TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Since there has been a lot of conversation on how we'll close this class out, which would you rather close with if it was your decision? Two more RBs or two more OL? I'm going with two more OL. It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. There aren't many RBs that can make a terrible line look good, even though some have. We need holes to run through and we need protection to throw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holland's Fro 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Since we had the #1 OL class last year, and we got Dismukes, O'Reilly, and Robinson already this year, I'm gonna go with RB. I'm not convinced at all that Bray or Calloway will even play RB at Auburn, and we only have one true, everydown RB on roster right now. The depth is scary, we need RBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWWD34 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Since there has been a lot of conversation on how we'll close this class out, which would you rather close with if it was your decision? Two more RBs or two more OL? I'm going with two more OL. It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. There aren't many RBs that can make a terrible line look good, even though some have. We need holes to run through and we need protection to throw it. can't we split! If we must chose between 2 of one or 2 of the other, I would pick 2 OL as well. We have Dyer for at least 2 more years and Omac for 1 more, plus Bray and Calloway already on board. and OL seems like one of those positions where you can never have too many quality players in the depth chart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,134 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Since there has been a lot of conversation on how we'll close this class out, which would you rather close with if it was your decision? Two more RBs or two more OL? I'm going with two more OL. It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. There aren't many RBs that can make a terrible line look good, even though some have. We need holes to run through and we need protection to throw it. It depends on the O Lineman you give me, If it's Westy and Collins then give me 2 O Linemen. If it's any other combo then give me 2 RBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amyjones17 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I would take 1 more OL and two RBs. I agree, the RB depth is scary, especially when you consider how fast the depth chart changed this year (Fannin couldn't keep his job, we lost Aycock before season's start). I think our OL depth is better than our RB depth right now, and if we took one more OL, we would have four in this signing class plus Shon Coleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidbowman 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 ellitor makes a good point, but regardless of that, I'll take OL any day of the week now. I think between Bray, Reed, Calloway, O'Mac, Dyer, Smith and LP; if we can't get anything done with the running game b/w over the 2011 season, then something is wrong. Load up on RB's in 2012, provided you can get a RB from the 2012 class that can start straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 Since there has been a lot of conversation on how we'll close this class out, which would you rather close with if it was your decision? Two more RBs or two more OL? I'm going with two more OL. It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. There aren't many RBs that can make a terrible line look good, even though some have. We need holes to run through and we need protection to throw it. It depends on the O Lineman you give me, If it's Westy and Collins then give me 2 O Linemen. If it's any other combo then give me 2 RBs. I'm just the opposite, it depends on what 2 RBs you're talking about. Unless we would be able to snag Crowell and Huggins both, I say sign one or the other and give me two OL, whether it is any two of Westerman, Collins, Ward, Richardson or Clear. I still think Ward is extremely underrated and not being thought of as nearly as high as he should be. It may not be just a coincidence that he'll be there with all of our commits for the NC celebration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,134 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 ellitor makes a good point, but regardless of that, I'll take OL any day of the week now. I think between Bray, Reed, Calloway, O'Mac, Dyer, Smith and LP; if we can't get anything done with the running game b/w over the 2011 season, then something is wrong. Load up on RB's in 2012, provided you can get a RB from the 2012 class that can start straight away. In my scenario I have BC at LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpfudd5 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think we need 2 RB's. Give me Westerman, and 2 from Crowell/ Huggins/ Mason/ whoever. All these backs mentioned are not workhorse type backs. Say Dyer tears his ACL in Fall practice. Who carries the bulk of the load? OMac? Calloway? I don't feel good about that scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,134 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 As I indirectly hinted at, the answer to this question depends on where you think BC ends up. I have BC at LB so I say 2 RBs. But if BC will be at RB then I say 2 O Linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holland's Fro 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 ellitor makes a good point, but regardless of