2015 5* WR Tyron Johnson (LSU signee)

[ellitor 33,062]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

[fredst 9,064]

I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?

[Shift 350]

I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?

Ha !! Now that's funny !!

[aujeff11 6,243]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

[Mikey 16,545]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

You miss my point. Those "other needs" would be brushed aside in the unlikely event those guys all wanted to sign with us.

Quote: "I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?" No, four would be sufficient.

[gravejd 3,267]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

You miss my point. Those "other needs" would be brushed aside in the unlikely event those guys all wanted to sign with us.

Quote: "I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?" No, four would be sufficient.

So your saying the coaches would sign 2 extra 5 star receivers instead of 2 4 or 3* DEs?

[Mikey 16,545]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

You miss my point. Those "other needs" would be brushed aside in the unlikely event those guys all wanted to sign with us.

Quote: "I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?" No, four would be sufficient.

So your saying the coaches would sign 2 extra 5 star receivers instead of 2 4 or 3* DEs?

In a heartbeat! If they wanted the DE's bad enough room would be made. It wouldn't have to be "instead of".

[IronMan70 3,277]

Any indication where he falls in our priority list? Seems like Burt is going to flip. Assuming we take another guy (because that seems like a safe bet), any indication who is the top target among Johnson, Kirk, and Merritt?

We'll take all of those we can get. If all four want to sign with AU, we'll sign them all, book it.

We will not have room for more than 2 given scholly limits and other needs on the staff's board. You of all people know we don't have unlimited scholly signings anymore.

You miss my point. Those "other needs" would be brushed aside in the unlikely event those guys all wanted to sign with us.

Quote: "I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?" No, four would be sufficient.

So your saying the coaches would sign 2 extra 5 star receivers instead of 2 4 or 3* DEs?

In a heartbeat! If they wanted the DE's bad enough room would be made. It wouldn't have to be "instead of".

Exactly right and some other players would "decide" to go to grad school, transfer closer to home, not get their walk on renewed, grey shirt, etc., to make room. The accurate point you are making is you don't turn away the premium players if you want to build a championship team with real depth.

[ellitor 33,062]

FWIW given the reports on the staff not knowing if they would take all 3 OL of Ivey, Patterson, and CVO how can anyone say or imply we would take all 4 of Burt, Tyron, and the Kirks?

[Mikey 16,545]

FWIW given the reports on the staff not knowing if they would take all 3 OL of Ivey, Patterson, and CVO how can anyone say or imply we would take all 4 of Burt, Tyron, and the Kirks?

Because you don't turn down 5* talent and yes, it is that simple. Recruiting plans are entirely flexible. "Will only take X number of players at Y position" is only valid until some top player shows an unexpected interest. Then all bets (and plans) are off. Those "reports" you mention are only yesterday's idea of what they want to make public.

The "big board" is a chalkboard for a reason. Names, lists and so forth are easy to erase and change on a chalkboard.

[TexasTiger 12,796]

I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?

DEs

[gravejd 3,267]

FWIW given the reports on the staff not knowing if they would take all 3 OL of Ivey, Patterson, and CVO how can anyone say or imply we would take all 4 of Burt, Tyron, and the Kirks?

Because you don't turn down 5* talent and yes, it is that simple. Recruiting plans are entirely flexible. "Will only take X number of players at Y position" is only valid until some top player shows an unexpected interest. Then all bets (and plans) are off. Those "reports" you mention are only yesterday's idea of what they want to make public.

The "big board" is a chalkboard for a reason. Names, lists and so forth are easy to erase and change on a chalkboard.

I'm sure Mikey is just saying we would subtract a currently commited receiver or 2 to make room for the additional receivers. Surely he isn't actually suggested you'd take 4 5* WRs at the expense of under recruiting another position just because the players aren't rated as high there.

[ellitor 33,062]

I'm sure Mikey is just saying we would subtract a currently commited receiver or 2 to make room for the additional receivers. Surely he isn't actually suggested you'd take 4 5* WRs at the expense of under recruiting another position just because the players aren't rated as high there.

I hate to tell him this but Gus don't operate that way. Unlike Saban a commitment to a player means something to Gus.

[WarEagleAU 0]

I thought we needed to sign 28 linebackers?

DEs

5 stars

[mcgufcm 4,096]

Mikey's point is certainly reinforced by what we've seen at Bama. They're willing to take a big-time LB even if the need isn't there. I don't think Mikey is saying we'd pull an offer from a committed player (if he is, he's wrong). I think he's saying you adjust your targets based on the best available talent in a given year.

