'09 GA LB Robert Nelson

#101
#101
Sabanocchio said:
I honestly don't get what you're saying if this is in regards to not offering Lacy. The only SEC school that's actively recruiting him is South Carolina. It's not like we are missing the boat on this guy. If we have room for him, we will take him. If we have better prospects committed and don't have room, then I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Actually I think we sould have offered Nelson because of the fact its better to have a bird in the hand than 3 in the bush. I just wonder what birds they have leashes on that are in the bird.
 
#104
#104
HOLY CRAP!!!! we've got a bird with leash on it and a linebacker with his hand on a bird no wonder we didnt offer this guy:eek:
 
#106
#106
I don't think they are banking on Patrick unless they know something we don't.

Here's my take on it. The coaches are not going to sign players in this class just for the sake of signing them. They have a plan in place to put elite athletes on every level of the depth chart. Taking a sub-par guy or one that doesn't fit the system takes away a roster spot that could be used next year on a quality prospect. Next year's class is going to be LOADED with talent. All this interest at this point in the game points to success on every level of recruiting next year. We can afford to undersign this year, since the plan is to put a full year into next years class and absolutely kill it, bringing in as many top players as we can. Why take a guy that is going to take 3 years to develop into a starter when you can bring one in next year that could start in year one or two?
 
#107
#107
Sabanocchio said:
I don't think they are banking on Patrick unless they know something we don't.

Here's my take on it. The coaches are not going to sign players in this class just for the sake of signing them. They have a plan in place to put elite athletes on every level of the depth chart. Taking a sub-par guy or one that doesn't fit the system takes away a roster spot that could be used next year on a quality prospect. Next year's class is going to be LOADED with talent. All this interest at this point in the game points to success on every level of recruiting next year. We can afford to undersign this year, since the plan is to put a full year into next years class and absolutely kill it, bringing in as many top players as we can. Why take a guy that is going to take 3 years to develop into a starter when you can bring one in next year that could start in year one or two?
Click to expand...

I would prefer to undersign this year since we still have some decent talent to work with and it's still on the team as of right now. Taking too many players would be bad, but not being in on so many good players right now would be worse.
 
#108
#108
Sabanocchio said:
I don't think they are banking on Patrick unless they know something we don't.

Here's my take on it. The coaches are not going to sign players in this class just for the sake of signing them. They have a plan in place to put elite athletes on every level of the depth chart. Taking a sub-par guy or one that doesn't fit the system takes away a roster spot that could be used next year on a quality prospect. Next year's class is going to be LOADED with talent. All this interest at this point in the game points to success on every level of recruiting next year. We can afford to undersign this year, since the plan is to put a full year into next years class and absolutely kill it, bringing in as many top players as we can. Why take a guy that is going to take 3 years to develop into a starter when you can bring one in next year that could start in year one or two?
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Well put. Problem for most is that they want it "fixed" now no matter whether it is fixed the "right way". Do you want it Right or do you want it Right Now? Can only have one but not both. In other words, no patience. I am with you on this one we will have to wait and see.
 
#109
#109
I agree with both of you. What are the rules on the maximum number of signees each year? Or is there? I was thinking you could carry over a few plus there is a max number of total scholarships for the team.

Can someone clarify?
 
#112
#112
VOLS2BSTACKED said:
I agree with both of you. What are the rules on the maximum number of signees each year? Or is there? I was thinking you could carry over a few plus there is a max number of total scholarships for the team.

Can someone clarify?
Click to expand...

85 is the max # of schollies, I think. 25 is the max you can offer in one year, but you can count against last year's class somehow....I know early enrollees count against the last year's class if there's room.
 
#113
#113
Wow! I know we have some "earlies" this year but I don't see us signing more than 20-22 players unless CLK has something up his sleeve.
 
#114
#114
Sabanocchio said:
I don't think they are banking on Patrick unless they know something we don't.

Here's my take on it. The coaches are not going to sign players in this class just for the sake of signing them. They have a plan in place to put elite athletes on every level of the depth chart. Taking a sub-par guy or one that doesn't fit the system takes away a roster spot that could be used next year on a quality prospect. Next year's class is going to be LOADED with talent. All this interest at this point in the game points to success on every level of recruiting next year. We can afford to undersign this year, since the plan is to put a full year into next years class and absolutely kill it, bringing in as many top players as we can. Why take a guy that is going to take 3 years to develop into a starter when you can bring one in next year that could start in year one or two?
Click to expand...

Yeah that would make sense if there were some gurantee that these guys could in fact pull in all of that "top talent".

Maybe pulling in some three and four star guys and the coach's actually doing their jobs and coaching them up would be an alternative to putting all those eggs in one basket.

Your just assuming that they can and will bring in that kind of talent.
 
#115
#115
At this point I'm hopeing to get to 17 or 18..With the ones we lost..
 
#116
#116
Seems like USCw only signs around 20 each year. Just seems like you would need 25 to buffer against attrition. i.e. grades, legal problems, etc...
 
#117
#117
Sabanocchio said:
85 is the max # of schollies, I think. 25 is the max you can offer in one year, but you can count against last year's class somehow....I know early enrollees count against the last year's class if there's room.
Click to expand...

I thought Bama signed around 30 last year. I don't think there is a set max for one season, just the 85 total roster limit.
 
#118
#118
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Kiffin also came to USC when the Pac 10 when everyone in the Pac 10 was down and no school out there had established themselves as the king of that conference in years.
Click to expand...

Oregon was pretty strong when Kiffin came to USC. Washington was OK and Washington St. was just getting good. Oregon State had a great year right before Kiffin came in, too.
 
#119
#119
Boys offer Nelson a scollie we need a commit TODAY. Please. I can't take all these SEC thugs talking trash:angry:
 
#120
#120
OHvol40 said:
I thought Bama signed around 30 last year. I don't think there is a set max for one season, just the 85 total roster limit.
Click to expand...
Some wont end up getting in school and some can be counted against last years class I believe, if they enroll early, but aside from that, the limit is 25.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
vol_freak said:
Some wont end up getting in school and some can be counted against last years class I believe, if they enroll early, but aside from that, the limit is 25.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Which is what happened to Bama last year. They over-signed, but several players didn't make it. Otherwise, you are looking at a greyshirt situation.
 
#122
#122
FLSTF-VOL said:
Yeah that would make sense if there were some gurantee that these guys could in fact pull in all of that "top talent".

Maybe pulling in some three and four star guys and the coach's actually doing their jobs and coaching them up would be an alternative to putting all those eggs in one basket.

Your just assuming that they can and will bring in that kind of talent.
Click to expand...

We didn't pay for the most expensive assistants in the nation to get any less than a top 5 class. It is almost guaranteed with the resources we have at our disposal. No there is no guarantee. Nothing is guaranteed, sometimes you have to assume based on the ability and the goals you have set forth. There is no hedging when you have a staff like we do. These guys are recruiting animals. Just look at what they've accomplished in a VERY short amount of time relative to recruiting by getting most of the top uncommitted prospects to visit. If there ever was a guarantee, it would be with this staff. The best recruiting staff in the nation hands-down and they have no disadvantages to speak of. We don't even have to have a great year next year to land a top class. Statistically that doesn't have any effect on it.
 
#123
#123
Sabanocchio said:
Which is what happened to Bama last year. They over-signed, but several players didn't make it. Otherwise, you are looking at a greyshirt situation.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I forgot to mention the dreaded greyshirt. :lol:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top