He may have 3 years remaining, but he'll lose one when he sits next year. This is assuming he RS his 2018 season. If we get two seasons out of him, it'll be because he didn't produce.Shorter has 3 years of eligibility and we’d get 2 years minimum
He may have 3 years remaining, but he'll lose one when he sits next year. This is assuming he RS his 2018 season. If we get two seasons out of him, it'll be because he didn't produce.
I'm not saying don't take Shorter, I'm saying in the long game, depending on transfers will catch up to you. Let me clarify that, if you expect to have a full roster, it will catch up to you.
Here’s the issue. That 5* has to sit and if you’re lucky he really is a 5*, otherwise you get two years of 3* play. And if he does play like a 5*, you get one yr.
you going to go on record that you expect anywhere near a Greenard type year? Because that's a pretty stupid comparison to make. That's like saying we should take 2*s because Trask is doing well. You have a guy being run out of town by his coach, and you're going to start mentioning him in the same breath as Greenard.With Greenard as an exemplar, I'll take a year at that level of impact from Shorter, and be happy to have it. That absolutely does not cancel out the need for better WR recruiting out of HS, but it does pad the kitty for a year and a few extra hole cards could be a valuable addition. Every little bit helps.
Homestly, we can get 400-500 yards a year production from almost anyone.Succeed = #8 recruit in the country level? Unlikely. Succeed = contribute and be useful? Seems pretty likely.
Really? Donk just told us that he was a bust. Why do you want a bust back?
Greenard was essentially encouraged to look elsewhere in part bc he was too big to play OLB in a less radical system and too small to play traditional DE. Essentially Greenard needed Grantham and fit perfectly in his system.You have a guy being run out of town by his coach, and you're going to start mentioning him in the same breath as Greenard.
Maybe you are right and maybe not, but at least you made a prediction that can be checked. Had you made the argument after waiting for Greenard to fail, that would be just BS.Greenard was essentially encouraged to look elsewhere in part bc he was too big to play OLB in a less radical system and too small to play traditional DE. Essentially Greenard needed Grantham and fit perfectly in his system.
(The flipside is he isnt going to make it in the NFL for the same reason. You cant be a on trick pony and cant cover well enough to be an NFL LB.)
Homestly, we can get 400-500 yards a year production from almost anyone.
I could really give two sh*ts if he makes it in the NFL. I'm much more concerned about productivity at UFGreenard was essentially encouraged to look elsewhere in part bc he was too big to play OLB in a less radical system and too small to play traditional DE. Essentially Greenard needed Grantham and fit perfectly in his system.
(The flipside is he isnt going to make it in the NFL for the same reason. You cant be a on trick pony and cant cover well enough to be an NFL LB.)
Greenard was essentially encouraged to look elsewhere; he isnt going to make it in the NFL. You cant be a on trick pony and cant cover well enough to be an NFL LB.)