2020 Recruiting Thread (OP Update 1/30/19)

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 hours ago, Mikey said:

We lost four senior linebackers off of last year's team. We have a number of youngsters that look good on paper but have not had to produce in SEC game type situations. LB's are handy to have around, they are just the right physical type to serve on special teams. I think we should at least replace the four that graduated. With some saying we may only take one more player on offense, there is definitely room for a fourth linebacker. There's a quality LB (Tisdol) that wants to come to Auburn. I say welcome him in.

Atkinson, Davis, Williams and...?

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, roe4christ said:

You have a guy with legit talent, that loves Auburn, I think you make the room, especially at the LB position. Hope this one does not come back to bite us. 

The staff have thoroughly evaluated this guy. They don't see him fitting into their plans. It doesn't really matter how talented he is or how talented the recruiting services think he is. And it doesn't matter if he goes on to have success elsewhere. If he's not the right guy for *our* team then we should not take him.

Now, there are a number of position groups where you could second-guess our staff and I would not argue with you. Linebacker is not one of them.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don't see holding more than one slot open for a grad transfer that might fall out of the sky or might not. We graduated four linebackers off the 2018 team. We signed three last cycle, Pappoe and two projects. Logic would say that we should make room for another 4* LB, given that we took a 2* last year just because we needed the warm body at LB.

Inaccurate again. We didn't take any 2*s at linebacker last year. And since when are 3*s considered "projects"? 

Also, it wasn't that long ago that you said scholarship players equal sufficient depth. You said it numerous times. 

[Sizzle 3,912]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don't see holding more than one slot open for a grad transfer that might fall out of the sky or might not. We graduated four linebackers off the 2018 team. We signed three last cycle, Pappoe and two projects. Logic would say that we should make room for another 4* LB, given that we took a 2* last year just because we needed the warm body at LB.

Who was the 2*?

[bigbird 60,525]

We have depth. 😁

[ellitor 33,093]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

We graduated four linebackers off the 2018 team. We signed three last cycle

We don't use 3 LB sets much anymore & haven't since offenses have become more spread oriented.  Your logic would work if we still did. However we only play 2 LBs per play roughly 80% of the time with the other 20% being a 3rd LB set. We have 8 schollied LBs on roster now. Barring attrition that will be 11 next season. There is absolutely no need to take another LB unless the staff feels he is elite. We'd basically be 6 deep at each of the 2 major LB positions because when we aren't using 3 LB sets those LBs that play the 3rd LB are in rotation with the 2 primary LB positions.

[ellitor 33,093]

4 minutes ago, Sizzle said:

Who was the 2*?

He's thinking Kam Brown but he got bumped to 3* just before NSD.

[ellitor 33,093]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

We have depth. 😁

And will be more than needed IMO.

[bigbird 60,525]

Just now, ellitor said:

And will be more than needed IMO.

Have told him the same thing for two years.

[McLoofus 35,182]

27 minutes ago, ellitor said:

We don't use 3 LB sets much anymore & haven't since offenses have become more spread oriented.  Your logic would work if we still did. However we only play 2 LBs per play roughly 80% of the time with the other 20% being a 3rd LB set. We have 8 schollied LBs on roster now. Barring attrition that will be 11 next season. There is absolutely no need to take another LB unless the staff feels he is elite. We'd basically be 6 deep at each of the 2 major LB positions because when we aren't using 3 LB sets those LBs that play the 3rd LB are in rotation with the 2 primary LB positions.

My logic? Preaching to the choir, my friend. 

I actually typed out something similar to your post and then deleted because you know who isn't concerned with meaningful information. He thinks that TWill saying that we played with 3 linebackers in 3 or 4 games last season- not that we used them for all or even most of those games (we didn't), but simply that we used 3 of them at some point during those games- means that we need to stock the roster to be 3 deep at 3 different positions. 

But you already know all that. 

Edit: Clarified below

 

[ellitor 33,093]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

My logic?

