I don't think Remigio is a consensus 4 star but I don't know.
Most of the others are JC transfers.

I am also wondering if Rogers is a consensus 4 star, ESPN's top 300 list notwithstanding.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow there is a lot of needling going on....am I missing why this level of nitpicking is beneficial to understand recruiting?
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


- Ask yourself: Does it make intuitive sense that the "best pass catching TE" in the recruiting class wouldn't make the Top 300? I would view that claim with some suspicion. Look, the posters on this site can be ridiculous. In men's bball, I pointed out when he committed that Paris Austin was a mediocre player who wouldn't elevate the program, and posters ripped me a new one. The bias is strong in these parts.

Ask yourself, are Keenan Allen (#33) and Demetris Robertson (#64) really 4 stars when every other service had them as #1 at their positions? I would view that service with some suspicion.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concernedparent said:

Quote:


- Ask yourself: Does it make intuitive sense that the "best pass catching TE" in the recruiting class wouldn't make the Top 300? I would view that claim with some suspicion. Look, the posters on this site can be ridiculous. In men's bball, I pointed out when he committed that Paris Austin was a mediocre player who wouldn't elevate the program, and posters ripped me a new one. The bias is strong in these parts.

Ask yourself, are Keenan Allen (#33) and Demetris Robertson (#64) really 4 stars when every other service had them as #1 at their positions? I would view that service with some suspicion.


Marshawn was a 4 star when the #2 RB to only Adrian Peterson.

Plenty of BS in the ratings but they are still useful
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goobear said:

Wow there is a lot of needling going on....am I missing why this level of nitpicking is beneficial to understand recruiting?
Guys don't want to be shown to be wrong. That's why the hair splitting trying to find some iota of truth to their former statements. Most of us have done it at one time or another, including me. Let's move on.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

Goobear said:

Wow there is a lot of needling going on....am I missing why this level of nitpicking is beneficial to understand recruiting?
Guys don't want to be shown to be wrong. That's why the hair splitting trying to find some iota of truth to their former statements. Most of us have done it at one time or another, including me. Let's move on.
Some thoughts...

Everyone who posts here regularly has been wrong regarding their assessment of players/coaches many times. It is the nature of the beast. Who cares?

As for rating services, ESPN is a waste of time. Rivals, in my opinion, is the best. Among TE's, they have Redman #7 and Rogers #10 (and both are four stars). I would have been pleased to receive a commit from either of those guys.

Yes, stars matter. They matter A LOT. The schools consistently at the top of the recruiting ratings are consistently the best on the field.

The academic issue is a non-starter. There are plenty of highly rated guys who are academically qualified to play at Cal. Academics is nothing more than an excuse to cover crappy performance. Stanford is proof positive of that.

I am hopeful this year is finally the recruiting step forward we have all been waiting for since Wilcox took over. Three high school four stars (Rogers, Street and Hunter) is definitely a sign that Cal is moving in the right direction.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

Goobear said:

Wow there is a lot of needling going on....am I missing why this level of nitpicking is beneficial to understand recruiting?
Guys don't want to be shown to be wrong. That's why the hair splitting trying to find some iota of truth to their former statements. Most of us have done it at one time or another, including me. Let's move on.
There are plenty of highly rated guys who are academically qualified to play at Cal. Academics is nothing more than an excuse to cover crappy performance. Stanford is proof positive of that.


There may be plenty who are academically qualified, but how many are academically motivated? Many want the piece of paper, but how many want to become educated? Tedford/Tosh showed us what happens when all you get are the former (and if you don't know the tricks that are used to turn an unqualified into a qualified, you should). JW is showing us what we get with the latter. And, it'll take more time than at most schools, but he'll do it (in my opinion) and we'll be all the prouder.
91Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IMO the fact that 5 of the top 6 commitments per the Bear Insider rating are offensive players indicates that despite the results on the field recruits are committing to the school and the program...the next 5 are all defensive recruits and all 11 are in the upper 80s on the ratings so this would seem consistent with the assertion that it's going to take some time to convince more of the 4-5 stars to come to Cal...

The biggest change that I see in this class is the addition of more speed. It always makes me nervous to see the speed AND size of the Oregon and SC players. Combine more of these types of players with the coaching that we have in place and the future would appear to be bright...as long as we can develop some depth!
burritos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BOOM!
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

71Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

Goobear said:

Wow there is a lot of needling going on....am I missing why this level of nitpicking is beneficial to understand recruiting?
Guys don't want to be shown to be wrong. That's why the hair splitting trying to find some iota of truth to their former statements. Most of us have done it at one time or another, including me. Let's move on.
There are plenty of highly rated guys who are academically qualified to play at Cal. Academics is nothing more than an excuse to cover crappy performance. Stanford is proof positive of that.


