Just read an article discussing how Oregon is taking another grad transfer at QB from the lower football ranks and thought it was interesting reading about this kid. He ended up at Montana St because he wasn't recruited out of HS, although considered walking on at Tech, and a big reason for that was he was playing at a new HS they claim. Now the kid had some athletic ability running a 4.5 at the Tech, so it isn't completely crazy that the kid did develop, but it shows just how weird the whole recruiting and developing a prospect is.
It's just crazy when you think about it all the variables in play. There is no specific formula here, but there are some ingredients I think that you can look at. But started thinking about some specific examples with KU - would Jacorey Shepherd had made it to the NFL if he hadn't switched to CB his sophomore season? Would Tanner Hawkinson had made it to the NFL if he hadn't switched to the OL? Now I think you can look at the skill set those kids and it isn't crazy to project them to those positions because of their size/frame/ability. But then I think of guys like Lane Johnson who was at OU - did anyone end up seeing him as a 6' 6" 210 lbs QB in HS growing into a 300 lbs OL being drafted in the NFL in the top 10?
Looking at this kid transferring to Oregon, would he have developed just as well had he gone to a D1 school? I think some schools he would have, some he wouldn't have. Which gets me thinking about this whole argument that one school develops kids better than another school. I could be way off here, but I tend to think a school can hurt a kid more than help a kid. A lot of those schools pumping out NFL recruit after NFL recruit are doing so because they are getting really talented kids in their program. At the same time, not necessarily at the top schools, I think some kids have hurt themselves by choosing to go to a specific school. So when thinking about a specific ingredients that makes or breaks a kid, it varies greatly, but I think these are 3 ingredients you see in a lot of these kids that develop:
Luck - maybe prepared is a better word, but sometimes a kid gets lucky in not having injuries, choosing the right school/right fit/etc. A little bit of luck can certainly help
Playing Time - now this isn't necessarily true for every single prospect, but I think actually playing in a live game helps prepare kids more than anything. Sometimes these kids won't play until they are juniors because of depth reasons, but when I think of guys from KU that made it to the NFL almost all of these guys got a lot of playing time for 3 or more years.
The person themselves - this could vary from a person just being so athletically talented that they are going to play (size, speed, etc that is elite) to just a kid having that mindset that he will work every year and become better every year. Now coaching plays a part here some of course, but I think the individual person is responsible for this - it is on this person to lift the weights, put in the time, etc.
More goes into it than that, but I think you could point to the majority of the success having these three elements involved. That's when I read things like Amani Bledsoe could develop better at an OU or Baylor...my question is is that really true? If you flipped the rosters of OU and KU, would those kids have developed much differently? To an extent that is true for sure, but at the end of the day I think the kid himself plays a bigger part to this as does playing time. Sorry for the long ramble on this, but think things are a bit skewed when thinking about development of a prospect...football is weird...
It's just crazy when you think about it all the variables in play. There is no specific formula here, but there are some ingredients I think that you can look at. But started thinking about some specific examples with KU - would Jacorey Shepherd had made it to the NFL if he hadn't switched to CB his sophomore season? Would Tanner Hawkinson had made it to the NFL if he hadn't switched to the OL? Now I think you can look at the skill set those kids and it isn't crazy to project them to those positions because of their size/frame/ability. But then I think of guys like Lane Johnson who was at OU - did anyone end up seeing him as a 6' 6" 210 lbs QB in HS growing into a 300 lbs OL being drafted in the NFL in the top 10?
Looking at this kid transferring to Oregon, would he have developed just as well had he gone to a D1 school? I think some schools he would have, some he wouldn't have. Which gets me thinking about this whole argument that one school develops kids better than another school. I could be way off here, but I tend to think a school can hurt a kid more than help a kid. A lot of those schools pumping out NFL recruit after NFL recruit are doing so because they are getting really talented kids in their program. At the same time, not necessarily at the top schools, I think some kids have hurt themselves by choosing to go to a specific school. So when thinking about a specific ingredients that makes or breaks a kid, it varies greatly, but I think these are 3 ingredients you see in a lot of these kids that develop:
Luck - maybe prepared is a better word, but sometimes a kid gets lucky in not having injuries, choosing the right school/right fit/etc. A little bit of luck can certainly help
Playing Time - now this isn't necessarily true for every single prospect, but I think actually playing in a live game helps prepare kids more than anything. Sometimes these kids won't play until they are juniors because of depth reasons, but when I think of guys from KU that made it to the NFL almost all of these guys got a lot of playing time for 3 or more years.
The person themselves - this could vary from a person just being so athletically talented that they are going to play (size, speed, etc that is elite) to just a kid having that mindset that he will work every year and become better every year. Now coaching plays a part here some of course, but I think the individual person is responsible for this - it is on this person to lift the weights, put in the time, etc.
More goes into it than that, but I think you could point to the majority of the success having these three elements involved. That's when I read things like Amani Bledsoe could develop better at an OU or Baylor...my question is is that really true? If you flipped the rosters of OU and KU, would those kids have developed much differently? To an extent that is true for sure, but at the end of the day I think the kid himself plays a bigger part to this as does playing time. Sorry for the long ramble on this, but think things are a bit skewed when thinking about development of a prospect...football is weird...
