alwayshusking Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just saw that. Surely that can't be right. We need them. We are woefully thin at LB right now. It says up to 7, so I interpret that to mean if they can find 7 quality guys in a short time span, they'll take 7. Otherwise take 4-5. I would like to see a couple JC guys in the mix. Quote Link to comment
Warrior10 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Guess he said "up to 7" Quote Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just saw that. Surely that can't be right. I hope not. I know LB is a need, but don't go taking kids for the sake of taking them. They better be play makers. I think next years recruiting class will have many LB recruits. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just saw that. Surely that can't be right. I hope not. I know LB is a need, but don't go taking kids for the sake of taking them. They better be play makers. I think next years recruiting class will have many LB recruits. They did say "up to 7" and that they wouldn't just take guys to get there so that's good. Still, I can't imagine it would be that many. 3-4 seems like plenty. Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Well, what do we have on the roster right now? 3? If they take 7.... Play 4 and RS 3, they have rebuilt the position in 1 year. Read says he likes LB to play special teams(as do all teams). Would also give us 7 LB not including walk-ons for Saturdays. With that said, those 7 would need to be good, not just numbers. Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I guess my point is, if you can get 7 now and get them in the system, won't we be better off for the future than if we take 4 this year and 3 next year(pretending that we are getting the exact same type of 7 players however you slice it) Quote Link to comment
RedRedJarvisRedwine Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I guess my point is, if you can get 7 now and get them in the system, won't we be better off for the future than if we take 4 this year and 3 next year(pretending that we are getting the exact same type of 7 players however you slice it)I don't think people look at the number being outlandish because they don't think it's necessary. I look at 7 lbs more as a number that thins down numbers at other positions. If we don't land the Davis twins we instantly become thin there. Especially having 2 starting DTs next year that are talented enough to consider the 2016 NFL draft. We are thin safety imo. And we could always use another OLman. Not to mention the need to bring in several QBs in the next few classes. Quote Link to comment
ScottyIce Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I agree to an extent, but look at the depth at linebacker. Considering we are playing 3 at a time usually, we only really have 3 right now. Talk about a lack of depth. DT is one of our deepest positions if we get the Davis twins. OL isn't too bad if some of our young guys are ready to play soon. It comes down to this, if we can get 6-7 quality linebackers in this class, I'd take them and be fine with it. We already have 1 locked down and another committed. Quote Link to comment
RedRedJarvisRedwine Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It just seems odd having almost 10% of the 85 schollies tied up at one position in one class. Quote Link to comment
SouthLincoln Husker Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 U want a natty then u better sign top 10 May have said it before and unsure where I heard this, but no team with a recruiting class outside of top 15 has played for a national title in last 15+ years. Oregon - 2012 (16), 2013 (22), 2014 (26), 2015 (currently 21) 1 Quote Link to comment
SouthLincoln Husker Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 How many are we taking in this class? I was thinking 20, with Love & Hart leaving. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Probably close to 20 Quote Link to comment
Hedley Lamarr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 U want a natty then u better sign top 10May have said it before and unsure where I heard this, but no team with a recruiting class outside of top 15 has played for a national title in last 15+ years. Oregon - 2012 (16), 2013 (22), 2014 (26), 2015 (currently 21) What about Ohio State? Quote Link to comment
Savage Husker Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 U want a natty then u better sign top 10May have said it before and unsure where I heard this, but no team with a recruiting class outside of top 15 has played for a national title in last 15+ years. Oregon - 2012 (16), 2013 (22), 2014 (26), 2015 (currently 21) What about Ohio State? Not scientific, but did some basic research from Rivals class rankings... Since '02, no championship winning team has an average recruiting class ranking higher than 13.4 (OSU) In that same time frame, all runner-ups are inside top 15 average recruiting class ranking EXCEPT for Oregon (19.2) and ND (21.2) The signing class leading up to the season before playing in the BCS title game, only 3 teams have a recruiting class ranking below 15. Texas (18) Auburn (19) Oregon (32) And only Texas (20) and ND (20) signed a class outside of top 15 after title game appearance. Am I wrong about my claim saying every team is inside top 15? You got me. Quote Link to comment
Mary Pats BOB Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Sean Callahan @Sean_Callahan 2m2 minutes ago Craziest recruiting nugget I got today was from DC @CoachBanker. He said they plan to sign up to 7 linebackers in this 2015 class. watching our lb play the last few years I'm not surprised 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.