There may be plenty who are academically qualified, but how many are academically motivated? Many want the piece of paper, but how many want to become educated? Tedford/Tosh showed us what happens when all you get are the former (and if you don't know the tricks that are used to turn an unqualified into a qualified, you should). JW is showing us what we get with the latter. And, it'll take more time than at most schools, but he'll do it (in my opinion) and we'll be all the prouder.
I think what it all boils down to is - Berkeley is not for everyone. Find guys who are good fits for Cal. They are out there, just find them. It appears that Wilcox may be on his way....
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

dimitrig said:


What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.
I was responding to this statement. It's not correct.

Lots of second choices are great players but in this case, Rogers wasn't a second choice. Not for a minute. Neither athletically or with program fit. And Redman is not ranked higher with all the services.

Thank you MoragaBear
So many of us posters often have our own favorites, or we have made our conclusions based upon our own set of criteria (stars) (what and how many offers have been received) (what particular rating services have said) (etc) and we have developed our own hierarchy of recruits (a>b>c>d)

We refuse to believe that any one else can legitimately have a different conclusion; and if they do, they must have come to a "sour grapes" conclusion.

But since JW & Co.'s jobs are on the line. I am glad they are the ones making their own decisions
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

MoragaBear said:

dimitrig said:


What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.
I was responding to this statement. It's not correct.

Lots of second choices are great players but in this case, Rogers wasn't a second choice. Not for a minute. Neither athletically or with program fit. And Redman is not ranked higher with all the services.

Thank you MoragaBear
So many of us posters often have our own favorites, or we have made our conclusions based upon our own set of criteria (stars) (what and how many offers have been received) (what particular rating services have said) (etc) and we have developed our own hierarchy of recruits (a>b>c>d)

We refuse to believe that any one else can legitimately have a different conclusion; and if they do, they must have come to a "sour grapes" conclusion.

But since JW & Co.'s jobs are on the line. I am glad they are the ones making their own decisions

When you get to the top level of athletes (i.e., top 10 in the country) , it is hard to differentiate because they have all demonstrated extraordinary skills. Much depends on the scheme employed by the program and what specific talents a guy has (they can't all be George Kittle - extremely talented in every facet of his position).

Since I haven't seen Rogers play in a live game, I can't comment on his particular skills. I did see Redman play on Saturday and was impressed with his ability to use his frame to shield defenders, he is a huge target with excellent hands. Given that Rogers is rated close to Redman, I would have to believe he is also a great catch (pardon the pun). However, to say one guy is discernibly better is foolish. If Wilcox identified Rogers as his guy, that tells me Rogers has the fit for Berkeley, both on and off the field. It does not tell me that Rogers is clearly a better prospect than Redman.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I don't think anyone argued that Rogers is clearly a better prospect than Redman. What was said was that Rogers was their top target -one of their top targets at any position.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

I don't think anyone argued that Rogers is clearly a better prospect than Redman. What was said was that Rogers was their top target -one of their top targets at any position.
I recall reading a post that stated he was the best receiving TE in the country in this class. I'm not certain where the poster obtained that information.

Having said that, I am pleased that Wilcox is on the verge of signing a guy he identified as a premier prospect.
TexasBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MB, somewhat off-topic but any reason why we're not recruiting more DE in this class? A quick look at the Cal roster shows that Croteau is the only underclassman on the team. Also, I've read somewhere that our incoming recruit Ethan Saunders will be playing inside. I'm worried about the DE depth after next year.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
TexasBear said:

MB, somewhat off-topic but any reason why we're not recruiting more DE in this class? A quick look at the Cal roster shows that Croteau is the only underclassman on the team. Also, I've read somewhere that our incoming recruit Ethan Saunders will be playing inside. I'm worried about the DE depth after next year.
Saunders will play DE. Carlton and Tuli are also DE's but it doesn't look like that will work out.

Tuli and Carlton are DE's but it doesn't look like either will happen. For some reason, good DE's can be tough to pull but it wasn't for lack of trying. They wanted two.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

MoragaBear said:

dimitrig said:


What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.
I was responding to this statement. It's not correct.

Lots of second choices are great players but in this case, Rogers wasn't a second choice. Not for a minute. Neither athletically or with program fit. And Redman is not ranked higher with all the services.

