Official 2016 Recruiting Updates Thread: Links, Tweets, Videos, Stories, Rumors, etc.

Donate To GopherHole
hungan1 said:
I can't wait to see how they are going to fill the remaining unused scholarships.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think we'll add an impact player or two yet this spring, guys who fall through the cracks, late grade guys, etc.
 

Stan said:
Agreed. I think we'll add an impact player or two yet this spring, guys who fall through the cracks, late grade guys, etc.
Click to expand...

David Cobb was signed a week after NSD on 2/10/2011
 



hungan1 said:
David Cobb was signed a week after NSD on 2/10/2011
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, so were Ra'Shaun Croney and Desmond Gant.

It's more likely that we bank the scholarships for the class of 2017 since it's really small. 11 or 12 if I remember correctly.
 


John Galt said:
Unfortunately, so were Ra'Shaun Croney and Desmond Gant.

It's more likely that we bank the scholarships for the class of 2017 since it's really small. 11 or 12 if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk-ons with a half or one year scholarship with the stipulation that it might not be renewed.
 

nsmike said:
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk
Agreed reward a couple seniors who have stuck with the program. There's usually couple guys in the two deeps or who play a role on Special teams that fit the bill
Click to expand...
 

Maybe if they have five scholies, award two and bank the other three.

You have to reward unsung players that contribute to the team in one form or another.

Seniors will be great in addition to those who crack the starting ups are great candidates.
 

nsmike said:
You don't need to bank them reward productive walk-ons with a half or one year scholarship with the stipulation that it might not be renewed.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what is meant by "banking"? Scholarships are a year-by-year deal. I assumed that's what Galt was implying.
 




John Galt said:
Unfortunately, so were Ra'Shaun Croney and Desmond Gant.

It's more likely that we bank the scholarships for the class of 2017 since it's really small. 11 or 12 if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
It'll grow
 








Are there any updates to other PWO targets?
Most specifically the in state DT's- Markert and Novak-Goar?
 


As has been mentioned before, recruiting JCO to fill out a recruiting class at this stage of the Kill/Claeys era is not a good sign.It invariably leads to lack of depth. Snyder gets by with it but he gets the pick of the litter.
To overcome the lopsided winning advantage of the most hated rivals, particularly WI, the MN recruiting classes not only have to be about equal but better than WI over an extended period of time. If you believe in the rankings that has not yet happened.
 



Maroon&GoldLivesMatter said:
Seems fine to me. What didn't you like about it? The fact they didn't mention Coughlin?
Click to expand...

It seems they edited the article after publishing. The initial version had Tamarion Johnson, a DE, listed as a WR. They also botched Winfield's name (somehow), calling him Wilson. Stuff like that.
 

olddoc said:
As has been mentioned before, recruiting JCO to fill out a recruiting class at this stage of the Kill/Claeys era is not a good sign.It invariably leads to lack of depth. Snyder gets by with it but he gets the pick of the litter.
To overcome the lopsided winning advantage of the most hated rivals, particularly WI, the MN recruiting classes not only have to be about equal but better than WI over an extended period of time. If you believe in the rankings that has not yet happened.
Click to expand...

We really don't recruit that many JuCos.

The ones that we have recruited have lead to depth. We added depth this year to the OL, RB and DT. I don't see how that takes away any depth in the future. I don't think signing Martez Shabazz, Joey Balthazar, and Boddy-Calhoun hurt the depth for our current crop of DBs. I don't think signing Roland Johnson negatively impacted our class balance (we have Elmore, Stetler, Timms, Moore from the classes following Johnson).

There is attrition, Edwards left and he was a JR RB and he was replaced by another JR RB. I don't see how that impacts our depth. One thing that can impact depth is not having your classes balanced. If you are set to have a huge class and they are all going to be FR, then your other classes are going to be smaller (you'll have less depth when that class graduates).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
We really don't recruit that many JuCos.

The ones that we have recruited have lead to depth. We added depth this year to the OL, RB and DT. I don't see how that takes away any depth in the future. I don't think signing Martez Shabazz, Joey Balthazar, and Boddy-Calhoun hurt the depth for our current crop of DBs. I don't think signing Roland Johnson negatively impacted our class balance (we have Elmore, Stetler, Timms, Moore from the classes following Johnson).

There is attrition, Edwards left and he was a JR RB and he was replaced by another JR RB. I don't see how that impacts our depth. One thing that can impact depth is not having your classes balanced. If you are set to have a huge class and they are all going to be FR, then your other classes are going to be smaller (you'll have less depth when that class graduates).
Click to expand...

