metafour

Scholarship numbers already don't matter because NOBODY - not even Alabama or Georgia, has 85 players on their roster with absolutely nobody who can be "processed" out at any given point in time. Nobody has 85 players who are all irreplaceable. Even if you sign nothing but 4 and 5 stars every year, you are still going to have guys who are duds and are just depth-chart fodder. So under your scenario where there are 2 very good players available but we're at 85 scholarships already, all you need to do is process 2 players from your current roster. That's literally what everyone is already doing and has been doing for years. What you are describing is entirely possible from a technical standpoint, but the point you're missing is that nobody will do it because it's a waste of money with no actual benefit to the end result. Georgia hasn't won back to back titles because their #83, #84, and #85 players on their roster are better than everyone else's #83, #84, and #85 players. Those guys don't even see the field at any point in time during the season. They've won because the guys who actually see the field are elite and better than everyone else's guys who actually see the field. So let's pretend you have $250K sitting around and you're at 85 scholarships already. Why would I give player #86 that money to "walk-on" when I can instead use that money to upgrade let's say the weakest actual starter on my team by bringing in an impact player from another player? If you want that #86 scholarship guy so badly, you can literally just tell someone off the current roster to find a new school. Paying someone money to pretend to be a "walk-on" has extremely low if not negative return-on-capital lol.

I mean, this whole thing bodes worse for Dart than it does for Sanders lol. Kiffin isn't bringing Sanders in for no reason.

It's well known where he is from that his dad is basically shopping him to the highest bidder and looking for his retirement ticket, hence why his entire recruitment revolved around that (originally committed to Miami and their massive NIL collective, then flipped once this massive offer came from Florida...which we now know isn't actually real lol). It's within their right to treat his recruitment however they wish to treat it, but this is the most obvious example of the parent-looking-for-a-payout trope that was obviously going to bear it's head once NIL became a real thing. I don't think there was much thought throughout this entire process in terms of what the best school for his actual football future was.

Of course, but unfortunately a lot of these kids are just tools for family members to use as a meal ticket. The kid is just a victim in the whole process, but he'll bear the brunt of the backlash.

You are wrong. Freeze has inquired on at least 4-5 different QB's that would have been clear-cut starters over Ashford. 2-3 of those are guys from other schools who didn't officially enter the portal. Your entire premise is silly, as Grayson McCall literally entered the portal with the intention of coming to Auburn...until his transcript prevented that from happening. So if Freeze had no intention of taking a QB, then what was all that about? Why was Leary from NC State brought in for a visit? So all we know so far is that they have clearly looked for an upgrade at QB, but they have been selective about it. Please note that if TJ Finley does indeed plan on leaving as soon as he graduates after the spring, then we are at only 3 scholarship QB's (Ashford, Geriner, Hank Brown). This means that they will need to bring in a transfer QB regardless in the spring window in order to maintain 4 scholarship QB's.

Do you believe that every single bad QB is just a product of poor OL play? I don't need to bring up bad OL play because this is obvious and everyone knows it. I've also seen enough football to know that trying to explain away Ashford's problems by blaming it on other position groups is a farfetched proposition. We actually do have a reference point because Bo Nix played behind largely the exact same OL and surrounding talent, and he was consistently much better than Ashford was. So yes, Ashford should theoretically play better in a better offensive system with better blocking. But what is your expectation for him and this team? Him playing at an "average" level still isn't good enough if you have any expectation of actually beating good teams.

What does Gus have to do with Ashford who over 3 seasons had not been able to make any dent on the depth chart at Oregon and transferred to Auburn, and then only got on the field at Auburn because everything collapsed and the guy they actually brought in to start (Calzada) opted to have surgery instead of playing? For the millionth time, Ashford didn't even beat out TJ Finley for the starting job. TJ Finley himself came to Auburn because he was 3rd string at LSU. These are some of the weakest arguments I have ever seen. Are we now implying that Hugh Freeze can just turn ANYONE into a good QB? That isn't how this works at all. Just because Freeze is a good QB coach,it does NOT mean that Robby Ashford is magically fixed.

