Quickzips

We've heard this same argument a lot over the last couple of years. Carlton Jackson, David Harvey, Vince Hill, Aaris Reed. I'm sure I'm missing some. They come in as some of the most highly rated players to ever play in our football program from a recruiting standpoint. Those who make it to campus don't seem to last very long. It makes some of us uneasy to see all of the same arguments coming up again with a different name attached to them. I don't think you can really fault us for that.

How far can you go with that?I mean, can you expect to run someone's life because you coach them in a sport?...and let me ask you this: Is he not an adult?Afterall, he wasn't convicted of anything. This is still America right?Point a guy in the right direction and give him whatever guidance and structure that is reasonable, and then treat him like a man and let him do the right thing.I know I have fuxxed up in my life... particularly in my youth... and while it was nothing on the level of what he was accused of, I screwed my own head on straight, and I'm a better man because of it. No one else can take ownership of my behavior but me.This is still America. I don't see how that has anything to do with this kid having to follow strict rules. Ever had an employer who required mandatory drug tests? Yeah, perfectly legal. The kid is going to have to follow the rules just like everyone else. I hope he works out. I really do. But like I said earlier, I would be lying if I said our past history with these kinds of questionable character recruits didn't make me a little uneasy.

Every passing day w/o any word downgrades the Zips chances.Agreed. I hope I'm wrong, but I think this kid will end up elsewhere. We really needed him to commit while he was here IMO. Once he left town our chances of landing him just naturally decreased.

The legal issues have to be at least cause for concern. A couple of years ago I would have had no problem with this because I would have assumed that JD and his staff had thoroughly looked into it and that would have been good enough for me. Those days are long gone. Maybe the kid is clean and an upstanding citizen who was victimized by the vivid imagination/outright lies of an adolescent girl. I don't know. But we've been burnt too many times in the last couple of years for me to feel completely comfortable with this kid.The other question in my mind is just where does this kid play? From what I've read he can play RB or LB. I'm still suspicious of our defensive front six, so it would kind of be nice to see him get a shot at LB, but he's supposedly a better RB than a LB. Maybe it is better to play him at RB? Then again we have Allen, Williams and Kennedy already there. Is Torrence significantly better than all three of those time that he could get some playing time? I don't know. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out.

Garcia would be a nice addition as that wing that we keep hearing is the last piece to the puzzle. Unfortunatly we only have one scholarship to give for '09 and that one is going to Big Zeke. That is unless the coaching staff knows something about Jimmy Conyers that we don't know.

That would be a McWonderful lineup.We could call it the golden arches lineup. It's kind of a small lineup though. I wouldn't mind it late in a half, but we've got some beef up front this year with SS and Bardo, I think we need to use that to our advantage.

I don't think the previous posts were necessarily reflective of opinions on Nolan himself as much as they are with our general recruiting philosophy. I don't have any real problem with small "slasher" YAC type recievers, but you have to have diversity. Right now we have a pretty big surplus of WR's in the same mold. I'm concerned that we're pigeonholing ourselves into one type of reciever and that could have some negative implications down the road. I think it's particularly a problem down in the redzone where you want to have a bigger, more physical reciever that you can throw a fade route to and let him use his size to go up and get the ball. Nothing against Nolan, just a commentary on what I percieve as a problem with our recruiting.

Like I said before. Redshirt McClanahan, Parrish and Sullivan. You would still havePG-Steward, HitchensSG-McNees, RobertsSF-Linhart, B.McKnight, ConyersPF-C.McKnight, CvetinovicC-Swiech, BardoThat's still a very deep rotation. Plus you have the walkons there for garbage time if you need it and some guys can play multiple positions (McNees at PG, Conyers at SG, Linhart at PF, etc.). Then down the road you can stagger out recruiting a bit more. In '08-'09 we have one scholarship to give (Linhart). In '09-'10 we have two (Conyers (assuming he gets an extra year) and C.McKnight). In '10-'11 we have four (McNees, Bardo, B.McKnight and Roberts (assuming he gets an extra year back)). In '11-'12 you would have four (Steward, Hitchens, Swiech and Cvetinovic). In '12-'13 you have three (McClanahan, Parrish and Sullivan). 1, 2, 4, 4, 3 is a lot better staggered IMO than 1, 2, 4, 5, 2.

This is kind of surprising to me. With 14 rotation worthy players on the roster and 5 of them being freshman you would think more than 2 would be redshirted. I can't imagine we would run with a 12 man rotation. If you're not going to use 1 or 2 of those guys why not redshirt them and get an extra year out of them?

