Illinois Football Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yesterday, a caller on the WDWS Saturday morning sports show stated that a transfer QB Peterson from Michigan would be visiting the Illinois this week. I believe he was referring to Brandon Peters ,who entered the transfer portal. I have not not heard any confirmation from a reliable source.
 
Yesterday, a caller on the WDWS Saturday morning sports show stated that a transfer QB Peterson from Michigan would be visiting the Illinois this week. I believe he was referring to Brandon Peters ,who entered the transfer portal. I have not not heard any confirmation from a reliable source.
Hmm... doesn’t seem like a fit
 
Likes: mhuml32

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
Hmm... doesn’t seem like a fit
He's definitely a drop-back pro-style QB. He was very highly touted coming out of HS -- very nearly a 5*. But never lived up to the hype at Michigan, and with Shea Patterson coming back, he really had no shot at any meaningful playing time.

If it's true that he's visiting, this doesn't seem to suggest that we're confident in the Fink kid.

Not really sure how Peters fits into this offense, to be honest.
 
He’s not Khalil Tate but Brandon Peters is athletic and can move well in and out of the pocket.

This kid is a significantly better prospect than both Tommy Stevens and Matt Fink. Peters is the definition of a gem for a program like ours.
 
Likes: Dude

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
He’s not Khalil Tate but Brandon Peters is athletic and can move well in and out of the pocket.

This kid is a significantly better prospect than both Tommy Stevens and Matt Fink. Peters is the definition of a gem for a program like ours.
Based on what?

He has very limited mobility, and has rushed for -36 yards in his career. He threw 2 whole passes last year -- 1 of which was intercepted. And in 2017, he was a 52% passer that bombed in his lone starter's outing against real competition (South Carolina in the bowl game, where he tossed 2 picks and 0 TDs).

Lots of hype coming out of HS. Good measurables. Has been mediocre at best on the field. And that's with Michigan talent surrounding him. How do you think he'd look behind our offensive line and with our WRs?

Fink doesn't have much of a track record, but Stevens has a much more impressive body of work -- and is a true dual-threat QB.
 
Based on what?

He has very limited mobility, and has rushed for -36 yards in his career. He threw 2 whole passes last year -- 1 of which was intercepted. And in 2017, he was a 52% passer that bombed in his lone starter's outing against real competition (South Carolina in the bowl game, where he tossed 2 picks and 0 TDs).

Lots of hype coming out of HS. Good measurables. Has been mediocre at best on the field. And that's with Michigan talent surrounding him. How do you think he'd look behind our offensive line and with our WRs?

Fink doesn't have much of a track record, but Stevens has a much more impressive body of work -- and is a true dual-threat QB.

I don’t disagree with you. But to be fair, a bowl game for a new qb, is a tough entry point. Sc game planned that game really well. No one on Michigan looked good that game. Including the defense. S.C. shut Michigan out of everything. Osu exposed Michigan. Peters did underwhelm, but I’m sure he has sufficient talent for us for a stop gap.

Thinking it through, Peters could be a great selection. He would be able to run the table early in the season. He has a different skill set than iw, which Allows for more opportunity for iw to get on the field while allowing Peters a chance if he is playing well. Makes gameplanning much more difficult.
 

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
Oh, don't get me wrong. Getting Peters would be beneficial, and at a minimum it gives us depth and competition in our QB room. I'd be all for it.

I'm just tempering the expectations a bit in terms of fit and productivity. But who knows....maybe a change of scenery would mean the world to him.
 
Based on what?

He has very limited mobility, and has rushed for -36 yards in his career. He threw 2 whole passes last year -- 1 of which was intercepted. And in 2017, he was a 52% passer that bombed in his lone starter's outing against real competition (South Carolina in the bowl game, where he tossed 2 picks and 0 TDs).

Lots of hype coming out of HS. Good measurables. Has been mediocre at best on the field. And that's with Michigan talent surrounding him. How do you think he'd look behind our offensive line and with our WRs?

Fink doesn't have much of a track record, but Stevens has a much more impressive body of work -- and is a true dual-threat QB.
You need to slow down a tad on the hyperbole train. None of these players have a better collegiate “body of work” than either of the other two as, frankly, not one of them has anything even resembling a “body of work”...period. Tommy Stevens will be 23 years old in December and has 41 career pass attempts, Matt Fink will be 22 and has thrown 18. There’s nothing to glean from that in terms of collegiate performance. What you’re viewing here is projectability and in that context, Brandon Peters is clearly the gem of the 3.
 
