ADS Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'm thinking Gladney could be another one. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Am I misremembering, or did our final recruiting fall 2 or 3 short in numbers of their initial target? Quote Link to comment
DrunkOffPunch Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Am I misremembering, or did our final recruiting fall 2 or 3 short in numbers of their initial target? In the B1G can't you only oversign by 3 going into spring to have 88/85 schollies, and then have to be down to 85 by fall? If that's the case I think we hit the number we wanted. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 Am I misremembering, or did our final recruiting fall 2 or 3 short in numbers of their initial target? They were talking about at least a couple more. To everyone else, it looked like we ended up at 88 which would be the max. But they may have already know about a couple of the departures that have been made public since then. Quote Link to comment
alwayshusking Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Saw someone mention that Sharp/Benning said we lose two more to get us to 81. Obviously we can assume Bondi is one of those, but who is the other? Dwayne Johnson is a name I've heard Quote Link to comment
QMany Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Saw someone mention that Sharp/Benning said we lose two more to get us to 81. Obviously we can assume Bondi is one of those, but who is the other? Dwayne Johnson is a name I've heard 1 Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 For all of you who thought Stanton was the guy, was in the mix, was one of the top guys, could start You were wrong As he showed in Spring practice and the Spring game Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 By all accounts, Armstrong, Bush, and Darlington were the three guys the staff was looking for out of this group. Stanton was somewhere behind Fyfe, and maybe even Broekemeier. There was just something about Bush I didn't like that I saw, something familiar.Fair enough. That doesn't mean Johnny Stanton was anywhere in the mix, though. He wasn't. Not because of a raw deal he got, but because Armstrong, Bush, and Darlington are substantially better as D1 quarterbacks. Admittedly, that's not necessarily saying much. Heh. Granted if all 3 were at the same level with Stanton just a smidge behind it makes perfect sense he should leave and continue elsewhere. I liked his look because it was different than what we have come to expect in the last several years. The way Riley and his staff develop talent + their recruitment of him had me hopeful we could take a top level QB and actually develop/use the guy. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I get that, I'm just saying he would have been much more of a project than the top 3. It makes more sense to develop the guys who don't have as far to go, and have higher ceilings. Edit: Maybe I'm just confused about what you're trying to say. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I get that, I'm just saying he would have been much more of a project than the top 3. It makes more sense to develop the guys who don't have as far to go, and have higher ceilings. Edit: Maybe I'm just confused about what you're trying to say. My optimism about Stanton was because of his hype. But in the end it was just that. He unfortunately didn't pan out like I had hoped he could here. He didn't fit the mold like a lot of the other guys we have seen which I liked. Maybe that's why he didn't get developed properly. If I had one gripe about him it would be his low flying passes in his HS highlights. A tall college corner could have a big day against that. I assume this is where the accuracy problems came in. Bo and company develop good secondaries and probably recognized this problem and told him to adjust a higher thrown ball which ultimately led to him over throwing his targets. Poor coaching led to poor development. That's my assumption anyway and that's why I say "raw deal". Now Bush I'm not a huge fan of, hopefully he can develop more and become a more consistent player that will contribute. Fyfe has the ceiling of formidable backup so really counting him above Stanton is just saying one spot is spoken for. Broekmeir (spelling) looked like he could be a contender under the new staffs tutelage. And obviously TA is the starter. Darlignton showed me the most promise but the injuries are there like a black eye. So in the end yeah Stanton had a hell of a mountain to climb to even see backup duty, I can't deny that. I just liked the possibilities he offered and wish him luck at the next stop. Quote Link to comment
H2h Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Stanton's high school highlights weren't that impressive IMO (hurt Sr year I know). Just didn't scream 4 star. Compared to the tapes of guys like Jamal Turner, Brion Carnes, and Darlington's Jr year film, Stanton's looks like JV. But it's only a highlight tape so it probably doesn't mean jack anyway. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I get that, I'm just saying he would have been much more of a project than the top 3. It makes more sense to develop the guys who don't have as far to go, and have higher ceilings. Edit: Maybe I'm just confused about what you're trying to say. My optimism about Stanton was because of his hype. But in the end it was just that. He unfortunately didn't pan out like I had hoped he could here. He didn't fit the mold like a lot of the other guys we have seen which I liked. Maybe that's why he didn't get developed properly. If I had one gripe about him it would be his low flying passes in his HS highlights. A tall college corner could have a big day against that. I assume this is where the accuracy problems came in. Bo and company develop good secondaries and probably recognized this problem and told him to adjust a higher thrown ball which ultimately led to him over throwing his targets. Poor coaching led to poor development. That's my assumption anyway and that's why I say "raw deal". Now Bush I'm not a huge fan of, hopefully he can develop more and become a more consistent player that will contribute. Fyfe has the ceiling of formidable backup so really counting him above Stanton is just saying one spot is spoken for. Broekmeir (spelling) looked like he could be a contender under the new staffs tutelage. And obviously TA is the starter. Darlignton showed me the most promise but the injuries are there like a black eye. So in the end yeah Stanton had a hell of a mountain to climb to even see backup duty, I can't deny that. I just liked the possibilities he offered and wish him luck at the next stop. I'm not ruling out Bush and/or Darlington get passed by when Wilson and O'Brien show up. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Definitely a strong possibility. Quote Link to comment
alwayshusking Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The Bondi era is over 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.