Redshirting Garrett?

The SEC is good at bringing new ideas that benefit the players. They usually lead the initiative to make changes like this. I'm hoping it gets done some time soon.

quote:

---

He has already burned his redshirt.

---

quote:

---

I understand he's in a difficult position to see the field, but what's the point of Redshirting him or anyone really? We lose more people early to the draft than any team in the nation. Regardless of how much he actually plays, you shouldn't have to worry about burning his redshirt or not.

---

LSU has proven, more than any other program, that it understands this.

What makes you think this is a strategic decision to try and save a year?

Yes. Shouldn't you be all hands on deck for all of your scholarship players. I'm not saying it's strategic and I understand LSU gets players on the field early better than most. My point is, you shouldn't even have to waiver on the decision to play a guy or not. Give them 5 years and if they don't play their 1st year or "redshirt" year than no harm done.

quote:

---

I thought i've seen him out on ST some point this season.

---

You have

quote:

---

Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought he has already seen the field.

---

He has

I used to hate when they burned redshirts that weren't really contributing, but now I think (outside of maybe kickers and specialists), burn em.

That being said, I don't know what kind of conversations he had with Miles and what the details are. I'm sure it has more to do than just saving a year of eligibility.

My thought is they are trying to stagger Beckwith and Garrett, but I don't think it will matter much. I'd rather see Garrett contribute as much as he can now. Based on his ability, he is not a guy that is likely to stay on campus 5 years.

The idea behind 5 years of eligibility is that you don't have to burn 'em. Use who you want/need when you want/need to.

Good point. I would imagine that the schools would be relegated more scholarships to cover the 5 year span. This rule doesn't really help the guys who are 3 and done or the guys who are very likely to not contribute and ,as of now redshirt. This rule benefits the middle of those 2, which is most of your signing class in most cases. Those guys who could contribute, but we decide to redshirt who just leave after 3 or 4 years anyway.

Let's look at an example. Best example is Jerald Hawkins. This guy may be done after this year. He is a 2 year starter after his redshirt year. Could this guy not have contributed as a true freshman? Maybe he needed to get stronger and maybe he was very raw, but it seems a guy that can turn around and start after the redshirt year could have helped.

Dural is another one. We saw how little he contributed as a redshirt freshman so maybe he just wasn't ready, but he could have had 2 years of limited roles in the offense already coming into this year.

Maybe the logistics would be more complicated than I think, but it's a rule that benefits the players and the coaches IMO.

Good point on Hawkins ,but I believe Dural would have played as a true fr., but an injury in fall camp knocked him out.

Who knows about Garrett's abilities yet. Some people do need a year to adjust on gain weight or strength. Josh Downs came in ready to play while Brockers and Logan were red shirted from the same class. Davenport was in that class as well. Not saying Garrett will not play well when given the chance, Davenport obviously did not.