Bears Get Their QB in Millner

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

BearfanEric said:

---

Yes, but why not make a separate thread to complain or gripe instead of posting negative stuff on a commitment thread that the recruits themselves can and often do read? I think the commitment thread should be to welcome the recruit to the team and be honest about the commitment and its impact, not to complain about how the commitment story was writen or cost of the BI subscription or whatever else.

---

Quit trying to regulate the behavior of other posters.

---

Pointing out that your post was inappropriate in context isn't trying to regulate your behavior. And your post history has no bearing on whether your rant in a "welcome" thread is remotely proper. It's not. Agree to disagree? BTW, you're welcome to stay on my lawn.

I am not trying to regulate anyone's activity. I am not a member of staff or a moderator. I am simply saying that for the fans that want to be positive and upbeat about a new commit and welcome them, maybe move the critifal chater to it's own thread. Maybe make a welcome thread for the commitment and then a second tread for the assessment of the player and the more critical and negative stuff.

Welcome to the Cal Family, Kai! We look forward to cheering you on to many victories in the coming years.

Forty years later, the day I received my Cal acceptance letter still stands as one of the Top 5 happiest days of my life. Perhaps it was for many Old Blues here, as well. I'm sure that even our naysayer relates to the joy you undoubtedly feel. Go Bears! Forever.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

- More "stars don't matter" arguments. Sigh. Is Weaver the new Alex Mack for today's generation (or insert your own favorite overachiever)? It's wonderful that Weaver was a 3 star. But give me a team of 5 stars, and I'll beat your team of 3 stars 9 times out of 10. Why don't you cite the dozens and dozens and dozens of 3-star recruits Cal has had that never had an impact, never even saw the field?

- If takes more than "5 minutes" to check the recruiting services for star rankings. Multiply the number of readers of this board who would have to do that individually, times more than 5 minutes each, and you can see how much time is being wasted, versus the author simply writing a well-rounded piece. A well-written report would cite the rankings, and then, if those rankings seem low, the author could provide an educated guess as to why a player isn't ranked higher (lack of exposure, small-time school, lower quality league, etc.).

- Burritos, I don't have blind faith in a new coach. Cal hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 50 years, and yet every single one of the recruits that has played for Cal over those 50 years was "wanted" by some coach. Who cares? Frankly, I hope our coaches "want" some of the Top 100 or Top 50 players out there; if not, they need to raise their standards.

I love Wilcox, BTW. We're getting there...slowly.

---

I never claimed stars don't matter, I just think they're frequently inaccurate and far less of an indicator of talent than both the evaluations of good coaches and the quality of film on the player, especially for QBs.

As a lifelong follower of the Ohio State Buckeyes, I know how good a team of 5 star players is, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't individual cases where a lower ranked player is actually more skilled or even just a better fit for the team than a higher ranked player. Even teams loaded with 5* players offer lower ranked players that the coaches see talent they want in. An example in OSUs case is Malik Hooker, a 3* recruit and recent first round pick. In hindsight, I'd argue that the coaches that saw unrecognized potential in him were right, not the recruiting services that overlooked him.

The coaches want higher ranked players, of course, because they want talented players, and stars are a general indicator of talent, as flawed and inaccurate as they may be. But that doesn't mean that they're pursuing stars; rather, they're pursuing talent, and the stars tend to come with it, hence why I put more stock in Musgrave'd thinking that Millner's talent is a better fit for his offense than that of more highly touted recruits than his ranking.

And if it takes significantly more than five seconds, let alone five minutes, to type "Kai Millner 247" into Google, click the first link, and read the stars and composite rating displayed clearly in the middle left of your screen, then that's definitely not BI's problem.

I too love Wilcox and I've been given no reason to doubt his (and his assistant coaches') talent evaluation skills. We're in big trouble if they can't do that within their recruitment pool better than a national recruiting service can accurately evaluate thousands of kids nationwide.

Kai if you've made it this far,please understand there are some on this board that just can't help themselves.
Chapman offers a perspective that is at odds with many but welcomed none the less. I agree with the posters that feel his comments would be better served on a separate thread. That probably won't happen though.

bonsallbear said:

---

Kai if you've made it this far,please understand there are some on this board that just can't help themselves.
Chapman offers a perspective that is at odds with many but welcomed none the less. I agree with the posters that feel his comments would be better served on a separate thread. That probably won't happen though.

---

If Kai was actually reading this thread, I'd like to add that regardless of any offseason quarantine debates, Cal fans are united in wishing him success. I'd imagine we'll all be thrilled when he turns into Cal's next unanimous all-american.