- 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
0
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:19 pm to irnfan
No, we went heavy on linemen becuz we didn’t have the depth, and unlike waiting for the 1 or 2 five star linemen, O got 3-5 lesser rated players, and I think many of the players will be underrated
Just my thoughts
Just my thoughts
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:23 pm to DiehardLSUZach
BS, the system / game has changed. If someone really wanted to be a Tiger, I am sure they were told to commit early, that spots are limited and not being held for anybody.
It is no longer like the old system where people can game the system up to the last day.
Snooze you lose.
I'm pretty sure we got the people that WANT to be TIGERS.
It is no longer like the old system where people can game the system up to the last day.
Snooze you lose.
I'm pretty sure we got the people that WANT to be TIGERS.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:27 pm to whitefoot
quote:
he's all Robinson. Robinson was recruiting him to USC before he came here
I didn't know that, I stand corrected. The good news is he's got some size at 5'11 190 lbs so he could be more of a traditional back.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:33 pm to OU812
quote:
We needed a kicker, but just for 1 year?
Did you see us kick this season?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 7:10 pm to irnfan
I think we gambled and lost with the ruling on the kicker but that is ok. At least we have a good kicker for next year.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 7:18 pm to grove3
quote:
I have been disappointed on his recruiting we have spread the numbers around and do not see the purpose of a kicker for one year.
We don't have a kicker worth a crap. We need a kicker in order to win close games. We went and got a proven kicker!
Not sure why so many have a problem with this.
Just for kicks...pun intended..Let's play money ball.
Here's the statistical analysis, Based on Spencer's %'s compared to Culp and Gonsoulin's %'s and applied to the number of FG's and XPT's Culp and Gonsoulin attempted. Spencer would have given LSU an additional 5.4 points per game. If you want to speculate based on confidence levels and the number of attempts Spencer likely would have been given vice Culp or Gonsoulin's, that number would be closer to 7 points per game. And just in case you don't know.... that's a big F ing deal!
Posted on 12/30/17 at 8:25 pm to Tigris Christi
So get a 3-4 year kicker why a one year?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 8:38 pm to grove3
I guess the same reason you get a DT or OL out of JC. We need one that's more of a proven commodity and pretty much guaranteed to make a positive impact this year.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:22 pm to Tigris Christi
I get that but would you want to keep wasting a scholarship (25) each year on a kicker?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:36 pm to grove3
Numbers are super tight this year, but it's not like this is the norm. We only signed 24/27 last year and one of those (Justin Jefferson) signed in August. We filled the remaining three spots with transfers.
Remember, there are going to be years where we can't take 25 guys because of the 85 team limit. And there are going to be years where we won't take 25 because we're in it for some big names and we're saving spots for them, but they go elsewhere and we don't fill the spot.
Remember, there are going to be years where we can't take 25 guys because of the 85 team limit. And there are going to be years where we won't take 25 because we're in it for some big names and we're saving spots for them, but they go elsewhere and we don't fill the spot.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:02 pm to whitefoot
Anyone have any highlights on the signed kicker?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:19 pm to Indiana Tiger
Didn't know that. Thought the new rule was a hard count with no exceptions.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I know you know the rules better than me.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I know you know the rules better than me.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:21 pm to irnfan
according to the rant logic, you drop the two lowest rated signees and then sign the highest recruiting services rated guys in order to secure a high ranked recruiting class regardless of how good the players actually are. In this way we all feel better about our recruiting class.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:32 pm to boxcar willie
quote:
according to the rant logic, you drop the two lowest rated signees and then sign the highest recruiting services rated guys in order to secure a high ranked recruiting class regardless of how good the players actually are. In this way we all feel better about our recruiting class.
Pretty much. It's the class calculator phenomenon.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:50 pm to Cadello
quote:
Thought the new rule was a hard count with no exceptions.
Don't know where the "hard" count came from, but it has spread like a wild fire. But back counting works like it always has; there is no change to that. What has changed will lead to fewer signings over time because of what is counted. Previously you counted bodies who attended class (counters) and there was some exceptions that you didn't have to count. Now everybody counts as soon as they are signed whether they make it to the school or not. The only common exception allowed is a 2+ year walk on who gets a scholarship.
Under the old system, Seth Stewart from last year, would not have counted because he never attended class in the fall. However, under the new system he counted when he signed. They used the new rules to determine how many spots you could back count to last year. He was the one they were trying to appeal, but got turned down.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 2:46 am to boxcar willie
quote:Exactly, and again, the majority of the discussion here turns back to the kicker we signed. It seems pretty obvious that in hindsight, except for the kicker controversy, there are no consensus weak signees in the class that most would agree should not have been offered in order to make room for players we have left on the board, at least for the ranters who aren't complete star gazers.
according to the rant logic, you drop the two lowest rated signees and then sign the highest recruiting services rated guys in order to secure a high ranked recruiting class regardless of how good the players actually are. In this way we all feel better about our recruiting class
It confirms my impression that this is a pretty good class and potentially higher than it is ranked. Time will tell whether our coaches have been able to sign a few hidden gems in this class as they usually do.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 7:53 am to Tigris Christi
quote:
If you want to speculate based on confidence levels and the number of attempts Spencer likely would have been given vice Culp or Gonsoulin's, that number would be closer to 7 points
And, as someone pointed out in another thread, does everyone realize what an extra 7 ppg would have done for our scoring offense ranking? Would have made a significant difference.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:18 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:Is it correct that the NCAA didn't rule on Stewart, the SEC is the entity that said he counts?
Under the old system, Seth Stewart from last year, would not have counted because he never attended class in the fall. However, under the new system he counted when he signed. They used the new rules to determine how many spots you could back count to last year. He was the one they were trying to appeal, but got turned down.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:30 am to I20goon
quote:
Is it correct that the NCAA didn't rule on Stewart, the SEC is the entity that said he counts?
I don't know. But honestly, using the new rules makes the most sense to me because it keeps things clean, and not mixing apples and oranges. However, the NCAA could have been indifferent to the starting point and left it up to the conferences to decide. While I have a lot of disdain for Sankey and crew, I don't think this is a coup to screw LSU.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News