Jump to content

'17 TE Remington Lutz (Belton)


Recommended Posts

Great add, and agree doubtful we could get Mansell to change his mind, but Peoples was a WR his freshman year according to Hudl profile, according to Vito.. Mansell and Lutz wanted to go to school together, so I take that to them we finished 2nd to Iowa just because of name.. but wonder if adding another player or 2 could sway Mansell, but still doubt it. Would be great to have Pearson and Mansell here to challenge... If the both stuck around..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
19 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Your welcome.

 

Should we just do one thread that keeps up weekly updates on commit's and their play? For example Week 1 8/26 Commit Stats or whatever then in that thread update their stats or how they did? That way it doesn't bog down the recruiting thread?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
54 minutes ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Wonder if the move from WR to OT was planned by the staff or if Guyton/ other potential targets changed the spot. Also, good thing is this opens up another spot in the class for us.

I think poor senior year change plans for staff. Kid was a good blocker. but never showed anything in passing game 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of this. Having a bad senior season may be what the coaches are saying, but I don't buy that.

What does having a bad senior season mean? I said the same thing with Donovan. Did this guy get smaller, slower, shorter? You don't drop a dude because he drops more passes or misses more blocks then you would've liked.

Offers are based on projection of skills to the next level. If they were based on high school production alone, or even primarily, then we'd see a lot more offers for certain kids who have great stats but don't project well to the next level.

I think the truth is the coaches are admitting that they misevaluated. As great as that is for them to admit that, it's bad practice for them to accept commitments only to cut ties when the players honestly are remaining the same and just not showing all the signs the coaches would've hoped for. If they're being so selective with commitments, then don't accept commitments from guys you aren't really sold on.

Everyone saying Lutz wasn't a good fit, then why accept the commitment? The kid is only 215 lbs, so hoping he could gain 70+ lbs is an unrealistic failsafe. Plus, he made it clear a big part of why he committed was because he was under the impression he would be more of a pass catcher here. This is how you make a bad reputation with high school coaches. Hopefully it doesn't come back to bite us, and we make a good reputation with more schools than not.

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Not a fan of this. Having a bad senior season may be what the coaches are saying, but I don't buy that.

What does having a bad senior season mean? I said the same thing with Donovan. Did this guy get smaller, slower, shorter? You don't drop a dude because he drops more passes or misses more blocks then you would've liked.

Offers are based on projection of skills to the next level. If they were based on high school production alone, or even primarily, then we'd see a lot more offers for certain kids who have great stats but don't project well to the next level.

I think the truth is the coaches are admitting that they misevaluated. As great as that is for them to admit that, it's bad practice for them to accept commitments only to cut ties when the players honestly are remaining the same and just not showing all the signs the coaches would've hoped for. If they're being so selective with commitments, then don't accept commitments from guys you aren't really sold on.

Everyone saying Lutz wasn't a good fit, then why accept the commitment? The kid is only 215 lbs, so hoping he could gain 70+ lbs is an unrealistic failsafe. Plus, he made it clear a big part of why he committed was because he was under the impression he would be more of a pass catcher here. This is how you make a bad reputation with high school coaches. Hopefully it doesn't come back to bite us, and we make a good reputation with more schools than not.

The only thing I could think of is that he didn't progress as much as they had hoped and maybe with the # of offers and potential recruits incoming they thought he would be better suited at OT. Also, I never understood why we would offer to him when we moved Dillman to Def and who knows where Chumley goes. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2017 at 11:08 PM, BillySee58 said:

Not a fan of this. Having a bad senior season may be what the coaches are saying, but I don't buy that.

What does having a bad senior season mean? I said the same thing with Donovan. Did this guy get smaller, slower, shorter? You don't drop a dude because he drops more passes or misses more blocks then you would've liked.

Offers are based on projection of skills to the next level. If they were based on high school production alone, or even primarily, then we'd see a lot more offers for certain kids who have great stats but don't project well to the next level.

I think the truth is the coaches are admitting that they misevaluated. As great as that is for them to admit that, it's bad practice for them to accept commitments only to cut ties when the players honestly are remaining the same and just not showing all the signs the coaches would've hoped for. If they're being so selective with commitments, then don't accept commitments from guys you aren't really sold on.

Everyone saying Lutz wasn't a good fit, then why accept the commitment? The kid is only 215 lbs, so hoping he could gain 70+ lbs is an unrealistic failsafe. Plus, he made it clear a big part of why he committed was because he was under the impression he would be more of a pass catcher here. This is how you make a bad reputation with high school coaches. Hopefully it doesn't come back to bite us, and we make a good reputation with more schools than not.

I don't like it generally, but I can see a scenario where they do this and do _not_ burn bridges with high school guys. 

Like anything else, it is about not making this a habit. So this happened twice this cycle, is that a habit? I honestly do not know. 

On the other hand, is that it seems like NT was fairly up front about their preferences. I think there is room for a change of mind/projection. I don't know how the conversation went in which they said "You know how we said you could try to catch passes? Well now we are thinking you will fit better as a tackle." So I have to leave some room for it to have been honest. If it was honest and forthright, then I think this is not so bad. 

As it is, neither side threw the other under the bus. (Those assistant coaching subtweets we see every once in a while are indecorous).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.