re: Goodrich?

quote:

---

There is always an element of getting burned in these last minute decisions. The jilted bride is left at the alter.

The safe bet, bird in hand decision would have been to accept the Goodrich commitment.

---

yep. If you have confidence in your ability to coach them up and utilize them (a.k.a. gameday coaching/scheming) you take a Goodrich, be happy, and let he chips fall where they may regarding Surtain.

Bama had very similar situation regarding depth chart. Bama took 4 CBs (3ea 4* and 1ea 5*). Surtain is the 5*; one of those is Savion.

So if the Staff went with the idea of if they accepted Goodrich's commitment because of 'scaring away Surtain', it was both a dumb strategy (didn't consider what ifs vs extreme consequences at the position) and a bad mentality. LSU needs to be more ruthless in it's recruiting, not buying into narratives (scaring players away) that leaves you completely exposed. That was a change from the late-Miles years that I expected to happen; it obviously did not.

I have almost as much problem with holding the spot for Foster and passing on Goodrich. Foster gave every indication he was going to FSU after his visit. He went to a conference foe in TAMU. Nothing in the perception or where he decided to go to said LSU. IF Goodrich did say he wanted in, and they declined for Foster having a commitment vs. negative info, that's just wishful thinking and 'hope', not good decision making.

We couldn't control Saban's negative recruiting OR what the Surtain's did. We COULD control our own actions and 'what if' contingencies. We gave that up.