Who are next year’s RS Freshmen

Donate To GopherHole

dpodoll68 said:
Disagree - strongly.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

GBFan - You red shirt kids because the game is much faster and more intense than in HS. Majority of the kids need an adjustment period. They need time to get acclimated to the college life & regiment, to get into strength and conditioning, and coaching.

Sure, we have people like Maxx Williams or Eric Decker. These guys are exceptional athletes.

David Cobb took until his Junior year to become a productive player.
 

hungan1 said:
Ditto.

GBFan - You red shirt kids because the game is much faster and more intense than in HS. Majority of the kids need an adjustment period. They need time to get acclimated to the college life & regiment, to get into strength and conditioning, and coaching.

Sure, we have people like Maxx Williams or Eric Decker. These guys are exceptional athletes.

David Cobb took until his Junior year to become a productive player.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention Maxx - he redshirted.
 

salzie said:
In a 3-9 season Kill burned Cobb's RS late and gave him 10 carries or so....I would've preferred another year of Cobb as a RS SR
Click to expand...

Obviously we all would have preferred that, but there was no guarantee Cobb would've returned as a 5th year senior.

Redshirts need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
 



Zeppelin Gopher said:
Obviously we all would have preferred that, but there was no guarantee Cobb would've returned as a 5th year senior.

Redshirts need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the coaches did and they decided to play the couple guys they did and redshirt the rest.
 


Zeppelin Gopher said:
Obviously we all would have preferred that, but there was no guarantee Cobb would've returned as a 5th year senior.

Redshirts need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...


I agree, but Cobb was a 5th round pick, I'm guessing he stays another year, but your right, you never know. I would've preferred that option over 12 carries

I don't mind burning Red Shirts. I don't like not using one for minimal playing time or late in season. I would accept late season during a good year to off set critical injury however...

Overall, I'm ok with a conservative standpoint this past year.
 

hungan1 said:
Ditto.

GBFan - You red shirt kids because the game is much faster and more intense than in HS. Majority of the kids need an adjustment period. They need time to get acclimated to the college life & regiment, to get into strength and conditioning, and coaching.

Sure, we have people like Maxx Williams or Eric Decker. These guys are exceptional athletes.

David Cobb took until his Junior year to become a productive player.
Click to expand...

I understand that and fully agree you should redshirt kids who are not ready for the speed of the game or lack strength. What I have been saying is I don't accept the notion that any program should keep redshirts on players, "sacrifice" the current season and roster, just to maintain a redshirt and build for the future. If there are FR who can play and help the team win in the current year, then they should play. Whether that winning leads to a Conf. Title or just qualify for a bowl game should not matter. So while it is great that we kept redshirts on just about everyone, it would have been even better had there been some more FR who would have contributed and gotten this team to a bowl game. The experience those FR get playing games will be invaluable in the following year, and the extra practices that the team gets will benefit all players as well as giving the SRs. who are leaving a final "reward" for all their hard work the past 4 or 5 years.
 



I actually wish they would get rid of redshirts altogether and just let every player play for up to five years.
 

I would guess the military academies do not ref shirt. There are no athletic scholarships either.
 

GFBfan said:
I understand that and fully agree you should redshirt kids who are not ready for the speed of the game or lack strength. What I have been saying is I don't accept the notion that any program should keep redshirts on players, "sacrifice" the current season and roster, just to maintain a redshirt and build for the future. If there are FR who can play and help the team win in the current year, then they should play. Whether that winning leads to a Conf. Title or just qualify for a bowl game should not matter. So while it is great that we kept redshirts on just about everyone, it would have been even better had there been some more FR who would have contributed and gotten this team to a bowl game. The experience those FR get playing games will be invaluable in the following year, and the extra practices that the team gets will benefit all players as well as giving the SRs. who are leaving a final "reward" for all their hard work the past 4 or 5 years.
Click to expand...

None of us can answer this but they did play 3 true freshman, a low number to be sure, but is there any proof at all that playing some of the other true freshman would have led to more wins? The two bad conference loses happened right at the start of conference play so a lot of those guys might not have been as ready as they would have been later in the season. I am sure the coaches evaluated each situation and if they had truly felt playing a true freshman would have won a game they would have however they weren't going to play a guy just to give him experience in a rebuilding year.

If they had played true freshman limited snaps and we still ended up 5-7 some of the people complaining about not playing guys would be bashing the coaches for wasting a year of eligibility on them.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I actually wish they would get rid of redshirts altogether and just let every player play for up to five years.
Click to expand...

