I can't wait to see how they are going to fill the remaining unused scholarships.
Agreed. I think we'll add an impact player or two yet this spring, guys who fall through the cracks, late grade guys, etc.
I can't wait to see how they are going to fill the remaining unused scholarships.
Agreed. I think we'll add an impact player or two yet this spring, guys who fall through the cracks, late grade guys, etc.
David Cobb was signed a week after NSD on 2/10/2011
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk-ons with a half or one year scholarship with the stipulation that it might not be renewed.Unfortunately, so were Ra'Shaun Croney and Desmond Gant.
It's more likely that we bank the scholarships for the class of 2017 since it's really small. 11 or 12 if I remember correctly.
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk
Agreed reward a couple seniors who have stuck with the program. There's usually couple guys in the two deeps or who play a role on Special teams that fit the bill
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk-ons with a half or one year scholarship with the stipulation that it might not be renewed.
It'll growUnfortunately, so were Ra'Shaun Croney and Desmond Gant.
It's more likely that we bank the scholarships for the class of 2017 since it's really small. 11 or 12 if I remember correctly.
Who's the 2016 visitor this weekend? I hope it's a DT
In other news, ESPN big ten blog has a totally clueless breakdown of our recruiting class.
In other news, ESPN big ten blog has a totally clueless breakdown of our recruiting class.
Are there any updates to other PWO targets?
Most specifically the in state DT's- Markert and Novak-Goar?
Seems fine to me. What didn't you like about it? The fact they didn't mention Coughlin?
As has been mentioned before, recruiting JCO to fill out a recruiting class at this stage of the Kill/Claeys era is not a good sign.It invariably leads to lack of depth. Snyder gets by with it but he gets the pick of the litter.
To overcome the lopsided winning advantage of the most hated rivals, particularly WI, the MN recruiting classes not only have to be about equal but better than WI over an extended period of time. If you believe in the rankings that has not yet happened.
We really don't recruit that many JuCos.
The ones that we have recruited have lead to depth. We added depth this year to the OL, RB and DT. I don't see how that takes away any depth in the future. I don't think signing Martez Shabazz, Joey Balthazar, and Boddy-Calhoun hurt the depth for our current crop of DBs. I don't think signing Roland Johnson negatively impacted our class balance (we have Elmore, Stetler, Timms, Moore from the classes following Johnson).
There is attrition, Edwards left and he was a JR RB and he was replaced by another JR RB. I don't see how that impacts our depth. One thing that can impact depth is not having your classes balanced. If you are set to have a huge class and they are all going to be FR, then your other classes are going to be smaller (you'll have less depth when that class graduates).
They also said that Cornerback was our biggest outstanding need, which is highly questionable. Sure, we lost our two starting corners this year, but we signed 3 decent corners this year and had, what, six DBs last year (several of which contributed this year already)?It seems they edited the article after publishing. The initial version had Tamarion Johnson, a DE, listed as a WR. They also botched Winfield's name (somehow), calling him Wilson. Stuff like that.
If a position need is filled by JuCOs in year A and HS kids don't come in at that position until year B, then when the kids in Year A graduate, the kids you are depending on (from year B) are a year younger than ideal. In that way taking JuCo kids does hurt your depth.
I'm not against it to fill immediate needs, but it should be the exception when trying to build a consistent team, IMO. I also don't think the Gophers have been too heavy on JuCo players. We have made our team a lot better with them in the Kill era by filling specific needs.
But that is based on the assumption that it's an either/or.
When you are recruiting a JuCo player, you're recruiting for immediate depth. I don't see how having a JR come in and provide immediate depth hurts that potential FR.
Take James Gillum, he didn't pan out as a player, he was recruited for depth. I don't think he hurt the development of David Cobb. I don't think Rabe hurt the development at future depth at TE.
We signed Shabazz, Boddy-Calhoun, and Baltazar the same year we signed Murray, Johnson and Travis. I just don't see how adding depth in the upperclasses hurts the younger players.
If you can balance the classes properly, which our staff gets, I just don't see how JuCos hurt depth.
In the "does signing a Juco hurt our depth" question, does a JuCo signee count the same as a Freshman signee when it comes to the 25-players-per-year cap? Just so you can see what I'm talking about...
... say for example that a school only signs JuCos, that's it, no Freshman (I know no school would actually do this, I'm just trying to illustrate my question). So, for the first year they sign 25 Jucos, and they do that for four years in a row, each year signing the 25-person cap and only Juco players. If each Juco can only play two years, that means by year four of doing this you'd only have a max of 50 signees on scholarship. So yes, if a Juco counts against the cap the same way a Freshman signee does, then if you sign a lot of Juco's it can hurt your depth quite a bit.