Story Poster
Photo by Instagram / Will Reed
Cal Football

Washington OT Will Reed Commits to Cal

July 15, 2020
35,533

6-5/260 3 star Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA) High School offensive tackle Will Reed‍ became the 10th commit of the 2021 Cal recruiting class choosing the Bears over Michigan, Michigan State and a quartet of Pac-12 programs.

Last month, Reed narrowed his 25 offers to a Top 10, which included Cal, Michigan, Michigan State, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, Duke, Kansas and Ivy Leaguers Princeton and Yale before choosing to end his recruitment with a commitment to Cal today.

Reed announced his decision today via instagram, saying:

“I would like to start off by thanking the countless people who have helped me throughout this process. It has been a dream of mine to play college football since I was a kid, and I wouldn’t be here without the support I’ve gotten along the way.

“I want to thank my Eastside Catholic coaches, Coach Dom, Coach Thielbahr and Coach Kwan.My trainers from FSP, Coach Marcus, Coach Cleve, Coach Turp, Coach Cory, Tracy, Mapps and Big Sam. A huge thank you to my Mom, Dad, sister Bailey, Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, cousins, and especially my brother Jackson, who taught me the game. Another thank you to the Eastside Catholic Community and TEACHERS. I would also like to thank all the Coaches who recruited me and gave me an opportunity to play at the next level.

“With that being said, I am extremely excited to announce that I am COMMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY.”

http://instagr.am/p/CCrHeuklNK7?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

A teammate of 2020 tight end signee DJ Rogers‍, the All-League OT was also back-to-back state champ with Eastside Catholic and Rogers.

As a junior in 2019, Reed did not give up a sack the whole season for Eastside Catholic covering his QB’s blind side.

Reed worked out with FSP Sports’ Reggie Ford and has made a good impression.

“Will’s the type of kid who wants to play at a prestigious academic school with a good football program,” said Ford. “Cal has always been and always will be a force getting some of our best studs from Washington and I’m sure they always will. That’s just the way it is.”

Reed was one of the Bears’ first offerees, pulling in an offer from the Bears after taking in Cal’s exciting victory over Washington State last November and the Bears have been in good standing ever since, with Michigan being seen as a primary threat to the Bears.

Reed joins Minnesota OL Bastian Swinney‍ as the second Cal OL recruit so far, with the Bears looking to add two to three more linemen to their 20221 class with the upcoming departure of four Cal seniors after this season.

Ratings:

  • Rivals 3 star and 5.7 rating, 36th OT nationally
  • 247 3 star and 84 rating, 99th rated OT nationally
  • Cal 2021 Class to Date

More stories:

A Sitdown with Cal Head Coach Justin Wilcox

Pittsburg HS OT Ryan Lange Talks Cal offer

Discussion from...

Washington OT Will Reed Commits to Cal

33,920 Views | 95 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by burritos
Chapman_is_Gone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OdontoBear66 • 6:51p, 7/15/20
OdontoBear66 said:
LACalFan said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Apologies.

It's not that your post wasn't factual. What is frustrating is your clockwork emphasis on the negative in threads welcoming new Cal recruits. Pointing out "Not in Top 250" and not talking about positives like his quality offer list, tape etc. seemed like an inappropriate shot.


Absolutely right. Whether Chapman is spot on or not, when a young man makes a life decision that he and his family is excited about it sure looks horrible to me to throw cold water at it. Poor timing. If you have an issue with staff, go head to head with them.

To Mr. Will Reed, the sincerest of congrats to you. You have made a great decision. And as you must know even at this young age that sports fans are very fickle.
Are you suggesting I'm "fickle"? I don't really understand what you mean by that. As a lifelong fan of the Padres and Chargers (until they moved to LA), and a lifelong Cal fan since the age of 18, I have chosen to live and die by three of the most unsuccessful sports organizations in the history of sports. However exactly am I fickle? Do you honestly think anyone who has participated on this message board for 20 years is "fickle"? Please explain.