Thank you MoragaBear
So many of us posters often have our own favorites, or we have made our conclusions based upon our own set of criteria (stars) (what and how many offers have been received) (what particular rating services have said) (etc) and we have developed our own hierarchy of recruits (a>b>c>d)

We refuse to believe that any one else can legitimately have a different conclusion; and if they do, they must have come to a "sour grapes" conclusion.

But since JW & Co.'s jobs are on the line. I am glad they are the ones making their own decisions

When you get to the top level of athletes (i.e., top 10 in the country) , it is hard to differentiate because they have all demonstrated extraordinary skills. Much depends on the scheme employed by the program and what specific talents a guy has (they can't all be George Kittle - extremely talented in every facet of his position).

Since I haven't seen Rogers play in a live game, I can't comment on his particular skills. I did see Redman play on Saturday and was impressed with his ability to use his frame to shield defenders, he is a huge target with excellent hands. Given that Rogers is rated close to Redman, I would have to believe he is also a great catch (pardon the pun). However, to say one guy is discernibly better is foolish. If Wilcox identified Rogers as his guy, that tells me Rogers has the fit for Berkeley, both on and off the field. It does not tell me that Rogers is clearly a better prospect than Redman.

For me being a "better prospect" is difficult to determine in the abstract. Being a better prospect must take into account the team which is being discussed.
For example if the candidate is not a great student or unwilling to work hard on academics, such a player would not be a better prospect for Cal.
Or if the candidate were a great TE, that person would not be a better prospect for teams that made little use for a TE.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

71Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

MoragaBear said:

dimitrig said:


What I think you are ACTUALLY asking is if our coaches have good second and third choices we would love on the team that we can realistically compete for? I think so. Rogers is one of those.
I was responding to this statement. It's not correct.

Lots of second choices are great players but in this case, Rogers wasn't a second choice. Not for a minute. Neither athletically or with program fit. And Redman is not ranked higher with all the services.

Thank you MoragaBear
So many of us posters often have our own favorites, or we have made our conclusions based upon our own set of criteria (stars) (what and how many offers have been received) (what particular rating services have said) (etc) and we have developed our own hierarchy of recruits (a>b>c>d)

We refuse to believe that any one else can legitimately have a different conclusion; and if they do, they must have come to a "sour grapes" conclusion.

But since JW & Co.'s jobs are on the line. I am glad they are the ones making their own decisions

When you get to the top level of athletes (i.e., top 10 in the country) , it is hard to differentiate because they have all demonstrated extraordinary skills. Much depends on the scheme employed by the program and what specific talents a guy has (they can't all be George Kittle - extremely talented in every facet of his position).

Since I haven't seen Rogers play in a live game, I can't comment on his particular skills. I did see Redman play on Saturday and was impressed with his ability to use his frame to shield defenders, he is a huge target with excellent hands. Given that Rogers is rated close to Redman, I would have to believe he is also a great catch (pardon the pun). However, to say one guy is discernibly better is foolish. If Wilcox identified Rogers as his guy, that tells me Rogers has the fit for Berkeley, both on and off the field. It does not tell me that Rogers is clearly a better prospect than Redman.

For me being a "better prospect" is difficult to determine in the abstract. Being a better prospect must take into account the team which is being discussed.
For example if the candidate is not a great student or unwilling to work hard on academics, such a player would not be a better prospect for Cal.
Or if the candidate were a great TE, that person would not be a better prospect for teams that made little use for a TE.
Yep. That is what I meant by, "much depends on the scheme employed by the program..."

As for academics, I prefer to look at the off field issues more globally, including academics, fit at Berkeley, character, etc.
TexasBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

TexasBear said:

MB, somewhat off-topic but any reason why we're not recruiting more DE in this class? A quick look at the Cal roster shows that Croteau is the only underclassman on the team. Also, I've read somewhere that our incoming recruit Ethan Saunders will be playing inside. I'm worried about the DE depth after next year.
Saunders will play DE. Carlton and Tuli are also DE's but it doesn't look like that will work out.

Tuli and Carlton are DE's but it doesn't look like either will happen. For some reason, good DE's can be tough to pull but it wasn't for lack of trying. They wanted two.
Thank you MoragaBear
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A couple of thoughts on Rogers: 1) He's from a School; that has become, arguably, the best FB program in the state over the last several years. It would be nice to establish a recruiting foothold there. 2) His stats no doubt are diluted by the abundance of talent around him, a half dozen or so legit D1 prospects including 3 on offense (WR Gee Scott, RB Sam Adams and J. T. Tuinoloaou (sp?) a junior all-everything who caught the winning TD pass in the state championship game. None of the stars at EC put up huge individual numbers.
LACalFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They are loaded
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.