2011 Priorities?

#26
#26
nickknx865 said:
There needs to at least, at least, be 3-4 DT's in the 2011 class.
Click to expand...

Problem is getting quality guys. There are so few and everybody wants them. We need talent, not a bunch of 300lb guys that can play. This is one of the most underrated positions regarding the athletic ability it takes. Look at the projected top two picks in the draft, dtackles.
 
#27
#27
Priority: Quality Depth at every position
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
O line will be a issue. Several good ones in state. I hope we get the Robinson kid out of warren co.
 
#30
#30
We've done well with safties in the last couple classes, but I'd like to see some true top tier talent come in at CB. If we only take one QB, he'd better be the real deal. All of this comes after offensive and defensive line though.
 
#31
#31
Volunteeer said:
yes and dtackle is just as bad. We got one in each of the last three classes. One. This is why I fing it so hilarious to see these predictions of how many games we will win this year. We are thin and bad on both lines yet goober after goober gets on here and says "we'll I'll be mad if we don't win eight games!".

We should have no less than fifteen oline and no less than seven dtackles. We need a boat load of both.
Click to expand...

I won't be mad if we don't win 8 but I don't think it's a long shot either...

We will only be badly outmatched in 4 games (Oregon, UF, Bama, LSU)...all the others we will either be even or better as far as depth and talent goes...the one thing we can't affrod is a rash of injuries...I know some injuries are inevitable but if we have an unusual amount then it could be a bad year..

As far as your number predictions...I agree that's what we need but I think it's hard to get that many quality recruits at one position to commit in the same year...

I could see us being able to pull off 6-7 quallity OL recruits, 3-5 quality DT's and 3-4 quality DE's...if we make a really hard push at them all
 
#32
#32
I was predicting we would get them, just and honest assesment of what we have to work back to. I think getting 4/5 quality oline is realistic and really getting more than three or four quality dtackles is not going to happen.

In agree that 8 wins is possible. If we get adequate qb caretaker play, if we can come up with a workable oline with few injuries, if we can find four serviceable dts with no injuries, if we can get four lbs healthy and keep three of them so all year, of our running backs are as good as I think they are, if we find another corner to do what rogan did this year, if dc can really outscheme most other staffs..., Alot of it's and we really need them all to happen to compete. The schedule is brutal and we are so young and thin. But it can happen and we can have a special year. Win eight, be competitive in the losses. If we get some of the breaks go our way and good coaching I think we are 6-6. I just hope everyone understands the challenges for this staff and appreciates the job they do if we are above .500


thunder5 said:
I won't be mad if we don't win 8 but I don't think it's a long shot either...

We will only be badly outmatched in 4 games (Oregon, UF, Bama, LSU)...all the others we will either be even or better as far as depth and talent goes...the one thing we can't affrod is a rash of injuries...I know some injuries are inevitable but if we have an unusual amount then it could be a bad year..

As far as your number predictions...I agree that's what we need but I think it's hard to get that many quality recruits at one position to commit in the same year...

I could see us being able to pull off 6-7 quallity OL recruits, 3-5 quality DT's and 3-4 quality DE's...if we make a really hard push at them all
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
Volunteeer said:
yes and dtackle is just as bad. We got one in each of the last three classes. One. This is why I fing it so hilarious to see these predictions of how many games we will win this year. We are thin and bad on both lines yet goober after goober gets on here and says "we'll I'll be mad if we don't win eight games!".

We should have no less than fifteen oline and no less than seven dtackles. We need a boat load of both.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it is as bad at DT. I really don't. Walls was listed as a LB and Sykes was listed as a DE but neither was ever going to play those positions. Walls is a bit of a surprise to have bulked up to DT proportions. Most saw him as a DE.

UT has 5 DT's and could convert Hood or one of the other OL's. They aren't far off the quantity you mentioned and the talent looks pretty decent.

The OL issues can really be isolated to OG. Just about every OL UT has that we discuss as having good potential is a tackle. Stone is the only true OG I'm aware of on the whole roster.

That said, this is roughly how you'd expect your scholarship roster to be divided:

QB- 4
RB- 6
FB- 2
WR- 10
TE- 4
OT- 7
OG- 7
C- 2

DE- 8
DT- 8
LB- 11
S- 7
CB- 7

ST- 2

... Or something there abouts. UT is probably closest in quantity and quality at RB, WR, S, TE, FB, and DE.
 
#34
#34
Next season's success comes down to one group- the OL. UT has almost no experience and unknown talent. I'm optimistic about some guys but optimism is a poor substitute for proof.

