Thursday Recruitin' Takes A Tumble

I wouldn't put any stock in performance at the UA game.  He didn't get a lot of snaps, and all of the QBs looked pretty bad.  If he were going to Bama or USC, they'd have him as the #1 QB and 6*

I think a redshirt year will benefit Shane immensly, however, considering our lack of QB depth I do not forsee that happening. 

with mono.  I wouldn't worry about his performance at the UA game very much. 

/TROLLIN

This is pure speculation and just my opinion, but I think a redshirt will be PERFECT for Shane.

I think he needs a year to just relax, know that he's not trying to impress anyone, and just be a kid.

When I saw him at the beginning of the summer, he was smiling, happy - seemed like a normal 17 year old kid. By the end of the summer camp circuit, he looked so worn down. It looked like he was playing because he had to. It just didn't look as fun to him.

There was also a ton of pressure, the Elite 11, the 7v7 tournaments, it just seemed like too much for one kid. To his credit, it took on them all.

I just don't want Shane to be burntout - cause that kid that's having fun and throwing the ball all over the place is a f-ing BEAST!

Give him a year to refocus, relax, and just settle in and he'll be ready to go after that.

Also, there could be a little McGary in him. McGary got a little bored with high school and a little burntout after his junior/senior summer. Remember when he fell from #2 down the boards?

Now we see him and #2 was probably too high, but he's still a DAMN GOOD prospect who could be a potential All-American/Lottery Draft Pick. 4 months ago he was a 4-year decent starter/role player in the eyes of many.

In the end, Shane's fine. Let's just let him enjoy his time away from football this semester in school. Then prepare ourselves for a great 3-4 years with him leading the way.

"If we see Schofield at guard this year with Braden at RT,"

Is anyone else almost hoping for this?  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Schofield at RT, but the idea of he and Lewan on the left side of the line makes me more excited for the possibilities of in the running game.  If Braden is good enough to push for playing time, I think it actually helps out to put him in at RT and move Schofield on down the line to LG.

Another possibility is that all the walk-ons they took are not panning out. The staff has taken a lot of raw, large, preferred walk-ons ever since they arrived. I'm sure they hoped that would get a contributor out of them, but perhaps they feel they won't now.

to me at least, is that more spots have opened up through attrition. Given that the class is going to get bigger it makes sense to look at where depth is most needed. They started by wanting 5 OL as part of a smaller class. Now they have room for another. They are going to add players somewhere and there is no need to replace Hopkins with another FB. They haven't just been targeting guards either. Skipper is definitely a tackle prospect at 6'10".

I don't think having other trips planned means he will necessarily take them. He certainly doesn't have to. It just makes sense to schedule them in advance that way.

about Ohio's class.  In fact, rate them that high...works for me.  Let them build a false sense of security for all I care. 

ESPN may end up hurting its own reputation for evaluating prospects with their never ending cross/self-promtion. If a kid is in the ESPN promoted bowls or is leaning toward an SEC school (ESPN has a contract with the SEC) then it seems the kids get a boost. It is unfair, but ESPN has always self promoted and cross promoted etc. In the end I think it may end up hurting their credibility at unbiased evaluation. 

As for OSU, ESPN loves nothing in this world more than OSU. I have no idea why.

Didn't you hear: during Urb's time at ESPN, not only did they let him commentate, but they let him run their recruiting services as well. But I assure you, everything is above board at ESPN--the world's only organizatin that has never even heard of a conflict of interest. 

Explain.  It sounds to me like his mom told them they want to look around, and the staff told them they can do that until a specified date.  If it weren't so early in the cycle I would think Hoke would take a harder stance on this, as he has done before.

If a player is highly ranked, has a bad senior season, is injured/sick, or some kind of downer- isn't it the norm to be rated lower? Like team rankings, who's going strong right now, and who's struggling. Ups and downs. He comes in, He is coached up. Don't matter where he's ranked. He's going to be pretty good, at least.

I would really like to see a good argument for why Shane Morris deserves to be one of the top 25 or 50 players in the country.

A lot of people are saying "He shouldn't have dropped!" but it seems to me that the only reason you're saying that is because he was ranked that high to begin.  If Morris had been the #127 player in the country BEFORE the Under Armour game, I don't think anyone would be clamoring for him to make a huge jump into the top 25-50.  So what exactly did he do during his senior year or during the bowl game to prove that he's one of the top few players in the country?

Yeah, but that's exactly what I'm talking about.  The argument is "He should be ranked higher because someone else ranked him higher."  That's not a good argument.  What has he done on the field to support that?  He had a mediocre senior season (and yeah, his team isn't great and he got sick), was named the backup at the UA game, and performed poorly in the game.  You have to go back to his junior season or perhaps his 7-on-7 performances last summer to find a positive stretch of play.

This has nothing to do with my own personal evaluation.  Shane is my second-highest rated recruit in the class, and I like him a lot.

All I'm saying is that nothing has happened in the last five or six months to justify his 5-star or top-50 ranking.  If he drops, there's evidence to suggest why he should drop.  Conversely, the most recent evidence to suggest that he's an elite QB is from July or whenever The Opening was.  

We're pretty much saying the same thing over and over again.  I'll agree to disagree.