My OP is fixed. I mistakenly quoted that part of his post from your post where you quoted him instead of straight up quoting him.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, ellitor said:

My OP is fixed. I mistakenly quoted that part of his post from your post where you quoted him instead of straight up quoting him.

Should've guessed. Updated mine also. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

27 minutes ago, ellitor said:

He's thinking Kam Brown but he got bumped to 3* just before NSD.

And deservedly so. I forgot how productive he was in high school. Gwinett County POTY on defense is big time. Really, his recruiting profile reads a lot like our dude Double D. 

 

[abw0004 10,113]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Atkinson, Davis, Williams and...?

Richard McBryde

[mcgufcm 4,096]

It's not that we never use 3-LB sets. We still sprinkle them in from time-to-time. Even so, I think approaching the position as a "four guys for two spots" approach is best for a few reasons:  (1) that's our base set; (2) the Buck/End guys we're recruiting have the ability to slide back, even if that's not their primary use; and (3) most of our guys cross-train so you could easily just increase the reps for one of the two backups and play that person as the additional outside backer on those 10-15 snaps per game. In the event of an injury, you would just cut those snaps. In a true 4-3 defense, you have to move a guy into that OLB spot, but for us, we'd just increase the snaps for the Nickel.

If you view it as a 4-2-5 with a swing DE, we're recruiting appropriately in terms of numbers.

Britt/Harris/Brown - ILB only
Pappoe/Wooten/Brothers - ILB/OLB
McClain/Marsh - OLB only
Moultry/Coe (part-time)/Wooden/Hall - Buck LB/DE

Then, add the current commits:

Simpson/Steiner - ILB/OLB
Riley - OLB only

Plus, we're still recruiting Webb at Buck LB/DE/OLB, and we're still evaluating targets for Buck LB/DE. I understand the fact that, for a long time, we under-signed the position, and that's true. It just appears to be untrue now based on the facts that our base defense has changed and our WDE (now called Buck) offer more positional flexibility than they have in the past. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

But our linebacker coach said we use 3 sometimes when asked if he- the linebacker coach- wants to recruit more linebackers. 

It's just like department heads right before the next year's budget is made. They get hyper-honest about their expenses and needs so that they can make sure they don't take a single cent over what's really needed. They do this so that all the money can be appropriated properly and so that other departments that may or may not need the money more get it instead of them. 

[Mikey 16,598]

McBryde is the fourth senior LB off last year's team.

Brown is currently listed as a 2* on Rivals.

TWill said we primarily used 3 LB sets against LSU, A&M, UGA and UAT. Sounds like when it's a big game we go with 3 LB's. If we use 3 LB's in the big games, I think we might as well be fully prepared to use 3 LB's.

There are a lot of things that I've "been told" for much longer than two years. There are a number of those that are just as inaccurate as the LB statement. Check any game program from 2018 and you'll see that there are three starting LB's listed. The nickle goes in frequently according to down and distance situations but the 3 LB set is commonly used.

There is no shortage of slots. If one current commit flips, slips or slides away there will be 10 available. I'd use one of those on a 4* LB. Anybody that wants to hold multiple slots open for next year on their make-believe board is clearly free to do so. My make believe board has the LB plugged in.

[Mikey 16,598]

Reading on the P. Webb thread, it seems we have room for a LB if it's Webb. Now, if someone wanted to say that we're holding the 4th LB spot open for Webb and won't take Tisdol's commitment at this time because of waiting for Webb, that I could buy. However, nobody thought to put that here. I wonder why?

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

McBryde is the fourth senior LB off last year's team.

Brown is currently listed as a 2* on Rivals.

TWill said we primarily used 3 LB sets against LSU, A&M, UGA and UAT. Sounds like when it's a big game we go with 3 LB's. If we use 3 LB's in the big games, I think we might as well be fully prepared to use 3 LB's.

