Worth pointing out there are some pretty large & noticeable omissions in this article about draft prospects to watch in upcoming bowl games:
- Arizona vs New Mexico.
RichRod has said Scooby Wright is going to suit up. Scooby has also said he's healthy and raring to play. Hes a top 10 LB/IDP guy as it stands right now.
Cayleb Jones is listed by Walterfootball ahead of peers like Spruce, North & Duke Williams. Mid round picks all and certainly more prominent than some of the other WRs mentioned in other games in the piece, so he needs to be listed too.
Toledo vs Temple
Counting players like Alonzo Russell but not a guy with a Senior Bowl Invite (Tavon Young) is another alarm bell.
San Diego St vs Cincinnati
Listed Lasco (California, RB) elsewhere as well as Johnson (Marshall, RB), but CBSsports has Donnel Pumphrey right behind Johnson and a half dozen+ places ahead of Lasco, yet he isnt listed here.
Pittsburgh vs Navy
Keenan reynolds has an East/West Shrine game invitation. At RB fwiw.
I get navy run a Johnson-esque triple offence so you might be sceptical about him, but in listing other potential UDFAs its hard to justify ignoring a guy who just broke ADPs college rushing TD record and (up until last month, at any rate) was considered an outsider for the Heisman.
He had more votes than Leonard Fournette when the counts were in (180 vs 150)!!!
CAL vs AF
Wont belabour it, but omitting Kenny Lawler is another head scratcher.
There're probably more, but i didnt read it fully.
If you do get around to revising it though, id be more than happy to proof/scan over it, if youd like/if itd be of any help?
This isnt a post without positives though ...
I thought it was a well timed piece, and a thoroughly relevant article. The .PDF is also a fantastic idea and something id definitely consider using.
The only drawback - and like i said in the opening this isnt posted to berate yourself or belabour a point - is a big one in that (whatever youre putting out there) if it has more than one inaccuracy, inconsistency, omission, or error thats factual rather than opinion-based, then you're on the back foot and run the risk of being dismissed out of hand. Which would be a shame.
Wouldnt take the time to post if i didnt think the piece wasnt worth it Id recommend a speedy edit. GL with the rest of your stuff