- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The goal should be one qb per recruiting cycle
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:30 am
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:30 am
The qb position is the one where you see most transfers because unlike most other positions, only one qb gets meaningful playing time. You can find meaningful playing time for a half dozen defensive backs in a game, but a backup qb is lucky to get mop up time.
The odds are very high one of the two qbs we get this year will not be on the team within 2 to 3 years. In a class like this one, that means you are giving up a valuable roster spot.
That said, I am sure this must be a topic of conversation with the staff and they must feel strongly they need two qbs in this class. It is the most important position on the team.
I just wonder how much they have taken into account how the transfer rule has changed the recruiting game. Taking only one qb in a class where you might need two is less risky because of how qbs transfer now as opposed to five years ago. Our last two starters, Burrow and Etling, were both transfers.
Teams can no longer stash qbs on their rosters. Look at Fields, Hurts and Burrow.
I suppose at this point it would be a bad look to process one of our two qb recruits. Going forward I hope they can keep it to one qb a cycle.
In the irony department, it was our poor recruiting at the qb position which got us Burrow. The silver lining in being bad at the qb spot is that you are automatically high on the list for top transfers to go.
And there will always be top qb talent in the transfer portal. Even Clemson, Georgia, Alabama and Ohio State couldn't keep their second string qbs from leaving. The latest just happened, a top fifty player in the country, Joey Gatewood, is leaving Auburn. Was he really not a better option than Nix?
The odds are very high one of the two qbs we get this year will not be on the team within 2 to 3 years. In a class like this one, that means you are giving up a valuable roster spot.
That said, I am sure this must be a topic of conversation with the staff and they must feel strongly they need two qbs in this class. It is the most important position on the team.
I just wonder how much they have taken into account how the transfer rule has changed the recruiting game. Taking only one qb in a class where you might need two is less risky because of how qbs transfer now as opposed to five years ago. Our last two starters, Burrow and Etling, were both transfers.
Teams can no longer stash qbs on their rosters. Look at Fields, Hurts and Burrow.
I suppose at this point it would be a bad look to process one of our two qb recruits. Going forward I hope they can keep it to one qb a cycle.
In the irony department, it was our poor recruiting at the qb position which got us Burrow. The silver lining in being bad at the qb spot is that you are automatically high on the list for top transfers to go.
And there will always be top qb talent in the transfer portal. Even Clemson, Georgia, Alabama and Ohio State couldn't keep their second string qbs from leaving. The latest just happened, a top fifty player in the country, Joey Gatewood, is leaving Auburn. Was he really not a better option than Nix?
17
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:44 am to paper tiger
Or you could say getting 2 on campus this year increases your odds of getting 1 really good one and a good QB is worth a "lost" roster spot.
This theory is more applicable in years like this one where neither of our prospects is considered elite or "can't miss". Odds are one of them will be very solid.
This theory is more applicable in years like this one where neither of our prospects is considered elite or "can't miss". Odds are one of them will be very solid.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 10:01 am to paper tiger
"But his dad is Brad Johnson!!!"
Posted on 10/31/19 at 10:28 am to paper tiger
in this day of the transfer portal, not sure this model would work. look at Auburn with Gatewood jumping ship. The transfer portal has created a monster.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 11:04 am to paper tiger
While I strongly agree with the sentiment, more often than not something will happen to screw things up. More important is what you have on the roster. I think 4 is ideal. You can get by with 3 like this year, if you are confident with everyone. 2 like last year is a problem because it starts to effect your play calling and a couple of unlucky injuries and you will have a wr, like KY, running the offense.
So I believe we need 2 this year. Even if DJ Uiagalelei shocked us and committed to us we should try to get 2 because that may spook Parish after the spring.
So I believe we need 2 this year. Even if DJ Uiagalelei shocked us and committed to us we should try to get 2 because that may spook Parish after the spring.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 11:15 am to paper tiger
quote:
It is the most important position on the team.
There you go. If you find yourself jilted at the signing day alter like LSU has in the past, you're not left with your dick dangling in the wind.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 11:18 am to paper tiger
5 of the top 10 career passers at LSU have been in the past 20 years. 3 of those were not HS recruits. Mett (JC), Ettling(Transfer), Burrow (Grad Transfer). The other two were Jamarcus Russell and Jordan Jefferson.
So it is important but the source may not be the traditional HS QB recruit.
So it is important but the source may not be the traditional HS QB recruit.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 11:48 am to paper tiger
2021 we will bring in an elite QB. If he surpasses our 2020 QB's what happens then? This is a very likely scenario. I think the goal should be an elite QB every 2 years. Maybe a 4 star in between in case of injury or bust.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 12:00 pm to paper tiger
The OP is idiotic. Completely. And frankly DAF. On every level. Have you guys ever played football or coached anything?? So much so , it isn’t even worth responding to. And people are upvoting it? Holy cow.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 12:02 pm to paper tiger
quote:LINK
The qb position is the one where you see most transfers because unlike most other positions, only one qb gets meaningful playing time. You can find meaningful playing time for a half dozen defensive backs in a game, but a backup qb is lucky to get mop up time.
The odds are very high one of the two qbs we get this year will not be on the team within 2 to 3 years. In a class like this one, that means you are giving up a valuable roster spot.
That said, I am sure this must be a topic of conversation with the staff and they must feel strongly they need two qbs in this class. It is the most important position on the team.
