- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
Cuz if our class looks to be top three on the O side and bottom 3 on the D side (in the SEC) I'm good with that.
How does the offensive class rank vs the defensive class?
- Thread starter ThreatMatrix
- Start date
- Jun 12, 2014
- 8,465
- 14,805
Founding Member
Well for the last few years it's been the other way around. Maybe that'll even us out.
- Jun 11, 2014
- 34,971
- 33,106
Founding Member
Does anyone even rank recruiting classes in this way?
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
If they don't they should.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
You and me both.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 20,183
- 41,485
Founding Member
I'm no recruiting guru and can barely stand to follow it anymore, but you have to be pleased at the class from an offensive standpoint. Hopefully, this will bring us a functional offense for the next several years and keep the recruiting momentum going...on that side of the ball.
That said, it appears we could also be feeling the negative effects on the defensive side of the ball starting in the year 2017. Unless he's depending on winning games 42-37, Mac needs to get some guys that are pit bulls on the recruiting trail. They may be good coaches, but they gotta have the talent to compete in this league. Mixed emotions because it feels like we took one step forward and one step back.
That said, it appears we could also be feeling the negative effects on the defensive side of the ball starting in the year 2017. Unless he's depending on winning games 42-37, Mac needs to get some guys that are pit bulls on the recruiting trail. They may be good coaches, but they gotta have the talent to compete in this league. Mixed emotions because it feels like we took one step forward and one step back.
- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
We take a step back on defense from elite to great. But we take a huge leap on offense from the worst to average. I'll take it.
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,553
- 111,120
Founding Member
Why?We got 3 LBs. color me thrilled!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,553
- 111,120
Founding Member
We werent elite by any stretch.
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,553
- 111,120
Founding Member
I will never be pleased with a class that has three OL.
- Jun 19, 2014
- 21,585
- 48,397
Founding Member
2 of the 3 LBs we got have a very low likelihood of being anything more than what top teams consider emergency insurance. That's not really a win. Don't get me wrong I hope they pan out but right now our rivals are playing 5 card draw at the featured table while we are in the corner sticking change in the slot machine.
More simply put... The LBs may turn out great, but chances are not nearly as high as the team's surrounding us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
More simply put... The LBs may turn out great, but chances are not nearly as high as the team's surrounding us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Jun 11, 2014
- 16,754
- 20,381
Founding Member
Hard not to like the offense side. We got 2 QBs (3 if you count the grad transfer) and they are EEs. RBs are good. The WR class is very good on paper. I agree with Law, we needed at least one more OL. I would've like to have seen a TE also.
Defense had mostly lows. Clayton is a good get. Gardner as well. Losing Manuel hurt. I know we're good at DT numbers wise, but I kept hearing about how we didn't have anyone else lined up. You guys are right. You don't need elite DTs. You need strong mofos that you can develop. LB class is not bad, but we needed at least one elite LBs. Certainly not a good class. The DB class also missed except for Gardner. I think at best we have a couple good defensive recruits and depth.
Defense had mostly lows. Clayton is a good get. Gardner as well. Losing Manuel hurt. I know we're good at DT numbers wise, but I kept hearing about how we didn't have anyone else lined up. You guys are right. You don't need elite DTs. You need strong mofos that you can develop. LB class is not bad, but we needed at least one elite LBs. Certainly not a good class. The DB class also missed except for Gardner. I think at best we have a couple good defensive recruits and depth.
- Jul 30, 2014
- 10,131
- 16,377
Slight sarcasm, but isn't that more LBs than the last 2 classes combined?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,553
- 111,120
Founding Member
Which is why we needed top guys who are ready to play (or as close as possible) not projects. Its also why we needed 4-6 of them. Really, we should have brought 9 on board over the last three years. There is a reason Mac was trying to sign 3 more. Probably half of the recruts wont develop or will get hurt. We really need some jucos or transfers in the next class.
