Mikey 16,605 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 "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 More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,391 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 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 More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Mikey 16,605 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 "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 More sharing options...
AU-24 3,096 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 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 More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,170 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Confucius says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 "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 More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,391 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Mikey 16,605 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 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 More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I think we need to sign another 5* WR. Sorry .. figured an a4e redirect was in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,605 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 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 More sharing options...
JFDTiger80 790 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 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 More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,391 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 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 More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 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 More sharing options...
NoALtiger 3,865 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 No grayshirt, he'll compete for the job when he comes in May. http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2015/01/ian_shannon_wont_grayshirt_to.html#incart_river Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 No grayshirt, he'll compete for the job when he comes in May. http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2015/01/ian_shannon_wont_grayshirt_to.html#incart_river we need him to be able to take over the punting duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,605 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 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 More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,100 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I take it numbers are not an issue for the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Sounds like we have room for at least 6, 5 stars left! lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im4au 44 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 No grayshirt, he'll compete for the job when he comes in May. http://www.al.com/au...ml#incart_river we need him to be able to take over the punting duties. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 No grayshirt, he'll compete for the job when he comes in May. http://www.al.com/au...ml#incart_river we need him to be able to take over the punting duties. This this x 2! We couldn't afford to gray shirt him. We need him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
around4ever 4,139 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Congrats to Ian!! Who would ever think a thread about a punter recruit would get to 14 pages? Recruiting is great!! #WDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTennis80 345 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 And our punting was bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.