Again, none of this matters because Christian Kirk isn't going to walk into a signing class that includes Smith, McGriff, Burt, Johnson, and Merritt. Zero percent chance. Heck, I'm not sure Merritt would join with the previous four on the board. Very unlikely. I was asking the priority question because the next two we allow to commit (or are able to get committed) are going to eliminate the interest from the remaining two.

[ellitor 33,062]

Mikey's point is certainly reinforced by what we've seen at Bama. They're willing to take a big-time LB even if the need isn't there. I don't think Mikey is saying we'd pull an offer from a committed player (if he is, he's wrong). I think he's saying you adjust your targets based on the best available talent in a given year..

You wanna know how Bama adjusts their targets? They get rid of the current players on the team that are on the 3rd or 4th teams to make room under the 85 scholly limit. They sign the max every year and cut the virtual fat off the current roster. That's not Gus, or at least he has not done that yet. Gus has yet to sign a full class subsequently forcing other kids out ala Bama.

[Mikey 16,545]

Quote: "I don't think Mikey is saying we'd pull an offer from a committed player (if he is, he's wrong). I think he's saying you adjust your targets based on the best available talent in a given year.

Shhhh, mcgufcm. You are not supposed to bring rational thought to the recruiting forum. Who a team can get and who is available are in a state of constant flux up until signing day. Flexibility is at a premium under these circumstances. It appears that some can't deal with things that aren't set in stone, never to change.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quote: "I don't think Mikey is saying we'd pull an offer from a committed player (if he is, he's wrong). I think he's saying you adjust your targets based on the best available talent in a given year.

Shhhh, mcgufcm. You are not supposed to bring rational thought to the recruiting forum. Who a team can get and who is available are in a state of constant flux up until signing day. Flexibility is at a premium under these circumstances. It appears that some can't deal with things that aren't set in stone, never to change.

I wouldn't put it past Auburn to pull an offer from a committed player. I'm wondering if Jalin Buie from next years class could have his offer pulled if a better running back commits to Auburn.

[lala 327]

We don't pull we just quit taking calls, or calling. It is commonplace and to think it is not is kidding oneself

[Mikey 16,545]

Anyways, somebody told me that the Keith Neenner or whatever his name is guy says AU is ready to take the WR's we have plus Johnson and the two Kirks. So unless Keith However You Spell It is dead wrong, "the board" has been erased and changed once again.

[Mikey 16,545]

We don't pull we just quit taking calls, or calling. It is commonplace and to think it is not is kidding oneself

Yep. It happens every year and the names are soon forgotten so the next year we can holler "holier than thou" and "we don't do that".

[IronMan70 3,277]

Anyways, somebody told me that the Keith Neenner or whatever his name is guy says AU is ready to take the WR's we have plus Johnson and the two Kirks. So unless Keith However You Spell It is dead wrong, "the board" has been erased and changed once again.

You mean Keith "Niebuhr" ? Well if he agrees with you on that, he has pretty good credibility.

[ellitor 33,062]

Anyways, somebody told me that the Keith Neenner or whatever his name is guy says AU is ready to take the WR's we have plus Johnson and the two Kirks. So unless Keith However You Spell It is dead wrong, "the board" has been erased and changed once again.

You were lied to. Keith posted that we would take another WR along with Burt if it was Johnson or Christian Kirk. He did not say we would take both. He also did not mention Kirk Merrit at all as a top target in his post that someone butchered in translation to you.

[Mikey 16,545]

Anyways, somebody told me that the Keith Neenner or whatever his name is guy says AU is ready to take the WR's we have plus Johnson and the two Kirks. So unless Keith However You Spell It is dead wrong, "the board" has been erased and changed once again.

You were lied to. Keith posted that we would take another WR along with Burt if it was Johnson or Christian Kirk. He did not say we would take both. He also did not mention Kirk Merrit at all as a top target in his post that someone butchered in translation to you.

Obviously I don't have an account wherever he posts. Just going by what I heard over coffee. But even by your account the number of WR we'd take has already grown by one. Two wouldn't be much of a stretch. We would NOT turn down a 5* WR because of numbers.

[IronMan70 3,277]

Anyways, somebody told me that the Keith Neenner or whatever his name is guy says AU is ready to take the WR's we have plus Johnson and the two Kirks. So unless Keith However You Spell It is dead wrong, "the board" has been erased and changed once again.

You were lied to. Keith posted that we would take another WR along with Burt if it was Johnson or Christian Kirk. He did not say we would take both. He also did not mention Kirk Merrit at all as a top target in his post that someone butchered in translation to you.

Lied to ? That's a pretty strong word there when you have no way of knowing. Mikey might have just misunderstood. The overall point Mikey made with you, about taking more WRs if they are 5*s, remains and it looks like Niebuhr agrees with him on that.