Upshot for the Rest of the Class (2014 Edition)

[Crazy Balki]

McKenzie, Sawyers, Trey LMFAO

Thank you. Good night.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'd be happy to take Griffin, Sawyer or the kid from Texas, but I think we're too late. We may not be able to be so selective. Just go find someone who will definitely say "yes" that is at least big enough to play for another FBS team.

 

[BGIF]

While that trio of reciecers is impressive, Paul Johnson is still there running the triple option. NNot exactly lighting it up through the air. Thomas and Hill both played for Johnson, but I can't imagine many guys with aspirations of playing in the league getting fired up to play WR for the Ramblin Wreck.

... .

Echoes of Lou Holtz explaining why he was transitioning from the triple option to a pro set. It was getting tougher each year to recruit highly talented skill players. WRs and QBs didn't want to play in that offense.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I'd be happy to take Griffin, Sawyer or the kid from Texas, but I think we're too late. We may not be able to be so selective. Just go find someone who will definitely say "yes" that is at least big enough to play for another FBS team.

That's a recipe for having a shitty team. No thanks.

 

[NDinL.A.]

1) Any way you cut it, we have roster room and will probably add some questionable talent.
2) Hubbard isn't questionable talent, kid is a stud.
3) He can play multiple positions.
4) HE WAS ALREADY COMMITED TO ND.

Do we need more reasons?

Who is this questionable talent that we wil probably add?

Hubbard is a stud in your opinion. The staff looked at his film and disagreed with you. Who is to say who is right?

I actually wanted ND to offer Hubbard. But to say he is a stud without question, while saying other talent we might add is questionable talent, is just your opinion and contrary to what the coaches believe. There is no way to know who is correct at this point.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's a recipe for having a shitty team. No thanks.

That makes no sense. I thought not having enough players to field a team was a recipe for being shitty. If you're never going to get to 85, it hurts absolutely nothing to take some flyers on the very back end of the roster. Literally zero downside. Like I said, there is at least one kid out there that is going underrecruited and will be good enough to play for us. We should be trying to find that kid. It costs us nothing.

 

[NDdomer2]

i just wish we would identify what positions are difficult to recruit and offer a larger base early knowing ahead of time were going to be in the predicament in the end.

im ok only offering 2-4 rbs a year and taking one but it seems we do same with dt at beginning then were behind the 8 ball when it comes down to nitty gritty.

 

[DillonHall]

That makes no sense. I thought not having enough players to field a team was a recipe for being shitty. If you're never going to get to 85, it hurts absolutely nothing to take some flyers on the very back end of the roster. Literally zero downside. Like I said, there is at least one kid out there that is going underrecruited and will be good enough to play for us. We should be trying to find that kid. It costs us nothing.

It comes down to quality vs. quantity. I can't predict the future, but maybe we'd be better off saving the scholarship for next year rather than getting someone who's merely "big enough."

 

[Ironman8]

That makes no sense. I thought not having enough players to field a team was a recipe for being shitty. If you're never going to get to 85, it hurts absolutely nothing to take some flyers on the very back end of the roster. Literally zero downside. Like I said, there is at least one kid out there that is going underrecruited and will be good enough to play for us. We should be trying to find that kid. It costs us nothing.

We have found some of those kids. Jhonny Williams, Jonathon Bonner and Kolin Hill ring any bells? Hell, Justin Brent had either no or just one offer when we accepted his commitment. I can see why some people are frustrated with the fact that we seem to be slower than most staffs in our assessments and offers, but it's hard to me to argue with the results. They guys they find that are unrecruited all seem to shoot up the rankings or add impressive offers after we go at them.

On the DT issue, I honestly really think the staff (at least under Diaco) was more than happy with what we had and adding Dickerson and Hayes this year. Hard to really put blame on them for not continuing to recruit the position hard when Hayes and Dickerson were so solid and loved ND so much - it is just a shame unforseen major family issues forced Dickerson to stay in Cali. He was coming to us even with a disabled mother, that's how much he wanted to be at ND. The father getting ill as well pushed him to take a step back and want to play closer to home, and I can't fault him for that at all. It's probably what I would do. Family comes first.

Now we are aggressively pursing several DTs, a few of which already have expressed interest in getting to ND and giving them a real shot. I think if and when we get Griffin and Sawyers on campus, we have a great shot at adding both. If we get those guys, that is a home run up and down by our staff IMO.

 

[NDinL.A.]

That makes no sense. I thought not having enough players to field a team was a recipe for being shitty.