This actually makes a lot of sense and because of that I am positive the NCAA will never do it.
 



MNVCGUY said:
None of us can answer this but they did play 3 true freshman, a low number to be sure, but is there any proof at all that playing some of the other true freshman would have led to more wins? The two bad conference loses happened right at the start of conference play so a lot of those guys might not have been as ready as they would have been later in the season. I am sure the coaches evaluated each situation and if they had truly felt playing a true freshman would have won a game they would have however they weren't going to play a guy just to give him experience in a rebuilding year.

If they had played true freshman limited snaps and we still ended up 5-7 some of the people complaining about not playing guys would be bashing the coaches for wasting a year of eligibility on them.
Click to expand...

You mean like Justus Harris...:)

I'm ok with them redshirting. This idea that it was good to sacrifice this year is what I am not ok with, which has been a comment being made.
 

Maverick said:
This actually makes a lot of sense and because of that I am positive the NCAA will never do it.
Click to expand...

To me it makes sense. A lot of students take longer than four years to graduate.

So why limit a college player to four seasons, if he has desire and health to stay in school for five years and play five seasons?
 

For the most part you red-shirt 3 star and below. You play 4 star and 5 star. That's the reason they are 4 and 5 star, they are physically ready to play at the next level. We will play more than 3 true freshmen next year partly because of need, but mostly because they are higher rated then this year's class.

Now look at other programs. You may see some true freshmen play, but they are not the focal point of the team or have good players around them. Tennessee played 21 true freshmen a couple years ago. It likely contributed to Jones getting fired this year. They played before they should have and probably got beat down.
 

GFBfan said:
You mean like Justus Harris...:)

I'm ok with them redshirting. This idea that it was good to sacrifice this year is what I am not ok with, which has been a comment being made.
Click to expand...

Harris only ended up starting one game and playing a few snaps in 2 others. He didn't look great when he was out there. It's too bad they couldn't redshirt him because it looked like he needed one.
 

GFBfan said:
I understand that and fully agree you should redshirt kids who are not ready for the speed of the game or lack strength. What I have been saying is I don't accept the notion that any program should keep redshirts on players, "sacrifice" the current season and roster, just to maintain a redshirt and build for the future. If there are FR who can play and help the team win in the current year, then they should play. Whether that winning leads to a Conf. Title or just qualify for a bowl game should not matter. So while it is great that we kept redshirts on just about everyone, it would have been even better had there been some more FR who would have contributed and gotten this team to a bowl game. The experience those FR get playing games will be invaluable in the following year, and the extra practices that the team gets will benefit all players as well as giving the SRs. who are leaving a final "reward" for all their hard work the past 4 or 5 years.
Click to expand...

I agree with this if the player is ready to contribute at the start of the season or within the first 2-3 games.

I disagree strongly if you are implying that they should play during any point in the season. If Andries was the 4th best OT in August and became the 2nd best OT in November, you still keep the redshirt on him and don't burn it so he can play in 3-4 games.
 

John Galt said:
I agree with this if the player is ready to contribute at the start of the season or within the first 2-3 games.

I disagree strongly if you are implying that they should play during any point in the season. If Andries was the 4th best OT in August and became the 2nd best OT in November, you still keep the redshirt on him and don't burn it so he can play in 3-4 games.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If a FR is going to play it should be for at least half the season. If Andries was 4th best in August, then he should have played if they needed him. Once they got past game 6 vs. MSU, if he wasn't going to play vs. Illinois then he should retain the redshirt. Using him as an example, would say this should be the way it is for any FR that can handle the speed and physicality adjustments.
 

I guess I fall on this side of the argument: if a true FR is physically ready to play, play him.

There are no guarantees. In a perfect world, every recruit would stay at the same school for 5 years, start as a RS SR, and get drafted.

It's not a perfect world. A certain % of players will not be on the team for 5 years. Players leave due to academics, injuries, off-field issues, etc. If the Gopher can actually improve their recruiting to the point some people believe, then it's possible that some (dare I say it, 'elite') players could elect to go pro early.

Of course, I do not advocate playing a true FR who is not physically ready to play, or doesn't grasp the schemes on Off or Def.

So, bottom line - if a true FR deserves to be on the two-deeps because he is legitimately the best or second-best player at his position, then play the kid. Nobody has a crystal ball and can predict what will happen in 4 or 5 years. There is today. Tomorrow is not guaranteed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom