Sign and Place

[Dawg61]

I am curious how many of these sign and place guys end up actually playing for MSU and end up being worth 4 years of recruiting them? Anyone got any stats/details on this? How many have we signed and placed that never play here? How many have we signed and placed that end up playing somewhere else two years later? Seems like a giant waste of time and money on 90% of them which means the 10% that do work out better be all-sec type talents or the entire thing is once again a giant waste of time and money on dudes that are already showing you huge red flags when they can't qualify for college. If you're gonna sign jucos sign jucos that have proven they are worth it on the field at juco. If you're gonna sign high schoolers sign the ones that have proven they are worth it on the field AND HAVE QUALIFIED FOR COLLEGE. Don't sign guys with huge red flags saying they suck in the classroom and then you hope they don't suck in the classroom two years later oh and that they are actually still SEC talents two years later. I would even go as far as to say guys that can't qualify for college are also more likely to get in trouble off the field. Are sign and place guys worth it when you add it all up and subtract all the misses on sign and place guys? My theory is they aren't worth it by a big margin and we are much better off signing guys for college that have actually qualified to attend college. 2 cents. Rip it apart recruitniks.

[jumbo]

I think we have a pretty high success rate with guys we sign and actually place.

[Cooterpoot]

So you believe kids that aren't great students shouldn't have opportunities if they prove their worth in a juco, once they're possibly away from negative influences and have people helping them?
Juco kids are also generally more mature after a couple years.

[smootness]

What's the downside? You don't really have to recruit them much once they're in JUCO, and you don't have to take them 2 years later. They're mostly yours if you want them at that point. It's not like we've signed a bunch of them.

And here are some of the guys we've gotten going that route:
Donald Gray
Darius Slay
Justin Cox
Lashard Durr

And Dontea Jones and Kivon Coman went to prep school after we signed them the first time.

Now you give me your list of guys for whom it was just a waste.

[Dawg61]

Now you give me your list of guys for whom it was just a waste.

I despise college football recruiting that's why I am asking. Seems to me that we should just sign SEC talent jucos this year instead of waiting to see if they are going to qualify and be SEC talents two years down the road or just use those spots on high schoolers that have qualified. I like signing guys that play for us this year not ones that maybe will play for us two years later.

[1bigdawg]

I despise college football recruiting that's why I am asking. Seems to me that we should just sign SEC talent jucos this year instead of waiting to see if they are going to qualify and be SEC talents two years down the road or just use those spots on high schoolers that have qualified. I like signing guys that play for us this year not ones that maybe will play for us two years later.

Spoken like the Hevesy fan you are.

[Dawg61]

Spoken like the Hevesy fan you are.

I am not a Hevesy fan I am a Dan Mullen fan. Dan has made it clearly obvious he values Hevesy.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I despise college football recruiting that's why I am asking. Seems to me that we should just sign SEC talent jucos this year instead of waiting to see if they are going to qualify and be SEC talents two years down the road or just use those spots on high schoolers that have qualified. I like signing guys that play for us this year not ones that maybe will play for us two years later.

If you thought a guy was SEC caliber coming out of HS but didn't have the grades (Darius Slay, Justin Cox, Donald Gray) why wouldn't you want them 2yrs from now if they proved they could handle the education aspect seems like a no brainer. It's also probably less time & money used on a Juco prospect especially sign & place because the Juco coach knows his situation & the expectation for him to come back to MSU.

[Ari Gold]

This thread just Made the List ..

[Dawg61]

This thread just Made the List ..

You know where you can put that list

[Dawg61]

If you thought a guy was SEC caliber coming out of HS but didn't have the grades (Darius Slay, Justin Cox, Donald Gray) why wouldn't you want them 2yrs from now if they proved they could handle the education aspect seems like a no brainer. It's also probably less time & money used on a Juco prospect especially sign & place because the Juco coach knows his situation & the expectation for him to come back to MSU.

Tell me about the ones that haven't worked out

[smootness]

I despise college football recruiting that's why I am asking. Seems to me that we should just sign SEC talent jucos this year instead of waiting to see if they are going to qualify and be SEC talents two years down the road or just use those spots on high schoolers that have qualified. I like signing guys that play for us this year not ones that maybe will play for us two years later.

