With the new 25 sign limit, each scholly is too valuable just to have a 3rd string QB. If we can close with who I think we close, I'm fine with not signing a QB this year.
I don't think we should waste a scholly the 12th QB on our radar
- Thread starter Hector.sixpack
- Start date
With the new 25 sign limit, each scholly is too valuable just to have a 3rd string QB. If we can close with who I think we close, I'm fine with not signing a QB this year.
I think they lost 3 QBs in the same game and had to go recruit a QB off the intramural fields for the next Saturday. I'm betting you at least have a walk on or two behind Russell and Prescott, but it is a risk to go into the year with only 2 real QBs.
ETA: I'm pretty sure it was 1998 when we had only 2 QBs on our roster. We had Romaro and his back up was true freshman walk on David Morris. We managed the whole year until the last play of the Georgia game when Romaro got hurt. Then we had to go to Morris for the Egg Bowl, and it was basically Deuce or nothing that night.
ETA: I'm pretty sure it was 1998 when we had only 2 QBs on our roster. We had Romaro and his back up was true freshman walk on David Morris. We managed the whole year until the last play of the Georgia game when Romaro got hurt. Then we had to go to Morris for the Egg Bowl, and it was basically Deuce or nothing that night.
according to the resident "insider". Or was he just trying to throw the Bears off?
http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com?topic=80474/Recruiting-info--needs---pinned------page
Gene has Rosebowl, the Sixpack has Peachbowl.
http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com?topic=80474/Recruiting-info--needs---pinned------page
Gene has Rosebowl, the Sixpack has Peachbowl.
Apparently he performed very well at the Big Dawg camp this summer. If we had been actually recruiting a QB this whole time I think we'd probably already have offered him. I know acouple QB's we were really after like Chad Voytik and Faton Bauta (not sure how hard we wanted him) went elsewhere but we have'nt been after anyone else but Liggins. Mini Favre splitting really put the screws to us. He should have quit over the summer or earlier in the Fall so we're not scrambling.
If we can get Forest Williams to walk on I'd probably be in favor of saving the scholly. Or at least take a look at Todd Mays, the kid could fit in at more roles than QB but could be a 3rd stringer if required.
If we can get Forest Williams to walk on I'd probably be in favor of saving the scholly. Or at least take a look at Todd Mays, the kid could fit in at more roles than QB but could be a 3rd stringer if required.
Option 1: give scholarship to 3rd string QB who is way down the list
Option 2: have decent walkon for 3rd string QB
Neither are going to make or break your season. If you are depending on either one this year...your season is broke.</p>
Option 2: have decent walkon for 3rd string QB
Neither are going to make or break your season. If you are depending on either one this year...your season is broke.</p>
Unless it's Liggins. I say that because he bring value to several positions in the future.
Just because we offer a walk on caliber QB a scholarship doesn't change the fact that he's still a walk on caliber QB.
Plus, when we're recruiting a kid next year he's going to be looking at having a senior (Russell), Rsophomore (Prescott), and Rfreshman (if we sign someone next month) ahead of him on the depth chart when he enrolls. I could see a kid (with other options) picking another school with fewer underclassmen QBs.
Finally, these last minute signees usually don't stay on the roster very long. After all, we're in this position because Favre (a late offer) transferred out.
Just because we offer a walk on caliber QB a scholarship doesn't change the fact that he's still a walk on caliber QB.
Plus, when we're recruiting a kid next year he's going to be looking at having a senior (Russell), Rsophomore (Prescott), and Rfreshman (if we sign someone next month) ahead of him on the depth chart when he enrolls. I could see a kid (with other options) picking another school with fewer underclassmen QBs.
Finally, these last minute signees usually don't stay on the roster very long. After all, we're in this position because Favre (a late offer) transferred out.
