Bears Add a Future Hometown Hero in 4 Star Richmond TE Jermaine Terry

MoragaBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

Who was his recruiter? Is this early dividends from Musgrave/Mcclure addition?

---

Tui and Burl's recruiting, Musgrave's offense.

---

CalFan777 said:

---

I love how he was influenced by Makai Polk, who really blossomed late in the year. He put on a route running clinic in the RedBox Bowl, and he is doing well academically. A Bay Area role model! Polk was an underrated recruit. It will be interesting to see Polk and Crawford compete for the WR#1 title this year.

Having local ballers is great on many levels, both for Cal and the Bay Area community.

---

burritos said:

---

Wait, so in 2 years, can both he and DJ Rogers line up at the same time?

---

CalFan777 said:

---

I love how he was influenced by Makai Polk, who really blossomed late in the year. He put on a route running clinic in the RedBox Bowl, and he is doing well academically. A Bay Area role model! Polk was an underrated recruit. It will be interesting to see Polk and Crawford compete for the WR#1 title this year.

Having local ballers is great on many levels, both for Cal and the Bay Area community.

---

upsetof86 said:

---

burritos said:

---

Wait, so in 2 years, can both he and DJ Rogers line up at the same time?

---

Could be sick.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

CalFan777 said:

---

I love how he was influenced by Makai Polk, who really blossomed late in the year. He put on a route running clinic in the RedBox Bowl, and he is doing well academically. A Bay Area role model! Polk was an underrated recruit. It will be interesting to see Polk and Crawford compete for the WR#1 title this year.

Having local ballers is great on many levels, both for Cal and the Bay Area community.

---

Thanks 777, where did you see that Polk was a big influence, I missed that.

P.S totally agree about Polk putting on a route running clinic in the Bowl game. Was impressive "live" and looked good on the replays. Is that coaching from Toler and/or hard work from Polk or both.

---

Bear19 said:

---

Hmmmm. Recruiting improves with each year of the Wilcox reign. Who would have ever thought that would happen?

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

burritos said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Tedford's first year roster already had talent 2002. NFL future Boller, Lorenzo Alexander, Tully Banta-Cain,Jamaal Cherry, Nmandi Asomugha, Other notable players included Donnie McCleskey, Jemeel Powell,Joe Igber, Marcus O'Keith, Makonnen, Lasaun Ward, Strang, Burl Toler, Matt Nixon, Paul Ugenti, Bethea and Fredrickson.

These were Tom Holmoe's recruits. He was unable to coach them up. Tedford could and did, but his cupboard talent-wise was not bare when he stepped in. From that success yes, he could then recruit. Could people say that our recent new coaches had this kind of talent on day one?

---

boredom said:

---

burritos said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Tedford's first year roster already had talent 2002. NFL future Boller, Lorenzo Alexander, Tully Banta-Cain,Jamaal Cherry, Nmandi Asomugha, Other notable players included Donnie McCleskey, Jemeel Powell,Joe Igber, Marcus O'Keith, Makonnen, Lasaun Ward, Strang, Burl Toler, Matt Nixon, Paul Ugenti, Bethea and Fredrickson.

These were Tom Holmoe's recruits. He was unable to coach them up. Tedford could and did, but his cupboard talent-wise was not bare when he stepped in. From that success yes, he could then recruit. Could people say that our recent new coaches had this kind of talent on day one?

---

There's a chicken and egg problem there. Tedford came in and got the team to buy into what he was doing and coached guys up. Those guys became NFL players under Tedford. Take the two 1st rounders on the list - Boller was thinking of quitting football and Nnamdi was playing the wrong position.

After Tedford's last season there was a very vocal contingent here saying that we had a ton of talent that was being wasted. Dykes comes in and affirms that there's a lot of talent here. Then he alienates, runs off, or otherwise fails to develop most of that talent and we stop producing NFL players (though he did inherit a qb who he helped get to the #1 overall pick).

---

MoragaBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

On top of that, unless you have some insanely charismatic coach or a coach with bonafided credentials of success (like Urban Meyer), recruiting is a delayed indicator of team success. Trying to recruit HS seniors is hard as you have a lot of ground to make up, but HS sophomores put you on more equal footing.

---

Which is why the "we need to recruit better" first argument generally fails. You need to get the most production you can from the players you have before the top players sign on. Though in this case the combination of Wilcox and the promise of Musgrave is enough, the big change will come when we combine a good offense with a good defense.

---

I disagree. Tedford proved you can recruit effectively from a Day One even if you are starting from a deep hole.

---

Not really. Looking at it from both recruiting rankings and how they ended up working out by recruiting players who outplayed their rankings, the 2002 class was not good. O'Keith, Gray and Parson were 4 star players (good rankings, underachievers). McCleskey, Makonnen and Bundy were 3 stars (McCleskey outplayed his ranking, Makkonen lived up to it and Bundy didn't play). The other 12 were 2 stars and most played like it except Erik Robertson and Tim Mixon. This was by far Cal's worst class in the internet ratings era (post SuperPrep, etc).

In the next year, they had one 4 star (Matt Malele) and three 2 stars (DeCoud, Van Hoesen and Myles). The rest were 3 stars. Ultimately he made good calls on a lot of the 3 star JC guys like Rodgers, Arrington, Cross, Riddle and Giordano plus preps like Mebane and Hughes but the strong recruiting really didn't kick in till 2004 after they'd had two 7-win seasons.

---