So you admit you know nothing about our recruiting but start a thread saying that part of our recruiting strategy needs to change? If you don't even know who the sign and place guys are, how can you judge whether or not it is worth it?

And the reason you sign and place is because you are virtually assured of getting that prospect 2 years later if you still want them. JUCOs know they will only continue to get sign-and-place guys if the college feel confident they can get them back in 2 years. So if other schools aren't offering a HS player because he won't qualify and you have room, it can be a great way to get a legit talent that you otherwise might not.

I gave you a list of guys it has worked out for. It's a pretty good list, and that's just since Mullen has been here. It has proven to be a pretty good strategy. Offering a guy you don't really want just because he's going to qualify is not a good strategy.

[smootness]

Tell me about the ones that haven't worked out

That's your responsibility. You started the thread.

And there aren't many. We don't sign-and-place that many guys.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Tell me about the ones that haven't worked out

Shaq Perry - Quit before playing 1 game. So no time or money wasted

Ravien Pierce - Not technically a sign & place because we didn't place him at his Juco but 1 that was lost

Deshon Cooper - MSU moved on after seeing him play in Juco

Jordan Harris - Another kid who never played a game if I recall correctly. No time or money wasted

As you can see it's not that much work or effort on these guys. There's literally no downside. If they play well & stick it's great. If they don't play well we can always not recruit them back. Ravian Pierce is the only 1 we've truly lost

[Dawg61]

So you admit you know nothing about our recruiting but start a thread saying that part of our recruiting strategy needs to change? If you don't even know who the sign and place guys are, how can you judge whether or not it is worth it?

And the reason you sign and place is because you are virtually assured of getting that prospect 2 years later if you still want them. JUCOs know they will only continue to get sign-and-place guys if the college feel confident they can get them back in 2 years. So if other schools aren't offering a HS player because he won't qualify and you have room, it can be a great way to get a legit talent that you otherwise might not.

I gave you a list of guys it has worked out for. It's a pretty good list, and that's just since Mullen has been here. It has proven to be a pretty good strategy. Offering a guy you don't really want just because he's going to qualify is not a good strategy.

I started the thread so I can learn brother. It's something that's been bothering me about sign and place guys for awhile. I said it SEEMS like a giant waste of time and money to me so I start the thread so I can find out information. There you go again nitpicking my wording and getting it twisted.

[HSVDawg]

What's the downside? You don't really have to recruit them much once they're in JUCO, and you don't have to take them 2 years later. They're mostly yours if you want them at that point. It's not like we've signed a bunch of them.

And here are some of the guys we've gotten going that route:
Donald Gray
Darius Slay
Justin Cox
Lashard Durr

And Dontea Jones and Kivon Coman went to prep school after we signed them the first time.

Now you give me your list of guys for whom it was just a waste.

Was a waste with Ravian Pierce and likely will be a waste with Emmitt Gooden. And JJ Grant (lol).

Still batting over .500 though. Juice seems to be worth the squeeze.

[Dawg61]

Shaq Perry - Quit before playing 1 game. So no time or money wasted

Ravien Pierce - Not technically a sign & place because we didn't place him at his Juco but 1 that was lost

Deshon Cooper - MSU moved on after seeing him play in Juco

Jordan Harris - Another kid who never played a game if I recall correctly. No time or money wasted

As you can see it's not that much work or effort on these guys. There's literally no downside. If they play well & stick it's great. If they don't play well we can always not recruit them back. Ravian Pierce is the only 1 we've truly lost

Thank you, I just really hate signing guys you don't see on the field for 2-3 more years or really I just hate seeing those guys listed as signees. I want a list for every team of guys that will play for the schools the next year that doesn't include guys that don't qualify. It's another example of how recruiting rankings are flawed imo.

[FISHDAWG]

bump ... this is kinda fun

[smootness]

I started the thread so I can learn brother. It's something that's been bothering me about sign and place guys for awhile. I said it SEEMS like a giant waste of time and money to me so I start the thread so I can find out information. There you go again nitpicking my wording and getting it twisted.

You offered an opinion, you didn't just ask a question.

[smootness]

Was a waste with Ravian Pierce and likely will be a waste with Emmitt Gooden. And JJ Grant (lol).

Still batting over .500 though. Juice seems to be worth the squeeze.

I don't think we really wasted any more than we would have had they just not committed out of HS. And I'm also not sure we actually placed either Pierce or Gooden.