This comparison makes zero sense and isn't grounded in any factual reality. You are grasping at the tiniest of straws. Malik Willis attempted 14 passes in an Auburn uniform, and he completed 11 of those (78%). He threw 0 interceptions. He never got the opportunity to succeed OR fail because he was stuck behind a 5-star legacy QB and never got to actually play. Robby Ashford on the other hand has been stuck behind a bunch of bad QB's. Through sheer luck on his part and misfortune on our own, he got to start most of last season. At no point in time over Malik Willis' 4-year NCAA career did he EVER drop below 60% in completion percentage. Over his career, he threw nearly 3x as many touchdowns as he did interceptions. Robby Ashford completed 49% of his passes last season and threw as many interceptions as he did touchdowns. So what is the comparison supposed to be here? Some of you need to realize that Malik Willis was never "bad" on the actual field of play in any real game situation. You are free to Google his ACTUAL stats and see that for yourself. Robby Ashford was bad last season. And yet somehow there is this push to create a false narrative as if Willis started multiple games at Auburn and looked like crap doing it. Uhhh, no. He completed 11 of 14 passes. That's the extent of his AU career (well, he also was successful when running the football) Why not compare Ashford to Kodi Burns, John Franklin III, or Kiehl Frazier instead? He is much closer to those former AU QB's than he is to Willis. Do you know why he is closer to them? Because those guys got the chance to start and were bad; which is closer to what Ashford is now than this nonsense comparison to Malik Willis. Of course, I know why people like to make s*** up and try to push this comparison to Willis: it allows them to believe that we may have a great dynamic QB who for some reason just hasn't succeeded yet lol. I hate to be the breaker of bad news, but just because you like a player, doesn't mean that he will meet your lofty expectations. Robby Ashford? Oh he's Jason Campbell or Malik Willis! Forget the 3-4 other former AU QB's who were major failures who he's actually more comparable to 😆.

It won't happen because who in the hell has that much money or interest in paying it? Boosters are already getting tired of being asked to donate, and the price-tags of some of these players is already causing people to tap out - and this is for starting caliber players. Who in the hell wants to pay the hypothetical 100th man on a roster money? You realize that the 100th man on a roster NEVER gets into a game, right? An NFL roster is 53 players, only ~48 of whom can actually suit up for a game. But you think that an NCAA program has the appetite or funds to pay Joe Schmoe the 6th string RB (player #90 on the overall roster lmao) to suit up on the Scout team? No, the vast majority of an NCAA team's yearly "budget" will go towards paying it's QB and star players, and their elite HS recruits. Nobody gives a s*** about wasting money so that you can "skirt the scholarship limits" by coercing player #90 to walk onto your team. This provides absolutely zero benefit.

Actually, Shivers' issue is that he's too stiff and has very little lateral agility. He actually isn't "small" at all once you scale up his weight relative to his tiny frame. He is nearly 190 pounds at a "listed" 5'7 (he is probably closer to 5'6 in reality). That is essentially the equivalent to 215+ pounds on a ~5'10 or 5'11 RB. His limitation is that he just isn't that good when it comes to being an actual NATURAL RB. All he can do is run fast in a straight line. There is very little nuance to his running style, and nuance is what actually defines a "great" RB. He can't change direction very well nor can he stop/start/redirect his momentum. Brian Battie is smaller than Shivers but he is a considerably more natural and BETTER runner. That is why he is a ~1,200 yard runner whereas Shivers is a backup/gadget player over literally 5 NCAA seasons. You are making a very weak comparison by suggesting that Shivers' big limitation is his lack of size (it's not) and then suggesting that a comparably small RB must therefore also have the same upside/limitation.

