Jump to content

2015 3* P Ian Shannon commits to AU!

JFDTiger80

By JFDTiger80
in AU Recruiting Forum

Recommended Posts

Mikey Founding Father

Mikey 16,545

Posted
Posted

"the staff doesn't have any sort of problem with Carlson pulling double duty"

"they are comfortable enough with Carlson doing double duty that they want to separate the two as much, eligibility-wise, as possible"

There's no practical difference between those two statements. I'm glad we agree on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Rednilla Founding Father

Rednilla 5,383

Posted
Posted

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUbritt Founding Father

AUbritt 611

Posted
Posted

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

But I believe Mikey could reply that what you've pointed out is a distinction that makes no practical difference in the coaches' strategy. Sure, there's a logical difference between 'absolutely no problems' and 'some problem that seems to be outweighed by other factors'. But it makes no practical difference in terms of their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mikey Founding Father

Mikey 16,545

Posted
Posted

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Maybe the above explains how both statements mean the same thing.

And....thanks, Britt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AU-24 Founding Father

AU-24 3,063

Posted
Posted

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

But I believe Mikey could reply that what you've pointed out is a distinction that makes no practical difference in the coaches' strategy. Sure, there's a logical difference between 'absolutely no problems' and 'some problem that seems to be outweighed by other factors'. But it makes no practical difference in terms of their decision.

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

But I believe Mikey could reply that what you've pointed out is a distinction that makes no practical difference in the coaches' strategy. Sure, there's a logical difference between 'absolutely no problems' and 'some problem that seems to be outweighed by other factors'. But it makes no practical difference in terms of their decision.

Britt, you sound like one of my Polly Sci Professors. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUbritt Founding Father

AUbritt 611

Posted
Posted

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Maybe the above explains how both statements mean the same thing.

And....thanks, Britt.

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rednilla Founding Father

Rednilla 5,383

Posted
Posted

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

But I believe Mikey could reply that what you've pointed out is a distinction that makes no practical difference in the coaches' strategy. Sure, there's a logical difference between 'absolutely no problems' and 'some problem that seems to be outweighed by other factors'. But it makes no practical difference in terms of their decision.

It makes no practical difference in their recruiting strategy, sure, at least if that remains their recruiting strategy, but it paints a different picture as to what the coaches' thought process might be. That was my point.

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Maybe the above explains how both statements mean the same thing.

And....thanks, Britt.

The problem is that there is nothing definitive regarding intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment. If problems with Carlson performing both duties simultaneously present themselves as the season wears on, then the coaches will likely re-examine the situation. The fact that they are preparing to lengthen Shannon's eligibility proves that they are not recruiting him because they are worried about Carlson's ability to handle both, but it does not prove anything about whether they have concerns regarding the situation.

Maybe that explains how the two statements do not mean the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mikey Founding Father

Mikey 16,545

Posted
Posted

The problem is that there is nothing definitive regarding intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment. If problems with Carlson performing both duties simultaneously present themselves as the season wears on, then the coaches will likely re-examine the situation. The fact that they are preparing to lengthen Shannon's eligibility proves that they are not recruiting him because they are worried about Carlson's ability to handle both, but it does not prove anything about whether they have concerns regarding the situation.

Maybe that explains how the two statements do not mean the same thing.

I think I'll just stick with this:

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Now, as any rational person would know, should Carlson break his leg before signing day and not be able to kick any more, then the plan to greyshirt Shannon would change. Should some other un-anticipated event happen, the greyshirt plan could change. As it stands today, the staff is comfortable with Carlson doing double duty and the greyshirt is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mikey Founding Father

Mikey 16,545

Posted
Posted

I think we need to sign another 5* WR.

Sorry .. figured an a4e redirect was in order.

Booonng/wrooonng! We need two 5* linebackers before we even waste time looking at another WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JFDTiger80 Founding Father

JFDTiger80 790

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's no practical difference between those two statements.

Sure there is. Your statement precludes any problems whatsoever that the staff might have, mine leaves room for the coaches to have problems that simply don't outweigh the prospect of stretching out the amount of time to be guaranteed a very strong leg.

But I believe Mikey could reply that what you've pointed out is a distinction that makes no practical difference in the coaches' strategy. Sure, there's a logical difference between 'absolutely no problems' and 'some problem that seems to be outweighed by other factors'. But it makes no practical difference in terms of their decision.

It makes no practical difference in their recruiting strategy, sure, at least if that remains their recruiting strategy, but it paints a different picture as to what the coaches' thought process might be. That was my point.

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Maybe the above explains how both statements mean the same thing.