We'll just use walkons if we ever have to get to the 3rd string since the season will be shot anyway. Seriously, I've asked this question before and no one's ever even tried to give me a decent answer. The fact is, there's a very real chance we may have to use our #3 QB this fall. And the kid for GA had very good stats against very good competition, and at least has another I-A offer. We'd be a hell of a lot better off with him than with a walkon no one at all wanted if it came down to it. You guys wanting to go into the season with only 2 QBs and use a walkon if we have to just have no freaking idea how risky that is.
Maybe we'll get Liggins, but if he doesn't come and we can fill our spots with the good players left on the board, I think thats the risk we have to take. I know Farve leaving put us behind the 8ball, and I believe our staff is pretty good at evaluating talent, but we only have a few spots left and I would rather give it to a LB or OL that we know will contribute in the future than a QB that will probably not. </p>
But there's a difference between bad and much worse. Let me put it to you this way. Do you want to still have a chance to win the Egg Bowl if we're down to our #3 QB? I sure as hell do. Especially since there's a chance it may be the difference between 6-6 and a bowl game and 5-7 and sit at home.
The reason you don't use walk-ons over scholarship players is development. In most cases, you use a player at 3rd string that will hopefully develop into a starter. In this specific case, there is one, maybe 2 HS QB's on our board worth giving a scholarship to because they might eventually be starters. But it isn't worth wasting a scholarship on a guy that you need to just get you out of an unlikely bind for one year.
If we can't sign Liggins, I say we risk going with 2. It's not likely that Russell and Prescott both get hurt. But the likelihood does increase as the season goes on. So, not the worst scenario, but a bad one is that both get hurt near the end of the season. The last three games are LSU, Ark, and OM. We likely lose the first two regardless. And I think we could beat OM with Bumphis or Lewis or even Carr at wildcat. So in my probably overly optimistic mind, I don't think it's worth spending that scholarship on a lesser QB at the expense of turning away a good player at another position.
If we can't sign Liggins, I say we risk going with 2. It's not likely that Russell and Prescott both get hurt. But the likelihood does increase as the season goes on. So, not the worst scenario, but a bad one is that both get hurt near the end of the season. The last three games are LSU, Ark, and OM. We likely lose the first two regardless. And I think we could beat OM with Bumphis or Lewis or even Carr at wildcat. So in my probably overly optimistic mind, I don't think it's worth spending that scholarship on a lesser QB at the expense of turning away a good player at another position.
Several examples of teams having to go with their #3 QB have been given on this board, including us in 2007. If we don't have a 3rd QB on scholarship, we don't go to a bowl.It's thatsimple. Also note that in that season, we were down to QB #3 by early September. As for beating Mississippi with Bumphis, Lewis and/or a walkon, that's a pipe dream. The one time you see upsets in the MSU-UM series is when the better team is on the road. And then you see upsets almost half the time. This game isn't going to be a gimme even with both Russell and Prescott. As for turning away a player at another position, we're in pretty good shape long-term at other positions due to the large number of redshirts Mullen has given in the last 2 years. We're not talking about turning away any of our better recruits, we're talking about turning away the player who would have been #25 if Favre hadn't transferred.jeremyrbrown said:
but we have swung and missed on almost all of our prospects. We are too far behind, and its highly unlikely we find a true scholarship QB so late in the game. Giving a scholarship to John Doe doesn't make him a good QB that will win the Egg Bowl and get a our record to a glorious 6-6.
Unless both QB's get hurt and are out for the 1st have of the season, this ^^^ is not true.patdog said:
And no, I can't say that he would win the Egg Bowl for us if we had to go with him. But I can say HE WOULD GIVE US A MUCH BETTER CHANCE to win the Egg Bowl than going with Bumphis/Lewis/Williams. As for that "glorious 6-6 record," it sure beats the hell out of a losing season.
Basically the only arguments I've seen for not signing a 3rd QB if Liggens turns us down are:
1. Our season is shot anyway if we have to use #3 - That is simply not true and is a defeatest attitude.
2. We can beat UM no matter who plays QB - That isn't even close to being realistic
3. We need to use the scholarship on a player at another position - We have much better depth at every other position than we do at QB. Not to mention it's easier to cover for a 3rd string player at any other position.
