This makes zero sense.
If you are taking 4 OL, how in the hell is #6-8 an “easy” take?
They would be fallback options, by definition.
Like I said, fallback option. Not a take right now.Because you know you won't be batting .1000! In fact, how many big time offers do you actually land? Well below 50%. So if you can take a top 10 when you need 4 eventually, it seems like a no brainer UNLESS you are feeling goddang assured you are in prime running for your top guys (remember, you will still lose some of those).
Like I said, fallback option. Not a take right now.
We wanted Wanya & Wright last class. We got em.
Swing for the fences until it’s time to put the ball in play.
Those two 3 stars camped and earned their offers. I'm sure Tucker could've done the same this summer, but his early rating has him thinking he shouldn't have to do that. Best of luck to him but give me Cooper and Baron out of Catholic and let's roll.wanya & wright would have space regardless. That's only 2 guys.
Who else we get? Lampley a 4 and 2 3*s a lot lower than Tucker. Don't see why a guy like him couldn't be your bottom barrel guy. Then no need to scramble in the Fall.
I more meant it to express surprise that the staff feel that confident that they can reel in 5-6 OL prospects better than Tucker. Have a nice day.
Clemson/ACC isn't known for maulers like the SEC. Tucker fits more in that conference. Below are the OL commits from the last 3 cycles.I just don’t understand the logic behind him or any other player being good enough to play for programs like Clemons but not good enough to play for us. Delusional!