Transfer DB

[JahGriz]

I think the point is, that the cats have had some db injury issues, and Kramer is doing something to off set them as much as he can. The guy could have baggage, and ideally, in my opinion, you build a team with H.S. kids, take a couple very good transfers if they come along, and fill late holes and depth problems with quality tranfers with some experience, if you can get them. I've said I think Kramer relys on transfers a bit too much, and I think it has hurt him a bit at times, but also has payed a few times. I think so far, it has hurt slightly more than helped, but time will tell, especially this year.

[catatac]

I think the point is, that the cats have had some db injury issues, and Kramer is doing something to off set them as much as he can. The guy could have baggage, and ideally, in my opinion, you build a team with H.S. kids, take a couple very good transfers if they come along, and fill late holes and depth problems with quality tranfers with some experience, if you can get them. I've said I think Kramer relys on transfers a bit too much, and I think it has hurt him a bit at times, but also has payed a few times. I think so far, it has hurt slightly more than helped, but time will tell, especially this year.

I totally agree about us usually being transfer-heavy but I also think it's a necessary evil when you start with nothing and try to recruit high-school kids into a program that has been on a losing skid. I would guess we continue to see fewer and fewer JC transfers being brought in - just a guess.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

I think the point is, that the cats have had some db injury issues, and Kramer is doing something to off set them as much as he can. The guy could have baggage, and ideally, in my opinion, you build a team with H.S. kids, take a couple very good transfers if they come along, and fill late holes and depth problems with quality tranfers with some experience, if you can get them. I've said I think Kramer relys on transfers a bit too much, and I think it has hurt him a bit at times, but also has payed a few times. I think so far, it has hurt slightly more than helped, but time will tell, especially this year.

I totally agree about us usually being transfer-heavy but I also think it's a necessary evil when you start with nothing and try to recruit high-school kids into a program that has been on a losing skid. I would guess we continue to see fewer and fewer JC transfers being brought in - just a guess.

I think we have 35 Montana kids on our roster as it is right now. I bet that numbers either stays the same or climbs in the next few years.

[El_Gato]

If he is as good as everyone is saying why is he leaving BSU without getting a chance to play. Sounds like maybe a problem and may not make the impact everyone thinks.

Yeah, the last guy we got like this was a Washington Husky cast-off named JOEY Thomas...

(I'm simply loving the "coincedences" in this story...)

[iaafan]

I've been following football for about 50 years, but I must really be missing something. I've yet to figure out how the ratio of transfer/JCs to HS recruits equates into wins/losses. The alternative to not bringing transfers is sticking with the guys you have, who obviously aren't turning out to be that good or you wouldn't be looking for transfers in the first place. The transfer gripe seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. I guess if you root for a school that is winning and has good player and therefore doesn't need to pick up very many transfers, then all schools that aren't good and are picking up transfers (improving all the while) are making a big mistake. Why? Because they are gaining ground?

The other argument I see a lot is the "we don't have to play our true freshman." And since we don't and you do, there must something wrong with your program. Huh? If I'm a coach and I have a frosh who is better than anyone else, guess what? He plays. How hard to understand is that? Look at Pete Carroll at USC. He's not too high and mighty to red-shirt all his freshmen. Sure, you can argue that a lot of his will leave (go pro/drop out) before playing four years, but it's all relative.

[BobcatLionFan]

Interesting comments concerning JC players and/or majority Montana Kids. A couple of thoughts.

High School kids are projects (except at USC where they get the best and already mature). A high school player is very seldom able to step right in and play (because of the speed of the game, the strength of the players, the size). There is a huge difference between High School Football and Scholarship football at the Div I level. Especially for small school players (from schools with less than 2,500 kids). They are just not use to playing against guys 3 to 5 years older and ALL-STARS in HS that long ago. About the only time you bring a HS player in to start is if you have a huge whole that you cann't fill by existing players or injuries. We saw the problem with starting freshmen last year at CB. They were good HS players, but got burnt at the Div IAA level.

An example is the OL. Hirst, Jensen, Brent S. where all TALL, large boned, but light atheltic high school players that also played basketball. The players of the same type that were already 280 went Div IA BIG school. These types of players need time to put on weight and strength. After a red shirt year, it's a day and night difference.

On transfers, there are two types, JC and Div IA dropdowns. More than half our transfers are dropdowns (Bass, Kolone, Miller, the new kid, Chris Davis, as examples). On the dropdowns, they are just at a school that they either didn't get along with the coaches or were behind a stud and were going to get little PT. They go DI-AA to save a year of eligibility. Most of these guys would have been top recuits for a DI-AA school out of high School, but went DI-A.

On JC transfers, they have already matured and you know if they can and want to play, there is no guessing. Also, you fill holes which you can't via freshmen coming in. i.e. DL in this years recuits.

