• Contact
Posted by Scipio Tex on January 3rd, 2009 under Football, Recruiting
All-Star games can be fairly worthless given that the practices are probably more telling than the actual game. By their nature, after you spot the obvious slam dunks, they’re probably better at proving a negative: they can debunk some big prospects who thrived against mediocre competition and discredit mass hallucinations conjured by popular opinion (see Tre Allen, any Tom Lemming advocated recruit who signed with Notre Dame). That aside, it’s good to see how guys look physically and who can run.
Some thoughts on our guys after watching live and reviewing on DVR.
Defense:
Tariq Allen 43 LB 6′2 231 MacArthur HS TX
Got the start at OLB though he projects to MLB in college. A bit of a ghost until he absolutely knocked the dog piss out of a East kid in the flat mid 3rd quarter. Then a great TFL on QB Kevin Newsome. Then a great tackle on Bryce Brown. Nose for the ball. I’m pleased to see us recruiting a true MLB – our upcoming game against Ohio St is testament to that fact that you still need those guys. I liked seeing a big body LB bring the wood with authority.
Marcus Davis 28 DB 6′0 193 Clear Creek HS TX
Got in during the late 1st and prevented a TD completion off of a trick play. Another guy who looks the part and he can run. He also wasn’t particuarly shy about mixing it up. He just didn’t get tested – which is generally a very good thing. I saw him playing a lot of man-to-man CB; probably projects to safety.
Calvin Howell 99 DT 6′4 280 Warren HS TX
Howell got a nice flush on a pass play in the 1st quarter and he didn’t see much of a running game to work against. Had a nice play on Kevin Newsome on a QB draw. He definitely passes the eyeball test and I thought he held his own against some good OL – though not many impact plays of note.
Alex Okafor 80 DE 6′5 232 Pflugerville HS TX
Good first step and much, much stronger than I thought he’d be. He covers a lot of ground. He held up very well against the run and on a couple of occasions pushed the OT all the way into the QB to disrupt the throw. What’s exciting about Okafor is that you can see he’s damn good now, but his upside is huge. 6-5 260 is a year and a half way and he won’t lose a step doing it. Made several plays that were initially disruptive – flushing a QB from the pocket, collapsing a pocket with a bull rush, but he didn’t always finish with the aid of some well-timed holds. He’ll need to learn to discard blockers and fight through chaffe with his hands. His pass rushing skill set is also pretty raw – all stuff that comes with teaching and time.
Offense:
Garrett Porter 78 OT 6′6 308 Permian HS TX
Garrett didn’t get the start at OT over human science experiment DJ Fluker (who gave up some big hits on the West QB), but when Garrett did get his first action in the late 1st quarter he did really well. He kept his base and completely stoned the DE on pass plays and kept it up throughout the game. Physically, the dude is a legit 6-6 and although I’ve heard talk of him moving inside, I see nothing that prevents him from getting his shot at OT. Garrett is pretty technical and well coached – he looks likes he’s overextending a bit at times, but the East DEs couldn’t do a a thing about it. I wasn’t blown by his physicality in the run game. Get the boy a shirt, get him in the weight room, and we’ll see him in three.
Greg Timmons 81 WR 6′3 191 Eisenhower HS TX
He looked more like 6-2 205. Solid kid. He opened the game with a nice 18 yard catch from Rollison where he showed the hands and route running for which he’s known. He followed that by drawing a PI in single coverage. Two plays later he gets open easily on a fly route and dropped a sure TD on a very poorly thrown ball. Didn’t see the ball again until the 4th quarter. He definitely looks good in pads and I love any dude who rocks the retro high top fade ala Big Daddy Kane. He’s not particularly fast or nifty, but he’s got the Michael Irvin/Michael Crabtree body shield skills and he attacks the ball with his hands. He’ll play at 210-215 when he’s all grows up and he’s certainly a guy you need in our passing game to keep the chains moving and make the tough catches inside.
Chris Whaley 25 RB 6′3 220 Madisonville HS TX
Obviously he’s huge and his frame can carry good weight anywhere between 225-260. It was good to see Whaley break a couple of tackles on a late second quarter run and then again in the 3rd quarter. Like most big guys he’s slow off of the blocks, but he has excellent feet and he keeps them moving on contact. Nice little skill set. Shrugs off arm tackles. The question isn’t really whether he can play RB – the question is whether he can play RB for us. We’re not running the I anytime soon. Given what I’ve seen of his hands and footwork and what he showed on his late touchdown catch, I’d be curious to see what he could be as a TE. He has a ton of athletic ability and versatility so if he doesn’t pan at RB, there’s still a lot we could do with him somewhere. A 10.8 100 for a big dude is no joke.
All in all, pretty pleased with what I saw for the good guys.
glenn said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
i’d like to have seen whaley teamed with rollison.
i saw chris open short several times, but his bama qb couldn’t seem to see anything but the end zone. the coaches had to call a screen pass to get the stiff to throw it to him.