Huh? When has ND not had enough players to field a team??? And how would offering a player committed to Toledo who you know isn't good enough to be a difference maker here help you field a competitive team? Sure, it's a body, but will he help us win? I'm all about finding diamonds in the rough (which, as Ironman pointed out, we have been doing), but I want players that the staff has identified as guys that can help us, not guys just to fill a roster. And admit it or not, if you're desperately poaching guys off Toledo and Western Illinois, then you're just shooting arrows blindly in the dark. Again, not thanks.

If you're never going to get to 85, it hurts absolutely nothing to take some flyers on the very back end of the roster. Literally zero downside. Like I said, there is at least one kid out there that is going underrecruited and will be good enough to play for us. We should be trying to find that kid. It costs us nothing.

It absolutely hurts us and there absolutely is a downside. The goal is to always get to 85, whether you can or not (and I reiterate, VERY FEW TEAMS GET TO 85); the goal is not to oversaturate one position group with mediocre players, and then turn around and say no to players that you believe can help you.

Any anyway, it's a total farce when people say we don't have bodies along the d-line. We have PLENTY of bodies. The problem is we don't have quality bodies; we don't have difference makers.

Let me ask you this, were we struggling to put a nose tackle on the field after Louis Nix went down? Nope. We brought on Schwenke and Jones was his back-up. When Schwenke went down, we brought on Jones and Stockton. Same thing at the ends. We have plenty of bodies there. We even brought on Justin Utopo. Again, the problem is quality, not quantity. We already have plenty of guys...the key is to get guys that can help push the starters and eventually become starters themselves. We've identified plenty of guys the staff believes can help, guys from places like Vandy and Texas. Personally, I'll take our staff going after a player once committed to Texas over going after a sub-par player from Toledo any day of the week. And if they don't get a quality player late, go hard after more players at this spot next cycle.

 

[Irish YJ]

I think the frustration starts, but does not end with not over signing to an extent. I'm not saying we should go all SEC on the recruiting trail, but we should be a bit more aggressive with the number. Specifically early in the cycle when there are quality 4 star guys, perhaps not in a position of need, but we deem "not a take" yet. Why not take a few of these early on. The likelihood of us losing a recruit or player (transfer, grades, behavior) during the cycle is 100%... so why not gamble a bit more.

 

[irishfan]

God, I guess at this point I'd be content with Alexander and one DT, but that's such a downgrade from where I thought we were following the Pinstripe Bowl.

Why do I feel like every single year we could put together a higher ranked recruiting class with kids who we came in 2nd place to, or kids who wanted to come here and couldn't qualify?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm saying at this point I'd rather reach for someone than let the scholarship go unused, because we are so thin up front that we may really need a body at some point, and you never know when a guy might develop into more than a body. I appreciate that they have taken on some projects at linebacker, and I believe at least one of them may hit (I really like Hill). But the need on the d-line is such that I don't even see adding a depth piece (or three) as a luxury like the linebackers. It is a legitimate need to find anyone that can physically hold his own in there even if he isn't an all-American.

Hollywood, you're pointing to last year and previous years as evidence that we don't need bodies up front, but last year and previous years have nothing to do with it. You get guys hurt next year like we had this year and you literally will not have a two deep.

 

[Irish YJ]

Also, looking at it another way,,,,, every unused scholarship is potentially a kid who doesn't get a life changing experience, and a world class education.

 

[dwshade]

While that trio of reciecers is impressive, Paul Johnson is still there running the triple option. Not exactly lighting it up through the air. Thomas and Hill both played for Johnson, but I can't imagine many guys with aspirations of playing in the league getting fired up to play WR for the Ramblin Wreck.


Flurry of new offers, means a sprint to the finish. I have faith in Kelly and staff. Hopefully he finds a couple undervalued DTs that fit a role.

That would make sense if he wasn't interested in Tech. It's the other way around though. He would have been very interested in Tech but they never bothered to recruit him for some unknown reason. Plus he can play other positions besides WR. Tech could certainly use help on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Huh? When has ND not had enough players to field a team??? And how would offering a player committed to Toledo who you know isn't good enough to be a difference maker here help you field a competitive team? Sure, it's a body, but will he help us win? I'm all about finding diamonds in the rough (which, as Ironman pointed out, we have been doing), but I want players that the staff has identified as guys that can help us, not guys just to fill a roster. And admit it or not, if you're desperately poaching guys off Toledo and Western Illinois, then you're just shooting arrows blindly in the dark. Again, not thanks.



It absolutely hurts us and there absolutely is a downside. The goal is to always get to 85, whether you can or not (and I reiterate, VERY FEW TEAMS GET TO 85); the goal is not to oversaturate one position group with mediocre players, and then turn around and say no to players that you believe can help you.