If MoragaBear would simply put a small table at the bottom of every recruiting story, showing the recruiting rankings for the recruit or commit being discussed, all of this could be avoided. If I were trying to get people to pay $99 per year for content, that is exactly what I would do. It's not a huge ask.

If Will and his family are reading this board, I encourage them to stop immediately. Public message boards are no place for public figures.
Reply Quote
3
Goobear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:06p, 7/15/20
I read them when my son played. It is mostly pleasant but there will be some barnacles.
Reply Quote
2
Bearly Clad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:10p, 7/15/20
Oh hey negabears, glad to see you guys could make it!


"I'm a huge fan but this team is unsuccessful and I'm a saint just for being here" Hahahah, a real fan knows the only reason we didn't make the Rose Bowl in '04 was mack brown and his skeezy backroom deals (the ones that led to the AP rebuking the BCS and separating their poll from the system, it also led to the BCS taking the coaches poll out of the equation). Real fans also know that we were the most represented school on the NFL All-Decade Team from the 2010s and that we still have the most first round QBs (most important position on the field) drafted in the modern draft era. Second in the Pac-12 in all-time Pro Bowlers. So no, you're not 'fickle'. Fickle implies you go back and forth. You're pretty consistently a wet towel in these commitment threads. Cheers bud, stay negative if you want, but fans don't take weird unnecessary shots at their teams. Remember to smile and enjoy it, it's a great day to be a Bear!
Reply Quote
10
5 edits
NYCGOBEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chapman_is_Gone • 7:12p, 7/15/20
Chapman_is_Gone said:
OdontoBear66 said:
LACalFan said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Apologies.

It's not that your post wasn't factual. What is frustrating is your clockwork emphasis on the negative in threads welcoming new Cal recruits. Pointing out "Not in Top 250" and not talking about positives like his quality offer list, tape etc. seemed like an inappropriate shot.


Absolutely right. Whether Chapman is spot on or not, when a young man makes a life decision that he and his family is excited about it sure looks horrible to me to throw cold water at it. Poor timing. If you have an issue with staff, go head to head with them.

To Mr. Will Reed, the sincerest of congrats to you. You have made a great decision. And as you must know even at this young age that sports fans are very fickle.
Are you suggesting I'm "fickle"? I don't really understand what you mean by that. As a lifelong fan of the Padres and Chargers (until they moved to LA), and a lifelong Cal fan since the age of 18, I have chosen to live and die by three of the most unsuccessful sports organizations in the history of sports. However exactly am I fickle? Do you honestly think anyone who has participated on this message board for 20 years is "fickle"? Please explain.

If MoragaBear would simply put a small table at the bottom of every recruiting story, showing the recruiting rankings for the recruit or commit being discussed, all of this could be avoided. If I were trying to get people to pay $99 per year for content, that is exactly what I would do. It's not a huge ask.

If Will and his family are reading this board, I encourage them to stop immediately. Public message boards are no place for public figures.

Chapman, as you know I'm a fan of yours. I typically find your direct curmudgeonly posts amusing and charming but in the case of these commitment threads it's less about the message than the delivery, IMO. While I usually wouldn't ask you to change, perhaps it would be nice if you could be a little more diplomatic? I agree with you by the way. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
5
tydog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:17p, 7/15/20
Padres, Chargers, and Cal fan? No wonder you are always grumpy.
Reply Quote
8
hoop97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:07p, 7/15/20
Very excited for this. It all starts up front.
Reply Quote
3
kirklandblue
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hoop97 • 8:59p, 7/15/20
hoop97 said:
Very excited for this. It all starts up front.

Me too! OL is just so critical, you get one who's an academic, a WRESTLER, and who we REALLY wanted, that's what we call a "Bonanza!" And to young Mr. Reed, from another "eastside Catholic", congratulations on one of the best decisions you'll make in your life. Welcome!
Reply Quote
4
Bearly Clad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kirklandblue • 9:19p, 7/15/20
Freshman and Sophomore basketball player. I thought he was a wrestler too. Either way, good footwork and cross-training to have for an OL, and great to have a big man with a championship background in the trenches
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
NVBear78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chapman_is_Gone • 9:24p, 7/15/20
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.


