How would you use 85 scholarships?

[Eric]

Great idea from Boomergump..

That may be a good discussion for another thread. How would you apportion the 85 schollies across the position board? How many of us have actually sat down with a grease pen and a hog board and tried to lay that out? I know I haven't.

So you have 85 scholarships and you can use them how you want...what would yours look like? (assuming we run a option based offense as we do now)

 

[augustabuzz]

Starters Req'd.

Offense : 11
Defense : 11
Sp'cl Tm: 3
Total : 25

OL (5/25) 85 =17 et cetera.

 

[00Burdell]

Start with the LoS and work away from the line. So, load up on OL/DL - if you get that right, you create forgiveness for shortcomings further away from the LoS. A strong secondary is worthless if there is no DL and a great backfield is worthless without a solid OL.

Seems to me we've pretty much done the opposite.

 

[Boomergump]

Start with the LoS and work away from the line. So, load up on OL/DL - if you get that right, you create forgiveness for shortcomings further away from the LoS. A strong secondary is worthless if there is no DL and a great backfield is worthless without a solid OL.

Seems to me we've pretty much done the opposite.

When you say "load up" what do you mean specifically in terms of numbers? 6 deep at every OL/DL position, leaving 31 ships for the rest of the team? Try to be specific or this thread would be useless. I don't have time right now but I will post mine up later.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

15 OL, 10 DL, and 60 of these:

 

[Rodney Kent]

If I was the coach, I would not have one set plan for all the years. I would have to look at the loss of seniors, injuries and possible loss here, weakness at certain positions, leadership players, etal. Each year would have to be mostly totally different depending on the team needs. Of course, it starts with the line, but other positions can be just as important. My first priority of all is to make sure my assistants were the best at every position. If I had great assistants, then the quality of players at each position becomes a little less important. It actually all starts with the quality of coaching.

 

[Ggee87]

I think if we go 4 deep at every lineman position that would put us at 40. Thats very doable I believe. 4 deep at QB, 6 deep at Aback , 4 deep at Bback, 3 deep at remaining positions excluding corner. Id give the rest to them for shear numbers since the passing gane is getting more and more prevalent. So thats an extra 3 to spread between the DBs. Also 3 for the K,LS,and P

 

[vamosjackets]

Starters Req'd.

Offense : 11
Defense : 11
Sp'cl Tm: 3
Total : 25

OL (5/25) 85 =17 et cetera.

I like this thinking the best. I could see and argument for a couple less OL/DL due to other positions being able to contribute much more on special teams. But, I could also see another argument for having a couple more OL/DL due to importance of position and proclivity to injury/busts.

I don't think I would reserve 3 spots for specialists in each class though. CCG had plenty of success with that just by doing the walk-on thing and giving the ones who earned the starting spots scholarships. I might recruit one specialist per year. (Plus you could easily have a good kicker also be your punter). So, I guess my formula would be out of 23 rather than out of 25.

QB: 1/23 * 85 = 4
BB: 1/23 * 85 = 4
AB: 2/23 * 85 = 7
WR: 2/23 * 85 = 7
OL: 5/23 * 85 = 18
DL: 4/23 * 85 = 15
LB: 2/23 * 85 = 7
S: 2/23 * 85 = 7
CB: 2/23 * 85 = 7
Hybrid: 1/23 * 85 = 4
Specialists: 1/23 * 85 = 4 ... (I would reduce this to 3, give whoever earns the starting positions at K, P, LS a scholly each year)
Total: 83

Then you have 2 more to play with and offer whoever is the best player you can get.

Now, of course this is just a base plan and that plan can change based on the players you can actually get and them choosing GT. If we can get a game changer at a position that takes us over by 1 or 2, then do that and sacrifice somewhere else. I personally think the most wiggle room is at AB and WR. Imo, we only need maybe 4 guys who can actually play those positions, plus any QB's and BB's who don't get the starting job can always move or cross-train at those other spots. I would rather see us play our 3 best guys at AB and not do so many in the rotation. Same at WR. But, I don't know everything, so there's probably a good reason CPJ does the AB's the way he does.

 

[Ggee87]

If I was the coach, I would not have one set plan for all the years. I would have to look at the loss of seniors, injuries and possible loss here, weakness at certain positions, leadership players, etal. Each year would have to be mostly totally different depending on the team needs. Of course, it starts with the line, but other positions can be just as important. My first priority of all is to make sure my assistants were the best at every position. If I had great assistants, then the quality of players at each position becomes a little less important. It actually all starts with the quality of coaching.

I also meant to add that this is my 1st year HC a fantasy team that didnt exist before I arrived. So this is how I would start out and then read and react going forward.

 

[Boomergump]

OK. This is how I would portion out the 85 scholarships available. Obviously the priority would be to balance out the classes and keep a pipeline of newbies (true frosh), trainees (typically year 2), subs (hopefully years 3, 4, or 5), and starters (hopefully years 3, 4, or 5) in that order. I purposely did not look at our roster or recruiting class to influence my decisions. I kept in mind that we are transitioning to a 4-2-5 on defense and assumed the flexbone formation will continue.

OL-20
WR-6
AB-7
BB-4
QB-5
For a total of 42 on offense

DL-16
LB-10
DB-15
For a total of 41 on offense

That leaves a total of 2 for true special teams impact type players whether punters, kickers, or long snappers.