There are a lot of things that I've "been told" for much longer than two years. There are a number of those that are just as inaccurate as the LB statement. Check any game program from 2018 and you'll see that there are three starting LB's listed. The nickle goes in frequently according to down and distance situations but the 3 LB set is commonly used.

There is no shortage of slots. If one current commit flips, slips or slides away there will be 10 available. I'd use one of those on a 4* LB. Anybody that wants to hold multiple slots open for next year on their make-believe board is clearly free to do so. My make believe board has the LB plugged in.

McBryde was a junior last year. A redshirt junior, but a junior nonetheless. But he is gone, you're right. Doesn't change the ample number of scholarship linebackers we have available. By your own words, repeated several times, scholarship players equal quality depth. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to harp on recruiting rankings and inventing words like "project". 

Speaking of, Brown is a composite 3* on 247 which is the only valid measure on this forum.

I don't recall TWill using the word "primarily". We certainly didn't primarily use a 3rd linebacker in the video I provided to you. Can you provide a quote where he said we primarily used a 3rd linebacker in those 4 games? Not that they were the only important games we played last year, of course. We also played a top 10 OOC opponent in the opener, 3 other division games, another conference game, and a bowl game. So we actually played 6 more "important" games than the 4 you mentioned. So unless we "primarily" used a 3rd linebacker in all 6 of those as well, then it's inaccurate to say that "we use 3 LB's <sic> in the big games". 

 

[Mikey 16,598]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I don't recall TWill using the word "primarily".

Maybe he said "mostly". Maybe he said "primarily". Maybe he said "In those four games". I don't remember word for word, but anybody that wanted to get the gist of his statement would understand it. However, he did leave those wanting to be deliberately obtuse a little wiggle room to quarrel.  The games he mentioned were our four biggest games. Did he, I or the man in the moon say they were our only big games? No.

Why don't you just shoot another personal insult my way and move on? That suits your style and would save us both some time.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Mikey said:

Maybe he said "mostly". Maybe he said "primarily". Maybe he said "In those four games". I don't remember word for word, but anybody that wanted to get the gist of his statement would understand it. However, he did leave those wanting to be deliberately obtuse a little wiggle room to quarrel.  The games he mentioned were our four biggest games. Did he, I or the man in the moon say they were our only big games? No.

Why don't you just shoot another personal insult my way and move on? That suits your style and would save us both some time.

Another personal insult? Not really my style, although I might have let one slip a time or two. Not nearly as often as some like to throw out generalized, blanket insults at all those with whom he (or she) disagrees, but it's happened. Certainly not "my style", though. 

You did say that because of what may or may not have even happened in those four games that "we use 3 LB's <sic> in the big games". So yeah, you kinda said those were our only big games. 

You're right about a couple things, though. TWill did leave some wiggle room for those wanting to be deliberately obtuse. And I should move on.

[ellitor 33,093]

8 hours ago, mcgufcm said:

 

It's not that we never use 3-LB sets. We still sprinkle them in from time-to-time

 

To my knowledge nobody said we don’t use three LB sets at all. Sprinkled in is the appropriate phrase

[mcgufcm 4,096]

But I was agreeing with you! Why the nit-picking?

[mcgufcm 4,096]

One note I would add to this discussion is, assuming we only sign the guys currently committed and excluding the guys at Buck LB/DE, we will have 11 guys with only two seniors. That seems like the appropriate amount of depth. There's a complaint that we undersigned the position in the past, but not now. We have three committed. We signed three in 2019. We signed three in 2018. I'm seeing a pattern, and it's not a pattern that leaves a lack of depth. At this rate, we'll always have 11 or 12 dudes for at the most three spots. That seems correct. We're not undersigning any more.

And that analysis leaves out the fact that our Buck players can play in space.

[ellitor 33,093]

21 minutes ago, mcgufcm said:

But I was agreeing with you! Why the nit-picking?

Sorry. Because I'm

And because I was at work when I saw your post the rest of the post was TLDR