OptimusCreampie
Inner city recruiter
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2018
- Messages
- 8,321
I expect a good amount to be processed out after spring. Spring ball is an audition for a lot on the cusp. The total number doesn’t matter until fall camp.
forums
On Judd Anderson
- Thread starter DMoney
- Start date
Advertisement
Tampabaycane
Redshirt Freshman
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 255
My only issue is you cannot say stacked QB room at LSU lol.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 32,527
Just had a Heisman Trophy QB, & have two other blue chips on the depth chart for the 2023-4 roster.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,510
Top rated QB’s are expensive, have high bust rates and are the first to transfer when things don’t go as planned. Develop guys that you believe in and portal until they are ready.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2015
- Messages
- 17,505
We just payed “allegedly” millions of dollars for a portal QB. Good quarterbacks are going to be expensive, period. Pay for the recruits or pay for the transfers. Otherwise you’re just hoping to find a diamond in the rough. Because if you think 5 star quarterbacks have a high bust rate, 3 star quarterbacks have a MUCH higher bust rate.
Last edited:
Advertisement
Damiencane86
All ACC
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2018
- Messages
- 9,766
Exactly. We easily have 10-15 guys on the bubble so even if only half of those guys leave we can still bring aboard a couple more high value portal targets and the numbers will work out fine by fall camp.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 12,839
Just a technical correction but JJ was a 5 star.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 12,839
This right here. I can admit that there appears to be a trend with top QBs transfers that needs to be taken into account but that doesn’t mean we should just basically punt on the most important position on the field as we have.
That’s what we have done and then posts like the OP, right off the bat feel like excuses even if they have some validity to them. Plus when you dig deeper as you did, most followed a coach or a coach left. Even the last 5 out of 6 QBs that won a Heisman, 3(60%) went to Riley who is a QB whisperer and one of those just followed Riley to SC. So when you pull back that second layer, yeah the trend exists but it’s clearly inconclusive.
Advertisement
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 19,849
How did they get the Heisman Trophy winner? How did Oregon get that “stacked QB room?” Who is Ohio State’s QB right now?
You keep trying to excuse the simple facts of today’s game: almost all of the top QBs do absolutely nothing for the teams that sign them, and almost all of the top QBs in college and in the draft are from the Portal.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 11,307
Putting aside the small sample size, isn't this a strawman argument? Specifically here, in the context of Judd Anderson, who is currently the No. 57 ranked QB in the 247 Composite. Like, how many of the guys in the top 30 sign and produce for that school?
It's one thing to say "it may not be worthwhile to spend NIL on a top 10 HS QB unless he's truly generational," but a very different thing to use that premise to justify taking guys outside the top 50.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 19,849
You can go back and look at my Judd posts. He’s not my choice.
I support the general profile as a cheap upside guy- multisport, big tools, similar background to many of the guys dominating the NFL. But his decision-making gives me pause.
But remember, we didn’t spend on Judd. We spent the money on Cam Ward.
MidnightCane
When I was a kid, I could see things.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,375
Why are you pregnant?
Advertisement
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 23,548
The part you keep skipping over is none of those teams are bringing in Emory and Judds to the QB room. They are still recrruiting blue chip QBs. Because that is how you build a team through COMPETITION. If this is those players transfer is the argument why not just forego signing a QB from HS and just sign one in the portal? We would be better off.
Julian Sayin just entered the portal who we were high on just a month ago. Instead of pursuing him even though he has 1) no new film 2) hasn't even practiced. He is not even an option because we have 3 QBs on the roster that aren't close to being ready. Wouldn't it make sense to replace those players with a high upside talent.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 11,307
Fair enough. You spend more money on the proven commodity than an unknown one. I understand that premise.
But if a team is going that route at the most important position in football, it needs a better back-up plan than Anderson. I don't want a $2.5M starter and $25,000 back-up.
Yes, we should be trying to throw around big money for P4 starter-quality portal QBs.
Yes, we should also be throwing some (albeit it much less) money for solid HS QBs.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2015
- Messages
- 17,505
I addressed his entire post. He said QB recruits are expensive. I said so are portal QBs. He said develop the guys you believe in. I said if you're planning on just signing a bunch of 3 stars and trying to develop them, they have a much higher probability of being busts than 4 or 5 star quarterbacks. The reason we spent a ton of money on a one year stop gap at quarterback is because we didn't spend on quarterback recruits and none of our current guys are capable.
Advertisement
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2021
- Messages
- 335
01Canes
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,669
We're a year removed from the first two picks in the NFL Draft being former 5* HS QB's who weren't transfers in CJ Stroud and Bryce Young, both of whom led their respective teams to 41-point performances when their WR's were healthy against utterly dominant UGA defenses littered with future first-round draft picks. It was thoroughly discussed on this board at the time that the 2022 QB class was extremely weak. Are the early returns from that class aside from Conner Weigman indicative of a trend or should we also factor in how awful that HS class was?
