But... but... this is 2014!?
things go poorly
But... but... this is 2014!?
Exactly, must mean that we flipped Fournette over the weekend. Yes!
Well shit. Maybe we can flip someone else on signing day like we did with Norfleet.
knowshon and this guy have a similar problem:
Sam Webb really gets this shit right more often than not. Might mean that the rekindled recruiting of Ballage has some weight to it.
I think Sam's inside info comse from his relationship with Fred Jackson. So if you talking RB recruiting then this information is probably accurate.
I'm pretty sure talking to the media about recruits is an NCAA violation. You must have meant Jed Frackson, the renowned recruiting blogger.
If 2014 is telling us this is the best fate for our team then who are we to argue? All hail the mighty 2014
that's how great 2014 is.
"Opinion changed" is a subtle way of saying the coaches received their academic info.
I always have to wonder on these sorts of things when the recruit goes cold on us really quickly.
Had we redshirted De'Veon Smith he would have been the running back in the 2014 class. There was no need to burn it for the few carries he received. On a similar note, I don't know why Charleton played as a true freshman with both Ojemudia and Clark directly ahead of him. Next year we will have a senior, junior, and sophomore at the same positions.
We would still be short on numbers either way. Yes, we would potentially have him one more year, but still only have 4-5 RB's on scholarship.
I wouldn't dismiss their importance. Giving him playing time can't hurt hurt for the near future. The non-redshirt might be an issue for 2017, but our RB recruiting now probably has more to do with depth issues in 2014. Good RBs usually contribute early so 2017 depth chart issues don't matter much now, as opposed to the OL.
how many other top programs red shirt a ton of players, but not curious enough to go and research it for myself. It seems that we overstate the burning a red shirt idea here. If a player is successful on the field, chances are they are not sticking around for 5 years, especially at a position where your pro longevity is already limited due to the amount of punishment you are likely to take on like RB. It may be understandable for an OL to red shirt so that they can add the bulk needed, perhaps interior DL as well, but that is about it. In an ideal world, we have depth so that younger guys essentially can master technique, learn scheme, and contribute on special teams until they are juniors and then they get to start a year or two before moving on. Is the jump so great between year 4 and 5 to warrant massive red shirts vs. the idea of turning over your class and essentially taking 20ish addition players every 5 years and the probability of getting an very special generational type player to pan out with the higher volume of players taken.
to recruits. High school football players want to actually play once they get to college. They don't want to sit around and marrinate for a couple years. On the job training definitely has to be preferable especially if they are "star" players.
By playing freshmen, M lets them know that they will play if they compete, work hard, and are meritworthy. Just the right message in my view.
In any event, the really good ones are not likely to stay for 5 years. The less than good ones may wind up transferring. May as well get it sorted out right from the git go.
Yeah, Jones has to take the ACT and won't know if he's eligible until March-it takes a month to get the scores back and he's taking it three days after signing day
Why do recruits do this to themselves
Whoever is responsible for that kid (mother, father, grandparent, aunt, uncle) fucked up.
What was his opinion on both of those guys, did he assert they would both come here?
is it possible that the coaches told Damien Harris that we wouldn't take a RB in the '14 class?
Not likely because Webb said we were still pursuing Ballage. I'm guessing it's the academic problems noted in the posts above. Also, I don't think we would let a recruit have so much say... except about 2012 QB (I know - dead horse...).
star ratings of RB's isn't that important. If the holes are there any competent running back with vision will find them.
Uh yeah but we don't so we need RB's with stars!!!!!
At least Webb seemed optamistic in regards to Mcdowell.
How can he be optimistic on McDowell after he visited FSU and his dad comes out and says they are firmly in contention? I trust Sams gut as much as the next guy, just sayin...
Jared Shanker at ESPN Insider has an article on Malik's FSU trip and the quotes are from Malik's father, Greg.
Greg notes that Malik was having a good visit and could see a path to getting on the field. It goes on to discuss how Narduzzi's in home visit helped dispel some rumors Greg had heard about MSU players and how serious they take their schoolwork or lack there of.
But the money quote is:
“My son likes Coach Narduzzi and the coaches at Michigan State, but it’s always been University of Michigan first with me,” Greg said.
Can anyone tell me where I can listen to Sam Webb's discussion on recruiting matters? I live in Dayton, Ohio and would be interested in hearing him talk about recruiting.
