App mentioned as next Cincy

[biggie]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... prise-2022

[Saint3333]

Sorry to be a downer, but this season would be much more surprising than any of the last three. Am I overestimating the significance of losing all that talent on defense and WR?

[AppSt94]

Sorry to be a downer, but this season would be much more surprising than any of the last three. Am I overestimating the significance of losing all that talent on defense and WR?

I don’t think so. I think that the talent is there on defense, but maybe not the depth. As for WR, we lost a lot of production but I think most will be pleasantly surprised at the potential to get better as the season goes along. Robinson (transfer from UCF) is the real deal and Stroman may be the best of the bunch in a couple of years. The Christians and Davis have experience in the system and should see increased production.

[AppStFan1]

Sorry to be a downer, but this season would be much more surprising than any of the last three. Am I overestimating the significance of losing all that talent on defense and WR?

It is great to see us mentioned as a team who could be but I do agree with you here. The experience we lose at WR is big and the lack of experienced depth on defense is big. Hopefully we see some young guys develop as the season moves along. I believe we do have some really good WR talent we have not seen much or any from to date but you never know until the games are played for sure.

[Oldlknapp]

We have quite a few young men that have committed to play at App. I look forward to seeing them on the field.

[proasu89]

It’s pretty incredible to think we’ve come far enough to be in the conversation. Onward and upward.

[zim262]

And our mention was not this:

McGee: I would love to see Coastal Carolina do it simply for the Beverly Hillbillies party-crasher factor.

[Mjohn1988]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

[AppSt94]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

[Mjohn1988]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

[AppSt94]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

[AtlAppMan]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

[AppSt94]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. I understand your point. I just don’t see it as evidence of a lack of improvement.

[BambooRdApp]

In the long term, I generally agree with the statement above. If we continue to improve and demonstrate 9, 10, and sometimes 11 or 12 wins, one would think our recruiting is getting better or should be getting better or we are masters at taking similar recruits and making them all they can be at App. St....which is also a good reputation to have. With that said, a good to great recruit coming out of high school may not displace a veteran that has matured and understands the system.

[Mjohn1988]

The thing that scares me at receiver is that none of the guys still here challenged any of the seniors for playing time. We recruited the 4 guys who left 5 years ago. I’m of the opinion that we should still be in the position to recruit better players than we have in the past.

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

Exactly the point. We saw this early on in our transition to FBS. Seniors and juniors being replaced by red shirt freshmen. I didn’t need to necessarily see those 4 graduating wide out being replaced but I would have felt better if the other guys became part of a regular rotation. You here coaches talk about players sometimes and say, “ we just couldn’t keep him off the field “. That would have been a nice thing to have taken place with some of those guys waiting in the wings.

[BeauFoster]

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

Exactly the point. We saw this early on in our transition to FBS. Seniors and juniors being replaced by red shirt freshmen. I didn’t need to necessarily see those 4 graduating wide out being replaced but I would have felt better if the other guys became part of a regular rotation. You here coaches talk about players sometimes and say, “ we just couldn’t keep him off the field “. That would have been a nice thing to have taken place with some of those guys waiting in the wings.

It’s hard to replace someone with 4-5 years experience. An 18 year old fresh out of high school will always have a hard time supplanting a 22 year old. I would have loved for them to get more playing time or even taken a spot, but they didn’t. I guess we will see next fall.

[AppSt94]

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

Exactly the point. We saw this early on in our transition to FBS. Seniors and juniors being replaced by red shirt freshmen. I didn’t need to necessarily see those 4 graduating wide out being replaced but I would have felt better if the other guys became part of a regular rotation. You here coaches talk about players sometimes and say, “ we just couldn’t keep him off the field “. That would have been a nice thing to have taken place with some of those guys waiting in the wings.

To be fair, we were replacing FCS guys with FBS guys and we took some lumps in the beginning. I for one didn’t sit and chart who played when and who played where and how many plays, but we had guys play in spots. I guess it comes down to the whole tree in the forest question. If they didn’t produce on the stat sheet, did they actually contribute?

[mike87]

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

Exactly the point. We saw this early on in our transition to FBS. Seniors and juniors being replaced by red shirt freshmen. I didn’t need to necessarily see those 4 graduating wide out being replaced but I would have felt better if the other guys became part of a regular rotation. You here coaches talk about players sometimes and say, “ we just couldn’t keep him off the field “. That would have been a nice thing to have taken place with some of those guys waiting in the wings.

I thought the Christians got in the regular rotation. Seems that Wells and Horne had meaningful snaps and stats.

[Stonewall]

We had three of the best we have ever had , hard to break in to that , but only time will tell.

[AppinVA]

How do you figure that they didn’t challenge? Is it because they didn’t take a starting position role from one of those guys?

Sure, none of them saw significant playing time.

I don’t necessarily equate that too them being not good enough to start. Rather the starters were good enough to hold them off.

I think the point was, we should expect that our recruiting progress from time we moved up to FBS should improve year over year. This assumption is based on, if we improve our brand with our "actual on field performance" at the FBS level, which we did, then it will translate to better and better recruiting classes. Therefore, if none of our latest recruits are displacing recruits from 5 yrs ago then that may be evidence that we are NOT improving our recruiting in any significant way.

Exactly the point. We saw this early on in our transition to FBS. Seniors and juniors being replaced by red shirt freshmen. I didn’t need to necessarily see those 4 graduating wide out being replaced but I would have felt better if the other guys became part of a regular rotation. You here coaches talk about players sometimes and say, “ we just couldn’t keep him off the field “. That would have been a nice thing to have taken place with some of those guys waiting in the wings.

When you put someone in, you have to take someone else out (yeah, I know, thanks Captain Obvious), so who do you take out to insert someone in?