News and notes

by **Cadillac** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:25 am

PhirePhilBennett wrote:Richard Bartel - left the program / conflict with coach
Tate Wallis - left the program / more PT

Bartel and Wallis have nothing to do with the QB situation today.

If by "Conflict with Coach" in regards to Meeks, you mean that PB thought Meeks wasn't going to cut it as a D1 QB, and Meeks thought he was... well sure. If that's your standard for "conflict with coach" then I guess you're right.

And when Johnson left, he was going to be the clear #3 on team as a Sophomore, and the best he could hope for was to be the #2 next year. So no, I don't think he could be convinced to stay. The biggest problem with the QB stream from the looks of it, is bringing in JC players.

I'm guessing that Tech needs a new coach too, according to the QB pipeline theory.

-CoS

by **mustang06** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:05 am

"Like Richuel or Avery...had they stayed their last years, they would both have been starting"

Richuel was terrible. He would not have started. Did he even start at his new school?

by **jtstang** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:12 am

mustang06 wrote:Richuel was terrible. He would not have started.

Why did Bennett give him a scholarship if he was so terrible? Are you saying the guy can't recruit?

by **35straight** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:22 am

They gave Micheal Benson a scholarship. Look him up. Terrible.

by **mustang06** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:29 am

jtstang wrote:
mustang06 wrote:Richuel was terrible. He would not have started.

Why did Bennett give him a scholarship if he was so terrible? Are you saying the guy can't recruit?

He was great in high school where he was bigger, stronger and faster than everyone, but he did not have the toughness for success at the college level.

by **jtstang** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:34 am

mustang06 wrote:
jtstang wrote:
mustang06 wrote:Richuel was terrible. He would not have started.

Why did Bennett give him a scholarship if he was so terrible? Are you saying the guy can't recruit?

He was great in high school where he was bigger, stronger and faster than everyone, but he did not have the toughness for success at the college level.

Then why did we recruit him again?

by **SMU2007** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:48 am

why is griffin's career over?

by PK » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:51 am

JT, I think every recruit is a risk to some extent. Some are obviously much more so than others. Even injuries factor into there being risks involved. Some kids, while great in a high school situation, have peaked and never really progress to the higher level needed in college and then you have some who are late bloomers who really come on strong along with their maturing. As for Richuel, quite a few schools were recruiting him heavily, but I think he may have been one of those kids who peaked in highschool. He never looked as good as his hype would have had one to believe. Hopkins was another that, because of injury in his case, never reached the potential at SMU we had all anticipated. [deleted] happens.

by **mustangnation** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:56 am

SMU2007 wrote:why is griffin's career over?

I believe it was under the advice of doctors because of a bad back

by **George S. Patton** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:06 am

mustangnation wrote:
SMU2007 wrote:why is griffin's career over?

I believe it was under the advice of doctors because of a bad back

That's correct. The decision was made early last week. Good kid. Parents are super nice. Great supporters.

by **jtstang** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:31 am

Look, we all need to understand that with the stae of our program, we have to take flyers on all our recruits. A few pay off, such as Willis did last year, but many more don't. The sure things are looking to go to UT and OU and the like. We cannot compete with them.

by **George S. Patton** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:08 pm

jtstang wrote:Look, we all need to understand that with the stae of our program, we have to take flyers on all our recruits. A few pay off, such as Willis did last year, but many more don't. The sure things are looking to go to UT and OU and the like. We cannot compete with them.

Wise point. But keep in mind Kyle had an offer from Notre Dame and turned it down. I don't think he would have been a world beater as a DE, but he definitely was ready to be in the DE rotation and compete and compete well. We're going to miss him for depth purposes. IMO, he would have helped this year.

by **George S. Patton** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:19 pm

jtstang wrote:Look, we all need to understand that with the stae of our program, we have to take flyers on all our recruits. A few pay off, such as Willis did last year, but many more don't. The sure things are looking to go to UT and OU and the like. We cannot compete with them.

Wise point. But keep in mind Kyle had an offer from Notre Dame and turned it down. I don't think he would have been a world beater as a DE, but he definitely was ready to be in the DE rotation and compete and compete well. We're going to miss him for depth purposes. IMO, he would have helped this year.

by **OC Mustang** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:35 pm

Everybody uses anecdotal evidence to support his or her point.
Any Bennett exodus hinges on a single number, and it isn't his ability to coach QBs, nor is it any academic kudos. It's wins. He doesn't have them, and if he continues to not have them, poof, new coach.
If he does, he gets a reprieve until that win % changes to positive or until he doesn't have them anymore or he decides that he's had enough crap for a lifetime and moves on.

by **PonySnob** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:39 pm

don't forget Foy Munlin.....................

News and notes

Who is online