[jumbo]

Was a waste with Ravian Pierce and likely will be a waste with Emmitt Gooden. And JJ Grant (lol).

Still batting over .500 though. Juice seems to be worth the squeeze.



We didn't place Gooden

[smootness]

Thank you, I just really hate signing guys you don't see on the field for 2-3 more years or really I just hate seeing those guys listed as signees. I want a list for every team of guys that will play for the schools the next year that doesn't include guys that don't qualify. It's another example of how recruiting rankings are flawed imo.

Now that is a separate discussion. I would be fine excluding them from rankings out of HS, thought that would be a little tough. You can remove them from your own list, though.

We have to remember that all of this recruiting stuff...literally all of it...is for fans. These sites have no reason to change what they're doing. Fans eat it up and debate it forever.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

The thing is most recruiting sites do put out final rankings in July or August once guys are enrolled or not. Fans just don't care then. 1st Tuesday in February is all fans care about. So the updated rankings don't get any attention.

[Dawg61]

Now that is a separate discussion. I would be fine excluding them from rankings out of HS, thought that would be a little tough. You can remove them from your own list, though.

We have to remember that all of this recruiting stuff...literally all of it...is for fans. These sites have no reason to change what they're doing. Fans eat it up and debate it forever.


The thing is most recruiting sites do put out final rankings in July or August once guys are enrolled or not. Fans just don't care then. 1st Tuesday in February is all fans care about. So the updated rankings don't get any attention.

Don't you think it masks the ability to sign a full class? You get 25 spots. Sign 25 guys that will play the next year not 25 but only 20 actually play the next year. Or if you're going to sign 5 place guys sign 30 to the class not 25 but we don't ever seem to do that. We never sign a max amount that play for us the next year. I want 25 guys added every year that play every year. Stop counting sign and place guys as signees like every other guy on our signee list that is going to play for us next year. Their roster spot is still available.

[1bigdawg]

Don't you think it masks the ability to sign a full class? You get 25 spots. Sign 25 guys that will play the next year not 25 but only 20 actually play the next year. Or if you're going to sign 5 place guys sign 30 to the class not 25 but we don't ever seem to do that. We never sign a max amount that play for us the next year. I want 25 guys added every year that play every year. Stop counting sign and place guys as signees like every other guy on our signee list that is going to play for us next year. Their roster spot is still available.

I agree that we want a full roster of 85 and, for whatever reason, we have done a terrible job of being at or very near that number, particularly last year. As you point out, we could sign 30 expecting 25 to show. It is a matter of roster management and I hope we get better at it. However, it has nothing/little to do with sign and place.

[Dawg61]

It is a matter of roster management and I hope we get better at it. However, it has nothing/little to do with sign and place.

It does when we act like a sign and place guy is the same as a signee that plays this year. We treat them like regular signees and let our coaches get away with not signing a full class. Sign 25 guys that will play for us this year. Then do that next year and next year and on and on. Stop signing less than what we are allowed and masking that with sign and place players.

[RiverCityDawg]

bump ... this is kinda fun

Wait, did you bump a 3 minute old thread?

[Dawg61]

Wait, did you bump a 3 minute old thread?

Yes, maybe the funniest bump I have ever seen

[Ari Gold]

Wait, did you bump a 3 minute old thread?

And know you see why this thread made the list ..

[Dawg61]

And know you see why this thread made the list ..

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/dictionary-page-now-definition-22156570.jpg

[Ari Gold]

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/dictionary-page-now-definition-22156570.jpg

That's ur walk off. Trust me you won't have a better post than that.. "we'll" done

[BrunswickDawg]

Don't you think it masks the ability to sign a full class? You get 25 spots. Sign 25 guys that will play the next year not 25 but only 20 actually play the next year. Or if you're going to sign 5 place guys sign 30 to the class not 25 but we don't ever seem to do that. We never sign a max amount that play for us the next year. I want 25 guys added every year that play every year. Stop counting sign and place guys as signees like every other guy on our signee list that is going to play for us next year. Their roster spot is still available.

When was the last time we signed more than 1 or 2 sign and place guys? I can't think of year under Mullen when we had more than 2 - 3 at most. Sign and place guys aren't taking spots from signing classes. Now, I'll agree that our scholarship management has been off, but I don't think this has been a contributing factor.

[Dawg61]

That's ur walk off. Trust me you won't have a better post than that.. "we'll" done

Just did

http://visionnoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jessica-davies-tumblrcom.jpg

[tcdog70]

You offered an opinion, you didn't just ask a question.

Damn Smoot, You don't have to pound every 61 post. His point is a good one and ok for discussion. For an ex Croom and Rick Ray lover you are rough on some people. Sign and Place Jucos are worth it , no doubt in my mind.

[DeputyDawg94]

I am not a Hevesy fan I am a Dan Mullen fan. Dan has made it clearly obvious he values Hevesy.

I value lots of people but I also can see their limitations and wouldn't ask them to do things they are not good at.

[Jarius]

Don't you think it masks the ability to sign a full class? You get 25 spots. Sign 25 guys that will play the next year not 25 but only 20 actually play the next year. Or if you're going to sign 5 place guys sign 30 to the class not 25 but we don't ever seem to do that. We never sign a max amount that play for us the next year. I want 25 guys added every year that play every year. Stop counting sign and place guys as signees like every other guy on our signee list that is going to play for us next year. Their roster spot is still available.

61, we get 85 scholarships. If we sign 25 every single year we would have 5 classes on campus and that's 125 players. Take away the ones that quit and/or leave early for the draft/play as a true freshman and leave in 4 years and you are still nowhere near the 85 man limit. Unless we start processing people out the ying yang we can't sign 25 qualifiers every year.

[Dawg61]

61, we get 85 scholarships. If we sign 25 every single year we would have 5 classes on campus and that's 125 players. Take away the ones that quit and/or leave early for the draft/play as a true freshman and leave in 4 years and you are still nowhere near the 85 man limit. Unless we start processing people out the ying yang we can't sign 25 qualifiers every year.

Trimming the fat is never easy but is a necessary evil if we ever want to play for a Championship. You aren't trimming 40 scholarships over night. We should already be doing this so every year you are trimming roughly 10-15 of your fat not 40.

[Reason2succeed]

Trimming the fat is never easy but is a necessary evil if we ever want to play for a Championship. You aren't trimming 40 scholarships over night. We should already be doing this so every year you are trimming roughly 10-15 of your fat not 40.

"Processing" or trimming the fat is great in theory but it can really burn bridges with coaches who do not forget what you did to their player. Unlike others in this state Mullen operates with a certain level of morals. He doesn't like having to drop kids that really aren't sec talent.

At the same time you can definitely make the case that we have not recruited well enough to fill all our classes with real sec talent. But I think that has to do with what Mullen is looking for. It seems to me that Mullen is big on intangibles and just as I would be he is esp wary of sign and place guys. Justin Cox was probably the riskiest signand place and I can remember and we see how that turned out. Mullen is big on maintaining a good culture among his players.

We would suck without the Mississippi juco system but we have to use it litigiously or we will have the same thing happen that happened at the end of JWS' tenure: the inmates were running the asylum. I remember. I was there. It was bad.

[Dawg61]

"Processing" or trimming the fat is great in theory but it can really burn bridges with coaches who do not forget what you did to their player.

**** whatever coach would get butthurt over that anyways. They obviously didn't give a shit about MSU when they sold us on their player being an SEC talent when he wasn't. Trying to keep that guy happy only ensures Alabama and LSU stay ahead of us. You think Alabama/Saban gives a shit about cutting a player that has no business being on their roster? That coach needs to worry about next time we come around being straight up with us instead of acting better than our program when we cut his CUSA player. We are the State's University. We don't let the Po Dunk High football coach dictate who we keep on our roster. Ever.

[dawgday166]

**** whatever coach would get butthurt over that anyways. They obviously didn't give a shit about MSU when they sold us on their player being an SEC talent when he wasn't. Trying to keep that guy happy only ensures Alabama and LSU stay ahead of us. You think Alabama/Saban gives a shit about cutting a player that has no business being on their roster? That coach needs to worry about next time we come around being straight up with us instead of acting better than our program when we cut his CUSA player. We are the State's University. We don't let the Po Dunk High football coach dictate who we keep on our roster. Ever.

I believe their recruiting footprint and brand are slightly larger.

[Dawg61]

I believe their recruiting footprint and brand are slightly larger.

Does that mean Vandy is worried about keeping pee wee football coaches happy when they want to trim the fat?

