BillySee58

He also only started like 16 combined games, so those stats are closer to one full season than two full seasons, and as a true freshman and true sophomore. But yeah, I wasn't saying the kid is some all-conference P5 QB, although he has the talent to be after he sits out next year. FFR just made it seem like he was an example of a misevaluation by P5 coaches. Which was also about 3 FFR tangents away from the point I was actually trying to make.

He's a good runner, but 5.7 yards/carry and 80 rushing yards a game doesn't mean he's elite athletically. He wouldn't have multiple P5 offers as a receiver or running back prospect. Your observation on state championship offenses wasn't dismissed. You said Westlake had several elite athletes but still lost to a running team. I said no they didn't because elite athletes who get the college exposure that Westlake gives would have P5 offers. They don't. So lining up in the wishbone or power I doesn't make sense to increase their chance to win a state championship. No, you've definitely been twisting what I say. If my sworn enemy UNTLifer is saying you're twisting my statements then it's obvious.

Also not what I said. Just said they don't have an elite athlete to hand the ball to (like Anderson, as my example) but they have an elite passing QB (not running QB) so running the offense they did was in their best interest. Regardless of whether they won a state championship or not.

That's because he is a kid we already got. He signed last February under Mccarney. I said I agree. I just said that I like taking projects like these under somewhat similar circumstances, provided that it's just one or two a class and the rest are legit-FBS prospects who we had to out recruit schools to get.

No I didn't. You said Westlake had several "'ELITE ATHLETES' and couldn't beat the run teams with them." You made it sound like they lost despite having elite athletes because they tried to throw the ball instead of power run it. They just lost. With Westlake's roster it made sense to run the offense they did, because they didn't have a player like Darius Anderson to hand the ball to 35 times.

Can't tell if you're being serious or not. But it looks like you honestly believe Kyle Allen is this clear example of P5 coaches misevaluating a QB prospect. He has who won a bowl against a P5 school, beat the defending national runner up on the road as a true freshman, and has thrown 33 touchdowns against 14 interceptions as a true freshman and sophomore combined. You're just all over the place though. I never said every P5 recruit ends up a great player. But if a player is getting P5 offers for his athleticism (like a back or wildcat-type QB), then he is elite on the high school level. How a player like that's college career ends up does not change that fact. You have transformed that point so much, and so ridiculously. He's clearly the better recruiting head coach. You can wait and see, but it's not even close. That being said, Littrell hasn't done anything thus far, or shown signs of doing things that coaches shouldn't be able to do here. Or even shown that he can pull off more in recruiting than a guy like Brad Smiley, who we could've gotten for half of Smiley's projected salary. Mccarney really was that bad. There was a big gap between Mccarney's recruiting and getting players good enough to win CUSA championships. The question with Littrell is will he fall in that gap or be better.

Did you forget the post you quoted me in? Look what I said at the bottom. It's easier to get a kid when he knows he'll be a primary focus as a QB. But yeah, that was only a part of Mccarney's problem. It was just recruiting in general. Basically Littrell is a better recruiter than Mac and has an offense that makes it at least a little easier to recruit to than what Mac wanted to do.

You're trying to make this a black and white thing, and it's not. There are always going to be great teams that run the ball a lot and win state titles. Especially when they have elite athletes who are going to BIGXII or other P5 schools. Trinity was the dominant team a few years back when I played, because they had big offensive lines and elite athletes like Brandon Carter. What does that have to do with whether or not D1-caliber QB prospects care about what offense they're going to play in in college? Nothing. Like I said, having a spread offense does help get good QB recruits, but obviously recruiting has to be there. And you can recruit good QBs to less-spread offenses, it's just at least a little harder. Yes. They had a good team, and played a good game. Allen was vulnerable with their QB play. P5 college coaches agree that Westlake has just one elite athlete, too.

That is not true. They had good high school players, but not elite athletes. Other than Westlake's QB Ehlinger, neither team had legitimate P5-caliber playmakers. And he was elite as a passer, not as much as a runner. Yeah, Anderson from George Ranch is an elite athlete. Multiple P5 offers including Texas. I don't get what you're trying to say about a 6'0" 250 lb guard. Are you implying that's small? Because that's a pretty good sized high school guard.

If you don't have the elite athletes to hand the ball off/use as a primarily running QB then running a spread and trying to spread the ball around gives you a higher ceiling. Which isn't a state championship either way if you don't have elite players.

That's because in high school you just put the ball in the hands of your best athletes, and there's such a big gap in ability between them and most players that they can take care of the rest. If you don't have a legit D1 QB then why try getting the ball downfield to your one or two stars when you can just hand them the ball and get 8 yards every carry? Usually I think people made that comment regarding quarterbacks not wanting to play primarily under center, and wanting to play in a spread offense. I think that hurt us, but not as much as having an awful recruiting staff and HC/OC combo. We didn't recruit great at QB, but we really weren't recruiting any worse at QB than other positions.

Picked up ULM and San Diego State offers this year. Also had 1900 yards and 20 scores rushing. Really would like this kid, and was thinking he'd have more offers by now.

Just realize that it's far from a sure thing that we offer just because the coaches follow a kid. They follow plenty of kids who they don't actually offer. That being said, this kid could definitely get an offer and would be deserving of it.

Looks like Perry and Patrick are doing a good job of reviewing and familiarizing Littrell with the players we recruited before. I'm sure they'll take a look at the guys who will be de committing, especially if we were looking at them before. Guys like Tucker and Cook are recruits who have the offer lists that I want in our signees, realistically. Not great, but good solid G5 offer lists similar to the all-CUSA guys we've had like Zach Orr, Bellazin, Y'Barbo, Lemon, and Akunne. That being said, I didn't think we had a chance at guys like this with Mccarney, even though there were no schools on those offer lists that we should've matched up poorly against. Good to see us get another chance with these type of kids but with Littrell in charge.

And none of those 4 teams have won a game against a division 1 opponent.

Pretty typical for QBs to have braces on the knee of their plant leg.

He started off at QB here. Has an awful throwing motion.

Yeah, I know why you made a thread on him. Just interested that we might pursue a juco when it seemed we wouldn't.

I'm wondering why the coaches are thinking about going after this kid when they made no effort to bring in any juco prospects the weekend before mid-term signing day. Maybe it was too short notice, and maybe they do still try and bring this kid in before the spring semester starts.

You are correct. For every scholarship short of 25 this class ends up using, that's how many extra we can have next class. Provided that the number in excess of 25 is at least how many mid-term enrollees we get next class. An example would be us signing 22 kids this class. We would be 3 short of 25, so 3 is the magic number. Next class (2017) we could sign 3 more than 25, so 28. We would be able to sign 28 provided that at least 3 signees (the magic number in this case) were mid-term enrollees, so were enrolled by January 2017.

That's why I explained it in detail. Thank you.

We've had this discussion before. I agree with you, and what you are saying. I'm not discrediting parental/mentor research and knowledge. What I'm responding to is a statement that said "most high school seniors who grew up watching Harrell light it up at Tech".

If he graduated then yes. I haven't seen it officially announced that he's leaving yet, though

It would also be nice if he could reach out to the receiver Chase Cokley from Austin Westlake, who is listed as a commit on rivals and 247

Agreed. But I'm fine with taking a project like this, with somewhat similar circumstances. This kid didn't play until his senior year, I believe, plus his brother made it to the NFL so he has genetics on his side. Not like a kid who has been playing football for 10 years, been to all the camps in high school, playing for a big-exposure school like Coppell and still unable to pick up any FBS offers.