On the interweb; usually just a couple of hours delayed.
You live in Dayton? That sucks, man. I do too and hate it.
I Lived there for seven years (worked for NCR). Was glad to leave. Very vanilla, utilitarian kind of place. Everything seemed dull . . . the location, the topology, the buildings, the entertainment/nightlife, the people . . . all of it. I went there immediately after living in Ann Arbor for school. It felt like I fell off a cliff.
Nussmeier he can't close!
we have smith and green with Hayes. We get Harris the next year, I'm not worried.
Drake is coming off an injury, Rawls may transfer, Hayes may go to slot, Shallman is not an RB and Damien Harris is no longer a lock.
This class really needs McDowell AND an RB and if we miss on both it will be pretty disappointing.
We should take a RB in every class. Also isn't Hayes moving to slot?
At least 1 RB in every class. Especially with our style of offense it is important to always be good and deep at that position.
Here's what Alabama's taken the last few years at RB.
2012: Yeldon, Drake
2013: Henry, Kamara, Jones, Tenpenny
That's 7 RBs in three years. Take as many good ones as you can.
FYI:Alvin Kamara is transferring.
Thanks. Didn't know that, but it reinforces my point of taking as many as you can because they get hurt, transfer, etc.
I was always surprised that Kamara committed to Alabama. As the last one to commit of that ridiculous haul it was just odd. I mean good for him wanting to compete, but there were a couple of studs ahead of him on the depth chart, plus 3 other RBs in his class and he could go pretty much anywhere he wanted. Now he's burned two years of college.
Counting on RBs is foolish. Take as many good ones as you can afford to, and then let them sort things out on the field. Even though we have Green, Smith, and Hayes you never know what will happen. Kids get hurt, arrested, homesick, etc. So your depth can go away quickly. And Harris is a 2015 recruit, which is a long ways off, and there's no guarantee that we get him. Counting him amongst our RB assets is also foolish.
So in the same way you should take a QB ever year, you should take at least one RB every year too.
Bring in as many as you can. That is what Alabama does and they've had a couple decent running backs with that strategy. You never no who will translate to college and I know Harris is great but you are putting all your eggs in one basket
This sucks but I hear good things about Damien Harris and McDowell.
If this is the case Mike Weber would now be high priority?
When you get around 20-23 recruits per season and there are 22 starters, I think you should be aiming at approximately 1 of everything per year ( meaning 2 receivers, 2 OT, 3G/C, etc). I never understand why people make it more complicated than that.
Sure attrition comes into play, and if you land 2 of something one year (like RB last year), you have the option to adjust or only go after true blue chippers. I just don't think you should ever go into a year thinking there is any position that you don't want anyone.
For example, you don't need to play three LGs each game, but you will often play three RB. Also one guy can backup both LG and RG, while a backup QB can't (usually) play any other position.
Also, scheme matters. When Rodriguez came in he needed a bunch of WR. When Borges came in he needed TEs and FBs. Nuss doesn't want to use as many FBs.
IMO, QB is the one position you should take every year. You need to address other position GROUPS consistently (OL, DB, LB, WR) but for individual position there can be many good reasons to take a year off or cluster.
Generally, I like the idea of 22 starters, but you have to be flexible to field special teams players, if nothing else.
If you take one at each position and preferably red shirt everyone, eventually you will have 110 scholarship players. Also, there are times when you go best available player. Like if the #1 & #2 RBs want to come your school are you going to say no to one of them? Then add in attrition and it gets complicated quickly
where it doesn't make much sense. There are many variables in roster management. You simply have to look at your team as it is each year to see where your needs lie.
There aren't 20-23 scholarships to hand out each year. It's more like 16-27 and you don't always know who you're going to get. Aside from attrition, there are also going to be a number of position changes. There are more than 22 positions too. We have three scholarships allotted to special teams. Then there are nicklebacks and dimebacks needed on defense and a variety of formations on offense that require different players.
Some positions require more depth than others. We rotate a lot at RB and DL. OL rarely do and almost always redshirt. Five classes of five would leave great depth there at the cost of depth elsewhere. They are also somewhat interchangeable, Magnuson was on the depth chart at three positions. OL play very little on special teams, unlike LBs, DBs, WRs and RBs.