***2015 Recruiting***

Mavric said:
Just saw that. Surely that can't be right.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
Mavric said:
Just saw that. Surely that can't be right.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.

 
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)

 
MattyIce said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
SouthLincoln Husker said:
Savage Husker said:
Hedley Lamarr said:
U want a natty then u better sign top 10
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Oregon - 2012 (16), 2013 (22), 2014 (26), 2015 (currently 21)
Click to expand...
What about Ohio State?
Click to expand...
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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top