[smootness]

Don't you think it masks the ability to sign a full class? You get 25 spots. Sign 25 guys that will play the next year not 25 but only 20 actually play the next year. Or if you're going to sign 5 place guys sign 30 to the class not 25 but we don't ever seem to do that. We never sign a max amount that play for us the next year. I want 25 guys added every year that play every year. Stop counting sign and place guys as signees like every other guy on our signee list that is going to play for us next year. Their roster spot is still available.

I'll just offer a few thoughts:

1) You can't sign more than 25. You can count back, but you still can't sign more than 25 on top of the number you counted back. You seem to acknowledge that by saying it keeps us from signing a full class, but then advocate signing more than a full class.
2) This is not the coaches attempting to mask anything. The sign-and-place guys are guys they genuinely like and want, and they are making the decision that virtually guaranteeing they have that player in 2 years is preferable to the qualifiers remaining that they could get.
3) You advocate trimming the fat, but who is going to make up that fat you have to trim? Precisely the guys you didn't really want originally. You want a system where we sign a few guys we don't really want only to have to cut them later for more guys we don't really want, all so we can say we signed a full 25 that qualified, and the loss is that we won't get guys like Slay, Gray, and Cox. And you risk damaging relationships in the process.

[smootness]

Damn Smoot, You don't have to pound every 61 post. His point is a good one and ok for discussion. For an ex Croom and Rick Ray lover you are rough on some people. Sign and Place Jucos are worth it , no doubt in my mind.

Haha if that's me being rough on him...

And he wasn't starting this thread to 'learn'. He's trying to argue that our coaches are making poor or stupid decisions, yet he's admittedly uninformed on the subject. Forcing others to prove his point for him after starting the thread is annoying.

I don't have anything against 61 personally. It just so happens we seem to disagree on most things, and his negative opinions on subjects he doesn't know much about gets old. That's it.

[Jarius]

Trimming the fat is never easy but is a necessary evil if we ever want to play for a Championship. You aren't trimming 40 scholarships over night. We should already be doing this so every year you are trimming roughly 10-15 of your fat not 40.

Mullen recruits heavily in state. He doesn't have the luxury of Burning bridges throughout the state when someone doesn't develop their first year or 2 on campus. He needs the relationships with the schools in this state a hell of a lot more than those schools need him. It's his livelihood. He's also a big believer in us Being a developmental program. Hard to let people develop if you are cutting them constantly. You may not agree with the way he does things but he isn't Changing that aspect and until we are good enough to recruit nationally (probably never) it would be extremely idiotic to get known as the guy who cuts a bunch of instate talent every year.

[Dawg61]

You can't sign more than 25.


And he wasn't starting this thread to 'learn'. He's trying to argue that our coaches are making poor or stupid decisions, yet he's admittedly uninformed on the subject. Forcing others to prove his point for him after starting the thread is annoying.

I don't have anything against 61 personally. It just so happens we seem to disagree on most things, and his negative opinions on subjects he doesn't know much about gets old. That's it.

If we can't sign more than 25 than I am not a fan of sign and place unless it is a can't miss prospect. If they aren't a can't miss we can just sign them in two years and not tie up a slot this year. I am betting we aren't batting .500 on sign and place guys ever starting a game for us but that'll remain a mystery for now.

I almost always start threads to spark discussion on something I am thinking about. I value others perspectives on whatever it is I am wanting to talk about and despite your dickhead attitude about it this thread already has over 1,000 views and is 3 pages long which hints that it is interesting to some other people too. I have also LEARNED that we can't sign more than 25 no matter what and I was reminded of some of our valuable sign and place guys we've had before. So I have accomplished what I set out to do by starting this thread. You have also accomplished your goal of trolling every post I make. Congrats

[dawgday166]

Does that mean Vandy is worried about keeping pee wee football coaches happy when they want to trim the fat?

Yea, that's what it means * :rolleyes:

[smootness]

If we can't sign more than 25 than I am not a fan of sign and place unless it is a can't miss prospect. If they aren't a can't miss we can just sign them in two years and not tie up a slot this year. I am betting we aren't batting .500 on sign and place guys ever starting a game for us but that'll remain a mystery for now.

