The Pacheco Lesson
- Thread starter ru-baby
- Start date
Ha. Talent differentials and depth are the culprits, with too much handwringing on other issues.
Been thinking about the lesson as it applies to Wimsatt. He looked better against bad D's BUT the accuracy issues were so much worse than expected. Makes it a hard analysis.
It does need to be considered that he played against some very stout D's with a talent differential additionally worsened by end of year injuries exposing depth problems. The lack of command of the huddle, getting in an out and to the LOS with anything greater than 10 seconds on the play clock so the D could tee off, forcing throws on 1st and 2nd down and throwing it away on 3rd down, and just bad, bad accuracy are all cause for concern. Again, due to the situation he was in and the results, the application to him is a tough call at this point.
Been thinking about the lesson as it applies to Wimsatt. He looked better against bad D's BUT the accuracy issues were so much worse than expected. Makes it a hard analysis.
It does need to be considered that he played against some very stout D's with a talent differential additionally worsened by end of year injuries exposing depth problems. The lack of command of the huddle, getting in an out and to the LOS with anything greater than 10 seconds on the play clock so the D could tee off, forcing throws on 1st and 2nd down and throwing it away on 3rd down, and just bad, bad accuracy are all cause for concern. Again, due to the situation he was in and the results, the application to him is a tough call at this point.
Exactly this! pacheco was our most talented player and yet we used him sparingly. Why? Now Pop is in the NFL and getting lots of touches. I do not understand why, when he was here we did not use him like we used Ray Rice!
The OCs he played under will never be mistaken for Andy Reid when it comes to offense.
Why? Because the OL he was running behind was not the line Ray Rice ran behind.
Boils down to not enough talent, not recruiting at a high enough level. Even if RU finds so called “under recruited talent” late bloomers, good kids from poor teams, it still takes 2-3 yrs to develop them, and you will not impact teams recruiting better talent on signing day.
Bottom line as Pacheco points out not enough talent dulls their more talented teammates capabilities
Bottom line as Pacheco points out not enough talent dulls their more talented teammates capabilities
It's disappointing. I honestly can't think of another example of a college player performing better in the pros.
Don't need NFL lineman, don't need to be Andy Reid. The simple truth is that the coaching staff failed to find creative ways to get him the ball.
Don't need NFL lineman, don't need to be Andy Reid. The simple truth is that the coaching staff failed to find creative ways to get him the ball.
I believe at one point it was at least 6.
AD
Fladell
Sosa
Zuttah
Stapleton
Stephenson
Good example actually. But other than the GOAT, my point was just it's not very common.
Let’s not extrapolate Pacheco playing for or being recruited by “blue bloods” he was a high school QB that someone on the Rutgers staff thought could be a college RB, Isaiah worked his butt of to get to where he is today. But he was not a can’t miss recruit. He worked hard and was developed by the staff. He may not have even gotten the opportunity at a different college. Agree that the talent of the O line was an impediment to better personal numbers.
Bill B. When asked about why he had such an affinity for Rutgers players answered they were better prepared and came with a great work ethic.
Overall talent is the current issue and can only be fixed over time through better recruiting or buying better players in the portal
Bill B. When asked about why he had such an affinity for Rutgers players answered they were better prepared and came with a great work ethic.
Overall talent is the current issue and can only be fixed over time through better recruiting or buying better players in the portal
Key word in my comment was IF he was able to start :) … competition is obviously a step up at the blue bloods.
He wasnt a great QB in college, 56% completion percentage in the mountain west. He was drafted for his potential and huge arm and got some great coaching in the pros.
Line play and QB play were much different than he has now.
Any comparisons are meaningless when you consider that but yea, he was never used right.
I’d also add he got much better. He had a lot of wasted movement running in college. Whoever trained him after college did an incredible job.
Any comparisons are meaningless when you consider that but yea, he was never used right.
I’d also add he got much better. He had a lot of wasted movement running in college. Whoever trained him after college did an incredible job.
There was also Kevin Haslam
Interesting factoid about Ray Rice - he was mostly recruited by other colleges (like Penn St) as a DB
He was an All State DB in HS before he was a RB.
He liked RU was going to let him be a RB (6th on depth chart when he got to RU)
Are you saying Mahomes is better than any QB on the staff when Pacheco was at Rutgers?
Not a chance. RBs are almost never high picks these days. Value avail in lower rounds. Barkley the exception. Short careers for RBs.
We have to give credit where credit is due. There are many players in his situation that did not do as well.
However, let's be honest here. He is on a team with a good line and arguably the best QB and TE in the league. The latter two opens up the running game big time. If we had this at Rutgers, the kid would have probably put up some crazy numbers here.
However, let's be honest here. He is on a team with a good line and arguably the best QB and TE in the league. The latter two opens up the running game big time. If we had this at Rutgers, the kid would have probably put up some crazy numbers here.
A lot of credit is due to Pach. His inside running game and vision has been great so far. The other backs on the team are also working with the same supporting cast. Pach deserves to play on a good team after years at RU. But I have no doubt he would’ve done well on a bad team too because the kid is a grinder.
It always annoys me when we lose a really good recruit because we won’t let them try for the position they want most
Or when we let them play their preferred position for about a month, switch them to another one, and coach them poorly.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Basketball Rutgers Women's Basketball routed at Washington as defense struggles
- Latest: richthedentist
-