Now, considering that an average of 17 will be gone due to graduation every spring, and that you need two deep at every position just to put on a scrimmage with ones going against ones and twos going against twos, it is easy to see how things get thin with injuries or unplanned attrition.

 

[IronJacket7]

Start with the LoS and work away from the line. So, load up on OL/DL - if you get that right, you create forgiveness for shortcomings further away from the LoS. A strong secondary is worthless if there is no DL and a great backfield is worthless without a solid OL.

Seems to me we've pretty much done the opposite.

+1

 

[33jacket]

I have written about this a ton in the past due to my heavy criticism of Paul and how he uses his ship numbers. But basically my numbers mimic Vamos post so I won't repost the same spiel

The only thing I think we can do one position less with is at WR and AB in this offense due to the interchangeability of a Left AB with a Right AB etc......so I could see them around 6 at each position provided, and the BIG KEY is that they are spread over the classes. If you have 3 WR all senior, then you can't carry 6 for one year, you may have to carry 8. So that is the key

I also would shift those numbers to LB; and because S and CB can be interchangeable in spots 14 may be too many, we may be able to get by with 12....allowing for 9 lb and WR/AB flexibility.

Point being here or there I may have some small number tweaks to Vamos posting based on loading of classes....but in general i agree. OL needs to be in the 18 to 19 range and DL in the 15/16 range

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This hypothetical numbers discussion is all fine and dandy in a perfect world, but the recruiting world is far from perfect. As 33 points out, spreading the numbers out EVENLY over the classes is a huge concern. Every year we have target numbers at each position, but what do you do when you don't land your top targets? Do you sign any ol' warm body because you must have "numbers" at that position? Then you have injuries and unplanned attrition to deal with every year. It's a very complex puzzle that changes year by year. It's not as easy as sitting behind a keyboard and saying we need x OL's to be successful.

That said, most guys are concentrating numbers on offense when clearly defense has been our weakest segment of the team. If we should be stockpiling players at all, shouldn't it be where we need the most help and have the worst track record of guys panning out?

 

[33jacket]

This hypothetical numbers discussion is all fine and dandy in a perfect world, but the recruiting world is far from perfect. As 33 points out, spreading the numbers out EVENLY over the classes is a huge concern. Every year we have target numbers at each position, but what do you do when you don't land your top targets? Do you sign any ol' warm body because you must have "numbers" at that position? Then you have injuries and unplanned attrition to deal with every year. It's a very complex puzzle that changes year by year. It's not as easy as sitting behind a keyboard and saying we need x OL's to be successful.

That said, most guys are concentrating numbers on offense when clearly defense has been our weakest segment of the team. If we should be stockpiling players at all, shouldn't it be where we need the most help and have the worst track record of guys panning out?

I don't totally agree with the last line. We are all concentrating numbers in the two biggest positions of weakness over the years. OL and DL. We have the worst track record of guys panning out in those spots IMO. By the numbers the defensive recruit total should be close to the O recruit total. Our D has had nice DBs and LBs with no DL. If we fix the DL all of a sudden those positions even look better.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't totally agree with the last line. We are all concentrating numbers in the two biggest positions of weakness over the years. OL and DL. We have the worst track record of guys panning out in those spots IMO. By the numbers the defensive recruit total should be close to the O recruit total. Our D has had nice DBs and LBs with no DL. If we fix the DL all of a sudden those positions even look better.

When I said "If we should be stockpiling players at all, shouldn't it be where we need the most help and have the worst track record of guys panning out?", I was referring to DL. I guess I should have been more specific. And by "stockpiling," I mean getting more number than arithmetic suggests.

 

[Boomergump]

The only position that I "stockpiled" was QB and my reasoning was that you absolutely cannot afford to have nobody work out. This is one position where you MUST find a real player. By keeping 20 as an OL target, the likelihood of fielding a respectable two deep is pretty high even with unexpected attrition. Same with 16 on the DL. But in both cases, you need players with a mix of strengths because every position is not the same.

 

[gtg936g]

Assuming the base offense is the flexbone and a 4-3 (or 4-2-5) defense. I consider our use of a slot receiver as a WR, not an AB. I prefer to be deep in the trenches because I would want to rotate O/D lines during the game to keep them fresh.

OL-23
WR-5
AB-5
BB-3
QB-4

40 total on offense

DL-20
LB-10
DB-13
43 total on defense

1 Kicker
1 Specialist KR, PR, Punter etc.

 

[33jacket]

When I said "If we should be stockpiling players at all, shouldn't it be where we need the most help and have the worst track record of guys panning out?", I was referring to DL. I guess I should have been more specific. And by "stockpiling," I mean getting more number than arithmetic suggests.

I see it that way. So if ideally your positions were level across the classes then i would reduce the AB number or WR number slightly as well as the bd number and add a little more to ol and dl.

But again you can only do that if you dont have 3-4 seniors in one position like we do at AB right now.

 

[vamosjackets]

I see it that way. So if ideally your positions were level across the classes then i would reduce the AB number or WR number slightly as well as the bd number and add a little more to ol and dl.

But again you can only do that if you dont have 3-4 seniors in one position like we do at AB right now.

AB is kind of a collection position. It's going to collect leftover QB's and BB's, so it seems like it's always going to have tricky numbers.

 

[33jacket]

AB is kind of a collection position. It's going to collect leftover QB's and BB's, so it seems like it's always going to have tricky numbers.

more reason to recruit less to it since it can absorb shifts....and to be honest our best AB wasn't even recruited....so its not an easy spot to project either.