New Cal Poly Lineman
- Thread starter Bubba3000
- Start date
My only question is later in the tape (and you know by now I’m a skill, not line guy) there were more impressive solo ones. Those three on one play were outstanding but two were trailing and the last one clocked a straggler. If the title were “Wanna see a big kid with a high motor?” Fits just right!
IMO much of offensive line play is attitude and his willingness to play all the way to the whistle is what impresses me. He also has some good feet and knee bend. At 6'3" 280 he fits the cookie cutter mold for Cal Poly offensive linemen
His junior film probably helps explain his lack of offers. One thing for sure you know it wasn't his grades. Also consider the level of competition he faced in that league. http://www.maxpreps.com/high-schools/chaminade-eagles-(west-hills,ca)/football/schedule.htm
Last edited:
I always wondered about FB film presenting strategies since I filmed BSB and it was very clear that D1 skills should be front loaded and film no longer than 1:00, as that was about the max attention span of recruiters. Why market 3:00?
NM- just realized film not as important as camps, showcases for line....
NM- just realized film not as important as camps, showcases for line....
Last edited:
It's always a good idea to put your best stuff right at the start of a highlight reel. My son always kept each play as short as possible, where some linemen show the 80 yard touchdown run in it's entirety. Free camps are almost a thing of the past except for the most elite recruits.
FBS teams typically want offensive tackles to be between 6’4” and 6’7”. At 6’3” he is a hair below the minimum.
No doubt DC Panda even at Cal Poly he will likely be a guard. However, if there's a D1AA system that can tolerate a 6'3" tackle it's the triple option, assuming one has the athleticism.
Sink and bend is highly prized for offensive linemen. A player who is on the smaller side compared to the other guys being recruited at his position should have a LOT of it. I don't see it.
His JR highlight will not really be considered when comparing to his SR highlights. Recruiters are trying to project what a kid will do in college, not judge him based on prior years. There is a large contingent of fans that hold onto the idea that a college scholarship is a reward for a good HS career. It is not. If you want to understand how a recruiter thinks, you need to compare the kid to the other kids at his position. We as fans have no perspective (but we do have opinions). This is the perspective that many fans lack when lamenting a kid that did not receive the scholarship.
The idea of putting the best clips up front - and to trim them is correct. It makes them much easier to watch and might make recruiters watch longer. When I was recruiting, I would watch dozens of kids on any given day, so being concise is very appreciated. The problem is that most teenagers craft their highlight films to contain clips that they personally like. For example, I have seen many highlight films that are full of flat-back blocks vs. sub-par competition. Yawn. Or a receiver video with a bunch of receptions vs. bad DB's. But none of him blocking. Or routes in which he ran a great route, turned the DB around, but he ball was thrown some where else.
The kid lacking one inch of height is not a reason that a recruiter would pass. Maybe a few would. But those guys are not the norm. Coaches have to be able to project that a player they are recruiting is capable of starting. If not, there is no reason to recruit him. No one recruits backups or tweeners. That is what walk-ons are for.
His JR highlight will not really be considered when comparing to his SR highlights. Recruiters are trying to project what a kid will do in college, not judge him based on prior years. There is a large contingent of fans that hold onto the idea that a college scholarship is a reward for a good HS career. It is not. If you want to understand how a recruiter thinks, you need to compare the kid to the other kids at his position. We as fans have no perspective (but we do have opinions). This is the perspective that many fans lack when lamenting a kid that did not receive the scholarship.
The idea of putting the best clips up front - and to trim them is correct. It makes them much easier to watch and might make recruiters watch longer. When I was recruiting, I would watch dozens of kids on any given day, so being concise is very appreciated. The problem is that most teenagers craft their highlight films to contain clips that they personally like. For example, I have seen many highlight films that are full of flat-back blocks vs. sub-par competition. Yawn. Or a receiver video with a bunch of receptions vs. bad DB's. But none of him blocking. Or routes in which he ran a great route, turned the DB around, but he ball was thrown some where else.
The kid lacking one inch of height is not a reason that a recruiter would pass. Maybe a few would. But those guys are not the norm. Coaches have to be able to project that a player they are recruiting is capable of starting. If not, there is no reason to recruit him. No one recruits backups or tweeners. That is what walk-ons are for.
I agree with most of what you say. The only reason I mention his sub par junior film is because much of recruiting is gleaned from a players junior film, that's when they really start getting noticed. I've seen several guys that were either later bloomers or injured their junior year fly under the radar, have a stellar senior year and not get the offers they probably deserved because of this. You especially see this with QB's who tend to be recruited earlier and typically commit earlier. Cal Poly got a 6'5" WR named Leonte Huerta-Moore in this recruiting cycle that they probably don't get if he's not injured his junior year.
I totally agree that offers are not a high school players reward. It's all about projecting to the next level.
I totally agree that offers are not a high school players reward. It's all about projecting to the next level.
