Something Doesn't Add Up

No offense chitown, but numbers only gets you bodies, unless you are a USC where the numbers are 4* or higher. I'd like to have several high ranked cb's coming in, but if we don't get them, I won't be upset about it. Good safety play can make up for meh corner play, and IMO, is much more important to a good secondary than a shutdown corner is. I am hoping that several of the younger safeties on our team can step it up big this year.

The confusion is not simply that WE think that there aren't enough corners, it's that the coaches tell one commit (Peace) that they didn't recruit enough corners and need him to play there, then they turn around and withhold offers from two well-regarded players who might have been interested.

I'm inclined to trust the evaluations of the coaching staff. Perhaps they just don't think these two players are good enough to contribute, and that they only want to add to our current group if it is one of the 4 or 5 star guys, but I agree that the two things are head-scratching when juxtaposed.

I'm playing a drinking game where I drink three every time someone references tiddlywinks.

I just drank three.

I don't understand this. Why do we have a gazillion RB for 1 1/2 spots? What is a dime package? We have four returning CB in a position we were not good at and only one is experienced! I am petrified. The larger point is that RR is passing on kids he would have given a kidney for at WVU at a position of need. Odd.

Obviously, I'm just going by Peace's comments. His claim is that he wanted to play wide receiver, had been told that he would be able to compete at WR throughout his recruitment, then was recently told that because we failed to land enough corners the coaches wanted him to play corner exclusively. He said no, and de-committed.

While we have to take what a de-committed prospect says with a grain of salt, the story at least makes sense. Why would the coaching staff only now insist that he play corner if they weren't concerned about depth at the position? Why would he remain committed until now if they had told him all along that he'd at least get a look at WR? Sure, there could be other explanations. But this is (1) the only one any one has offered, and (2) eminently sensible.

I'm only halfway through the book, but the author at least makes it seem like Ed Orgeron is pretty straight with his players/recruits. That's the only coach it really concentrates on. There's negative recruiting/rumors/lies from coaches when they're trying to talk a kid out of going somewhere else, but they seem pretty realistic when they talk about the opportunities at their own school.

Having read Meat Market a while back I can tell you that Orgeron is a MONSTER RECRUITER and one that tends to be pretty straight with kids.

Im actually bothered that we didn't give the guy a call about our DC position.

Anyway, being as straight as we were to peace is NOT common. Most schools will tell a guy whatever they need to tell him to get him into school.

I.E. Barksdale, Rojo

I like the way Zach Johnson plays on special teams, but I don't know if he's a viable cornerback. I could see him playing some slot corner or a little safety in an emergency situation, but cornerback takes a special talent to play. He's a good tackler, though. Aside from Zoltan, Johnson might have been our best special teamer last year.

Rogers is probably the only one who could/might play corner.

Nope.

That is a good point as it relates directly to Peterman, but I am wondering about the bigger picture. Perhaps they feel they have a very good line on two more guys and feel that a class of three CBs is enough.

Excellent point here. And maybe, with Edwards in the fold and Hall's friendship with Campbell, we have a shot at Hall.