For the sake of context, it's important to note that a vast majority of the best portal QB's have been former blue-chip recruits who followed the coach who signed them out of HS to their new landing spot, meaning they were never an actual option for any other program (Caleb Williams, Shadeur Sanders), and former blue-chip QB's whose production exploded once they were featured in systems far more suited for their skill sets (Jayden Daniels, Bo Nix, Justin Fields, Joe Burrow).
I'm absolutely thrilled we just landed Cam Ward. I'm especially thrilled about it because if we didn't get him, we would've been absolutely ****ed in a pivotal Year 3 of Cristobal's tenure because of how poorly we've recruited the position in consecutive years. And that's the key point I'm trying to make here.
I'm on board with the viability of using the portal for a QB when needed. If one wanted to argue against spending heavily on premier QB's every recruiting cycle due to not having an unlimited amount of funds and having to pay the suck tax until we actually show on-field results, then that would likely hold some degree of merit. What I'm not on board with whatsoever, though, is the premise of punting entirely on HS QB recruiting in consecutive years. No serious program would ever consider that to be a viable strategy.
I'm excited to see whether certain posters will be nonchalant about the thought of losing Luke Nickel to the UGA's of the world due to the investment that will be required to keep him in the '25 class.
For the sake of context, it's important to note that a vast majority of the best portal QB's have been former blue-chip recruits who followed the coach who signed them out of HS to their new landing spot, meaning they were never an actual option for any other program (Caleb Williams, Shadeur Sanders), and former blue-chip QB's whose production exploded once they were featured in systems far more suited for their skill sets (Jayden Daniels, Bo Nix, Justin Fields, Joe Burrow).
I'm absolutely thrilled we just landed Cam Ward. I'm especially thrilled about it because if we didn't get him, we would've been absolutely ****ed in a pivotal Year 3 of Cristobal's tenure because of how poorly we've recruited the position in consecutive years. And that's the key point I'm trying to make here.
I'm on board with the viability of using the portal for a QB when needed. If one wanted to argue against spending heavily on premier QB's every recruiting cycle due to not having an unlimited amount of funds and having to pay the suck tax until we actually show on-field results, then that would likely hold some degree of merit. What I'm not on board with whatsoever, though, is the premise of punting entirely on HS QB recruiting in consecutive years. No serious program would ever consider that to be a viable strategy.
I'm excited to see whether certain posters will be nonchalant about the thought of losing Luke Nickel to the UGA's of the world due to the investment that will be required to keep him in the '25 class.
Last edited:
Lance Roffers
Junior
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2018
- Messages
- 2,097
Any time I’m thinking about a discussion of recruiting, I go back to the fact that recruiting sites are trying to do two things:
1. Their own stated goal is to try and project players to the NFL and not to college. By that very admission your criteria is much different. College football is littered with highly successful QB’s who never had requisite arm strength, height, running ability etc. that the NFL would require to be drafted.
2. They’re trying to sell subs, are unqualified to truly be scouts, and simply rely on coaches to give their “bumps” in rankings.
At the end of the day, recruiting QB’s is a tiny hit rate. What my research has shown to be most successful is a blend of data from an appropriate level of competition, track record of beating teams ranked higher than they are and/or elevate a program from previous status, and recruiting offers (this is a proxy for game film since my model cannot “watch” film and I can’t grade every HS QB in America and enter a grade).
Even then, the r^2 I’m getting on HS QB to college All-Conference at P5 level is ~.22. Much better than recruiting rankings ~.08.
My opinion is teams should be doing the research to put a process in place to identify ways to maximize their chances of hitting on an All-Conference player in college. If your process is moving your implied chances from 22% to 26%, it’s a good Expected Value move, but when you do hit on only one out of four, fans will still see it as a failure by staff and not just the inherent probabilities in play.
1. Their own stated goal is to try and project players to the NFL and not to college. By that very admission your criteria is much different. College football is littered with highly successful QB’s who never had requisite arm strength, height, running ability etc. that the NFL would require to be drafted.
2. They’re trying to sell subs, are unqualified to truly be scouts, and simply rely on coaches to give their “bumps” in rankings.
At the end of the day, recruiting QB’s is a tiny hit rate. What my research has shown to be most successful is a blend of data from an appropriate level of competition, track record of beating teams ranked higher than they are and/or elevate a program from previous status, and recruiting offers (this is a proxy for game film since my model cannot “watch” film and I can’t grade every HS QB in America and enter a grade).
Even then, the r^2 I’m getting on HS QB to college All-Conference at P5 level is ~.22. Much better than recruiting rankings ~.08.
My opinion is teams should be doing the research to put a process in place to identify ways to maximize their chances of hitting on an All-Conference player in college. If your process is moving your implied chances from 22% to 26%, it’s a good Expected Value move, but when you do hit on only one out of four, fans will still see it as a failure by staff and not just the inherent probabilities in play.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2015
- Messages
- 17,505
That's true but wouldn't you rather have a two or three year starter than have to rely on signing a portal guy every year?
Advertisement