- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bolden may have to sit out
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:16 am to cajunjj
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:16 am to cajunjj
Earthworm,
Those are some compelling arguments you've erected.
Substantial evidence, impeccable logic.
I give. You've thoroughtly convinced me of the errors on all of my points.
You must be a high powered lawyer, or something with skills like that...
Those are some compelling arguments you've erected.
Substantial evidence, impeccable logic.
I give. You've thoroughtly convinced me of the errors on all of my points.
You must be a high powered lawyer, or something with skills like that...
0
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:26 am to Shiftyplus1
quote:
Jesus just let the kid go.....
X1000000000000000000000000000000000
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:31 am to slackster
quote:
If Bolden counts against this year's numbers, do not take him. If we lose Rettig or Jennings, do not take him. If he cannot play this year, do not take him. If those three things are satisfied, where is the downside?
with you...+ 1
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:35 am to slackster
quote:
If Bolden counts against this year's numbers, do not take him.
If we lose Rettig or Jennings, do not take him.
If he cannot play this year, do not take him.
If those three things are satisfied, where is the downside?
He's not that good?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 9:39 am to lsuhunt555
quote:
where is the downside
the downside isn't with boldswag, its with the one with the higher paygrade, but hey les gonna les
Posted on 7/31/12 at 10:49 am to TheDoc
quote:
Until next year. Where that spot could be used by a much more talented recruit.
Who knows if the recruit would turn out better or worse than Bolden. I believe Miles and co. could find some one else on the roster to cut that is worse than Bolden anyways.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 10:53 am to nitwit
quote:Mett could have played more. Taking the redshirt off Rivers or Randall to play as true freshmen, 4th string?
Yes, I understand the "insurance" argument, but it's weak. The "we don't have QB experience" argument is an idictment of lack of coaching foresight, as much as anything. We didn't give our your QB's game reps last year when we had a chance
quote:well, yes and no. Zach Lee, Gunner Kiel-either stay and it's better, both and we're in great shape. But as for results, yep- QB is thin. To be fair, Saban did his own patchwork with Mauck too. And also, we expect Mett (another patch) to be good. Just seems like there aren't a bunch of QBs around. Maybe Kragthorpe can improve on that.
In fact, we haven't dealt forcefully wiht our QB problems since Perriloux first became an issue for us
quote:Signing Mett does that too. May have chased Kiel off.
3. The signing sends the wrong message to our new QB commitments, who can still go elsewhere.
4.The signing sends the wrong message to current team members who've paid the price and waited their turn.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 10:54 am to lsuhunt555
quote:
He's not that good?
I know that. But what if he is better than Rivers/Randall would be this year? What if Rivers/Randall are not that good?
Some of you would rather Miles roll with Rivers/Randall and then berate him for having another poor QB. Miles may not think Rivers/Randall are ready to step in and Bolden may be the answer to that problem, but instead of getting praised for bringing in another option, he is getting torn up on the Rant. I just don't get it.
I think it is pretty simple logic: Miles wants another option at QB, and Bolden is the only thing available at this stage. LSU w/ Bolden is slightly better off than LSU w/o Bolden.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 10:57 am to Scoob
quote:
Signing Mett does that too. May have chased Kiel off.
i do not think this is what chased him off IMO
Posted on 7/31/12 at 10:59 am to slackster
thats alot of what ifs...what if Randall and Rivers are better ? And its not jus the rant its pretty much everybody is wondering why we are makin this move...other than an insurance policy there is no other reason to take him IMO
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:00 am to TigerStripes30
Even if Signing Mett cost us Kiel (It didn't . Kiel committed knowing Mett was here), it was woth it.
Mett's keeper and a real talent.
Bolden is no Mett.
Mett's keeper and a real talent.
Bolden is no Mett.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:01 am to nitwit
quote:
1. I don't like LSU being perceived as as taking advantage of the Penn St. tragedy. Very few teams have been willing to fish in these waters for this reason.
I don't think LSU is going out and poaching PSU players. Bolden has wanted out for 2 years. It is a much different situation than Silas Redd and USC, for example.
quote:
2. Bolden just doesn't seem to be that good. At anything. His "insurance" quality and experience count only insofar as he's an able QB. I can't find any credible evidence he is.
