re: How many of you were won over by O yesterday?

From what you said all off season, do you think it is hard to figure you out?

Wut

quote:

---

You’re generally pretty fair (with a negative lean), but your post is refreshing to read

---

I appreciate that, I’ve said many times about the analysts, I really think that’s huge.

quote:

---

Do you like what we are doing in recruiting?

---

Another mixed bag. Of course there’s things to like but a lot more La commits for places like UGA and Clemson than in the past. If they get Sophser, Lee and Emery or at least IS and 1 of those other 2 and keep the rest it will be a lot better.

quote:

---

Your inability to be fair & rational regarding anything Coach O

---

Anything? See why do use absolutes in that manner? You're really crippling your entire premise. I don't even have to say anything to refute it other than look at my post history.

quote:

---

You thought joe Burrow was a nice get. Woohoo

---

Yes I said that.

quote:

---

Giles, Fehko, Tracy were just lucky gifts. it's not an indictment on O that he got lucky, but he did get lucky and we can't rely on that

---

This is the crux of the issue and I couldn't disagree more. This staff scouted, evaluated, recruited, budgeted scholarships for, and landed these players. They are not here by accident or whim. These are intentional roster moves that reflect a changing CFB landscape where transfers, grad or otherwise, are a viable option for filling needs. Not every single need, but some. Top staffs across the country have recognized this. Again, it's not the backbone of a roster, but it is a tool that has to be acknowledged in today's game. I take a staff all day that can swallow their pride and admit they can't fix every bust or project and goes and gets a guy who can play.

quote:

---

i don't think anyone is making that argument

---

It's been made multiple times on this board, and saying that counting on a transfer every few years isn't sustainable implies it even if true. The staff acknowledged that by prioritizing early QB commitments for 19' and 20' (which tend to stick moreso that other positions) while the previous regime had a terrible habit of waiting until after the dominoes had begun to fall or only recruiting the position every other year. It shows a change in philosophy for the better, having options, versus the previous approach of putting all the eggs in one basket to watch them be a bad evaluation.

quote:

---

well O has to prove he can recruit them, first

then he has to prove he can develop them

Les could recruit them, but he couldn't develop them

---

Fair enough, and that will take time. As I pointed out they've already shown a shift in philosophy to one that's been successful elsewhere. Bring in lots of options and let them compete. "Development" of QBs at the college level is a highly misunderstood concept. A lot of times those who are successful at managing the position do it through solid evaluation of multiple prospects with regards to how they fit the system in place, or are able to build a system around their strengths. IMO O and Ensminger are attempting to do that.

quote:

---

I asked you for something & you give me one thing that was universally praised by everyone.

---

Well if I were truly critical of everything as you've asserted, surely I would've been critical of the Burrow acquisition as well and you'd actually have a case.

quote:

---

This staff scouted, evaluated, recruited, budgeted scholarships for, and landed these players. They are not here by accident or whim. These are intentional roster moves that reflect a changing CFB landscape where transfers, grad or otherwise, are a viable option for filling needs.

---

a. your argument is more for graduate transfers than regular transfers of established players

b. this is not a good strategy b/c it entirely relies on luck. your comment focuses on acquisition but that's secondary to availability. availability of good players (Especially at positions of need) is purely luck

quote:

---

The staff acknowledged that by prioritizing early QB commitments for 19' and 20' (which tend to stick moreso that other positions) while the previous regime had a terrible habit of waiting until after the dominoes had begun to fall or only recruiting the position every other year.

---

what? that's not true. Miles's staff got early commits from QBs. the problem was keeping certain guys (like Franks)
and evals (like Rettig)

if you want to talk about "waiting until after the dominoes had fallen", look at O's recruiting of a QB in 2018

quote:

---

IMO O and Ensminger are attempting to do that.

---

the major flaw is that Ensminger is not a long-term option to do this, and we have nobody in the SE tree/bullpen to take over when he steps down/leaves

quote:

---

I asked you for something & you give me one thing that was universally praised by everyone.

---

So, he refuted your asinine statement then, right? Yes, he did. Continue to lie however, for what reason, I don't know.

quote:

---

people who just want to give the guy a fricking chance...

---

he's had a chance. he's been HC for 1.5 years now and has had one major decision to make (OC after 2016) and fricked that up

let's not act like O has this great history when the disaster of 2017 happened

quote:

---

Yep, he fricked our offensive coordinator position up so bad that we had no shot at winning AT Auburn two days ago

---