Any anyway, it's a total farce when people say we don't have bodies along the d-line. We have PLENTY of bodies. The problem is we don't have quality bodies; we don't have difference makers.

Let me ask you this, were we struggling to put a nose tackle on the field after Louis Nix went down? Nope. We brought on Schwenke and Jones was his back-up. When Schwenke went down, we brought on Jones and Stockton. Same thing at the ends. We have plenty of bodies there. We even brought on Justin Utopo. Again, the problem is quality, not quantity. We already have plenty of guys...the key is to get guys that can help push the starters and eventually become starters themselves. We've identified plenty of guys the staff believes can help, guys from places like Vandy and Texas. Personally, I'll take our staff going after a player once committed to Texas over going after a sub-par player from Toledo any day of the week. And if they don't get a quality player late, go hard after more players at this spot next cycle.

Of course Toledo has no sub-par players, (except those that graduated from SF deSalles HS!)

 

[Cpnd1]

@ISDUpdate: Former Louisville DT commit Chris Nelson talks upcoming visits. #Texas #USF #NotreDame #UCF (Premium) http://t.co/Du8xRAHuSw

 

[IrishLax]

@ISDUpdate: Former Louisville DT commit Chris Nelson talks upcoming visits. #Texas #USF #NotreDame #UCF (Premium) http://t.co/Du8xRAHuSw

Seems like we're too late to the party. He definitely wants to take a visit to ND, but I'm not sure how he fits that in. Texas, USF, and UCF... and would expect him to end up at Texas.

 

[Emcee77]

Seems like we're too late to the party. He definitely wants to take a visit to ND, but I'm not sure how he fits that in. Texas, USF, and UCF... and would expect him to end up at Texas.

That's what I expected, but very disappointing. A 295 lb. DT who played LB and FB his junior year?? Just the sort of versatile inside/outside DL we love.

 

[Irish#1]

Seems like we're too late to the party. He definitely wants to take a visit to ND, but I'm not sure how he fits that in. Texas, USF, and UCF... and would expect him to end up at Texas.

Didn't read the article, but if we can get him on campus..........

 

[Irish#1]

I think the frustration starts, but does not end with not over signing to an extent. I'm not saying we should go all SEC on the recruiting trail, but we should be a bit more aggressive with the number. Specifically early in the cycle when there are quality 4 star guys, perhaps not in a position of need, but we deem "not a take" yet. Why not take a few of these early on. The likelihood of us losing a recruit or player (transfer, grades, behavior) during the cycle is 100%... so why not gamble a bit more.

I agree, but I wonder if BK's hands are somewhat tied by the admin? To them offering a kid and then telling him we aren't taking him may be the type of publicity the school doesn't want.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Didn't read the article, but if we can get him on campus..........

Some people are saying not to write him off just yet. I still like the kid from Ohio (too)!

Change subject:
And about the number of offers ND issues. Is that based in part on the recruits having to pass with admission first? How many kids nationally are offered by teams where academic admission is a prerequisite?

 

[Irish YJ]

I agree, but I wonder if BK's hands are somewhat tied by the admin? To them offering a kid and then telling him we aren't taking him may be the type of publicity the school doesn't want.

Thinking about pushing the limit assuming you XX number of 5th years you can say no too. Take it right up to the edge knowing you still have options if you can not be "creative". If you have a have a rock star 5th year, take him out of consideration. Or leave him in... but gamble a little.... We have 3-4 we can say buh bye to this year.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Per Bk on Bill King, decisions on fifth years have been made and we are looking to take 4 more recruits.

 

[Ironman8]

Per Bk on Bill King, decisions on fifth years have been made and we are looking to take 4 more recruits.

2 DTs, 1 WR and 1 DB?

 

[tko]

2 DTs, 1 WR and 1 DB?

1 DT and 3 long snappers

 

[LoveThee]

Does this mean only two 5th years were offered to return? Lombard and Moore?

 

[autry_denson]

Does this mean only two 5th years were offered to return? Lombard and Moore?

I'd be stunned if Collinsworth is not asked back. Even if there is a numbers crunch, guys who contribute will always be asked back. Without any pressure on numbers, it's a non-decision.

 

[Cackalacky]

I was thinking Collinsworth and Moore, based on where we are at now. I don't think JuJu is coming. Plus having an experienced LB like Moore will be a plus (who is probably big enough to play a rush end next year).

 

[Ironman8]

There is a 0 percent chance Lombard isn't asked back IMO.