Nothing wrong with listing the "star" ranking but would be good to list the positives such as other quality offers etc. Rankings do add contest but this is a congratulatory thread in the free board for an awesome new recruit with a profile similar to all time Cal great Alex Mack!

Go Bears!!!
Reply Quote
7
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chapman_is_Gone • 9:44p, 7/15/20
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
One possible reason to not include ratings is because they matter much less with OLs. You should know that.
Reply Quote
8
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47p, 7/15/20
Welcome Will.
It's always good to get an OL with size added to the class.
Our offensive coaches, while mostly new, are high quality.
We need a couple more like you to fill out the 2021s.
Reply Quote
6
FuzzyWuzzy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:01p, 7/15/20
Finishes blocks!

Also: if Will is 6-6 260, that HS offensive line is huge. He's got the skinniest butt of the five. I bet they average 6-4 290.
Reply Quote
5
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:15a, 7/16/20
Welcome Will!

Can't have too many OL. At 6'5 260, maybe he can also be a short yardage TE as he puts on the weight play OL in college?

Go Bears!
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heartofthebear • 7:21a, 7/16/20
heartofthebear said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
One possible reason to not include ratings is because they matter much less with OLs. You should know that.
I'll stick my neck way out there and wager a guess the ratings would have been mentioned if they had been higher. I get the issue with a rather negative thread in what was a positive moment, but weren't we all at least a little bit curious as to his ratings while reading the article? I don't see the harm in listing them, even if they aren't favorable. His offer list more than enough makes up for it.
Reply Quote
1
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chapman_is_Gone • 8:07a, 7/16/20
Chapman_is_Gone said:
OdontoBear66 said:
LACalFan said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Apologies.

It's not that your post wasn't factual. What is frustrating is your clockwork emphasis on the negative in threads welcoming new Cal recruits. Pointing out "Not in Top 250" and not talking about positives like his quality offer list, tape etc. seemed like an inappropriate shot.


Absolutely right. Whether Chapman is spot on or not, when a young man makes a life decision that he and his family is excited about it sure looks horrible to me to throw cold water at it. Poor timing. If you have an issue with staff, go head to head with them.

To Mr. Will Reed, the sincerest of congrats to you. You have made a great decision. And as you must know even at this young age that sports fans are very fickle.
Are you suggesting I'm "fickle"? I don't really understand what you mean by that. As a lifelong fan of the Padres and Chargers (until they moved to LA), and a lifelong Cal fan since the age of 18, I have chosen to live and die by three of the most unsuccessful sports organizations in the history of sports. However exactly am I fickle? Do you honestly think anyone who has participated on this message board for 20 years is "fickle"? Please explain.

If MoragaBear would simply put a small table at the bottom of every recruiting story, showing the recruiting rankings for the recruit or commit being discussed, all of this could be avoided. If I were trying to get people to pay $99 per year for content, that is exactly what I would do. It's not a huge ask.

If Will and his family are reading this board, I encourage them to stop immediately. Public message boards are no place for public figures.
Chapman - Of course, you are correct. The manipulation of Information to present Cal recruiting in the best possible light has been a fixture at this website for quite some time. The reason for this is simple - this is a fan website not a hard news source. Once you get past the notion of this being anything more than a place for cheerleading, you are home free. If you want consistent, honest reporting you will need to go elsewhere. If you want to see the world through blue-tinted glasses, hang around, you will certainly get your fill from those who write for this site.
Reply Quote
5
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 8:28a, 7/16/20
71Bear said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
OdontoBear66 said:
LACalFan said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Apologies.

It's not that your post wasn't factual. What is frustrating is your clockwork emphasis on the negative in threads welcoming new Cal recruits. Pointing out "Not in Top 250" and not talking about positives like his quality offer list, tape etc. seemed like an inappropriate shot.