The General said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I liked Tariq Allen, but I think Mad Dog turns him into Miguel McKay. He is very thick, though it looks like he is sporting some holiday poundage so maybe he will slim up.
The General said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The Bama QB looks like JP Wilson II
SlickStreet said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Very excited about Okafor’s future with us. As you note, though, he’ll have to learn to fight thru blockers, especially their holds if he’s going to get the QB in our conference.
Horncasting said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Regarding your comments on Davis:
“I saw him playing a lot of man-to-man CB; probably projects to safety.”
So are we not taking a true CB this year (assuming we don’t get Kirkpatrick)? I believe Barnett is also a safety and Vacarro may even be a S/LB hybrid. That means we took one (A. Williams) total over 2 classes, and he didn’t redshirt.
Completely agree with your comments on Whaley. Too bad our scheme has us less excited about this prospect that we should be.
71 Texasgrad said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Some worry worts around here. Mack, GD and Major surely know the scheme(s) we do and can run. Whaley is the guy they want. I’ll trust their judgement. They have a semi-decent track record.
BurntOrangeOnly said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The TE that Tariq Allen nailed was Jake Golic, ND commit and son of ESPN’s Mike Golic. heh heh
Way to go TA. Keep knocking the domers around!
Black Scholes said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
One of the things I find continually puzzling is situations like Whaley. Mack circled this kid two years ago as the one RB must-have in this class, and then went and got him. I just have to wonder if at some point in the process he actually has a conversation with his OC about a kid’s skills vis-a-vis our offense. Certainly some kind of disconnect; look at the last 10 RBs we took and you see few common denominators. It’s quite the varied bunch.
flamingmonkeyass said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Does anyone else salivate at the thought of getting Whaley into Muschamp’s hand and letting him turn that young man into our next Sergio Kindle?
justaguy said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Black Sholes,
I agree about the pieces Texas has gathered on the offensive side the ball. Horns have collected smaller backs in Foz, Hills, McGee (more short than small), two bigger backs in Whaley and Johnson, two backs in Newton and Cobb I am not where they fit, a few bigger receivers in Williams, Buckner, Grant, Payne, and Webber, and then a cluster of smaller guys like Kirkendoll, Collins, Shipley, Cosby, Fitzhenry, Hales, and Monroe.
It would seem Texas is preparing to run a spread offense with the smaller backs and receivers, but not all the pieces fit there and Texas at time insists on running a conventional offense.
That other guy said:
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
monkey fire butt, has whaley even played defense in HS? Have you ever seen him tackle anybody? Kindle played both ways in HS.
Newy25 said:
January 4th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Davis is a corner all the way. He is in the new mold of a 6′1 195-200 lb corner who can run and play man. Same thing for the DeSoto kid, White, who we are recruiting for 2010.
BatesHorn said:
January 4th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I’m beginning to wonder if we are seeing a downside to the spread: the need to take so many WR every year. Given the wildly unpredictable nature of WR recruiting and their subsequent ability/inability to pan out, it seems teams have to take a generous handful each recruiting cycle, thus placing extreme pressure on every other positional recruit to pan out.
This has always been true of O-linemen, but if you have to take 3-5 linemen and 3-5 WR every year, with schollie limits, it doesn’t give you any margin of error at other slots that can only bring 1-2 players per cycle.
Big Easy said:
January 4th, 2009 at 6:26 am
What is this “new mold” of which you speak? It hasn’t been that long since Westbrook and Jammer did their thing. We didn’t ditch man as our base coverage scheme until Bull Reese was put to pasture.
Levander Williams said:
January 4th, 2009 at 6:30 am
RE: the mish-mash of players at RB & TE – you could say the same about OL and QB for that matter.
Lots of great players, but nothing that clearly unifies them in a common theme.
Newy25 said:
January 4th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Westbrook and Jammer being players that come along every 4-6 years. Texas is beginning to take 1 every class now and that includes Aaron Williams.
The upside to recruiting that many receivers each year is that
a) Texas already did this
and
b) The more opportunity for receivers to play the better the chance they can develop properly.
Justaguy said:
January 4th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Levander,
Agree and I am just curious if the reason we see this eclectic grouping of talent on the offensive side of the ball is the push-pull between Greg Davis and Mack (and old offensive co-ordinator) as to whether the offensive should be passing oriented or a more traditional run based offense.
Newy24,
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. First, why is there an upside to Texas recruiting a large number of receivers if they “already did this”. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Additionally, wouldn’t more players on the roster at position mean less opportunity? Take Montre’ Webber and Philip Payne for example. They will be juniors next year and really haven’t shown much to date. With the emergence of Malcolm Williams this year along with Kirkendoll and Collins plus the hopefully progression of Buckner I don’t see much chance for either to make an impact in ‘09. Futhermore, does their being on the roster take practice time away from younger players like Grant and Hales or limit Texas signing other players in ‘10?