I almost always start threads to spark discussion on something I am thinking about. I value others perspectives on whatever it is I am wanting to talk about and despite your dickhead attitude about it this thread already has over 1,000 views and is 3 pages long which hints that it is interesting to some other people too. I have also LEARNED that we can't sign more than 25 no matter what and I was reminded of some of our valuable sign and place guys we've had before. So I have accomplished what I set out to do by starting this thread. You have also accomplished your goal of trolling every post I make. Congrats

Haha I'm not trolling you. Again, we disagree on most things.

On this topic, I think the difference is that you believe signing and placing a guy doesn't really help you land him 2 years later, but it absolutely does. On guys we actually still want in 2 years, it's basically 100%.

Again, you are advocating signing the very fat we'll just have to turn around and trim in a year or two. That doesn't help us.

[Dawg61]

Haha I'm not trolling you. Again, we disagree on most things.

On this topic, I think the difference is that you believe signing and placing a guy doesn't really help you land him 2 years later, but it absolutely does. On guys we actually still want in 2 years, it's basically 100%.

Again, you are advocating signing the very fat we'll just have to turn around and trim in a year or two. That doesn't help us.

Where do you see me advocating signing fat? I want us to sign the best 25 guys possible every year. I don't think saving one of those spots for someone two years down the road is the best way to go especially if you start doing the percentages on if that player actually ever ends up starting a game for us. Again I do not know what that percentage is but I am betting it isn't 50%. I was hoping to find that out in this thread since we have so many here that love recruiting. How many sign and place guys ever end up starting one single game for MSU?

[Gutter Cobreh]

I don't have anything against 61 personally. It just so happens we seem to disagree on most things, and his negative opinions on subjects he doesn't know much about gets old. That's it.

Seems to be the consensus of the majority...but don't say he has negative opinions. He pointed out to me last week that his positive comments regarding State can be found in the game threads...:cool:

[smootness]

Where do you see me advocating signing fat? I want us to sign the best 25 guys possible every year. I don't think saving one of those spots for someone two years down the road is the best way to go especially if you start doing the percentages on if that player actually ever ends up starting a game for us. Again I do not know what that percentage is but I am betting it isn't 50%. I was hoping to find that out in this thread since we have so many here that love recruiting. How many sign and place guys ever end up starting one single game for MSU?

Two things:

1) If we are taking a sign-and-place guy, it is clearly a signal that we would rather leave the spot open with the chance that player progresses for the next 2 years than take the other guys we could get. By definition, those are players our coaches don't really want or think are SEC players. And they are definitely the worst prospects in those classes. So those are absolutely going to be the guys we turn around a cut in a year or two.

2) You're making the mistake of taking a sign-and-place player that we sign but don't take 2 years down the line as a 'failure' in that process. But the fact that we didn't get them out of JUCO doesn't mean they didn't pick us, it means our coaches no longer want them. That is a beneficial part of the process. You can basically accomplish the same 'fat trimming' process you advocate but without any of the problems that come with cutting a player already on your roster.

You're not 'saving' a spot for a sign-and-place guy. You sign them when the qualified players you could get aren't worth getting rid of any current players. It's not a wasted scholarship spot. It's basically making meaningful use of extra space you can't use productively.

[Gutter Cobreh]

I value others perspectives on whatever it is I am wanting to talk about and despite your dickhead attitude about it this thread already has over 1,000 views and is 3 pages long which hints that it is interesting to some other people too.

FWIW - if any of us create a thread and comment ourselves 17 times like you have with this, our success rate with getting it to 3 pages will probably rival our success rate with sign and place kids....

[Dawg61]

Seems to be the consensus of the majority...but don't say he has negative opinions. He pointed out to me last week that his positive comments regarding State can be found in the game threads...:cool:

If you want constant sunshine Genespage is that way <---------- take me for how I am otherwise you just want a reflection of yourself in me

[Dawg61]

Two things:

1) If we are taking a sign-and-place guy, it is clearly a signal that we would rather leave the spot open with the chance that player progresses for the next 2 years than take the other guys we could get. By definition, those are players our coaches don't really want or think are SEC players. And they are definitely the worst prospects in those classes. So those are absolutely going to be the guys we turn around a cut in a year or two.

2) You're making the mistake of taking a sign-and-place player that we sign but don't take 2 years down the line as a 'failure' in that process. But the fact that we didn't get them out of JUCO doesn't mean they didn't pick us, it means our coaches no longer want them. That is a beneficial part of the process. You can basically accomplish the same 'fat trimming' process you advocate but without any of the problems that come with cutting a player already on your roster.

