OT Simon Goines to sign with UCLA

"The 6-8 Texas OL prospect, Simon Goines, says he'll sign with UCLA..." from the front page of scout.

4 months ago bruin714 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Awesome! 8 clap.

by SPTSJUNKIE on Jan 30, 2012 12:57 PM PST reply actions

Wow...

A big get in many ways. Size, another big ugly for the trenches, a Texas pipeline. Very nicely done!

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Jan 30, 2012 1:01 PM PST reply actions

I know the gap between a 5* and a 3* in QB and WR position can be huge. But what’s the gap between a 5* lineman [Armstead] and a 3* lineman [Goines]. They look to be about the same size and weight. It would seem that good coaching would close the gap during Goines freshman year. Thanks again for any insight.

by Go Bruins on Jan 30, 2012 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

Goines was a 4*

then somehow got scaled down to 3*. They often do that when they re-jigger the ratings at the end of the season. What you should look at is how many offers he had and from which schools. I don’t know how good his HS team was either, sometimes these guys fly under the radar.

Finally, for a sense of what these ratings are good for, just look at U$C: two years ago, U$C had five 5* recruits. Four of them have already left the program, with Robert Woods being the only one left…

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Jan 30, 2012 1:48 PM PST up reply actions

Seems like the bigger guys have room to grow and improve...harder to rank.

You can’t teach a 4.2 40.

by Bruin'96 on Jan 30, 2012 4:33 PM PST up reply actions

Sure would like to have Bo Jackson.

Been a Bruin since birth

by LongtimeBru on Jan 30, 2012 7:08 PM PST up reply actions

there's a lot more to it than that

I think it’s too detailed for a comment in a fanpost. I think we’ve written about it pretty extensively though.

I would also guess, without data, that predicting the success of OL might be trickier than, say, RB or WR because so much of OL development depends on whether the prospect is able to add functional lean muscle mass and lose fat while not losing athleticism or mobility, and having to predict all of this in teenagers who still aren’t growing is tough. My theory is that it’s easier for RB or WR because because the guy either has the speed that’s necessary (but not sufficient) for success or he doesn’t.

by Odysseus on Jan 30, 2012 1:30 PM PST reply actions