[SuperJon]

Also, our two starting safeties last year were converted running backs. Kids don't always play the same position in college as they do in high school.

Yes, I posted that, but look at the recruiting at those positions. Greiser was converted due to necessity, not because he was recruited to be converted.

[SuperJon]

Not to be overly picky but we actually had 12 (7 TBs, 3 FBs and 2 "A-backs") in 2007. The point about being set at RB is still true though.

BJ, you're just dumb sometimes. Why would I count Chris Stokes in that list if he's graduating? Really? That's a legit question. Do you not pay attention to these things?

[jcmanson]

I'm not saying we need another RB, but you can never have too many. Injuries, suspensions, etc.-we've yet to have both Rashad and Zach for a complete season.

[BJWilliams]

Not to be overly picky but we actually had 12 (7 TBs, 3 FBs and 2 "A-backs") in 2007. The point about being set at RB is still true though.

BJ, you're just dumb sometimes. Why would I count Chris Stokes in that list if he's graduating? Really? That's a legit question. Do you not pay attention to these things?

I saw that Jon. Im not an idiot. We had 12 total backs in 2007. Stokes graduates, that gives us 11. I mean that is pretty basic math. I simply stated that as a technical point.

[SuperJon]

It wasn't even valid as a technical point. We're not talking about the 07 season. It's not 2007 anymore. It's 2008. Currently we have 11 running backs on the roster. If you wanna get technical, you can go research how many running backs we had in 1994 and call it a technical point.

[ToTheLeft]

I'm not saying we need another RB, but you can never have too many. Injuries, suspensions, etc.-we've yet to have both Rashad and Zach for a complete season.

Umm, I would say we do have too many. When Terry Williams and T-Bone, who could start and do well for any other Big South team, are 4th and 5th on your Depth Chart, you have too many.

Not that that is a bad thing, but we are DEEP, deep enough where we can make it without one of our top backs because of our ridiculous depth.

[jcmanson]

You can never have too many just like you can never have enough pitching in baseball.

[SuperJon]

But answer me this: Would you go after a player who plays a position you're really deep at, just because you can never have enough, or would you go after someone that could fill a need? I'm just trying to figure out your line of thinking.

[BJWilliams]

Ok then. In any case, we have plenty of RBs for 2008.

I went back over my review and the stats and 7 of those 11 guys actually got carries last year, with Rashad and Zach getting the lions share (Rashad with 191 and Zach with 109, with the other remaining backs combining for 71 total carries). With 11 guys on the roster for 2008, even if we DID land Davis, and he didnt redshirt with the rest of the class, you can only spread so many carries around.

[ToTheLeft]

You can never have too many just like you can never have enough pitching in baseball.

Yup. RB is probably the best position to be deep at, not as much of a learning curve (like QB) but still important.

[jcmanson]

But answer me this: Would you go after a player who plays a position you're really deep at, just because you can never have enough, or would you go after someone that could fill a need? I'm just trying to figure out your line of thinking.

If you had to choose between the two, then of course you'd choose what you need help at, but it's not like you can only go after a set number of prospects. Of course you go after some harder than others.

[RagingTireFire]

but it's not like you can only go after a set number of prospects.

I think that the scholarship limit of 63 would oppose that line of thinking.

[ToTheLeft]

but it's not like you can only go after a set number of prospects.

I think that the scholarship limit of 63 would oppose that line of thinking.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

You can go after as many prospects as you want. He said nothing about signing them. You are free to contact every eligable prospect in the country if you want, doesn't mean you have a scholly for each and every one. We have shown interest in dozens of guys, but we don't have schollies for each and every one, that's why they are called prospects.

[PAmedic]

Also, our two starting safeties last year were converted running backs. Kids don't always play the same position in college as they do in high school.

Yes, I posted that, but look at the recruiting at those positions. Greiser was converted due to necessity, not because he was recruited to be converted.

yes, and he's performed at a FANTASTIC level

[PAmedic]

PS: I think its very nice of you fellas to help RTF understand the recruiting process.

[ToTheLeft]

PS: I think its very nice of you fellas to help RTF understand the recruiting process.

So I was a tad harsh in my response. Sometimes I feel the need for revenge.

[PAmedic]

PS: I think its very nice of you fellas to help RTF understand the recruiting process.

So I was a tad harsh in my response. Sometimes I feel the need for revenge.

even so, quite benevolent of you

[RagingTireFire]

Oh, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. I tried to quit you, Lefty, I really did.

Honestly, how stupid would our coaches have to be to waste time and energy recruiting a kid they knew they couldn't sign? Even more so, how much credibility do you think they would lose by going hard after a prospect that didn't fit the team needs?

[jcmanson]

but it's not like you can only go after a set number of prospects.

I think that the scholarship limit of 63 would oppose that line of thinking.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

You can go after as many prospects as you want. He said nothing about signing them. You are free to contact every eligable prospect in the country if you want, doesn't mean you have a scholly for each and every one. We have shown interest in dozens of guys, but we don't have schollies for each and every one, that's why they are called prospects.

[jcmanson]

Oh, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. I tried to quit you, Lefty, I really did.

Honestly, how stupid would our coaches have to be to waste time and energy recruiting a kid they knew they couldn't sign? Even more so, how much credibility do you think they would lose by going hard after a prospect that didn't fit the team needs?

No one's saying the coaches are doing that, but if we're going after this kid then they must see something in him.

[SuperJon]

I'm going with RTF. There is a limit on the amount of kids you can recruit. It's called a budget.

[jcmanson]

Sure you have a budget, but that doesn't mean you can't go after X # of players.

[SuperJon]

Isn't saying you can go after "X" number of players limiting the recruiting pool and going after a "set number of prospects?"

[jcmanson]

Maybe I worded my post wrong, what I'm trying to say is even with a budget that doesn't put a limit on how many guys you go after. You could have the same budget every year and one year go after 30, the next 35, the next 25, etc.

[SuperJon]

It does put a limit on it. You can't go after 70 guys if you have a budget for 30.