IMO, one of the things that needs to happen is someone step up and be a real surprise at OG or else someone like Schofield be willing to convert to OG. Whoever does it will need to bulk up significantly. IIRC only Shaw and Brimfield have the bulk you typically see with OG's.
 
#35
#35
agree on distribution. We are short on dtackle, linebacker, and oline. I hope you're right about quality of dt. I think of those guys we have the potential to have three guys at most be ready to play at the sec level this year. But hey, it's not like I've seen them much since they've been at ut or that I'm much of an evaluator of talent. I'm going mainly by numbers. I would be shocked if there are four guys on the roster ready to play sec dt next year and a minimal rotation for those guys to play hard is five. Not just five on the roster, but five ready to play. Despite what may sound like, I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. Historically we've carried eight guys who could play dt, usually including a end or two that had the size to move inside if really necessary and we never seemed to be able to play more than five without a big dropoff at the position. And I'm thinking of times when we were recruiting good talent to the position consistently year after year. I just think people are picking areas of strength on the roster and thinking we are going to be better than we are. The mentality of "we have x number of four star players on our roster, we should be able to compete". And when you look at how our talent is so unevenly distributed over the posistions, that doesn't work. Our four or five highly rated running backs and receivers that don't see the field much because of a log jam at the positions can't get on the field as guards. Anyway, wilcox is going to have to earn his money this year and so are our dline and oline coaches.

sjt18 said:
I don't really think it is as bad at DT. I really don't. Walls was listed as a LB and Sykes was listed as a DE but neither was ever going to play those positions. Walls is a bit of a surprise to have bulked up to DT proportions. Most saw him as a DE.

UT has 5 DT's and could convert Hood or one of the other OL's. They aren't far off the quantity you mentioned and the talent looks pretty decent.

The OL issues can really be isolated to OG. Just about every OL UT has that we discuss as having good potential is a tackle. Stone is the only true OG I'm aware of on the whole roster.

That said, this is roughly how you'd expect your scholarship roster to be divided:

QB- 4
RB- 6
FB- 2
WR- 10
TE- 4
OT- 7
OG- 7
C- 2

DE- 8
DT- 8
LB- 11
S- 7
CB- 7

ST- 2

... Or something there abouts. UT is probably closest in quantity and quality at RB, WR, S, TE, FB, and DE.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
SunshineVOL said:
No chance we need a quality blue chipper at QB. I think between Nance and Bray, we have a long term winner.

As said on other strings, Herbie on ESPN said Bray could be the biggest surprise of the class.
Click to expand...

Bray is not the issue. Everyone else is the issue. We need more quality depth at QB.
 
#37
#37
thunder5 said:
Not bad...if I had to put exact numbers on it (which I didn't in the original post) I'd say this:

QB - 2
RB - 2
TE - 2
WR - 2
OL - 5
DE - 3
DT - 4
LB - 4
DB - 3
P/K - 1

28 signees...I don't think we have the luxury of not taking the maximum number of signees we can at this point
Click to expand...

This list looks good, but it definitely needs to be a punter. We're set at kicker now with Palardy.
 
#39
#39
Well with Chuck Smith hired as D-Line coach that should help us out alot in getting some D-Lineman.
 
#40
#40
We've got allot of unknows and I'm sure CDD knows that to. He's not seen our players in action, they haven't seen him coach. We only have two coaches from last year and the rest are not only new to each other but new to here also though some have ties to CDD. But neither does any teams we'll face have a clue with maybe some of the offense but I'm sure that'll change to.

I can say this, most will predict us being medioce at best with UF, UA, and LSU having their way with us. That alone will become the motivator for this team, to prove all these "experts" wrong.
 
#41
#41
Our priorities should be to get the main in state prospects like Jabriel washington, Michael Johnson, Terry Reden, Kids like that.
 
#45
#45
1. DT- far and away the biggest need. Hughes and Walls can play, but outside of that, there is no one. If John Brown plays like he did at UF we are really hurting. We need 4 solid DTs in this clas with one of them being a JUCO.

2. a true TE- I'm not talking about smaller receiving TEs like Rivera, Warren, and Adderly. I'm talking about the guys in the Stocker/Witten mold. One who can block in the SEC. Bartholomew is the only one like that we have and he is much shorter, was hurt all of the '09 season, and will be a Senior in '11. We have to get one this class and really need 2.

3. LB- King and Lathers will be good ones. It is not yet known if Nelson, Mitchell-Thornton, Askew, Crump, Probst, or Jackson will be able to perform. If at least 2 of those guys starts proving something this fall, then the LB need goes way down.

