2018 UMASS GT OT Jack Driscoll commits to AU!!! (4/25/18)

[doc4aday 1,887]

I see no problem with his size. Could be a nice OT that will give us options no doubt. JB will have him playing at SEC caliber by fall.

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

5 hours ago, Barnacle said:

All you recruiting heads must be really optimistic right now.

Nope, the sky is falling....again.

[Zeek 16,650]

On 5/2/2018 at 7:40 PM, doc4aday said:

I see no problem with his size. Could be a nice OT that will give us options no doubt. JB will have him playing at SEC caliber by fall.

I have no problem with it either! Seems like we'll probably start the top 5 guys. It's hard to see him not having a spot somewhere along the line.

[Zeek 16,650]

@ellitor I hate to ask this but I just want to make sure. Does this put us at 25 now for the 2019 class? Thanks in advance.

[ellitor 33,093]

4 minutes ago, Zeek said:

@ellitor I hate to ask this but I just want to make sure. Does this put us at 25 now for the 2019 class? Thanks in advance.

As far as I know but I don't have the info available to me Gus does.

[Zeek 16,650]

34 minutes ago, ellitor said:

As far as I know but I don't have the info available to me Gus does.

Thanks, I'm trying to project about what we'll be looking to take for 2019. If it were me I would aim for the following:

QB: 1 - I believe Nix is the only one we'll be taking for 2019 since we've already moved to 2020 on QB recruiting

RB: 1 - we have a very crowded backfield right now and I'd be surprised if we take more than one; barring a huge exodus at the position

TE/H-B 2 - solely based off the fact that Cox and Harris are going to be on their way out

WR 2 - I believe you said we're being selective with WR and we'll probably only take one more outside of Pickens a quick slot guy wouldn't be a bad idea

OT 2 / OG 2 / C 1 - Barring the slight possibility of getting Clay Webb I don't see us taking another Center and these projections are solely off the fact that I would like to get one for every position on the O-Line.

DT 2 - Rodney Garner usually pulls through with at least a couple of studs at the position

DE 1 - based off a comment I saw you make in the Pickering thread

LB 4 - Maybe even 5 counting Pappoe if possible. There are a lot of good LB prospects in this class. Pappoe, Dean, Starks, Hall, DeLoach would be insane

CB 3 - Flott, Booth, Stevenson would be a solid trio of corners and add some needed depth at the position

S 3 - Sheffield and Simpson taking up two of these spots with McCollough rounding out the 3rd

K 0

P 0

I'm sure I'm way off on something but it's just how I would approach it looking at the depth chart and our offers.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Zeek

[AUApostle 7,651]

11 minutes ago, Zeek said:

Thanks, I'm trying to project about what we'll be looking to take for 2019. If it were me I would aim for the following:

QB: 1 - I believe Nix is the only one we'll be taking for 2019 since we've already moved to 2020 on QB recruiting

RB: 1 - we have a very crowded backfield right now and I'd be surprised if we take more than one; barring a huge exodus at the position

TE/H-B 2 - solely based off the fact that Cox and Harris are going to be on their way out

WR 2 - I believe you said we're being selective with WR and we'll probably only take one more outside of Pickens a quick slot guy wouldn't be a bad idea

OT 2 / OG 2 / C 1 - Barring the slight possibility of getting Clay Webb I don't see us taking another Center and these projections are solely off the fact that I would like to get one for every position on the O-Line.

DT 2 - Rodney Garner usually pulls through with at least a couple of studs at the position

DE 1 - based off a comment I saw you make in the Pickering thread

LB 4 - Maybe even 5 counting Pappoe if possible. There are a lot of good LB prospects in this class. Pappoe, Dean, Starks, Hall, DeLoach would be insane

CB 3 - Flott, Booth, Stevenson would be a solid trio of corners and add some needed depth at the position

S 3 - I'm not too sure we need three to be honest but I'm trying to round out the total. McCollough, Beasley, Mingo but I'm not too excited about the Safety prospects

K 0

P 0

I'm sure I'm way off on something but it's just how I would approach it looking at the depth chart and our offers.

Where are you putting Simpson and Sheffield?

[Zeek 16,650]

3 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Where are you putting Simpson and Sheffield?

Don't know how I forgot to include them. I suppose they take two of the Safety positions mentioned. 