Absolutely right. Whether Chapman is spot on or not, when a young man makes a life decision that he and his family is excited about it sure looks horrible to me to throw cold water at it. Poor timing. If you have an issue with staff, go head to head with them.

To Mr. Will Reed, the sincerest of congrats to you. You have made a great decision. And as you must know even at this young age that sports fans are very fickle.
Are you suggesting I'm "fickle"? I don't really understand what you mean by that. As a lifelong fan of the Padres and Chargers (until they moved to LA), and a lifelong Cal fan since the age of 18, I have chosen to live and die by three of the most unsuccessful sports organizations in the history of sports. However exactly am I fickle? Do you honestly think anyone who has participated on this message board for 20 years is "fickle"? Please explain.

If MoragaBear would simply put a small table at the bottom of every recruiting story, showing the recruiting rankings for the recruit or commit being discussed, all of this could be avoided. If I were trying to get people to pay $99 per year for content, that is exactly what I would do. It's not a huge ask.

If Will and his family are reading this board, I encourage them to stop immediately. Public message boards are no place for public figures.
Chapman - Of course, you are correct. The manipulation of Information to present Cal recruiting in the best possible light has been a fixture at this website for quite some time. The reason for this is simple - this is a fan website not a hard news source. Once you get past the notion of this being anything more than a place for cheerleading, you are home free. If you want consistent, honest reporting you will need to go elsewhere. If you want to see the world through blue-tinted glasses, hang around, you will certainly get your fill from those who write for this site.
You made my point for me. Slanting articles to push hope has always existed here. I applaud Chapman's commitment to the truth, but it's pretty bad timing to focus on that now.
Reply Quote
3
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civil Bear • 8:32a, 7/16/20
Civil Bear said:
heartofthebear said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
One possible reason to not include ratings is because they matter much less with OLs. You should know that.
I'll stick my neck way out there and wager a guess the ratings would have been mentioned if they had been higher. I get the issue with a rather negative thread in what was a positive moment, but weren't we all at least a little bit curious as to his ratings while reading the article? I don't see the harm in listing them, even if they aren't favorable. His offer list more than enough makes up for it.
His ratings aren't bad. Most top programs have OT recruits with similar ratings. He is a mid 3* with room to elevate that during his senior season, should that happen. Also, he was one of the top rated OTs that had Cal on his radar. Sure there are higher rated OTs out there, but they may not have the academics to be admitted to Cal. It is an ongoing issue that, compared to places like ASU, Washington and Oregon, the pool of available 4*+ recruits declines a bit.
Reply Quote
6
Goobear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heartofthebear • 9:24a, 7/16/20
heartofthebear said:
Civil Bear said:
heartofthebear said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
One possible reason to not include ratings is because they matter much less with OLs. You should know that.
I'll stick my neck way out there and wager a guess the ratings would have been mentioned if they had been higher. I get the issue with a rather negative thread in what was a positive moment, but weren't we all at least a little bit curious as to his ratings while reading the article? I don't see the harm in listing them, even if they aren't favorable. His offer list more than enough makes up for it.
His ratings aren't bad. Most top programs have OT recruits with similar ratings. He is a mid 3* with room to elevate that during his senior season, should that happen. Also, he was one of the top rated OTs that had Cal on his radar. Sure there are higher rated OTs out there, but they may not have the academics to be admitted to Cal. It is an ongoing issue that, compared to places like ASU, Washington and Oregon, the pool of available 4*+ recruits declines a bit.
Ratings for Oline guys are least reliable. Oline guys need development. Mekari was low rated. He plays in the league. The kids need to have dog mentality, work ethic and strong desire to succeed. That is not measured in stars but a must to succeed. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
8
philbert
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:51a, 7/16/20
For further emphasis on Goo's point, here is how Mitchell Schwartz was rated. Schwartz is one of the best OTs in the NFL now.

247Sports Composite

0.8576 (3-star)


This is Will Reed:

247Sports Composite

0.8558 (3-star)

Composite scores are comparable. Not sure how meaningful rankings are when there is so much development and projection involved.
Reply Quote
2
Bearly Clad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 7/16/20
Manipulation of information? Hahaha you guys are just transparently fake fans or bad trolls. Mitchell Schwartz, Alex Mack, Patrick Mekari none of them were 4*/5* guys, all of them started in the NFL this year (Mekari and Schwartz for two of the top offenses in the league: Baltimore and KC), and Mack and Schwartz made the NFL All-Decade team.

71, it would be one thing if you had any evidence to back up your point that we've all just got fan-goggles on for mediocre players, but here's a list of 2*, 1*, and unrated guys to play or star for us, most of these guys went on to the NFL: Ben Hawk Schrider ('19), Slater Zellers ('18), Gavin Reinwald ('17), Addison Ooms (15), Dylan Klumph ('15), Patrick Mekari ('15), Ashtyn Davis ('14), Kyle Kragen ('13), Hardy Nickerson Jr. ('12), Stephen Anderson ('11), Giorgio Tavechio ('09), Mike Mohamed ('06), Will Ta'ufo'ou ('05), Alex Mack ('04), Justin Forsett ('04), Mike Tepper ('04), Brian De La Puente ('04), Thomas Decoud ('03)

That's a consistent list of OKGs panning out. I don't think anyone's reactions were over-the-top optimistic. Will Reed has tons of potential and a high ceiling, he's got a great resume and on-field results, we also have a track record of player development. I think everyone has a right to be excited about this commit and there's just a couple of sad downers in the thread.

Whether he's got 3 stars or 30, if you can't get excited over an O-Lineman who doesn't give up sacks then something is wrong with you. To each their own, I guess. I'm excited as hell for Will Reed and the rest of the '21 class, it's a Great Day to be a Bear!
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bearly Clad • 10:52a, 7/16/20
Bearly Clad said:
Manipulation of information? Hahaha you guys are just transparently fake fans or bad trolls. Mitchell Schwartz, Alex Mack, Patrick Mekari none of them were 4*/5* guys, all of them started in the NFL this year (Mekari and Schwartz for two of the top offenses in the league: Baltimore and KC), and Mack and Schwartz made the NFL All-Decade team.

71, it would be one thing if you had any evidence to back up your point that we've all just got fan-goggles on for mediocre players, but here's a list of 2*, 1*, and unrated guys to play or star for us, most of these guys went on to the NFL: Ben Hawk Schrider ('19), Slater Zellers ('18), Gavin Reinwald ('17), Addison Ooms (15), Dylan Klumph ('15), Patrick Mekari ('15), Ashtyn Davis ('14), Kyle Kragen ('13), Hardy Nickerson Jr. ('12), Stephen Anderson ('11), Giorgio Tavechio ('09), Mike Mohamed ('06), Will Ta'ufo'ou ('05), Alex Mack ('04), Justin Forsett ('04), Mike Tepper ('04), Brian De La Puente ('04), Thomas Decoud ('03)

That's a consistent list of OKGs panning out. I don't think anyone's reactions were over-the-top optimistic. Will Reed has tons of potential and a high ceiling, he's got a great resume and on-field results, we also have a track record of player development. I think everyone has a right to be excited about this commit and there's just a couple of sad downers in the thread.

Whether he's got 3 stars or 30, if you can't get excited over an O-Lineman who doesn't give up sacks then something is wrong with you. To each their own, I guess. I'm excited as hell for Will Reed and the rest of the '21 class, it's a Great Day to be a Bear!
I don't think anyone is disputing that lower-rated guys can make it to the NFL. The question is why the BI staff won't include the ratings in all the commit stories.
Reply Quote
2
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bearly Clad • 10:55a, 7/16/20
Bearly Clad said:
Manipulation of information? Hahaha you guys are just transparently fake fans or bad trolls. Mitchell Schwartz, Alex Mack, Patrick Mekari none of them were 4*/5* guys, all of them started in the NFL this year (Mekari and Schwartz for two of the top offenses in the league: Baltimore and KC), and Mack and Schwartz made the NFL All-Decade team.

