We have an everyday guy on this team. Unfortunately he was pulled for an every once in a great while guy at the most critical point of the game.
This is my biggest beef, and I was no Rodgers fan. But, unless you're a blue blood and bring in nothing but top talent, I don't think this heavy roster turnvoer approach works. Heck, even some of the blue bloods are struggling with heavy roster turnover.
If you look at just Illinois, everyone was excited about bringing in Shannon, Mayer, Clark, Epps, etc. That team had some big wins, but was inconsistent and very frustrating. Sound familiar? With a lot of talent, you can win any game, but with no experience in the system or with your teammates, you're just not going to look like a well oiled machine. Again, sound familiar.
If you look at last year, which appears an exception to the rule, we had Shannon and Rodgers in their 2nd year, Hawkins in his 4th, Goode and Dainja in their 3rd, and we supplemented with 5th year guys. So we had a core of experienced guys, supplemented by some old transfers. That can work.
I also just don't like how Underwood approaches it. Oh he'll never tell a kid we're revoking your scholarship you've got to go, he'll just obviously recruit over you. But, when it creates such inexperience in your program, is it for the better? Who would you rather have right now Humrichous or Hansberry in his 2nd year? White or Rodgers in his 3rd year? Davis or Goode in his 4th year?
I'm not saying all of these guys were brought in specifically to replace the guy I linked them with, I'm more saying, don't run to the candy shop every year saying oh boy who will I get this time. Spend time and money keeping your roster intact. I absolutely advocate bringing in transfers every year, but not 5 or more.
If our roster next year includes Morez, Riley, Ivisic, Boswell, DGL, and Davis, I think that alone greatly improves our team. But will that happen?