- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
We have 10 LBs on the roster. How many do you need?
We have like 8 lightweight outside LBs and two 240 lb or better guys to play inside. Just like on the DL, plenty of numbers and yet all fvkked up.We have 10 LBs on the roster. How many do you need?
When you say incredible...I know about Corral. Are some other top 100 guys this year? Are you meaning incredible for Mac or incredible overall? If incredible overall, which classes are you comparing it too?
Edit: Petit-Frere is 99th on 247. Check.
I agree that it is important to sign the highest ranked players possible. However, each position only has a handful of these players. By the top 100 standard a team could sign the #2 TE in the nation, the #4 OG in the nation or the #5 DT in the nation and still fail. You have to sign OGs even though there are only 3 in the top 100. You have to sign DTs even though there are only 4 in the top 100. It's not a failure to sign the #4 OG or the #5 DT regardless of where they fall overall.
These are the numbers in the top 100 at each position according to Rivals:
7 Pro QBs - we got #2, 7 teams will sign a top 100 player at this position and 121 will not.
6 RBs - we are still in the running for #7, #12 and #14, by the top 100 standard only 6 teams in the nation will get a good RB this cycle
18 WRs - we are the favorite for #15, the best way to stock up on top 100 players is to sign as many WRs as possible, not necessarily a good strategy
1 TE - basically, if you sign a TE you are automatically failing by the top 100 standard, we have #7
3 OGs - we are the favorite for #3
9 OTs - we are the favorite for #9
4 DTs - we are in the running for #4
12 DEs - we are in the running for one top 100
9 LBs - we are in the running for a couple that are highly ranked at the position, but not top 100
11 CBs - we are in the running for #8
8 Safeties - we are in the running for #1 (admittedly a long shot)
We either have a top 100 player committed or we are in the running for a top 100 player at 8 of 11 positions.
Speaking of links. Do you have the one to the table that showed each player by year and tabulated how many at each position and "needs"? I never can remember the source for that.
BMF explains it simply. It's not just about us but relative to our rivals. Are we narrowing the gap on FSU, UGA and Bama?I agree that it is important to sign the highest ranked players possible. However, each position only has a handful of these players. By the top 100 standard a team could sign the #2 TE in the nation, the #4 OG in the nation or the #5 DT in the nation and still fail. You have to sign OGs even though there are only 3 in the top 100. You have to sign DTs even though there are only 4 in the top 100. It's not a failure to sign the #4 OG or the #5 DT regardless of where they fall overall.
These are the numbers in the top 100 at each position according to Rivals:
7 Pro QBs - we got #2, 7 teams will sign a top 100 player at this position and 121 will not.
6 RBs - we are still in the running for #7, #12 and #14, by the top 100 standard only 6 teams in the nation will get a good RB this cycle
18 WRs - we are the favorite for #15, the best way to stock up on top 100 players is to sign as many WRs as possible, not necessarily a good strategy
1 TE - basically, if you sign a TE you are automatically failing by the top 100 standard, we have #7
3 OGs - we are the favorite for #3
9 OTs - we are the favorite for #9
4 DTs - we are in the running for #4
12 DEs - we are in the running for one top 100
9 LBs - we are in the running for a couple that are highly ranked at the position, but not top 100
11 CBs - we are in the running for #8
8 Safeties - we are in the running for #1 (admittedly a long shot)
We either have a top 100 player committed or we are in the running for a top 100 player at 8 of 11 positions.
Good breakdown, and realistic. Other than Bama, Ohio State, and possibly FSU not many teams are landing multiple kids inside the top 100. IMO, getting kids in the top 300 is important. Once these "top" kids outside of the #1 or #2 player at a certain position it's a toss-up on how much better #3 is vs. #7 or #8, for example. How many times does the #10 best WR outplay the #3? I'm sure it's often.
But the point many of us have been making, especially this last class that was a "top 10 class" - which is great....but when your class is ranked 10th and 5 of your rivals have a higher ranked class, well it doesn't look so good. It's like saying, "hey, we scored 50 points!! But yeah, they scored 55...."
The breakdown that 247 does of talent level per team is a great indicator, as McElwain is 17-1 vs. teams he's had more talent than (losing to Arkansas), but 3-7 vs teams w/ better talent. I'd like to see us get "better talent" and have the other teams worry about beating us than us worrying about beating them!
We need to be concerned w/ our class ranking, sure...but we also need to beat our rivals class rankings.
We've discussed this before on this board, but I feel the same way about recruiting classes as you do about the #3 WR and #7 WR.
Last recruiting class Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia landed classes that were head and shoulders better than everyone else. They were elite classes. After that things are much less clear. Is the #5 Michigan class really better than the #8 Oklahoma class? Hard to tell until about 4 years from now. However, there are people on this board that swear a top 5 finish is all that matters.
I think there are usually a couple of elite classes at the top and then the rest of the top 10 is pretty hard to separate. If we finish 6th this year and FSU finishes 4th a lot of people on this board will have a meltdown. I honestly don't think the difference between 4th and 6th is measurable in real time.
So here's the question. We now have 16 spots. How do we get to 23?
Who goes pro early?
Who transfers?
We've discussed this before on this board, but I feel the same way about recruiting classes as you do about the #3 WR and #7 WR.
Last recruiting class Alabama, Ohio State and Georgia landed classes that were head and shoulders better than everyone else. They were elite classes. After that things are much less clear. Is the #5 Michigan class really better than the #8 Oklahoma class? Hard to tell until about 4 years from now. However, there are people on this board that swear a top 5 finish is all that matters.
I think there are usually a couple of elite classes at the top and then the rest of the top 10 is pretty hard to separate. If we finish 6th this year and FSU finishes 4th a lot of people on this board will have a meltdown. I honestly don't think the difference between 4th and 6th is measurable in real time.
Disagree. If they get Fields...they one upped us again. At some point, Mac has to OVERTAKE them. Not nip at their heels. Sorry for the high standards that have been in place since the beginning of time.
Disagree. If they get Fields...they one upped us again. At some point, Mac has to OVERTAKE them. Not nip at their heels. Sorry for the high standards that have been in place since the beginning of time.