If a position need is filled by JuCOs in year A and HS kids don't come in at that position until year B, then when the kids in Year A graduate, the kids you are depending on (from year B) are a year younger than ideal. In that way taking JuCo kids does hurt your depth.

I'm not against it to fill immediate needs, but it should be the exception when trying to build a consistent team, IMO. I also don't think the Gophers have been too heavy on JuCo players. We have made our team a lot better with them in the Kill era by filling specific needs.
 

McPeePants said:
It seems they edited the article after publishing. The initial version had Tamarion Johnson, a DE, listed as a WR. They also botched Winfield's name (somehow), calling him Wilson. Stuff like that.
Click to expand...
They also said that Cornerback was our biggest outstanding need, which is highly questionable. Sure, we lost our two starting corners this year, but we signed 3 decent corners this year and had, what, six DBs last year (several of which contributed this year already)?
 

Spoofin said:
If a position need is filled by JuCOs in year A and HS kids don't come in at that position until year B, then when the kids in Year A graduate, the kids you are depending on (from year B) are a year younger than ideal. In that way taking JuCo kids does hurt your depth.

I'm not against it to fill immediate needs, but it should be the exception when trying to build a consistent team, IMO. I also don't think the Gophers have been too heavy on JuCo players. We have made our team a lot better with them in the Kill era by filling specific needs.
Click to expand...

But that is based on the assumption that it's an either/or.

When you are recruiting a JuCo player, you're recruiting for immediate depth. I don't see how having a JR come in and provide immediate depth hurts that potential FR.

Take James Gillum, he didn't pan out as a player, he was recruited for depth. I don't think he hurt the development of David Cobb. I don't think Rabe hurt the development at future depth at TE.

We signed Shabazz, Boddy-Calhoun, and Baltazar the same year we signed Murray, Johnson and Travis. I just don't see how adding depth in the upperclasses hurts the younger players.

If you can balance the classes properly, which our staff gets, I just don't see how JuCos hurt depth.
 

I think when it comes to JUCO transfers the magic number is five. If you're taking five or less, the numbers work out, if you take more, the depth argument shows up.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
But that is based on the assumption that it's an either/or.

When you are recruiting a JuCo player, you're recruiting for immediate depth. I don't see how having a JR come in and provide immediate depth hurts that potential FR.

Take James Gillum, he didn't pan out as a player, he was recruited for depth. I don't think he hurt the development of David Cobb. I don't think Rabe hurt the development at future depth at TE.

We signed Shabazz, Boddy-Calhoun, and Baltazar the same year we signed Murray, Johnson and Travis. I just don't see how adding depth in the upperclasses hurts the younger players.

If you can balance the classes properly, which our staff gets, I just don't see how JuCos hurt depth.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But, if you take too many then it becomes an either/or thing. Again, not saying we do that, but by definition for every scholly you give to a JuCo is one you don't give to a HS kid, so in that respect it is either/or. Just saying that unless it is your long-term plan to keep taking JuCOs, then taking too many can hurt depth. I don't think the Gophers take too many.
 

In the "does signing a Juco hurt our depth" question, does a JuCo signee count the same as a Freshman signee when it comes to the 25-players-per-year cap? Just so you can see what I'm talking about...

... say for example that a school only signs JuCos, that's it, no Freshman (I know no school would actually do this, I'm just trying to illustrate my question). So, for the first year they sign 25 Jucos, and they do that for four years in a row, each year signing the 25-person cap and only Juco players. If each Juco can only play two years, that means by year four of doing this you'd only have a max of 50 signees on scholarship. So yes, if a Juco counts against the cap the same way a Freshman signee does, then if you sign a lot of Juco's it can hurt your depth quite a bit.
 

Livingat45north said:
In the "does signing a Juco hurt our depth" question, does a JuCo signee count the same as a Freshman signee when it comes to the 25-players-per-year cap? Just so you can see what I'm talking about...

... say for example that a school only signs JuCos, that's it, no Freshman (I know no school would actually do this, I'm just trying to illustrate my question). So, for the first year they sign 25 Jucos, and they do that for four years in a row, each year signing the 25-person cap and only Juco players. If each Juco can only play two years, that means by year four of doing this you'd only have a max of 50 signees on scholarship. So yes, if a Juco counts against the cap the same way a Freshman signee does, then if you sign a lot of Juco's it can hurt your depth quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I mean there are 3 year juco guys and ncaa b ylaws but yes If the world ever worked by this slippery slope type argument you would have a point. 5 jucos a year in under recruited positions from years past will do nothing to harm depth unless you are an inept coach with no idea what you're doing
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom