- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 47,497
D is a star *****, he justifies his rankings by the stars next to the name and who’s recruiting them. And to be fair he’d be right a lot more than he’s wrong with that strategy.
I’m sure there’s some crazy takes by me out there on Pope too, but once he arrived I was as hard as anyone on him. I knew we’d struck out with him. I actually ****ed folks off when I said this.
He was super tiny, he looked fragile. He also played very stiff snd had horrible hands. The key area that stuck me was his production in HS, that’s a red flag with me when I evaluate kids. He was the definition of a seven on seven superstar.
He also had other issues that I won’t go into detail on. That was as much of a problem as his physical issues.
I've thought about these kinds of issues a lot over the last 35 years of observing recruiting. For so long, Florida high school coaching has been limited, particularly in the passing game. You had some kids who coulda/woulda/shoulda been rated as great WR prospects who either got very few receptions, or played QB. ****, that even happened at the collegiate level sometimes, Keith Jackson was a very talented TE for Oklahoma and he probably got about 15 receptions per season at OK.
But back to the point at hand, we often hear "you can't coach speed/height/size/length", and that is true. There are also a lot of college coaches who can teach some fundamental skills that were overlooked by HS coaches.
With Pope, I think we focused too much on ONE physical trait, and projected some other physical traits. Yes, a good college S&C coach can put some weight on a kid, but it is risky to do with "speed" guys, you can never be 100% certain when the weight gain causes a speed drop-off.
As you point out, too, there were "eyeball" issues with Pope that should have been discussed more openly, such as the fragility, stiffness, and lack of "fight" for the ball. I don't care if Pope only had 10 or 20 catches per year IF A PERCENTAGE OF THOSE CATCHES showed some fight and heart. If you don't see that on film, then you are pushing all your chips into the middle of the table BASED SOLELY ON SPEED. And there are a lot of fast kids out there.
Hands? Yeah, I could go on about that issue for another 10 paragraphs. I played receiver in Pop Warner and I had good hands. Slow? Yes. Tall? No. But hands I had. I wish there was a "measurement" for how good a receiver's hands are, beyond just "film" and "huge hands". But, yeah, that is probably the number one thing that I look for on film. How does the receiver use his hands, does it look natural and graceful, or is it some bumblefvck who bobbles the ball until he gets it into his body?
****, you can go back to some other websites 15 years ago and find my posts that screamed about UM signing George "Hands of Stone" Robinson.
And all of the receivers I have admired and respected have "great hands" in common. ****, I absolutely loved Fred Biletnikoff (yeah, yeah, before I enrolled at UM, and yes I know he's a SemenHole) and Harold Carmichael and Steve Largent. I used to lose my sanity when fast guys like Kevin House or Skeets Nehemiah would drop the ball.
Hands. The absolute, number-one "non-negotiable".