71, it would be one thing if you had any evidence to back up your point that we've all just got fan-goggles on for mediocre players, but here's a list of 2*, 1*, and unrated guys to play or star for us, most of these guys went on to the NFL: Ben Hawk Schrider ('19), Slater Zellers ('18), Gavin Reinwald ('17), Addison Ooms (15), Dylan Klumph ('15), Patrick Mekari ('15), Ashtyn Davis ('14), Kyle Kragen ('13), Hardy Nickerson Jr. ('12), Stephen Anderson ('11), Giorgio Tavechio ('09), Mike Mohamed ('06), Will Ta'ufo'ou ('05), Alex Mack ('04), Justin Forsett ('04), Mike Tepper ('04), Brian De La Puente ('04), Thomas Decoud ('03)

That's a consistent list of OKGs panning out. I don't think anyone's reactions were over-the-top optimistic. Will Reed has tons of potential and a high ceiling, he's got a great resume and on-field results, we also have a track record of player development. I think everyone has a right to be excited about this commit and there's just a couple of sad downers in the thread.

Whether he's got 3 stars or 30, if you can't get excited over an O-Lineman who doesn't give up sacks then something is wrong with you. To each their own, I guess. I'm excited as hell for Will Reed and the rest of the '21 class, it's a Great Day to be a Bear!
You totally missed the point of my comment. It had nothing whatsoever to do specifically with this recruit. My assessment was a general statement based upon years of observation.

By the way, I used to be in the "stars don't matter camp" until one thoughtful poster here pointed out to me the percentage of successful low stars is minuscule compared to the percentage of successful highly starred guys. Once I looked into the data following his line of thought, I realized he was right and I was wrong. Stars matter. Period.
Reply Quote
4
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heartofthebear • 10:56a, 7/16/20
heartofthebear said:
Civil Bear said:
heartofthebear said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
W T F is wrong with you? How can you object to me adding factual, quantified data to the thread? If you don't like it, effing ignore it, jerk.

I put stock in recruiting rankings. To argue they add no contextual value is idiotic. The market clearly believes they add value; otherwise, the recruiting services wouldn't exist.

And, the practice of authors around here touting high rankings for our best recruits, and ignoring them for all of our other recruits, is dishonest.
One possible reason to not include ratings is because they matter much less with OLs. You should know that.
I'll stick my neck way out there and wager a guess the ratings would have been mentioned if they had been higher. I get the issue with a rather negative thread in what was a positive moment, but weren't we all at least a little bit curious as to his ratings while reading the article? I don't see the harm in listing them, even if they aren't favorable. His offer list more than enough makes up for it.
His ratings aren't bad. Most top programs have OT recruits with similar ratings. He is a mid 3* with room to elevate that during his senior season, should that happen. Also, he was one of the top rated OTs that had Cal on his radar. Sure there are higher rated OTs out there, but they may not have the academics to be admitted to Cal. It is an ongoing issue that, compared to places like ASU, Washington and Oregon, the pool of available 4*+ recruits declines a bit.
Thanks. A bit to my point, by omitting his rating in the article I was left to assume it must have been lower.
Reply Quote
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civil Bear • 10:58a, 7/16/20
Civil Bear said:
Bearly Clad said:
Manipulation of information? Hahaha you guys are just transparently fake fans or bad trolls. Mitchell Schwartz, Alex Mack, Patrick Mekari none of them were 4*/5* guys, all of them started in the NFL this year (Mekari and Schwartz for two of the top offenses in the league: Baltimore and KC), and Mack and Schwartz made the NFL All-Decade team.