He has no history of ever being known to be "accurate". He is an athlete trying to play QB going all the way back to his time at Hoover HS, where he had all the same flaws you see today. This is all known. I can point out to you that he actually started his senior year recruitment cycle as a fairly highly rated 4-star QB, and finished the cycle as a 3-star...because he didn't look particularly good in his senior season. A shoulder injury is a real thing. What isn't real is trying to pretend like his inaccuracy and other issues are simply due to his shoulder. When you try to explain away his serious flaws that he showed last season by saying "oh, well his shoulder was hurt" then you are in essence trying to suggest that these would be non-concerns had he otherwise not been hurt. But in reality, he was just as inaccurate and mistake prone all offseason when he was in competition for the starting job. In case you forgot, mighty TJ Finley beat him out to become the starter. You are free to go back and read the countless reports of Ashford from the summer/fall and you can pretty easily see that all the reporting correlates exactly with what he looked like as the starting QB in real game action.

What does that have to do with what I said? Robby Ashford struggles with completing the passes that actually make or break a football game. It's not about him simply "completing 3 more passes per game" which is what the post I was responding to was trying to suggest. It's about him making the actual difficult throws in the spots of the game wherein a completion will push the outcome of the game towards a win. If you design an offense wherein you just call simple dump-offs and low difficulty throws, the QB completing those passes doesn't automatically equal a "good QB'. This is the literal definition of the NFL passing over heavy system QB's from these specialty offenses wherein they complete ~70% of the throws for lots of yards, and yet no one in the NFL gives a s***. Here's the actuality of the QB position: over the course of a game, there are probably ~10 passes that are 50/50 and come in highly important spots in the game. An elite QB will make those throws, which leads to wins. The other 10-15 passes wherein you're throwing to wide open receivers, throwing screen passes, completing a pass for 7 yards on 3rd and 14, etc. are low-impact plays that ANY QB should be expected to complete. The entire point here is that the difference between Bryce Young and Robby Ashford is more intricate than saying "gee, if we get Robby to complete 3-4 more passes, he's right there!". No, the difference is that someone like Bryce Young will make those ~5-10 plays over the course of the game that actually leads to wins.

This is a nonsense excuse that I will continue to call out. His shoulder was perfectly healthy during the fall camp, wherein EVERY report was clear to point out that he was highly erratic and extremely mistake prone. His shoulder was perfectly healthy over the multiple years he spent at Oregon, wherein he couldn't even get to #3 on their depth chart...because he was mistake prone and erratic. This is a convenient excuse that doesn't take into account that these flaws that he has were KNOWN QUALITIES throughout his entire 3 years as an NCAA football player. They didn't magically pop up once he hurt his shoulder. For you to phrase the scenario that way is the definition of dishonesty.

But this is a silly way to try to explain what the real issue is. It's not about a hard "number" that he needs to reach in terms of completion percentage. If he throws 3 more simple screen passes every game next season completes them and that gets him to "60%", that doesn't imply that he is now a good QB.

