Allow me to preface this by saying that my premise could be completely off. As I remember this, DAT was actually more highly rated as a defensive back than as an offensive player, and one of the things that drew him to UO was that he wanted to play with the ball. Similarly, my recollection is that Lyerla was a five-star athlete primarily due to his effectiveness at linebacker, but instead he was brought in to play tight end. Thinking about this makes me wonder--would the Ducks have been better off with those two playing on the defensive side of the ball? Would the players have excelled more greatly in those roles, and ended up better NFL prospects? Would they have even come to/stayed at Oregon if they were expected to play defense? Is this (defensive players insisting on playing offense) an indicator of a player that is more trouble than he's worth? What do you guys think?
I do believe you're correct on both points of position recruitment. Both players were also needed high attention from one standpoint or another. Kelly needed to keep his thumb on DAT with everyday "Coaching" sessions and Colt apparently always needed someone to keep a thumb on him to keep him straight and that is from what other people who coached him have said.
DAT definitely wouldn't have come, Colt who knows what the hell he might have done? DAT had an amazing career at Oregon on offense, so I really don't know why you're asking this in regards to him. On the other hand Colt seems to be case in point in how character matters. Oregon looked past all sorts of red flags in signing the home state kid. good grief... when I speculate with little to nothing to back it up I say I'm speculating. As opposed to Colt, DAT had zero off field issues prior or as a Duck. It was widely reported he made the honor role, including a 4.0 semester his Freshman season. The public story was that Kelly personally coached him because (as opposed to every other player) he was performing at multiple offensive positions and couldn't attend the positional meetings for RB without missing the positional meetings for WR and Special Teams. Kelly being the architect of the O was the perfect coach to bridge the gaps and have him up on his responsibilities for each spot. He performed at a high level from the get go. Given how he did and his lack of fuck ups, that seems a whole lot more plausible then the nonsense you're pushing. anyhoo, for those keeping score... Oregon has signed 4-5* kids in the past decade. Lache, Colt, DAT, and Thomas Tyner. What I take from their respective careers is that character really does matter STOMP
I've been saying for a long time that I think DAT could have been an all-pro corner back, but will be a great return man at best as an offensive player. Lyerla....the dude is an athlete. He could have played many positions, but has a 2 cent head.
@ Stomp I do not care what other say on this ONE issue. A 5 star Defensive Back does not translate into a 5 star slot receiver. It is a FACT that DAT chose UO over USC because Oregon was going to let him play offense. Just because Oregon let him play offense as opposed to defense does not translate into keeping your 5 star rating even though it was at another position. It just doesn't work that way, and the same can be said for Arik Armstead but that's another topic in of it's self. Colt would have still come to Oregon because we had the SWAG at the time and USC was down. Nothing in Lyerla's history supports otherwise. Lyerla is being a revisionist because it suits him right here and now. Love the kid but it is what it is. I do tend to believe that Oregon "Shop-Lifted" kids that waned to play defense (And probably should have played defense) to make the Oregon program better. DAT, Lyerla, Armstead, would have been great players had they been recruited and landed at the positions they were recruited for but it made Oregon better to give in and play them at the potions they WANTED to play for. IS there a complaint here? It is what it is?! Character does matter but I think Oregon got a jump start by "Over-looking" some flaws that we beneficial to them and I'm not overlooking that matter.
De'Anthony was rated a 5* by rivals as an Athlete not as a Corner... hell, they rated him as the 5th best overall prospect in the country. Not only are you just dead flat wrong here about how he was rated coming out of HS, but he absolutely crushed as a collegiate athlete producing gaudy stats and an all time signature play for the program in the Rose Bowl. Oregon played him as an Athlete, and he was very productive justifying the rating. I still don't get why you were disparaging his character with the under Kelly's "coaching" thumb crap, but whatever if memory serves, going into his Senior year Scout rated Armstead the #1 overall prospect as an Offensive Lineman. But his rivals personal profile had him rated him as a *4 DLineman & 61st overall prospect. Like most D1 athletes in HS, Arik played both ways. I don't love the kid at all. From the many stories, he seems like a bonehead & a loser... someone I'd avoid Oregon tells kids they can go out for whatever position they choose but the coaches decide who plays. Why should I be upset with this if it's making the program better? I'm much more concerned about how they do at Oregon then how their pro career goes. again with the vague references... what specific character flaws are you referring to with DAT? That he dared to decide his own path choosing Oregon? STOMP