KD's interview is interesting. Couple things I picked up.Worst kept secret in the program. McNees will move to playing more SG next year.The mentions of Oklahoma St. and Xavier are kind of interesting. Getting a home and home series with both of those teams over the next couple years would be HUGE.Youth, youth, youth. I totally agree with KD that this might be the most talented team we've had in a while, but it's sooooooooo...... young.It kind of sounds like we'll continue to run some small sets. With no Wood or Romeo to lean on inside and (again) a very young front court it makes some sense. We do need to develop guys like Bardo, Swiech, Cvetinovic and Parrish too though. I hope KD doesn't fall into the trap of leaning too much on a deep backcourt and not developing the young frontcourt talent.I think KD makes a good point when he says that if one of the new guys (freshman or redshirts) steps up we will be okay, if two step up we will be better, if three step up we can make some noise. My best guess in order of guys who can step up: 1) Steward 2) Swiech 3) Humpty 4) Cvetinovic. GoZips, I agree to some degree with your point that it may make sense to redshirt Humpty. We are so deep at the guard spots as it is, and getting an extra year out of him in the program would be pretty nice. But like you said, he just seems so talented. I don't know if we can keep him sitting on the bench for a whole year. Kind of a good problem to have though. Too many PG's.

He sure wouldn't have. Also note that you can put as many cubic zirconia as you want on a piece of shit, but it's always going to be a piece of shit.There, that's better.

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter if Wisconsin uses trick plays or if they don't. They are a better, deeper football team than us. They have an offense and defense in place that has made them a top 25 team over the last few years. Will they show every wrinkle in their schemes to us? Who knows and who cares. They can and should beat us one way or another.

One thing noone is really talking about yet is what will happen with the C rotation? Bardo has more experience at the position, but he doesn't have a really high ceiling. He's a guy who can probably give you 15 minutes a night cleaning up a few rebounds and thats about it. Swiech probably has a higher ceiling. His HS numbers would certainly indicate that, and he definitley passes the eyeball test, but he hasn't seen a minute of college action in his career. With one redshirt freshman apparently already poised to open the season as a starter (Steward), will KD really feel comfortable having two of them on the floor to start the season? The other position that I think is most interesting is the SG spot. You've got McNees who I think we all feel is better suited to play SG than he is to play PG. With some (potential) depth at PG now you have to think Steve will see more of a run at SG. The question is, is he a starter, or would he be better served as that microwave guy off the bench? I've always felt Conyers would look a lot better at SG than SF and with Nate and B.McKnight in there you would think minutes would be kind of scarce at SF. Does KD move Jimmy over to his more natural position or will he remain on the bench most of the time??? Roberts is another guy who I can't get pegged. He seems like a natural SG in a PG's body. He's got plenty of talent to get minutes for us this year, especially with such a young backcourt. I just don't see where he fits in. Do we really want to run for extended minutes with a backcourt of a 5'10" Steward or a 5'9" Humpty and a 5'11" Roberts??? Offensively I could see B.McKnight running at the 2 some, but I question whether or not he can defend opponents 2's. Ofcourse, Nate could take over defending the 2's and let Brett defend 3's while they are on the floor together. My best guess for a rotation:Starters:PG-StewardSG-RobertsSF-LinhartPF-C.McKnightC-SwiechRotation:1st man off the bench-McNees replaces Roberts2nd man off the bench-B.McKnight replaces Linhart3rd man off the bench-Bardo replaces Swiech4th man off the bench-Humpty replaces StewardTrying to find minutes for:ConyersCvetinovicRedshirts:McClanahanSullivanParrish

I'll bite, probably get it all wrong, but I'll bite.Player Pts. Rebs. Assts.A - 13.9 - 8 - 2.4- WoodB - 12.6 - 2.4 - 4.5- DialsC - 9.2 - 2.3 - 1.9- LinhartD - 7.6 - 4.4 - 1.4- C.McKnightE - 4.6 - 2.2 - 0.2- MiddletonF - 3.8 - 0.3 - 0.4- McNeesG - 2.8 - 0.8 - 0.2- ConyersFinal 14 Games (WMU through UMass):Player Pts. Rebs. Assts.H - 14.4 - 7.3 - 2.7- WoodI - 10.9 - 2.4 - 3.8- DialsJ - 10.5 - 1.6 - 0.9- MiddletonK - 9.9 - 5.1 - 1.7- C.McKnightL - 9.2 - 4.1 - 0.6- LinhartM - 5.7 - 2.1 - 0.3- B.McKnightN - 4 - 1 - 0.6- RobertsPostseason Only (MAC & NIT):Player Pts. Rebs. Assts.O - 15.2 - 7.2 - 2.6- WoodP - 10 - 5.6 - 1- C.McKnightQ - 8.8 - 3.6 - 1.4- LinhartR - 8.6 - 2.8 - 4- DialsS - 8.4 - 2 - 0.8- MiddletonT - 7.4 - 2.8 - 0.2- B.McKnightU - 6.8 - 1.2 - 0.2- RobertsPure guesses on this one.