I don't even understand what the excitement is supposed to be, because the actual "facts" don't even suggest any improvement. Fun fact: his completion percentage over the last ~4-5 games of the season actually dropped to ~42%. So he was actually LESS accurate, which is very troubling considering that we actually started to run the ball better, and Ashford himself was used more as a runner. Normally an increase in running threat should open up the passing game and create easier completions, but he somehow completed even fewer passes. Even if you just simply look objectively at what Cadillac/Will Friend/Ike Hilliard did once they took over, it doesn't bode well for Ashford: they essentially reduced his pass attempts considerably, and started using him as a de facto third RB. Sure some of that is probably a reflection of the state of the OL and their inability to pass block, but you'd have to be really naïve to not consider that they took a long hard look at what we had in Ashford, and basically concluded that he was so far off as a passer that it made more sense to just run some 1050's inspired offense wherein he's used as a runner as much as he is a passer. Nobody does that voluntarily in 2022 unless the QB just can't complete passes consistently.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a debbie downer and everything to do with taking real stock of the situation and properly evaluating what we have. Here's the problem with AU fans: every year there is this idiotic delusion to try to build up and hype players who have proven nothing (and in many cases have actually shown to be not very good), and then those same fans turn around and act surprised as to why we're a bottom-tier SEC team. If you want to envision actually being a top team, then you need to be realistic with what you have. Some of you have spent ~3 years trying to convince yourselves that our under-talented OL just needed "more time" and "better coaching". If your immediate reaction to a player is that "better coaching" will somehow make him good, then you're already operating from a point of delusion. More often than not, a player who isn't very good is simply lacking himself, as opposed to being a "Heisman talent" who apparently has just had everything go against him (lol). The fact of the matter is that this Auburn roster has been significantly eroded of talent. That includes the QB position. We are talking about a 3rd year player who has spent the entirety of his NCAA career as a 3rd/4th stringer. By sheer luck on his part, he got to play most of last season. He did not look overly good, made a ton of mistakes, and put up some very concerning and poor stats. You have to be delusionally optimistic to look at the picture here and conclude: "yeah he's the guy, he just liked baseball more and needs better coaching". C'mon dawg, don't make me laugh. Ashford playing baseball isn't even an anomaly. There are LOTS of football players who played or play multiple sports, especially QB's and baseball. Ashford wasn't some underprivileged recruit: he played at Hoover and then received P5 coaching at Oregon and Auburn. By the way, he was on Oregon's baseball team for like 20 games. I've seen that spun too to make it seems like he was "focusing on baseball" when in fact he quit baseball almost immediately and was focusing entirely on football. The same flaws you saw in his game last season are why he dropped to a 3-star recruit by the time he signed, and why he was buried on Oregon's depth chart. He isn't young (same age as Finley, one year younger than Bo Nix) and has pretty severe flaws as a QB. It's also forgotten that he was actually committed to Ole Miss, until Lane Kiffin was hired. He decommitted when Kiffin was hired, but don't you think that a QB-guy/offensive wizard like Kiffin would have worked to keep him in his class if he actually thought that he was a difference maker at QB?

Dear god. Okay, here we go... Jason Campbell was a 5-star recruit and one of the top QB's in his class. Robby Ashford was a 3-star recruit on both 247 and Rivals (ESPN rated him a 4-star, but ESPN's HS rankings are useless). So right from the bat, you have zero basis for comparison. Nobody with a brain who knows anything about football thinks that Ashford is anywhere near Jason Campbell in terms of talent. Do you also believe that with the "right coaching" that Wesley Steiner could be Takeo Spikes? Why stop there? I love how silly Auburn fans like yourself automatically jump to Jason Campbell every time we have a bad QB sitting as the "starter". No, you dolt - not every bad QB can be coached into Jason Campbell. Jason Campbell wasn't ever even BAD in the first place. This is the single dumbest Auburn take that repeatedly gets spread around. Jason Campbell NEVER dipped below 60% completion in any one of his 4 seasons at Auburn. And this was back during the West Coast offense days where you weren't completing easy high-completion passes all game long. So what exactly is the comparison here supposed to be? Do you need me to pull out a calculator for you to calculate the MASSIVE difference between 49% completion (Ashford) and 62.7%, 63.1%, and 61.8% completion (Campbell over his first 3 seasons)? Robby Ashford is MUCH closer in comparison to someone like Kodi Burns or Kiehl Frazier than he is to Jason Campbell. Why didn't you use that as a comparison? Except he DOES NOT have "all the tools". Do you understand how complicated it is to play QB at this level? Here's your problem: you think that "tools" means running fast and throwing the ball far. Those are two out of maybe a dozen possible "tools". How about accuracy? touch? timing? processing ability? Which of those tools has Ashford shown consistently? How about pocket presence? How about awareness? He has shown NONE of those things; and those are the ACTUAL "tools" that make or break a QB. There are a million big, strong, fast guys with big arms who suck *** at QB and NEVER develop. That's because the above traits are barely if at all coachable. So save me the joke of the suggestion that you're just going to "coach up" a 3rd stringer into a Heisman QB - what an absolute joke lmao. Yes bro, Robby Ashford is Jason Campbell! Just needs some more coaching! And Austin Troxell would have been Marcus McNeill if only he had the right coaching hahaha!