4. OL- I am not as discouraged on the OL as some are. We don't have much depth this year and that can't be fixed with the '11 class. But, everybody we have will be back for the next couple of years. Douglas, Schofield, D. Thomas, Hood, JaWuan, Stone, Pair, Fulton, Revis, and Anderson are all no older than Sophmores. There are some good ones in that group. I still think we take 4. 3 big names and a smaller name guy like Kerbyson.

QB- 1. that would make 5 QBs on scholly. can't see us taking 2 unless Lamaison leaves.
RB- 1. need one every class.
TE- 2.
WR- 3. don't be fooled. we will still recruit WRs hard. we need athletes.
OL- 4
DE- 3. Bohannon, Smith, Miller, and Fowlkes is a good start with young guys.
DT- 4
LB- 3
S- 2. if Loften makes it in and Jackson stays out of trouble, we will be fine.
CB- 2. Evans, Clark, and Gordon will be good ones. still need depth.

That would only put us at 25, leaving room for a couple of more additions.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
you think we are going to lose enough guys off the roster to take that many? Based on the 85 scholarship limited I figured we could take 20 without any attrition. I'm wondering if some of the oline guys will be around much longer based on cdd comments about needing linemen. Just wondering what your thoughts are.

Lord Vader said:
1. DT- far and away the biggest need. Hughes and Walls can play, but outside of that, there is no one. If John Brown plays like he did at UF we are really hurting. We need 4 solid DTs in this clas with one of them being a JUCO.

2. a true TE- I'm not talking about smaller receiving TEs like Rivera, Warren, and Adderly. I'm talking about the guys in the Stocker/Witten mold. One who can block in the SEC. Bartholomew is the only one like that we have and he is much shorter, was hurt all of the '09 season, and will be a Senior in '11. We have to get one this class and really need 2.

3. LB- King and Lathers will be good ones. It is not yet known if Nelson, Mitchell-Thornton, Askew, Crump, Probst, or Jackson will be able to perform. If at least 2 of those guys starts proving something this fall, then the LB need goes way down.

4. OL- I am not as discouraged on the OL as some are. We don't have much depth this year and that can't be fixed with the '11 class. But, everybody we have will be back for the next couple of years. Douglas, Schofield, D. Thomas, Hood, JaWuan, Stone, Pair, Fulton, Revis, and Anderson are all no older than Sophmores. There are some good ones in that group. I still think we take 4. 3 big names and a smaller name guy like Kerbyson.

QB- 1. that would make 5 QBs on scholly. can't see us taking 2 unless Lamaison leaves.
RB- 1. need one every class.
TE- 2.
WR- 3. don't be fooled. we will still recruit WRs hard. we need athletes.
OL- 4
DE- 3. Bohannon, Smith, Miller, and Fowlkes is a good start with young guys.
DT- 4
LB- 3
S- 2. if Loften makes it in and Jackson stays out of trouble, we will be fine.
CB- 2. Evans, Clark, and Gordon will be good ones. still need depth.

That would only put us at 25, leaving room for a couple of more additions.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
Volunteeer said:
you think we are going to lose enough guys off the roster to take that many? Based on the 85 scholarship limited I figured we could take 20 without any attrition. I'm wondering if some of the oline guys will be around much longer based on cdd comments about needing linemen. Just wondering what your thoughts are.


Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I know you're not asking me, but let me jump in here. When I said earlier that the 85 number was easier to get around than the 25, this is what I meant.

You can sign your 25 even if it puts you over 85. Then, by enrollment time, pick your best 85 to get their scholarships.

Signing > 25 then pulling them before they even get their one year they were promised is bad for recruiting.

There may be some walkons that have earned a scholarship this year that will be over-recruited next year.
 
#48
#48
I get that. My point is that we can get excited about signing 25, but we aren't going to gain 25 players if we sign that many. It means some of those guys we are happy about, don't get here to help us, or at least not next year, when we are desperately looking for help. Or it means some of the guys we have stink, and they quit or we run them off. Its a zero sum gain, we lose no players, we gain 20(approx). If we sign and keep more, then it means we had losses on the roster, guys we missed on. See what I mean? A class is only as strong as the guys you actually get on campus to play. We either get 20 guys and or we get more and see that some of our roster is dead weight and we start gain with new guys.

volstexans said:
I know you're not asking me, but let me jump in here. When I said earlier that the 85 number was easier to get around than the 25, this is what I meant.

You can sign your 25 even if it puts you over 85. Then, by enrollment time, pick your best 85 to get their scholarships.

Signing > 25 then pulling them before they even get their one year they were promised is bad for recruiting.

There may be some walkons that have earned a scholarship this year that will be over-recruited next year.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top