The Maudfather Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I know it was said from the get-go that the 2012 class would be smaller than normal, so for the gurus out there, how many do we take this class? Quote Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 25 to 28 this is what I have seen thrown around number wise. But you will have to wait on one the true guru's to weigh in. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Our last four recruiting classes, including this year: 17 20 22 20 So this next class better be huge. The 2008 large recruiting class was Bo's first and it was a half class that he should get a pass on. But after what we've done with the next four, any shortages and other numbers issues have got to be a problem of Bo's own creation. People will talk about oversigning and shady SEC practices but really, there is a middle ground to go to that should let us get more kids without having to do that. 79 players in a whole 4-year cycle, with a "wash" of a recruiting class the year before that -- just odd. Not even one large class in this time period. This next class will be critical, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment
The Maudfather Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'd sure like to see us take 25-28 this class. Quote Link to comment
MMAHusker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yes. A nice size class would be nice. I think that will help to get earlier commits. We can go after a lot more recruits. There are some big needs for next year. Hopefully the big name recruits that want to play early, in those positions, will realize this. Quote Link to comment
PaulCrewe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Our last four recruiting classes, including this year: 17 20 22 20 So this next class better be huge. The 2008 large recruiting class was Bo's first and it was a half class that he should get a pass on. But after what we've done with the next four, any shortages and other numbers issues have got to be a problem of Bo's own creation. People will talk about oversigning and shady SEC practices but really, there is a middle ground to go to that should let us get more kids without having to do that. 79 players in a whole 4-year cycle, with a "wash" of a recruiting class the year before that -- just odd. Not even one large class in this time period. This next class will be critical, in my opinion. The lack of the Callahan redshirting guys really hurt the numbers when Bo first got here. This is the first class that finally will be free of the remnants of that time period. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Paul, I'm slow on the uptake so you'll have to explain this more in-depth to me. Callahan failing to redshirt the freshman class of 2007 - means guys like Prince, Hagg, Helu, Paul, left an entire season ago, as opposed to '07ers who did redshirt and are graduating this year. We're six recruiting cycles removed from any previous Callahan class now. What did that do to Bo's numbers situation when he first got here? Forced him to sign a big initial '08 class that had a lot of washout because Bo came on so late in the process? Still, this is our fourth recruiting class since the '08 one concluded. What prevented us from adjusting to any numbers situation in that time period? Can you elaborate more on the nature of the terrible numbers situation Bo inherited? Thanks. Quote Link to comment
PaulCrewe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Paul, I'm slow on the uptake so you'll have to explain this more in-depth to me. Callahan failing to redshirt the freshman class of 2007 - means guys like Prince, Hagg, Helu, Paul, left an entire season ago, as opposed to '07ers who did redshirt and are graduating this year. We're six recruiting cycles removed from any previous Callahan class now. What did that do to Bo's numbers situation when he first got here? Forced him to sign a big initial '08 class that had a lot of washout because Bo came on so late in the process? Still, this is our fourth recruiting class since the '08 one concluded. What prevented us from adjusting to any numbers situation in that time period? Can you elaborate more on the nature of the terrible numbers situation Bo inherited? Thanks. Briefly think of the lack of numbers in certain positions where depth was razor thin when Bo first got here. It starts with Bill not redshirting guys, even in some cases "wasting" a redshirt year for an appearance in a game or two, and directly reflects Bo's first couple of classes where he had to redshirt guys to try to build up depth. When redshirting 60-70%(rough guesses, so probably not accurate) you have smaller classes of graduating scholly seniors. So by having to redshirt so many guys those first years, this last class should be the last very small class. Yes the staff could have manipulated those numbers more in regards to whom to redshirt, but the situation Bo came into delegated what they had to do to develop depth. I hope this slightly makes sense for ya. Might be shakey, because, yes I have been drinking. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Thanks; yes, that's good. In summary: it forced Bo to redshirt a lot. And I think we have seen, this past year and going forward, a decrease in redshirting. Quote Link to comment
PaulCrewe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Still, this is our fourth recruiting class since the '08 one concluded. What prevented us from adjusting to any numbers situation in that time period? Can you elaborate more on the nature of the terrible numbers situation Bo inherited? Thanks. Finally, on this part. It was no secret that Bill's defensive recruiting classes were not a ton to write home about after that first class. The reliance of JUCOs to fill needs by Bill also created many issues. Especially when he seemed to replace JUCO kids with more JUCO kids The number of misses Bill had in his last couple of classes along with whiffs Bo had when scrambling to finish his "first" class also created major roster problems. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The reliance of JUCOs, couldn't you say that was a result of the regime change and the hole-filled roster Frank left Bill? We are seeing to a smaller extent some of the same. In particular we got Gomes here, replacing him with Stafford and now Seisay, along with SJB also there in the DB depth. LB wasn't a position of strength until Lavonte came here, and now we're needing to shore up the spot with Zaire. Hopefully, we are slowly but surely digging ourselves out of that hole. Quote Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Nothing wrong with taking 1 or 2 JUCO's a year. It's when you are taking 4-5 to fill immediate needs due to lack of depth. This when you start to get in trouble. Quote Link to comment
PaulCrewe Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The reliance of JUCOs, couldn't you say that was a result of the regime change and the hole-filled roster Frank left Bill? We are seeing to a smaller extent some of the same. In particular we got Gomes here, replacing him with Stafford and now Seisay, along with SJB also there in the DB depth. LB wasn't a position of strength until Lavonte came here, and now we're needing to shore up the spot with Zaire. Hopefully, we are slowly but surely digging ourselves out of that hole. It is true that Bill tried to do what he had to to get the players here he needed to run his offense. But what he did a lot near the end was replace JUCO with JUCO on defense, especially along the line. When he focused on stockpiling HS kids on offense with the JUCOs you didn't see that on the other side of the ball. Attrition didn't help the cause with his HS defensive recruits but there was an over reliance of JUCO fill ins. Where Bo has been successful to some extent is bringing in that JUCO "star" to make an immediate impact but at the same time usually getting a couple of HS kids at that same position to groom. Attrition can cause a team to go the JUCO route, and you'll probably see a JUCO DE and a JUCO in the secondary next fall, but I won't be shocked to see 2 HS DEs and 4 HS secondary guys to go with that. Think of Doc's issue trying to fill his roster. Where he really started hurting himself, and he has gotten away from it of late, was replacing JUCO duds with more JUCO kids. They can help in a pinch but are somethin you wouldn't want to try to consistently try to build a program around. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Our last four recruiting classes, including this year: 17 20 22 20 I'm by no means an expert on the numbers, but 17+20+22=59 which would leave 26 schollies left but then you have to take out any redshirts from four years ago and any walk-ons now on the books. There are also JUCOs and early exits to account for but probably swing it a lot. That would seem like closer to 20 to me but hopefully a few more than that. Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Our last four recruiting classes, including this year: 17 20 22 20 I'm by no means an expert on the numbers, but 17+20+22=59 which would leave 26 schollies left but then you have to take out any redshirts from four years ago and any walk-ons now on the books. There are also JUCOs and early exits to account for but probably swing it a lot. That would seem like closer to 20 to me but hopefully a few more than that. True enough my friend, who knows? Let's hope for 22 or 23...... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.