A second thought is the number of scholarships that MSU has. Being DI-AA you only get 64. If you spread those out over 5 classes (red shirt and 4 years) that is only 13 per class. Not very many. If you have 20 dedicated to transfers (10 per year) they are at their maximum productivity right away and are here for 2 years. Thus 64 scholarships is actually more like 80.

On the recent DB transfer, don't label him as a trouble maker (as to why he left BS). There is NOTHING that says that big time. He just didn't see eye to eye with a coach. Happens. We don't need soap box preachers (sorry if I affend someone on this, but the kid doesn't need people hammering him, let him show what he is like before we lable him). I think most of us have had some type of experience with our boss or someone.

Finally, on Montana kids. It's great we have a good number of Montana kids. But you have to look at how many Montana kids are going out of state to DIV - IAA school. Not many (just a couple of undersized kids went to NAU a couple of years ago. There are possibly only so many scholarship kids in Montana that will make MSU a winner that many of us demand (or the coach gets fired). I think every quality Montana kids that can play at a high level should go to MSU. But don't try and force the numbers up at the expense of the quality of the team. Having 50 or 60 Montana kids (where 15 to 20 of those would not make any other team) will makes MSU a lower half BSC team as it has been in the past?

[JahGriz]

Sure, you can have H.S. kids not work out just as much as you can have transfers not work out. Probably in similar percentages. But there are a lot more H.S. kids to choose from than transfers, and you are not always going to get good transfers, specially if some of the potential new rules are ever passed regarding transfering. Transfers also, are generally around for a shorter time that H.S. recruits, so they have less time to learn the system and grown into it. Getting H.S. recruits you have raw recruits that you can mold for longer, and have more time to piece them into the system where they fit best. More often with transfers you get them for a year or two, though there are aways guys you get for more too.
Plus, say you get 5 jr transfers and 3 sr transfers or something. That is 8 new guys you are probably expecting to contribute right away, who as far as learning the system goes are almost true frosh. It is crunch time getting them ready. And about the time they really have everything down they are gone, and you are left with a lot of guys who may not have gained game day experience because you brought in so many transfers.
For example, I believe the cats loose Murrey, Miller, Gatewood, and Guinn after this year. Lets assume they are all the top WR's and get nearly all of the PT at WR due to whatever reasons. What does Kramer do next year, the younger guys won't have got a lot of experience if any, so he is stuck having to get transfers again, to fill in and make the position strong. And the cycle could continue. You could argue the same thing happened for the Griz, even with H.S. kids at WR, and I can't believe they let that happen. In the case of the Griz, I would have like to have seen another transfer WR come in to help, so we were not relying on so many young guys. In the case of the Griz, they are almost taking it to the other extreme.
So, no need to get so defensive, I'd bet there are plenty of fans across the nation who hold the same opinion I do, including some cat fans. It's just an opinion, not trying to portray it as fact.
I buy into catatac's explanation, though. If you are trying to rebuild a program, and when you start the process you are recruiting against a team that has had a lot of recent success, getting enough good H.S. kids may be tough.
But it can turn into an out of control situation where you have to rely too much on tranfers working out, and being able to come in and master the system, and get in sync with the rest of the team, and such, in a year or two. If you only have 2 to 4 transfers you are depending on to contibute it may not be a big deal, but as the number jump, so does the number of guys you are scrambling to get read.

edit note: I think Kramer is doing the right thing in solidifying positions with tranfers, but would he have to if he had a solid base of good H.S. kids. I said it a post or two back I thought he was doing a good job, I'm just saying it can lead to some things you don't like, and once you start, it is tough to stop if you are getting tranfers in big numbers. I think that is kind of where he is going. He had to build up and revive the cats, he has rolled the dice on a lot of transfers in doing so, and is continuing to have to get them just to fill holes, because he doesn't have a solid of a H.S. base as he would probably like. So it is more of a revolving door of players. Which doesn't have to be bad, but can turn bad.

[BobcatLionFan]

Sorry if I affended you. Didn't mean to. Also there was nothing to be defensive about, I had not made any previous comments so you never questioned my thoughts. I don't think we will agree however (which is OK). If the Bobcats are successfull we are all happy.

The coaches will play the best players, they do want to win. If some of our youngsters don't start, it's because they are not better than the starters (for the most part). They are getting experience in practice playing against one of the top Div IAA team in the nation. But to give them experience this year or any year when they should not be on the field doesn't make sense in a close game.

I think there will always be JC transfers. All the teams in the conference do the same (look at the recuit services). Drop down transfers are GOLD. They are the fast guys that were Div IA and it just didn't work.

Also, as I said, transfers also actually expand the number of effective scholarship which is a HUGE advantage.

But as I said, we have are own thoughts which is good. We don't have to agree.

[JahGriz]

I didn't see your post before I threw mine in bcatlion. I liked your post. We just have differing opinions on a few things. Neither way is right or wrong, coaches across the country do it one way or the other and have success both ways.

[BobcatLionFan]

Sourds GREAT. Go Cats