Basically the only arguments I've seen for not signing a 3rd QB if Liggens turns us down are:
1. Our season is shot anyway if we have to use #3 - That is simply not true and is a defeatest attitude.
2. We can beat UM no matter who plays QB - That isn't even close to being realistic
3. We need to use the scholarship on a player at another position - We have much better depth at every other position than we do at QB. Not to mention it's easier to cover for a 3rd string player at any other position.
I might not have made that as clear as I could have. We absolutely could go to a bowl game in 2012 with only 2 scholarship QBs.We probably would. But the risk is way too high to take. Way too many teams do have to use 3 QBs to even consider going into a season with 2. </p>
You fill your team with as many good players as possible, and add other players for depth. We need this guy for depth. You use a scholarship because we <span style="font-style: italic;">need </span>a third QB.
We have 85 scholarships for football. Use it or lose it.
We have 85 scholarships for football. Use it or lose it.
It read like you were making a very broad statement that if we didn't have a 3rd string QB on scholarship in 2012, that we would not go to a bowl.
most people thought we threw away a scholarship when we offered christian holmes ...he has played quite a bit already...
we should just agree if the staff offers someone a scholarship, they feel like they will contribute to the team
so if they offer a qb a scholarship, chances are they see potential in the recruit ...he did win a state championship ...also he only threw it 3 times but 2 went for tds
so do we need to offer our 20th ol a scholarship or 16lb over our 3qb
we should just agree if the staff offers someone a scholarship, they feel like they will contribute to the team
so if they offer a qb a scholarship, chances are they see potential in the recruit ...he did win a state championship ...also he only threw it 3 times but 2 went for tds
so do we need to offer our 20th ol a scholarship or 16lb over our 3qb
How about this year? Favre didn't get in the game but a handful of times, did not do anything that impacted the game on a positive note, yet we still made a bowl game. I say if we cannot get a potential starting quarterback, let Bumphis step in if the situation calls for it. Hell even Richie Brown threw the ball some this year. We have athletes on the team to cover this one year shortage. If nothing else, this will place in prime position to get a big name QB next year, without them what would be 3 under their junior year. Players want to come in, redshirt and play their rs sophomore year. Not sit until their RS Junior/ Senior year behind Dak.patdog said:
to go back and look at the last ten years for MSU and see in how many of those years the #3 QB played atleast one snap. I bet it's closer to 10 then 0. If you don't think this kid is good enough for an offer fine but Dan does so he can't be that bad. We have depth at all other positions. Any kid we sign instead of the #3 QB is most likely not going to see the field for 2-3 years. The #3 QB is more than likely going to see the field NEXT YEAR. That makes this spot way more important. Dan HAS TO SIGN A QB. It's called supply and demand and unfortunately our demand outweighs our quality of supply. Dan has to keep going down the list of QB's till the best one available signs. He will learn from this. Next year we will be all over QB's and hopefully you won't see this scenario ever again.
The difference in production that a kid like Schuessler would bring to our season over the other option (walk on, etc) multiplied by the probability of him playing.
Schuessler ran the Wing T in HS this year. He basically only threw the ball 10 times a game last year. He went 3-12 for 34 yards in a playoff game, and was 3 for 3 in the championship game. He only ran for 300 yards last year (in the Wing T), but told Marcello he probably could run more if he needed to.
Schuessler will be a true freshamn in a totally new system next year, he will be reading coverages and making check downs for the first time in his life, and he'll be behind an unexperienced OL. How productive do you expect him to be? At least our walk ons would be familiar with our system.
Schuessler ran the Wing T in HS this year. He basically only threw the ball 10 times a game last year. He went 3-12 for 34 yards in a playoff game, and was 3 for 3 in the championship game. He only ran for 300 yards last year (in the Wing T), but told Marcello he probably could run more if he needed to.
Schuessler will be a true freshamn in a totally new system next year, he will be reading coverages and making check downs for the first time in his life, and he'll be behind an unexperienced OL. How productive do you expect him to be? At least our walk ons would be familiar with our system.