BlueStar II
New Member
- Messages
- 1,815
- Reaction score
- 1
NextGenBoys;2011278 said:I go to the University of Iowa and have been a student there for three years now. I have seen Godfrey play in every game. This is probably the one and only time on this board that I'm going to have the most information about a prospect.
If anyone has any questions about him, ask away and I'll do my best to answer.
That being said, for the most part the scouting is fairly accurate. The first report is a bit homerish, but still fairly accurate. I dont know about future Pro Bowler, but he will be a productive player, make no mistake about it.
Some things I want to note, is he is a very good tackler. Very good. Very physical. He is an ideal Cover 2 corner, but thats not saying he can't be successful in different schemes.
His main weakness, as stated is ball recognition. He isnt at his best when the ball is in the air. I dont know if its the coaching at Iowa, but our corners have never had great skills while the ball is in the air.
The 2nd scouting report offered that was posted by BlueStar is kind of contradicting. It says he has good ball skills (which I disagree with) yet then says that he gets beat too often. He got beat more than I would have hoped, but nothing too bad. Then again the way Iowa's defense played this past year, it would be hard not too.
*And in response to theogt, he had 40 balls caught on him because the Iowa offense was inept and could not stay on the field. That and they play a bend dont break defense that is going to give up completed passes. Problem is, the past year, they bended too far, often breaking and allowing TD's.
Thanks for giving us some inside info. from someone who has actually seen him play on a regular basis, that's nice to have that here. If you were speaking of what I posted earlier, what I posted was what I found on a web site and simply copied/pasted it so that it gave us just some general info. on him, but I would prefer to hear from someone who can speak from having seen him play on a regular basis instead. Thanks again.