And....thanks, Britt.

The problem is that there is nothing definitive regarding intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment. If problems with Carlson performing both duties simultaneously present themselves as the season wears on, then the coaches will likely re-examine the situation. The fact that they are preparing to lengthen Shannon's eligibility proves that they are not recruiting him because they are worried about Carlson's ability to handle both, but it does not prove anything about whether they have concerns regarding the situation.

Maybe that explains how the two statements do not mean the same thing.

I think there is some concern about Carlson handling all the kicking duties. Last week, once we got a good lead, AU used a backup kicker, not Hutch, to do the kickoffs. His kicks were not going into the end zone though. The coaches were definitely trying to get some rest for Carlson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McLoofus Founding Father

McLoofus 35,182

Posted
Posted

I think there is some concern about Carlson handling all the kicking duties. Last week, once we got a good lead, AU used a backup kicker, not Hutch, to do the kickoffs. His kicks were not going into the end zone though. The coaches were definitely trying to get some rest for Carlson.

...or trying to get experience for his backup in case something goes wrong. I would certainly hope we have a plan B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rednilla Founding Father

Rednilla 5,383

Posted
Posted

The problem is that there is nothing definitive regarding intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment. If problems with Carlson performing both duties simultaneously present themselves as the season wears on, then the coaches will likely re-examine the situation. The fact that they are preparing to lengthen Shannon's eligibility proves that they are not recruiting him because they are worried about Carlson's ability to handle both, but it does not prove anything about whether they have concerns regarding the situation.

Maybe that explains how the two statements do not mean the same thing.

I think I'll just stick with this:

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Now, as any rational person would know, should Carlson break his leg before signing day and not be able to kick any more, then the plan to greyshirt Shannon would change. Should some other un-anticipated event happen, the greyshirt plan could change. As it stands today, the staff is comfortable with Carlson doing double duty and the greyshirt is on.

Oh good grief. What happens if he starts feeling fatigue as the season goes on, his kickoffs stop going 5+ yards deep in the end zone, and his punts stop going as far or carrying as much hang time? That's not unanticipated, because it's been mentioned, and Carlson has even answered questions about it...but it wouldn't affect anything, now would it? Just because the coaching staff is planning to greyshirt Shannon doesn't mean they aren't prepared to change that plan should Carlson begin having fatigue issues.

But, again, I completely agree that Shannon is being recruited of his own merit, not that he's the punting replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUbritt Founding Father

AUbritt 611

Posted
Posted

The problem is that there is nothing definitive regarding intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment. If problems with Carlson performing both duties simultaneously present themselves as the season wears on, then the coaches will likely re-examine the situation. The fact that they are preparing to lengthen Shannon's eligibility proves that they are not recruiting him because they are worried about Carlson's ability to handle both, but it does not prove anything about whether they have concerns regarding the situation.

Maybe that explains how the two statements do not mean the same thing.

I think I'll just stick with this:

"Obviously, the staff is not very concerned about Carlson pulling double duty because they are intentionally delaying Shannon's enrollment by one full season. Thus, the idea that Shannon is being recruited because of Carlson's doing double duty is not correct."

Now, as any rational person would know, should Carlson break his leg before signing day and not be able to kick any more, then the plan to greyshirt Shannon would change. Should some other un-anticipated event happen, the greyshirt plan could change. As it stands today, the staff is comfortable with Carlson doing double duty and the greyshirt is on.

Oh good grief. What happens if he starts feeling fatigue as the season goes on, his kickoffs stop going 5+ yards deep in the end zone, and his punts stop going as far or carrying as much hang time? That's not unanticipated, because it's been mentioned, and Carlson has even answered questions about it...but it wouldn't affect anything, now would it? Just because the coaching staff is planning to greyshirt Shannon doesn't mean they aren't prepared to change that plan should Carlson begin having fatigue issues.

But, again, I completely agree that Shannon is being recruited of his own merit, not that he's the punting replacement.

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Mikey Founding Father

Mikey 16,545

Posted
Posted

This guy has been True Blue AU ever since he committed. I'm glad he's getting his scholarship now instead of later. Maybe the Gators offering him put a burr under our saddle?

Anyway, we now have seven slots left. The eight was with him greyshirting. The article was not entirely correct. A greyshirt does not sign, it's simply a verbal promise from the school and the player that if nothing big changes he'll be offered a scholarship the next January and if offered, the player will take it.

If a kid signs and then doesn't enroll in school by October the LOI is void and the slot is lost. So, a greyshirt signing would accomplish nothing other than the loss of a signee slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...