He is a talented QB with experience. You basically know what his worst performance is going to look like (2011), and with better coaching, perhaps he will get better. With Rivers/Randall, you have no clue what you are going to get in a game setting.
quote:
3. The signing sends the wrong message to our new QB commitments, who can still go elsewhere.
If Bolden is not that good, why would Jennings and Rettig be scared off by him. He does not pose any kind of threat to their playing time anyways.
quote:
4.The signing sends the wrong message to current team members who've paid the price and waited their turn.
Huh? Miles gets berated on here all the time for this supposed seniority crap, and now I read this? Whoever is best should and will likely play. When you play football at this level, you know that LSU is trying to find someone better than you every year. The logic of someone being upset because they have "paid their dues" is asinine. It would be like getting upset when you get passed up on a promotion that you thought you deserved because you had worked at the company for a long time. If you are not the best guy for the job, you won't get the job. Period.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:04 am to TigerStripes30
quote:
what if Randall and Rivers are better ?
They will play ahead of Bolden.
Look, if Bolden was a troublemaker and would be a cancer to the team, then I would understand the concern, but that is not the case. Right now, you have the current team and the 2013 recruits. If you can add a guy to the current team and not lose any of the roster spots or the recruits, why wouldn't you do it?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:34 am to slackster
Slackster,
Bolden is the equivlent of a lateral hire in business. And carries all the same problems.
Seniority within the system is one thing, but when you sign (as Rivers, Rettig, Jennings et al did_)based upon seniority of the existing squad, and start to bring in laterals, it causes understandable discontent.
Mett, himslef was a lateral (JUCO) but he was also a proven talent.
Bolden is not.
He's not worth these risks.
BTW, I don't buy the fine points of Bolden leaving Penn St. vs his team mates. It's just seems a lttle sleazy. Right down Kiffin's alley.
Bolden is the equivlent of a lateral hire in business. And carries all the same problems.
Seniority within the system is one thing, but when you sign (as Rivers, Rettig, Jennings et al did_)based upon seniority of the existing squad, and start to bring in laterals, it causes understandable discontent.
Mett, himslef was a lateral (JUCO) but he was also a proven talent.
Bolden is not.
He's not worth these risks.
BTW, I don't buy the fine points of Bolden leaving Penn St. vs his team mates. It's just seems a lttle sleazy. Right down Kiffin's alley.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:44 am to nitwit
quote:
Bolden is the equivlent of a lateral hire in business. And carries all the same problems. Seniority within the system is one thing, but when you sign (as Rivers, Rettig, Jennings et al did_)based upon seniority of the existing squad, and start to bring in laterals, it causes understandable discontent.
Its not a lateral move if he is more ready to see the field this year and the others arent, its an upgrade to the backup qb position.
quote:
He's not worth these risks.
You know this how? If he is better than the current backups then it is worth the risk.
quote:
BTW, I don't buy the fine points of Bolden leaving Penn St. vs his team mates. It's just seems a lttle sleazy. Right down Kiffin's alley.
This is just plain dumb. Psu players were allowed to transfer out of the train wreck, but wherever they transfer means that coach is sleazy?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 11:59 am to Scoob
The INSURANCE angle is not weak, it is valid and true.
having said that...you are correct in all other points, OUR COACHES have placed us in the position of needing INSURANCE.
.
having said that...you are correct in all other points, OUR COACHES have placed us in the position of needing INSURANCE.
.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 12:10 pm to nitwit
quote:
The Bolden deal, if it's real is not good for LSU.
Yes, I understand the "insurance" argument, but it's weak. The "we don't have QB experience" argument is an idictment of lack of coaching foresight, as much as anything. We didn't give our your QB's game reps last year when we had a chance. In fact, we haven't dealt forcefully wiht our QB problems since Perriloux first became an issue for us. Bolden is just more patchwork by our staff.
My thoughts on why the risks outweigh the benefits:
1. I don't like LSU being perceived as as taking advantage of the Penn St. tragedy. Very few teams have been willing to fish in these waters for this reason.
2. Bolden just doesn't seem to be that good. At anything. His "insurance" quality and experience count only insofar as he's an able QB. I can't find any credible evidence he is.