[ellitor 33,093]

2 minutes ago, Zeek said:

Don't know how I forgot to include them. I suppose they take two of the Safety positions mentioned. 

Simpson is a CB all the way. Of the 2 Flott would be the more likely to move to Safety.

[ellitor 33,093]

20 minutes ago, Zeek said:

Thanks, I'm trying to project about what we'll be looking to take for 2019. If it were me I would aim for the following:

QB: 1 - I believe Nix is the only one we'll be taking for 2019 since we've already moved to 2020 on QB recruiting

RB: 1 - we have a very crowded backfield right now and I'd be surprised if we take more than one; barring a huge exodus at the position

TE/H-B 2 - solely based off the fact that Cox and Harris are going to be on their way out

WR 2 - I believe you said we're being selective with WR and we'll probably only take one more outside of Pickens a quick slot guy wouldn't be a bad idea

OT 2 / OG 2 / C 1 - Barring the slight possibility of getting Clay Webb I don't see us taking another Center and these projections are solely off the fact that I would like to get one for every position on the O-Line.

DT 2 - Rodney Garner usually pulls through with at least a couple of studs at the position

DE 1 - based off a comment I saw you make in the Pickering thread

LB 4 - Maybe even 5 counting Pappoe if possible. There are a lot of good LB prospects in this class. Pappoe, Dean, Starks, Hall, DeLoach would be insane

CB 3 - Flott, Booth, Stevenson would be a solid trio of corners and add some needed depth at the position

S 3 - Sheffield and Simpson taking up two of these spots with McCollough rounding out the 3rd

K 0

P 0

I'm sure I'm way off on something but it's just how I would approach it looking at the depth chart and our offers.

Not way off from what I've seen at all if you are counting the Buck as an LB. The only difference I have seen is planning to sign only 1-2 safeties.

[Zeek 16,650]

2 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Simpson is a CB all the way. Of the 2 Flott would be the more likely to move to Safety.

Oh okay, I thought I saw Simpson listed as a WR/S prospect but I misremembered.

[ellitor 33,093]

1 minute ago, Zeek said:

Oh okay, I thought I saw Simpson listed as a WR/S prospect but I misremembered.

WR/CB.

[Zeek 16,650]

1 minute ago, ellitor said:

Not way off from what I've seen at all if you are counting the Buck as an LB. The only difference I have seen is planning to sign only 1-2 safeties.

Yes I was lumping Buck in with LB though I could see the argument of it being more of a DL position as of late. So instead of 3 safeties that other spot would probably go towards? Best player available probably? 

[bigbird 60,522]

We need 1 stud safety and 1 flex safety that could play nickle. With what we will lose, I'd also like us to get 3 DT

[SaturdayGT 719]

Jack Driscoll,...Definitely a O-linemans name in football...Jack Driscoll hall of fame inductee! Could also have been either a hero, villain, outlaw or sheriff from the old west....The driscoll Kidd,.."The names Jack,....Jack Driscoll.." .He could have been the subject of a Johnny Cash song........Jack Driscoll could be,....the most interesting man in the world......

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

Jack Driscoll,...Definitely a O-linemans name in football...Jack Driscoll hall of fame inductee! Could also have been either a hero, villain, outlaw or sheriff from the old west....The driscoll Kidd,.."The names Jack,....Jack Driscoll.." .He could have been the subject of a Johnny Cash song........Jack Driscoll could be,....the most interesting man in the world......

A regular Bill Brasky of the Gridiron. 

[ellitor 33,093]

2 hours ago, Zeek said:

So instead of 3 safeties that other spot would probably go towards? Best player available probably? 

Not guaranteed all available will be used. As of now the staff plans to sign 22 in this class.

[CameronCrazy 1,059]

47 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Not guaranteed all available will be used. As of now the staff plans to sign 22 in this class.

I don’t know why the staff makes these kinds of statements. We all know that our attrition is around double digits every year, so why wouldn’t we go ahead and plan to sign the maximum amount? Why limit how many spots you’re planning to have this early in the process?

My fear is that we are limiting who we recruit. For example, we may stop recruiting a CB because we already have 2 committed. Now, the staff may change their mind in 2 months and start recruiting a kid again, but he may have moved on to another school because we stopped communicating with him.