71, it would be one thing if you had any evidence to back up your point that we've all just got fan-goggles on for mediocre players, but here's a list of 2*, 1*, and unrated guys to play or star for us, most of these guys went on to the NFL: Ben Hawk Schrider ('19), Slater Zellers ('18), Gavin Reinwald ('17), Addison Ooms (15), Dylan Klumph ('15), Patrick Mekari ('15), Ashtyn Davis ('14), Kyle Kragen ('13), Hardy Nickerson Jr. ('12), Stephen Anderson ('11), Giorgio Tavechio ('09), Mike Mohamed ('06), Will Ta'ufo'ou ('05), Alex Mack ('04), Justin Forsett ('04), Mike Tepper ('04), Brian De La Puente ('04), Thomas Decoud ('03)

That's a consistent list of OKGs panning out. I don't think anyone's reactions were over-the-top optimistic. Will Reed has tons of potential and a high ceiling, he's got a great resume and on-field results, we also have a track record of player development. I think everyone has a right to be excited about this commit and there's just a couple of sad downers in the thread.

Whether he's got 3 stars or 30, if you can't get excited over an O-Lineman who doesn't give up sacks then something is wrong with you. To each their own, I guess. I'm excited as hell for Will Reed and the rest of the '21 class, it's a Great Day to be a Bear!
I don't think anyone is disputing that lower-rated guys can make it to the NFL. The question is why the BI staff won't include the ratings in all the commit stories.
Exactly. If the writers would consistently cite one source (24/7 composite?) for every recruit, no one would feel as though they are being manipulated. Instead, articles either ignore ratings or cite only those who cast the recruit in a favorable light. It is ridiculous because it is so condescending to the readership.
Reply Quote
1
BigDaddyBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:59a, 7/16/20
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?
Reply Quote
6
Post removed:
by user
In reply to 71Bear • 12:13p, 7/16/20
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:46p, 7/16/20
Staff
Ratings will be added to all of our commitment stories going forward and Reed's article has been edited with those additions.

Here they are:

Ratings:

  • Rivals 3 star and 5.7 rating, 36th OT nationally
  • 247 3 star and 84 rating, 99th rated OT nationally
    • https://bearinsider.com/football-recruiting/commits

Will reinforce the point that the correlation between recruiting service rankings and college success for OL is very loose. By far the position group that goes against the meta validity to "stars matter"
Reply Quote Next Staff
2 edits
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigDaddyBear • 1:17p, 7/16/20
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?
Yes, I did post something positive on the Sturdivant thread and I don't remember if I posted on the Terry thread (it was quite a while ago).
Reply Quote
1 edit
BigDaddyBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 1:28p, 7/16/20
71Bear 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?
Yes, I did post something positive on the Sturdivant thread and I don't remember if I posted on the Terry thread (it was quite a while ago).
Thanks 71B....Go Bears!
Reply Quote
Bearly Clad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 1:32p, 7/16/20
I really don't think I did miss your point. There's a thread to talk about the star ratings but you only ever bring it up in commitment threads. Maybe this is just me, but it feels like you're goal is to try and derail these threads and be a negative nancy.

If I've misjudged you and you're a real fan then I'm honestly really sorry 71. But I really only ever see you showing up in commit threads to complain that 3*s aren't 4*s and 4*s aren't 5*s. Maybe your point really is just about standardization of commitment post ratings, but if that's the case then I don't see why your posts are consistently pretty negative. And I really don't see how anyone 'manipulated information'.

BTW for your 'stars are all that matter' theory, for pretty much all of the 2000's 4* recruits had a much higher rate of future success than 5*s did. Stars matter, but only to an extent
Reply Quote
5
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bearly Clad • 1:53p, 7/16/20
Bearly Clad said:
I really don't think I did miss your point. There's a thread to talk about the star ratings but you only ever bring it up in commitment threads. Maybe this is just me, but it feels like you're goal is to try and derail these threads and be a negative nancy.

If I've misjudged you and you're a real fan then I'm honestly really sorry 71. But I really only ever see you showing up in commit threads to complain that 3*s aren't 4*s and 4*s aren't 5*s. Maybe your point really is just about standardization of commitment post ratings, but if that's the case then I don't see why your posts are consistently pretty negative. And I really don't see how anyone 'manipulated information'.

BTW for your 'stars are all that matter' theory, for pretty much all of the 2000's 4* recruits had a much higher rate of future success than 5*s did. Stars matter, but only to an extent
I'm not sure what one must do to qualify as a "real fan". However, I think I might qualify.