3. The signing sends the wrong message to our new QB commitments, who can still go elsewhere.
4.The signing sends the wrong message to current team members who've paid the price and waited their turn.
Bottom line: ain't worth worth it andit's symptomatic of persistent failure to recruit and develop QBs.
My thoughts on
Posted on 7/31/12 at 12:12 pm to nitwit
quote:
Slackster,
Bolden is the equivlent of a lateral hire in business. And carries all the same problems.
Seniority within the system is one thing, but when you sign (as Rivers, Rettig, Jennings et al did_)based upon seniority of the existing squad, and start to bring in laterals, it causes understandable discontent.
Mett, himslef was a lateral (JUCO) but he was also a proven talent.
Bolden is not.
He's not worth these risks.
BTW, I don't buy the fine points of Bolden leaving Penn St. vs his team mates. It's just seems a lttle sleazy. Right down Kiffin's alley.
WOW! What business are you in?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 12:24 pm to rbdallas
Here's something to consider (meaning think it through instead of scream reactively)-
kid was a 4 star recruit; was able to win the starting job as a true freshman; has wanted to transfer out of Penn St since the end of 2010. Plenty of comments online coming from Penn St people bashing the kid, but also quite a few, also from Penn St people, bashing the QB coaching and development.
Maybe the kid realized he didn't fit their system, and wanted to go somewhere he'd fit in better?
It would stand to reason the coaching staff here would have to evaluate the kid's film, to determine if they thought they could do something with him. I would expect that Miles specifically sought Kragthorpe's opinion on whether he would be worth taking.
Maybe Kragthorpe, as well as Miles, thinks the kid has enough skill to be able to compete here? That his experience makes him the better backup right now, as compared to Rivers and Randall?
And we don't know at all where he would fit in the depth chart, we all just assume he'd be #2 come September.
What does seem clear- regardless of his personal playing time goals, it sure seems he'd be more comfortable here (or anywhere else) than at Penn St. That much was expressed way before Penn St imploded. So he might honestly have considered us after 2010; he wasn't able to get his release so we knew he wanted out but don't know where.
Hell, let the kid come, and if he makes it, good. If not, at least we're not a practice injury away from having only 2 QBs on the depth chart.
kid was a 4 star recruit; was able to win the starting job as a true freshman; has wanted to transfer out of Penn St since the end of 2010. Plenty of comments online coming from Penn St people bashing the kid, but also quite a few, also from Penn St people, bashing the QB coaching and development.
Maybe the kid realized he didn't fit their system, and wanted to go somewhere he'd fit in better?
It would stand to reason the coaching staff here would have to evaluate the kid's film, to determine if they thought they could do something with him. I would expect that Miles specifically sought Kragthorpe's opinion on whether he would be worth taking.
Maybe Kragthorpe, as well as Miles, thinks the kid has enough skill to be able to compete here? That his experience makes him the better backup right now, as compared to Rivers and Randall?
And we don't know at all where he would fit in the depth chart, we all just assume he'd be #2 come September.
What does seem clear- regardless of his personal playing time goals, it sure seems he'd be more comfortable here (or anywhere else) than at Penn St. That much was expressed way before Penn St imploded. So he might honestly have considered us after 2010; he wasn't able to get his release so we knew he wanted out but don't know where.
Hell, let the kid come, and if he makes it, good. If not, at least we're not a practice injury away from having only 2 QBs on the depth chart.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:24 pm to Scoob
Scoob,
Good luck with thoughtful responses on this board.
Most posters on here think the use of an emoticon or an insult serves as convincing argument ...
However, it stands to reason that the staff thinks more of Bolden than his record readily suggests. I hope so, b/c it looks like a Houston Nutt strategy at first glance.
The conclusion is inescapable that the staff feels Rivers/ Randall are not ready for real, live backup duty.
If so, it's pretty late in the day for a championship contender to address that big a depth problem.
Good luck with thoughtful responses on this board.
Most posters on here think the use of an emoticon or an insult serves as convincing argument ...
However, it stands to reason that the staff thinks more of Bolden than his record readily suggests. I hope so, b/c it looks like a Houston Nutt strategy at first glance.
The conclusion is inescapable that the staff feels Rivers/ Randall are not ready for real, live backup duty.
If so, it's pretty late in the day for a championship contender to address that big a depth problem.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News