You're not 'saving' a spot for a sign-and-place guy. You sign them when the qualified players you could get aren't worth getting rid of any current players. It's not a wasted scholarship spot. It's basically making meaningful use of extra space you can't use productively.

Ok all of that is good and fair points but if we can't sign 25 guys that aren't the fat then we need to recruit better

[smootness]

Ok all of that is good and fair points but if we can't sign 25 guys that aren't the fat then we need to recruit better

Regardless of the talent level of the 25, the last of the 25 will always be the guys you're likely going to cut. So advocating signing a full 25 just because you can and then trimming the fat is always going to lead you into the same cycle.

[smootness]

For the record, Bama signed fewer than 25 both of the last two years, and Clemson signed fewer than 25 in 4 of the last 5, including 21 3 times.

There's something to be said for doing a good job in evaluation and development so that you don't have to trim any fat.

[Jarius]

Ok all of that is good and fair points but if we can't sign 25 guys that aren't the fat then we need to recruit better

Why do you think people on here bitch about Mullen's recruiting so much? We don't sign 25 every year and still have to trim fat. You want him to just keep adding diamonds in the rough that are going to be cut anyway? Because that is what will happen with Mullen recruiting.

[Dawg61]

For the record, Bama signed fewer than 25 both of the last two years, and Clemson signed fewer than 25 in 4 of the last 5, including 21 3 times.

There's something to be said for doing a good job in evaluation and development so that you don't have to trim any fat.

You're right Smoot our recruiting needs zero improvement and Mullen should continue doing exactly as he is right now.

[smootness]

You're right Smoot our recruiting needs zero improvement and Mullen should continue doing exactly as he is right now.

How did you take my quoted post to mean that? I didn't mention Mullen once. Aren't you the one always taking issue with twisting the meaning of things?

I'm saying an ideal strategy is not to sign 25 guys every year just so you can say you did it. It doesn't make sense when you're recruiting at the top, and it doesn't make sense when you're not.

[Dawg61]

How did you take my quoted post to mean that? I didn't mention Mullen once. Aren't you the one always taking issue with twisting the meaning of things?

I'm saying an ideal strategy is not to sign 25 guys every year just so you can say you did it. It doesn't make sense when you're recruiting at the top, and it doesn't make sense when you're not.

I am of the belief it is a priority to recruit 25 guys better than your fat. That doesn't mean none of the 25 will end up being fat or that you're replacing 25 guys on the current roster with those 25 but when you sign everyone you are able to name 1-2 players currently on the roster that each one of them is better than right then. Careful not to get confused here as I am not saying you're signing 25 guys better than a current 25 but I am saying you're signing 25 guys better than 12 guys on your current roster roughly. Players transfer, quit, get injured, retire, get kicked off, get arrested, don't qualify etc. all the time. Who/when is the last player that we said "we are cutting you from the team" that was on scholarship that we didn't find a landing spot for? I don't think we trim the fat much at all at this point. We don't sign full classes, we never have a full 85 and players leave for whatever reason so we never actually do have to cut the fat. We will never get to elite level without trimming fat.

[smootness]

I'm not saying that shouldn't be a priority. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to sign 25 just to sign 25, which is absolutely what you were advocating. And I'm saying there are definitely times where a sign-and-place is a good use of a spot in a signing class.

[Dawg61]

I'm not saying that shouldn't be a priority. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to sign 25 just to sign 25, which is absolutely what you were advocating.

At no point in time have I said "sign 25 guys just to sign 25 guys". In fact I have already told you once in this thread that I have not said that ever yet you keep saying I am. Are we still having the Sanderson Center conversation from 2012 here?

[archdog]

Who was that guy that dicked us over and went to Texas Am last year. That one hurt cause that dude was pretty good.

[Homedawg]

I'm not saying that shouldn't be a priority. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to sign 25 just to sign 25, which is absolutely what you were advocating. And I'm saying there are definitely times where a sign-and-place is a good use of a spot in a signing class.

To add to this if you only have 17 for example, spots to get to the 85 then NOT signing and placing would be, well, stupid! As you stated earlier, we've gotten everyone we placed back....if we wanted them. Some didn't improve and we punted. All good points smoot