quote:
Klunker -- the young man is a fantastic student. Probably a hard working player. But he is very unathletic and poor performer for his position now.

He was a 2nd team DL in district 5-5A.

He will not become athletic just because they put him at Guard.

Unathletic?
The kid played three different sports. (Football, Basketball, and Track and field)If you have ever seen this kid play basketball or focused on his footwork in football, you would never question his athleticism. Every offer this kid has gotten he has had to showcase his skills for. He has gone to all of those places and pretty much had to try-out for his offers. He got offers from Michigan State, Penn State, TCU, Stanford, and Maryland. Top 5-Top 25 schools. He must have some kind of Athleticism. He has proven himself. By the way, you can win with hard working players on the collegiate level.

Poor Performer?
I agree with you here. He didn’t show up like I thought he would this season. I know he mostly was out the game by halftime in most of his games and I know he played with knee and ankle injuries most of the season but I still felt he could have done more. Even so he still put up the same numbers as people like Mickey Johnson.

He will not become athletic just because they put him at Guard?
Obliviously you don't know too much about lineman. Defensive linemen are definitely more athletic than o-lineman. Lance may not be there 100% as far as measurable go for a DT but his measurable are above average for an O-linemen.

quote:
2nd team DL in district 5-5A?

Again I agree with you. Even though the way they pick the lineman is stupid I still say this kid should have first team if he was worth anything. But answer me this, would it be easier to run down the middle or on the side where Lance is, who stuffed the hole not matter what happens, or run to the outside on the opposite side of Lance take your chances against smaller and slower DE.( Besides Grant Venable because he had a good season.) I think I would not run at Lance. He didn’t see very much action. But he still should have performed better.

Either way guys, LSU is not missing out on anything. Even if the kid was first team All-American, he would not have gone to LSU anyways. He wanted to go somewhere with a good depth He never showed any interest in LSU and didn't go to their camp.He wanted to go somewhere with a good depth chart and great academics and he is going to get that at Stanford. LSU could not give him that. So LSU technically wins because if he sucks in college, they didn’t waste time recruiting Lance. If he shocks everyone and becomes a great player LSU can always say he didn’t want to come here. Everyone is happy.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by insidefire

Baton Rouge

Member since Dec 2009

6 posts

Posted on 1/1/11 at 7:59 am to Rockerbraves

Callihan is a talented DT that played on an undersized defense. Long arms and good upper body strength, needs to get stronger on the bottom half. He often engages too high, but that will change at the next level or he will not see the field. Catholic has had 3 DC's in the last 3 years. No stability there, Catholic's defense in the past has been predicated by tough, hard nosed defenders that know the scheme inside and out. Hard to spend time correcting DT's pad elevation when you have LB's playing D-line, DB's playing LB's and undersized underclassmen playing DB. There were a couple players on that defense that would have benefited greatly from a more successful unit, especially Callihan. Lance Callihan is a player that div 1's need to have, excellant student, unquestionable character and great measurables. I would take a chance on those assets.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is he as good as advertised? I saw Catholic play Acadiana in last years 5A state quartefinals, and I remember just watching small linemen just blow him off the ball. A couple of months pass, and I heard he committed to stanford. I know hes a smart kid, but top level D1 talent isnt what I saw on display that day (maybe he just had a really bad game).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel your concerns on wheter or not he is as good as advertised. I had the same concern. However, his performance in the Acadiana game was bad probably because he played with a hip pointer and hamstring injuries that he recieved in the comeaux game the week before.I was suprised he played. And then he came back and had 7 or 8 tackles vs West Monroe the following week. It seems to me he plays to the level of his opponent. My take on the kid is he is a big athletic kid who hasn't played the game long. He needs to get stronger and become more consistent if he wants to see the field in college. If Lance does what he needs to do to improve as a player, he will be a big force at the next level. The worst thing that can happen is they move him to offensive guard and think at that position, I think he will be the one of the most athletic guards in the nation.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by GeauxLSUGeaux

1 room down from Erin Andrews

Member since May 2004

25637 posts

Posted on 1/1/11 at 2:34 pm to klunker9000

OK, so what have we learned in this thread...

1) 2nd team all district in a weak district at DL = One of the most athletic guards in the nation

2)Lance wasn't interested in LSU because apparently LSU's depth and academics aren't good enough.

3) You can't be a great player on defense unless you have great players around you.

BTW, he has offers from Arkansas State, Maryland, Memphis,Tulane and Western Kentucky.

Not Michigan State, TCU, or Penn State. But atleast TCU had some interest.

LINK

Nothing to see here, hope he does well at Stanford

This post was edited on 1/1/11 at 4:43 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Enfuego

Uptown

Member since Mar 2009

9961 posts

Posted on 1/1/11 at 2:52 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux

so overrated... he must have looked good in camps without pads

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by klunker9000

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Member since Jul 2010

26 posts

Posted on 1/1/11 at 6:44 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux

Obviously you have some more to learn. Just because it isn't on rivals doesn't mean anything. I pretty sure coaches do not make in-home visits to guys they don't offer. I'm just saying. You still got some lessons to learn young buck.

Page 1 2