Look at RB, people talk about Texas taking 2 backs in ‘10, but can you do that when your current roster projects 8 backs currently on the roster through 2010?
Newy25 said:
January 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Justadouche-
I apologize if that does not make sense to you as I cannot make people smarter than they already are. At first I thought it was self explanatory but given your addmitted inability to grasp what I was alluding to I will parse it out for you.
Idea Proposed: The recent adoption of spread offenses would put a school like Texas in a tactical recruiting disadvantage due to the numbers needed at the position and scholarship limitations.
What I suggested: Texas already used more scholarships at WR than most schools did pre spread offense/iphone-esque mania.
The point (which you clearly missed): Texas is at no discernable disadvantage due to the spread offense.
And the point vis a vis Webber and Payne: Payne is not a natural WR as he played linebacker and RB in high school. Some observers (including me) feel he will never see the field unless he switches positions. Webber suffers from stone hands and makes Gideon and Thomas lok like they would rival Jerry Rice and Chris Carter in a catching drill.
But before the spread – Williams, Kirkendoll and Collins would not have played a serious role in a traditional I-form offense this year because Shipley and Cosby would certainly have taken a majority of the snaps….
Ergo the spread allows more opportunity for receivers to get on the field and develop.
Let me know if I spoke to quickly or used words that might not appear in a “College Football for Dummies” or “Chicken Soup for the College Football Soul” book.
Newy25 said:
January 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Also, I’m a polesmoker.
No really, I love cock. 100% gay.
BatesHorn said:
January 4th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I agree that we were ahead of the curve on bringing in additional receivers.
Newy25 said:
January 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
That is really classy Justaguy. If only I were mature enough (15 years old) I could have come up with a way to put you down like that.
Justaguy said:
January 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Newy25,
What the fuck are you talking about? That I made the comment after your response?
No wonder I couldn’t make sense of your first reply.
You are the one who calls names you are the ones who still can’t make a valid point.
The spread uses no more receivers than if Texas puts Colt under center and goes 3, 4, or 5-wide. Texas ran multiple receivers with Major and Chris so that isn’t anything new.
As far as playing time, Malcolm Williams didn’t get much time this year because he was behind Quan most of the season. Funny how his biggest game of the year was the game in Lubbock when Quan was out.
Go back and look, but the biggest complaint by many is Mack’s reluctance to play young players early in the season as well as continuing to run the full offense when the reserves do get a chance to play. The issue isn’t the formation, but meaningful opportunity.
Additionally, wide receiver is one position that has consistently offered the opportunity to scratch one’s head as Mack and his staff offer players that never see the field while other positions are a bit threadbare.
Now, I guess you are busy fashioning a reply that will no doubt include more insightful name calling and personification of the old adage “better to be thought a fool than proven one”.
Oh, and also remember that “profanity is a tool for the weak” so please pick the words in your response carefully so I can understand what you are trying to say and you don’t look like someone truly pathetic in trying to edify your internet persona instead of just having a simple conversation.
Black Scholes said:
January 4th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The anonymous poster (that’s you, newy25) with the unnecessary and inappropriately angry tirade to a perfectly innocuous post, and in the process misspelling a second-grade level word while proclaiming how smart he is?
Priceless.
Thanks for the unintended laugh.
Justaguy said:
January 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Go easy Black Sholes, Newy is just taking another step down the slippery slope of being this site’s version of William Foster.
BatesHorn said:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Not sure if I’m the reason for all the vitriol here, but my point was that the spread (or any offense that uses a lot of wide recievers on almost any play) forces a team (IMHO) to recruit 3-5 receivers every year, partially to ensure at least one is productive, and to account for grade and stupidity attrition, which every team faces.
In a regular I offense, you can probably get away with taking 1-2 WR a year. Again, just the ramblings of an incoherent mind.
hopefulhorn said:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Bates,
You are not the reason for the vitriol. Newy is. You can catch the same nasty act from him on other sites. He can be a bit of a jerk.
Justaguy said:
January 5th, 2009 at 7:28 am
BatesHorn,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my answer is no. Agree that when you run the multiple receiver sets you do need more receivers on the roster. I am sure someone can correct me, but I think that since the 1999 season Texas has frequently run 3-wides be it with the quarterback under center or the shotgun.
My point was that Mack for some reason has “collected” receivers or players that were converted to receivers that have you scratching your head. In all honesty, I would guess that on the offensive side of the ball Texas has signed more receivers that didn’t pan out for a variety of reasons in terms of percentage that didn’t contribute than pure numbers than any other offensive position.
Additionally, Texas seems to overload the roster with receivers and 2009 is no different. Texas will have 12 receivers on the roster with 11 coming back for at least 2010 if no one leaves.
Newy25 said:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I love how someone uses my name to call me a homoseuxal but then complains about my level of vitriol. That is priceless.