Sign and Place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

You can't sign more than 25.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gutter Cobreh

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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.

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.