Likes: thunderwear

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
You need to slow down a tad on the hyperbole train. None of these players have a better collegiate “body of work” than either of the other two as, frankly, not one of them has anything even resembling a “body of work”...period. Tommy Stevens will be 23 years old in December and has 41 career pass attempts, Matt Fink will be 22 and has thrown 18. There’s nothing to glean from that in terms of collegiate performance. What you’re viewing here is projectability and in that context, Brandon Peters is clearly the gem of the 3.
Asking for evidence to support your assertion -- while providing the totality of Peters' body of work -- isn't a "hyperbole train".

You made assertions that don't appear to have any factual grounding. The guy has rushed for -37 yards. How's that going to fit in our offense, exactly? He completed 52% of his passes on a roster that featured a lot of skilled position talent. Stevens at least has demonstrated repeatedly that he can run. He has over 500 rushing yards and 8 rushing TDs -- not bad for a backup.

You're entitled to your opinion that Peters' is "the gem of the 3", but aside from his ranking coming out of HS (which amounts to little right now), very little seems to actually support that claim.
 
Asking for evidence to support your assertion -- while providing the totality of Peters' body of work -- isn't a "hyperbole train".

You made assertions that don't appear to have any factual grounding. The guy has rushed for -37 yards. How's that going to fit in our offense, exactly? He completed 52% of his passes on a roster that featured a lot of skilled position talent. Stevens at least has demonstrated repeatedly that he can run. He has over 500 rushing yards and 8 rushing TDs -- not bad for a backup.

You're entitled to your opinion that Peters' is "the gem of the 3", but aside from his ranking coming out of HS (which amounts to little right now), very little seems to actually support that claim.

I think Twangers is just saying that none of the qbs have a body of work. In the Michigan offense, it wasn't a run offense, so -37 yards doesn't tell us much. I have heard that he has a 4.7 40 time, so he could be a decent scrambler, when put into a dual system. Stevens has had quite a bit of garbage time and very little scouting, which will change as the starter. I personally think Stevens would have been the best, but I don't think it matters.
 

Deleted member 631370

D
Guest
True, though even Shea Patterson ran for almost 300 yards last year in that pro style offense. Peters was not only immobile, he was a dead man walking when protection broke down. He may have a good 40 time, but that sure didn't help him when he was pressured.

Now, imagine standing in the pocket against a pass rush with our WRs and offensive line? Agree that he could be a decent scrambler, but given our personnel, we'd be much better off with a true dual threat.

My point is, his demonstrated style of play -- and we're going by what each QB has demonstrated -- gives absolutely no indication that he'd be successful here.

There's not a lot of value in comparing him to Stevens considering Stevens is off the board. But he had at least shown the ability to run consistently. He played several key series last year due to McSorley's injuries, and was pretty consistent in the run game (and helped turn the Iowa game around). I haven't seen Fink hardly at all, so I can't really say how he stacks up to Peters.
 
Likes: thunderwear
Isiaih Zuber WR from KState has entered the portal. Grad transfer who will be eligible immediately. Wonder if the staff will take a look
 
Cincinnati, OH
Yes, he visited U of I this weekend.
Wow, I'm fairly surprised considering he is absolutely not a running QB. If Rod Smith is willing to tailor the offense to his strengths, I'm all for it (who the hell he is going to throw the ball to is a problem for another day).
 
Cincinnati, OH
Isiaih Zuber WR from KState has entered the portal. Grad transfer who will be eligible immediately. Wonder if the staff will take a look

127 career catches and 11 career TD's at a P5 school? It would be gross negligence to not take a look. Bigger question is whether he would be interested in Illinois.
 
Former Krush Cow
South Bend, IN
If Peters likes the B1G, wanted to be a starter but couldn't at Michigan, then I don't see how he wouldn't want to come here and basically just take the reigns. He's the perfect stop-gap until Williams is ready. Does he see himself as a MAC QB or a B1G QB? That's the question I guess he has to answer.
 
This is kind of random and irrelevant, but talking to my friend who says Kevo Wesley was a lock until Butkus left, not gonna go here anymore. My friend is also an O-Line recruit and says most O-Line kids are afraid to go here because of the lack of depth on the O-Line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.