Evaluation:Jones (Pictured Above) played both ways, receiver and cornerback, but mostly receiver. He didn’t get the ball thrown his way much, being on a loaded team, so we watched him mostly just run routes. Physically he looks a little bigger than he did just three weeks ago at The Opening L.A. On the few series when he played corner we once again had it confirmed for us that what we saw at the The Opening wasn’t a mirage; he again showed some elite athleticism and instincts. With how he’s developing physically, and how high of a commodity an elite cornerback is, Jones is easily one of the most important UCLA targets for 2016. Here’s the Interview we did with Jones. UCLA Offer
Evaluation:Again, like it was at The Opening, Long was right there in terms of being impressive working at cornerback as Jones. In the two games we saw of Long he wasn’t challenged much, and was able to stay with his man without exerting too much energy, but he was so focused it looked like he was working on world peace. He’s about 5-11, with a bit of a compact body, perhaps not as long as you’d like, but his feet, change-of-direction and instincts also make him a big UCLA priority. UCLA Offer
Evaluation:We watched Warner for one series, actually just a couple of plays, before he got injured (appeared to be a knee). We did watch him in warm-ups some, and he moved better than he did a few weeks ago at The Opening. He has good size and a good body to play safety in college, and has a good feel for coverage. UCLA Offer
Evaluation:In 7-on-7, when many defenses are running a sloppy zone, a guy like Alloway can literally get open on every down, and he did. He is pretty explosive, and he’d simply burst into an open seam, then mostly just wave his arms to try to get the attention of the quarterback who, 95% of the time, was looking elsewhere. When he did have the ball thrown his way, he was very natural catching it, as opposed to the few drops he had at The Opening. He looks to be the slot-type of guy UCLA covets. UCLA Offer
Evaluation:We like Crawford. He has a combo of size (probably close to 6-1 and 190), length and good quickness for his size. Perhaps in another year that isn’t so loaded with receivers in the west he’d stand out more. He’s a good prospect, very deserving of four stars, but he isn’t a guy who can separate or go up and get any ball from any defender. UCLA should definitely take him, even though it’s pretty well-known he’s leaning heavily to USC. UCLA Offer
Evaluation:We like Beck, and consider him a solid cornerback prospect. He’s a bit smallish, at about 5-10 and 175, and narrow-framed, but he has some length to him. He moves well, flips his hips well, and plays physically. What we like about him, too, is his intensity, going hard on every rep. UCLA hasn’t offered and he’s pretty far down the road with other programs in his recruitment, but we could possibly envision UCLA getting more seriously involved, with Beck being from St. John Bosco – and if he attends UCLA’s camp in June and gets in front of UCLA Defensive Backs Coach Demetrice Martin.
Evaluation:O’Brien might have had the best day of any quarterback at The Opening, and he looked pretty good throwing the ball Sunday. He has a nice, natural throwing motion and is accurate. He doesn’t have a great body, and will have to work to make it D-1 worthy, but in a year when there aren’t a great deal of quarterbacks in the west we could see him potentially getting some lower Pac-12 offers. He’s a life-long USC fan, and we think it’s arguable who’s better – 0’Brien or Fink, who, like we said, USC just offered.
Evaluation:James is someone we hadn’t seen before but caught our eye. He did so when, as a receiver, facing a pretty loaded team, he was triple-teamed on a fade in the endzone and skyed over the three defenders and came down with it. We started watching him from that point on and really liked him. He has good size, at probably 6-1.5 and is well-built. He ran well and just had a knack for catching the ball in traffic. He has an offer from Montana, and in a year that is deep for receivers, we could see that he might be overlooked.
Evaluation:If Joseph Lewis were in the 2016 loaded receiver class in the west, a class that is one of the deepest ever, he might be our #1 receiver prospect. He’s that good of a prospect. He’s big, fast and just physically dominating. We’ve heard he’s one of those USC-childhood kids, but UCLA should really put in a major effort right now, in March of his sophomore year, to turn that around.
Evaluation:Johnson, the 2017 running back prospect, worked mostly as a nickel back Sunday, and had some ups and downs. He probably did it because, as a running back, you don’t play much in 7-on-7 and he wants to get on the field. Just from an eye-ball standpoint he definitely passes the test, at an easy 5-10 and a solid 185 – just where you’d like a running back to be physically as a sophomore.
Evaluation:Taylor is an intriguing 2017 prospect. He’s easily 6-3, but very angular. He looks like a small forward more than anything else at this point. He lined up at cornerback and, going up against non D-1 receiver competition, he did fine. He ran really well for his size and length. But he just doesn’t have the fast-twitch for a cornerback with that long body. The issue is, at this point in his development, we don’t know what he is. You’d naturally say safety, but he looks too angular for that, too. Perhaps when he fills out more (even though he’s filled out pretty decently in his upper body already), he’ll look more like a safety. We have no idea if he can catch, but we’d definitely like to see him as a receiver.
There were a number or prospects participating that are well-known to be heavy USC leans, like Javon McKinley and Tyler Vaughns, and 2017 cornerback Thomas Graham, but we don’t feel the need to do evaluations of them.
UCLA’s committed linebackers Lokeni Toailoa and Krys Barnes (pictured below) were in attendance but didn’t participate. Toailoa said he injured his hamstring at The Opening. UCLA-committed athlete Demetric Felton didn’t attend, at least in the day’s first session.