Quote:
Originally Posted by Detoxing
Look at his review of Matt Barkley, who is widely considered the #2 Prospect behind Geno. His review is glowing in comparison to Geno. The majority of it is positive. There are even built in excuses for Barkley (poor offensive line etc) yet no mention of Geno's shittastic O-Line and Defense and lack of a running game.
WVU had Austin, Baily and Geno. THAT'S IT. Yet he wants to single out the K-state game as the moment of truth for Geno and makes no note of the awful play of his defense.
But Barkley gets a built in excuse?
That is bullshit and it's biased
Here is the funniest thing:
What's Barkley's #1 question mark?
His Arm strength, right?
It's not even mentioned as a negative for Barkley.
And we're suppose to take this guys seriously? It REEKS of favoritism.
It's awful. Geno gets a laundry list of negatives, Barkely, the #2 Prospect gets a few sentences.
Yeah...i smell some favoritism and some Bullshit here.
The guy clearly has some ulterior motives. I'm not going to pretend i know what those motives are, but it's pretty ****ing blatant when you compare the reports side by side.
|
1. It's not surprising that his critique of Barkley is a little better than that of Smith since he gave him a higher grade.
2. Despite that higher grade, he doesn't treat Barkley with kid gloves. You're imagining that. Read these negatives again and tell me where he's making excuses:
Quote:
|
Negatives: Has short arms and average grip strength (student manager was fired for deflating balls). Does not snap it quickly and spiral is not tight. Heavy-footed and cannot improvise or create with his feet. Cannot easily manipulate his arm and throwing platform under duress and the ball dies when he can’t step into it. Does not drive the ball down the field with high RPMs. Not quick-eyed — many throws are pre-determined at the line, and he will hold the ball too long on some progressions. Can be streaky (see Washington). Never beat Stanford’s pro-style defense in four years.
|
3. Doesn't mention arm strength? Go back to 2. and read it again.
4. I don't know why you're trying so hard to see ulterior motives, but it seems to be screwing up your reading ability.