I attended my first Cal game in 1956 (a win over Pitt).
I attended 50 consecutive Big Games (1960-2009).
I held season tickets from 1975-2009.

Today, I watch the games on TV because the game day experience has been ruined (it simply is not worth the effort if one is going to be barraged with crap that insults our intelligence).

I would also add that real fans do not blindly follow their team. Instead, they hold the management of their team accountable for the performance. I praise when praise is warranted (see my comments following the termination of the carpetbagger and the hiring of Justin Wilcox). And I criticize when warranted (see my comments following the APR collapse in the late Tedford years).

As for recruiting, I EXPECT Wilcox to sign highly rated guys. Unless he does, Cal will do nothing more than swim in mediocrity. If he does, Cal has a chance to consistently contend for the conference championship.

Lastly, I was really looking forward to this season because I felt that Cal had a great chance to break through. Unfortunately, the virus had other plans..... Darn.



Reply Quote
2
Bearly Clad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 2:23p, 7/16/20
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!
Reply Quote
7
2 edits
59bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LACalFan • 2:50p, 7/16/20
LACalFan said:
W T F is wrong with you?

First of all, OLs are very difficult to evaluate. Secondly, this is a PLAN A recruit that the staff wanted very much. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Big time get.
I don't see anything wrong with his response but then I've also been criticized for negativity in posts when all I was guilty of was stating facts. I can accept that he is not a blue chip recruit but he is: 1) a 2 year starter for the best program in the state of Washington ( I think experience with winning is an asset that is hard to quantify); 2) a wrestler (good transferrable skills/toughness); 3) likely to see considerable growth. Every program takes some 3 star recruits every year so its not as if we've squandered a slot.
Reply Quote
2
UrsineMaximus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21p, 7/16/20
I do find it interesting that given the success of Cal's defense that it is the offense that has recruited higher rated players during Wilcox's tenure.

Anyone else find that to be an interesting factoid?

discuss.....
Reply Quote
1
tydog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 5:19p, 7/16/20
71Bear said:
Bearly Clad said:
I really don't think I did miss your point. There's a thread to talk about the star ratings but you only ever bring it up in commitment threads. Maybe this is just me, but it feels like you're goal is to try and derail these threads and be a negative nancy.

If I've misjudged you and you're a real fan then I'm honestly really sorry 71. But I really only ever see you showing up in commit threads to complain that 3*s aren't 4*s and 4*s aren't 5*s. Maybe your point really is just about standardization of commitment post ratings, but if that's the case then I don't see why your posts are consistently pretty negative. And I really don't see how anyone 'manipulated information'.

BTW for your 'stars are all that matter' theory, for pretty much all of the 2000's 4* recruits had a much higher rate of future success than 5*s did. Stars matter, but only to an extent
I'm not sure what one must do to qualify as a "real fan". However, I think I might qualify.

I attended my first Cal game in 1956 (a win over Pitt).
I attended 50 consecutive Big Games (1960-2009).
I held season tickets from 1975-2009.

Today, I watch the games on TV because the game day experience has been ruined (it simply is not worth the effort if one is going to be barraged with crap that insults our intelligence).

I would also add that real fans do not blindly follow their team. Instead, they hold the management of their team accountable for the performance. I praise when praise is warranted (see my comments following the termination of the carpetbagger and the hiring of Justin Wilcox). And I criticize when warranted (see my comments following the APR collapse in the late Tedford years).

As for recruiting, I EXPECT Wilcox to sign highly rated guys. Unless he does, Cal will do nothing more than swim in mediocrity. If he does, Cal has a chance to consistently contend for the conference championship.

Lastly, I was really looking forward to this season because I felt that Cal had a great chance to break through. Unfortunately, the virus had other plans..... Darn.





I could definitely see myself with 71Bear's grumpy, pessimistic attitude if Cal still hasn't made the Rose Bowl by my mid 70s. Luckily, I have about 30 more years to be an optimist.
Reply Quote
2
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.