How would you use 85 scholarships?

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
OL-20
WR-8
RB (Running Back)-7
FB-2
QB-5
For a total of 42 on offense

DL-17
LB-10
DB-15
For a total of 42 on offense

Which leaves one left over for the friend of some stud player who's only coming if his buddy gets a ship! (Notice there are no AB's and BB's in my offense as we will not be running the TO).
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
OL-20
WR-8
RB (Running Back)-7
FB-2
QB-5
For a total of 42 on offense

DL-17
LB-10
DB-15
For a total of 42 on offense

Which leaves one left over for the friend of some stud player who's only coming if his buddy gets a ship! (Notice there are no AB's and BB's in my offense as we will not be running the TO).
I guess you don't believe in recruiting specialists, either.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
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.
Wow. Those are pretty big numbers on the lines. Something to think about: considering the lack of depth you have at the skill positions with this arrangement, how will you be able to handle injuries of any kind and staff your special teams too? You can't have a bunch of 300 pounders trying to cover kicks. I understand everybody's concern about numbers on the line right now and the lack of play makers at DT, but this feels like an over reaction to me. I see a bunch of exhausted fast people on the field trying to keep up with Sammy Wadkins types.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Wow. Those are pretty big numbers on the lines. Something to think about: considering the lack of depth you have at the skill positions with this arrangement, how will you be able to handle injuries of any kind and staff your special teams too? You can't have a bunch of 300 pounders trying to cover kicks. I understand everybody's concern about numbers on the line right now and the lack of play makers at DT, but this feels like an over reaction to me. I see a bunch of exhausted fat people on the field trying to keep up with Sammy Wadkins types.

FIFY. ;)
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,529
Location
Georgia
I guess you don't believe in recruiting specialists, either.

Historically of the 3 starting specialists (punter, kicker, long snapper) 2 of those are walkons.

I support giving a ship to either a punter or kicker, most times just the kicker, if he is a clear game changer out of high school (butker was a good offer)

I have trouble giving a ship out of high school to a punter or long snapper, and history suggests most teams don't. We have done it multiple times under paul.

So for me, I am good with 1. Maybe in an overlap year 2. Then the walkons can earn them for sure...guys like Dan Dyke, David Frakes, Brad Chambers were all walkon guys that earned a ship

but if the topic is recruiting them out of high school...no...just 1 at the most.
 

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
Wow. Those are pretty big numbers on the lines. Something to think about: considering the lack of depth you have at the skill positions with this arrangement, how will you be able to handle injuries of any kind and staff your special teams too? You can't have a bunch of 300 pounders trying to cover kicks. I understand everybody's concern about numbers on the line right now and the lack of play makers at DT, but this feels like an over reaction to me. I see a bunch of exhausted fast people on the field trying to keep up with Sammy Wadkins types.


I have a very contrarian approach to recruiting. If we ran an Oregon style spread my loading would be different. In an option offense I would be perfectly content starting serviceable walk ons at the AB and BB positions. I also think it is easier to attract decent walk ons at the skill positions due to the attention and exposure those positions get. My approach is to load up with depth in the trenches such that the line can stay fresh and control the line of scrimmage. I would then try to attract some decent walk ons at the skill positions for depth. My strategy would succeed or fail based on my theory (opinion) that we would be able to attract some good walk ons that were passed over by other schools by telling them about the likely hood of getting playing time.


On the defensive side of the ball my opinion is if you control the LOS in the second half, you should be able to get off the field on 3rd down more frequently.
 

00Burdell

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,159
Location
Parts Unknown
I have a very contrarian approach to recruiting. My approach is to load up with depth in the trenches such that the line can stay fresh and control the line of scrimmage. .

Put me down for contrarian then. Its all about the line of scrimmage. To shift emphasis away from the respective lines is to admit defeat in recruiting.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I have a very contrarian approach to recruiting. If we ran an Oregon style spread my loading would be different. In an option offense I would be perfectly content starting serviceable walk ons at the AB and BB positions. I also think it is easier to attract decent walk ons at the skill positions due to the attention and exposure those positions get. My approach is to load up with depth in the trenches such that the line can stay fresh and control the line of scrimmage. I would then try to attract some decent walk ons at the skill positions for depth. My strategy would succeed or fail based on my theory (opinion) that we would be able to attract some good walk ons that were passed over by other schools by telling them about the likely hood of getting playing time.


On the defensive side of the ball my opinion is if you control the LOS in the second half, you should be able to get off the field on 3rd down more frequently.
Fair enough. At least you have a plan for getting numbers to the skill positions. I am not sure I agree, but you may be right.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,126
I have a very contrarian approach to recruiting. If we ran an Oregon style spread my loading would be different. In an option offense I would be perfectly content starting serviceable walk ons at the AB and BB positions. I also think it is easier to attract decent walk ons at the skill positions due to the attention and exposure those positions get. My approach is to load up with depth in the trenches such that the line can stay fresh and control the line of scrimmage. I would then try to attract some decent walk ons at the skill positions for depth. My strategy would succeed or fail based on my theory (opinion) that we would be able to attract some good walk ons that were passed over by other schools by telling them about the likely hood of getting playing time.


On the defensive side of the ball my opinion is if you control the LOS in the second half, you should be able to get off the field on 3rd down more frequently.
Interesting for sure. Maybe brilliant.
 

Sebastian GT

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
331
OL-20
WR-8
RB (Running Back)-7
FB-2
QB-5
For a total of 42 on offense

DL-17
LB-10
DB-15
For a total of 42 on offense

Which leaves one left over for the friend of some stud player who's only coming if his buddy gets a ship! (Notice there are no AB's and BB's in my offense as we will not be running the TO).

Don't forget the tight ends. Gonna need 3 or 4 of those.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Don't forget the tight ends. Gonna need 3 or 4 of those.
Not necessarily. In a true spread offense, you might opt for WRs instead of TEs. If you want a TE in short yardage situations, you could always go with the jumbo package and use an extra OL...who is usually a better blocker instead.
 

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
Fair enough. At least you have a plan for getting numbers to the skill positions. I am not sure I agree, but you may be right.


I just thought I would propose something outside the box to get folks thinking. That is part of the fun of being an arm chair coach!
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I just thought I would propose something outside the box to get folks thinking. That is part of the fun of being an arm chair coach!
I just look at how often team speed wins. The truly fast guys, who can also play, usually get picked up with a scholarship somewhere. I fear, in your scenario, we would become a slow team. I don't think we can afford to do that. Right now we are a little soft in the gut, but we have been fast and therefore competitive. With that said, however, I do think it is good to look outside the box sometimes and you have certainly done that.
 
Top