I can't say that their confidence is unfounded. I also don't share your enthusiasm that we can put a scare in them before it's said and done. Frankly I'd be happy if the Badgers don't run up the score.

We currently have 12 WR's on our roster, 8 of them are 6'0" or under. We've only got 1 reciever on the roster who is over 6'2" and he's a freshman walkon. For 2009 we already have commits from 2 WR's measuring in at 5'9" each. I understand the trend recently in football is to go more towards smaller, quicker WR's who can make plays in the open field and thats what we've been trying to do with whatever god awful excuse for an offense we've been running. Maybe I'm too old school, but I like me some big WR's. Give me some 6'3", 6'4", 6'5" guys who you can throw the ball up to and let them use that height advantage against traditionally smaller DB's. I understand it isn't just as simple as saying we want tall WR's and bam there they are, but with the trend going toward smaller quicker WR's you'd have to imagine that more big WR's are slipping through the recruiting cracks. But what do I know.

There, that sounds more like our offensive scheme.

HUGE NEWS GUYS!!!I spoke with someone at the athletic department today. Not someone who works there. He kinda looked like a homeless guy. I think he wandered over from the plasma center. Anyways...I asked him what is going on with the Zips schedule for '09-'10. He told me some big news. He said the bleachers at Memorial Hall are going to be packed this year for our home games. We will playing teams from either the America East, A-10, ACC, Atlantic Sun, Big 12, Big East, Big Sky, Big South, Big 10, Big West, CBI, Colonial, CUSA, an Independent team, the Horizon, the Ivy League, the MAAC, the MEAC, Missouri Valley, MWC, Northeast, OVC, Pac-10, Patriot, SEC, Southern, Southland, SWAC, Summit, Sun Belt, West Coast or WAC conferences. He told me that the teams we are playing will be dressed in either black, white, blue, purple, green, red, yellow or orange, or some variations thereof. He also told me we would be playing a lot of teams from the MAC. In fact MAC teams will account for more of our schedule than teams from any other conference. Ofcourse, I'm not sure how reliable this information is. Right after he got done telling me this he handed me a tin foil hat to keep the aliens from sucking my brains out, then he urinated himself and ran off screaming something about Nixon. Take it for what it's worth.

Why are we recruiting so many short WR's???

I don't know who starts at QB for us, but chances are that by mid season we will all be calling for his head regardless of who he is. Particularly if we run the same kind of offense we did last year.

Loved the article, but I think my favorite thing might be the post on Can't's thread where one person can't possibly imagine how a recruit in their right mind would pick Akron over Can't. Well for one thing, Can't would actually have to start recruiting HS kids instead of the JUCO's. Beyond that, let's see. How many highly rated recruits will Can't even get into their gym? Akron is guaranteed to get around 80 a year. Who is the face of Can't basketball? Antonio Gates? A guy who's currently playing football? Surely not as impressive as an NBA All-Star. What about their coaching situation? Seems like every few years they shuffle one coach out and another one in, that can't sit too well with recruits. Meanwhile we've got a guy who's 110% committed to his program for the long haul. What about the administrations investment into it's athletic programs. Can't has made minimal progress if any at upgrading facilities while Akron beginning to run circles around the rest of the conference. What does Can't have? A string of 20+ win seasons (we're working on our own). A trip to the elite eight that noone remembers. An all time record for scoring futility in a half for an NCAA tournament game? It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

Well, JD has proven that he can recruit the talent. What he hasn't proven is whether he can instill a winning attitude in the program. We could dominate the MAC with the talent we already have, if the mindset was actually there. That's where I am hoping that the numerous transfers from BCS schools will have the biggest impact: becoming leaders and teaching the other players what it means to have a winning attitude.I hate to constantly be down on our football program, but I would HARDLY call JD's recruiting "proven." Yes he's technically signed a lot of talent, but a lot of it hasn't even made it to campus. Quite a few more have been kicked off the team or transfered out. I hope he's learned his lesson and finally has this thing figured out as it appears he does, but at this point I still don't think you can call his recruiting "proven."

And if that isn't a problem I don't know what is.

The MAC doesn't have parity they have pathetic, and this just proves it.

Coaching hires are a two way street. JD can WANT to bolt for a better opportunity all he wants. Fact of the matter is some University out there has to WANT him as well. I'd imagine his stock has slipped some the last couple of years. How attractive is he going to be to a Big East, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC or heck even a CUSA team with a bigger budget when the look at one (maybe) winning season in the last 3 and an overall head coaching record that is barely around .500. Let's just say I'm not too concerned with JD voluntarily leaving.