No, I don't believe that a RB who ran for 1,200 yards last season chose to go to a school that will give him 3 snaps from scrimmage per SEC game. Why would he do that? The fact that he is coming here would strongly imply that Freeze/Montgomery pitched a pretty significant role for him. Otherwise he would have went elsewhere.

Passing Alston? The guy with 14 carries for 85 yards? Yes, I think the RB who ran for nearly 1,200 yards last season can "pass" Alston and a true freshman lol. Brian Battie is MUCH better as a RB than Shivers is/was. Defaulting to "he's small" is pretty weak. The kid from Kansas State who ran for 133 on Bama is 5'6 176 pounds.

By his entire college career and HS career, lol. He was a clear athlete playing QB in HS with noted accuracy issues (hence why he landed at Oregon in the first place) and over 250 pass attempts in college he is a 49% completion passes. Please note that the same stuff you saw in live game action is what he was showing all fall camp prior to any shoulder injury, hence why TJ Finley was the starter in the first place and why Ashford would have been 3rd string with a healthy Calzada in the fold. We can also safely deduce that if he was looking accurate during his two seasons at Oregon, he probably wouldn't have been 3rd/4th string on their depth chart. So really, the onus is to prove WHEN he has been an accurate passer, because there is no record of it. Furthermore, what is the list of P5 QB's who have drastically improved their accuracy in year #4 after being grossly inaccurate over 3 seasons? I can't imagine that the list is very long, considering that we know that "accuracy" contains a large component that isn't coachable.

You're going to need to provide some actual proof for ridiculous statements like this. Robbie is a 3rd year player who was ~4th string at Oregon (behind two non-starter QB's, one of whom just transferred to San Jose State or San Diego State) and then was 3rd string at Auburn (or should have been) behind TJ Finley and Calzada - neither of whom are SEC starting QB's themselves. He only got onto the field this past season because the season imploded and Calzada chose not to play and opted out for surgery, even though he was healthy enough to go in. When Robby did start, the team lost almost every game and by the numbers he graded out as one of the worst QB's in the country. So now it's your turn to explain which part of the above storyline suggests that we have a Heisman contending QB on our hands? A guy who has Heisman ability would have beat a scrub like TJ Finley out for the job right out of fall camp. In fact, he wouldn't have even needed to leave Oregon in the first place. A Heisman caliber QB does not ever complete just 49% of their passes; I don't give a rats ass what the situation is. And Robby Ashford is NOT "young"; he now has multiple years of legit P5 coaching at two different P5 schools. Do you think that every ~3rd string QB in the country who has some level of athletic ability is a "Heisman capable" QB? Or is this somehow the one-in-a-million scenario?

It's pretty obvious that they want a QB who has actually taken snaps and has a track record. There's a big difference between going for McCall/Leary and then choosing a kid with 4 career pass attempts. We'll see if that changes as this window closes, but the thought process is likely that they can wait till spring if they want to take a backup with limited/no experience.

QB is a position wherein you either believe in the guy or you don't. It's not really a "someone else said he's good, so why not?" type deal. As of right now, they clearly don't see Sanders as being a big enough upgrade to commit to him. If they did, he probably would have been committed by now.

Spencer Sanders does not have an offer and has not been brought in for a visit. As of now, they do not have interest in him.

They have an entire department off off-field staff that handles recruiting. Part of that would be managing the transfer portal.