I just wonder how much they have taken into account how the transfer rule has changed the recruiting game. Taking only one qb in a class where you might need two is less risky because of how qbs transfer now as opposed to five years ago. Our last two starters, Burrow and Etling, were both transfers.
Teams can no longer stash qbs on their rosters. Look at Fields, Hurts and Burrow.
I suppose at this point it would be a bad look to process one of our two qb recruits. Going forward I hope they can keep it to one qb a cycle.
In the irony department, it was our poor recruiting at the qb position which got us Burrow. The silver lining in being bad at the qb spot is that you are automatically high on the list for top transfers to go.
And there will always be top qb talent in the transfer portal. Even Clemson, Georgia, Alabama and Ohio State couldn't keep their second string qbs from leaving. The latest just happened, a top fifty player in the country, Joey Gatewood, is leaving Auburn. Was he really not a better option than Nix?
Posted on 10/31/19 at 12:48 pm to paper tiger
The transfer portal has changed nothing other than you know it’s public now. Why do people keep saying this
There were transfers before the damn transfer portal lol
There were transfers before the damn transfer portal lol
Posted on 10/31/19 at 2:01 pm to paper tiger
Don’t know about Gatewood, but I wouldn’t mine Justin Rogers at TCU if he became available. He’s currently 2nd/3rd string behind their starting freshman QB.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 3:56 pm to paper tiger
What people seem to forget is that quarterbacks are usually pretty good athletes who can play other positions.
One of the kids we have committed, for example, is 6-7 and 250 pounds and runs a 4.8 in the 40. There's a lot you can do with a kid like that if he turns out not to be a good college quarterback.
One of the kids we have committed, for example, is 6-7 and 250 pounds and runs a 4.8 in the 40. There's a lot you can do with a kid like that if he turns out not to be a good college quarterback.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 5:25 pm to paper tiger
You’ve got 22 spots it’s not a bad idea to recruit an approximately starting 22 each season with some fluctuations.
We’ve had issues where we basically had to recruit 4 CBS last year just to get decent starters, and we are somewhat in that position now at DL.
We’ve had issues where we basically had to recruit 4 CBS last year just to get decent starters, and we are somewhat in that position now at DL.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 5:37 pm to paper tiger
That’s a fine goal until you get where you want to be. If we continue to have success @ the position the issue of early departures will come to play. (Junior LSU QBs leaving for the NFL :shocked:)
Then you’re in a position where the next guy BETTER be able to do it or else you could be trotting out a freshman.
Then you’re in a position where the next guy BETTER be able to do it or else you could be trotting out a freshman.
This post was edited on 10/31/19 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 10/31/19 at 7:41 pm to paper tiger
Putting all your eggs in one basket, especially with how early QB recruiting starts, is a recipe for disaster
Posted on 10/31/19 at 9:00 pm to paper tiger
quote:
I just wonder how much they have taken into account how the transfer rule has changed the recruiting game. Taking only one qb in a class where you might need two is less risky because of how qbs transfer now as opposed to five years ago.
1. That goes both ways. By your own admission, we could have one or more QBs transfer out within a few years.
2. Transfers count towards the 25 available recruiting spots each year. From a numbers standpoint, there’s not much difference between taking one freshman plus one transfer vs. taking two freshmen. The differences are that the transfer is more of a known commodity (which can be good or bad depending on upside of a HS recruit) and that the transfer has a shorter period of eligibility.
The real question is how many QBs the staff should keep on the roster - they should be taking enough (either through transfers or HS recruiting) to maintain this number given the attrition and have at least a couple of upside players/future starters in the wings.
Posted on 11/1/19 at 9:35 am to paper tiger
If you alternate taking HS quarterbacks to develop, based purely on potential and a transfer (JUCO or P5) who has the right mix of talent, experience and moxy (who just can't start at his school and wants to or finished JUCO), it can work.
That way, a typical year sees you with 3 to 4 scholarship QBs (and 1 to 2 walkons):
Development - 1 kid redshirting OR 1 kid sitting out a year
Primary backup/future starter and other depth (if available ) - 1 RSFr or upperclassman you got from HS with 1 to 2 years in your system and/or an experienced transfer
Starter: Either your transfer "starter" (likely in year 2 with you) or QB you developed from HS as a junior or senior.
I think the days of taking 1 to 2 QBs from HS and trying to simultaneously develop/keep from transferring are long gone. Will be increasingly a 50/50 mix. Think of how good our Xfers have been compared to how bad our HS recruits (4- and 5-stars all) going back to Etling.
That way, a typical year sees you with 3 to 4 scholarship QBs (and 1 to 2 walkons):
Development - 1 kid redshirting OR 1 kid sitting out a year
Primary backup/future starter and other depth (if available ) - 1 RSFr or upperclassman you got from HS with 1 to 2 years in your system and/or an experienced transfer
Starter: Either your transfer "starter" (likely in year 2 with you) or QB you developed from HS as a junior or senior.
I think the days of taking 1 to 2 QBs from HS and trying to simultaneously develop/keep from transferring are long gone. Will be increasingly a 50/50 mix. Think of how good our Xfers have been compared to how bad our HS recruits (4- and 5-stars all) going back to Etling.
This post was edited on 11/1/19 at 9:36 am
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News