Under Gus Malzahn, we have yet to hit the 85 scholarship player mark without handing out scholarships to walk-ons. Our goal should always be signing 25.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

55 minutes ago, CameronCrazy said:

I don’t know why the staff makes these kinds of statements. We all know that our attrition is around double digits every year, so why wouldn’t we go ahead and plan to sign the maximum amount? Why limit how many spots you’re planning to have this early in the process?

My fear is that we are limiting who we recruit. For example, we may stop recruiting a CB because we already have 2 committed. Now, the staff may change their mind in 2 months and start recruiting a kid again, but he may have moved on to another school because we stopped communicating with him.

Under Gus Malzahn, we have yet to hit the 85 scholarship player mark without handing out scholarships to walk-ons. Our goal should always be signing 25.

And all 5 stars too! 

[fredst 9,064]

5 hours ago, ClaytonAU said:

And all 5 stars too! 

Damn right, a4e!

[AuburnNTexas 7,143]

I could see two DE's with one being a DE/DT type and two true DT's. Garner seems to like getting a big DE playing him 1 year at DE then as he fills out moving him to DT.

[ellitor 33,093]

On 5/4/2018 at 3:33 PM, CameronCrazy said:

I don’t know why the staff makes these kinds of statements. We all know that our attrition is around double digits every year, so why wouldn’t we go ahead and plan to sign the maximum amount? Why limit how many spots you’re planning to have this early in the process?

My fear is that we are limiting who we recruit. For example, we may stop recruiting a CB because we already have 2 committed. Now, the staff may change their mind in 2 months and start recruiting a kid again, but he may have moved on to another school because we stopped communicating with him.

Under Gus Malzahn, we have yet to hit the 85 scholarship player mark without handing out scholarships to walk-ons. Our goal should always be signing 25.

1st off. The staff doesn't make any statement on numbers. That comes from AU recruiting reporters.

2nd. Even though attrition has been high under Gus it still can't be assumed. If it is assumed & we sign numbers based on that assumption guess what happens if we don't naturally get to that attrition point. Some kids would have to be processed which is not Gus's style or you lose some of the kids you had signed due to not having room to enroll them when their time comes. Those kids would still count to the 2019 25 Initial Counter limit so they would be lost spots.

3. No. This is not a video game. The goal should be developing players well enough a la Clemson so you don't have the high attrition outside of players maybe going pro so you don't have to try to sign 25 each year.

Edited May 6, 2018 by ellitor

[CameronCrazy 1,059]

12 hours ago, ellitor said:

1st off. The staff doesn't make any statement on numbers. That comes from AU recruiting reporters.

2nd. Even though attrition has been high under Gus it still can't be assumed. If it is assumed & we sign numbers based on that assumption guess what happens if we don't naturally get to that attrition point. Some kids would have to be processed which is not Gus's style or you lose some of the kids you had signed due to not having room to enroll them when their time comes. Those kids would still count to the 2019 25 Initial Counter limit so they would be lost spots.

3. No. This is not a video game. The goal should be developing players well enough a la Clemson so you don't have the high attrition outside of players maybe going pro so you don't have to try to sign 25 each year.

100% agree that the ultimate goal should be the Clemson blue-print. But Malzahn is heading into year 6 and we’re still not there yet. So I think the immediate goal should be to sign the max until we can hit the 85 mark with our signing class.

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 hours ago, CameronCrazy said:

100% agree that the ultimate goal should be the Clemson blue-print. But Malzahn is heading into year 6 and we’re still not there yet. So I think the immediate goal should be to sign the max until we can hit the 85 mark with our signing class.

Except we're consistently signing transfers who come in much better prepared than most high school kids, especially the kind of projects that we'd likely have to sign to max out at 25 every recruiting cycle. We're not going to get 25 true college football players out of high school every season. Nobody does. No point in wasting schollies just to solve a math problem IMO. Leave those spots for the quality transfers that are available every season. 

[AU64 10,122]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Except we're consistently signing transfers who come in much better prepared than most high school kids, especially the kind of projects that we'd likely have to sign to max out at 25 every recruiting cycle. We're not going to get 25 true college football players out of high school every season. Nobody does. No point in wasting schollies just to solve a math problem IMO. Leave those spots for the quality transfers that are available every season. 

This  ^^^^     And since attrition is not predictable, you can end up with a specific  "need" and no HS player available to fill it.   Having the ability to get a couple guys who are  "ready to play" and who can help at a point of need is a reasonable way to balance out a team IMO.