that, I'll take OL any day of the week now. I think between Bray, Reed, Calloway, O'Mac, Dyer, Smith and LP; if we can't get anything done with the running game b/w over the 2011 season, then something is wrong. Load up on RB's in 2012, provided you can get a RB from the 2012 class that can start straight away. Bray: WR Reed: WR Calloway: LB O'Mac: scat back Dyer: RB Smith: FB LP: DT Cmon, we need real runningbacks. Gimme Crowell and Mason anyday over two OLs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 All other things being equal, you always take the linemen. However, all other things are not equal. We already have three top linemen in this class and stand a pretty danged good shot of getting one more of the elite variety. Running back, however, is very thin, and personally I'd rather have the flexibility to allow Calloway to move to defense if he doesn't pan out the way we want him to at RB. It'd also allow us to redshirt one of the backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,134 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 ellitor makes a good point, but regardless of that, I'll take OL any day of the week now. I think between Bray, Reed, Calloway, O'Mac, Dyer, Smith and LP; if we can't get anything done with the running game b/w over the 2011 season, then something is wrong. Load up on RB's in 2012, provided you can get a RB from the 2012 class that can start straight away. Bray: WR Reed: WR Calloway: LB O'Mac: scat back Dyer: RB Smith: FB LP: DT Cmon, we need real runningbacks. Gimme Crowell and Mason anyday over two OLs Bray will get some carries at RB and I know I will not be popular for this but I like Bray running the ball better than Tre. He is just as fast as Tre and a bit more power....not to mention he chose Auburn because he expects to get some carries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godspeed1976 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The O-Line benefits the run and pass game, and protects the QB. I will take OL over RBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 As I indirectly hinted at, the answer to this question depends on where you think BC ends up. I have BC at LB so I say 2 RBs. But if BC will be at RB then I say 2 O Linemen. I agree. I think BC plays RB, at the very least, his first year. If he is moved to LB after that, he has filled in for our lack of depth next year and then opens up room to take two top RBs in the 2012 class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think we need 2 RB's. Give me Westerman, and 2 from Crowell/ Huggins/ Mason/ whoever. All these backs mentioned are not workhorse type backs. Say Dyer tears his ACL in Fall practice. Who carries the bulk of the load? OMac? Calloway? I don't feel good about that scenario Crowell is as much of a workhorse back than any other RB in this entire class. He is the definition of a workhorse back, IMO. With Dyer, OMac, Calloway and Crowell as our RBs next year, we would be in good hands and it leaves room for the studs at RB in the 2012 class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 ellitor makes a good point, but regardless of that, I'll take OL any day of the week now. I think between Bray, Reed, Calloway, O'Mac, Dyer, Smith and LP; if we can't get anything done with the running game b/w over the 2011 season, then something is wrong. Load up on RB's in 2012, provided you can get a RB from the 2012 class that can start straight away. Bray: WR Reed: WR Calloway: LB O'Mac: scat back Dyer: RB Smith: FB LP: DT Cmon, we need real runningbacks. Gimme Crowell and Mason anyday over two OLs I would take Crowell and call it a day. If we miss on Crowell, we probably will need two more RBs, over needing another OL to go along with Westerman. With Calloway starting out at RB, Dyer, OMac, possibly Crowell, with Bray or Reed filling in for OMac at times, our RB depth would be fine next year, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsmd 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 If we get Crowell, I am fine taking 1 back. If it is Mason or Huggins I would want 2. I think Dyer and Crowell would be better than the 2 they had in West Vance. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUApostle 7,663 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. But if there are no runningbacks to run through those awesome holes then we're screwed. As another poster said, we have 1 every down back on the roster right now...that's not enough. We can't get through a conference schedule only using situational backs...we're not Oregon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUIH1 1,515 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 OL - Can't have enough big nasties on either side of the ball for me. wde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holland's Fro 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 OL - Can't have enough big nasties on either side of the ball for me. wde When you're 2 or 3 deep at every line spot and have one true RB, yes you have enough. At least 1 more true, traditional RB is a must IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 It all starts in the trenches and that is where the battles are won or lost. A really good line can make a decent RB look great. But if there are no runningbacks to run through those awesome holes then we're screwed. As another poster said, we have 1 every down back on the roster right now...that's not enough. We can't get through a conference schedule only using situational backs...we're not Oregon. Very true but would we not be fine with Dyer, OMac, Calloway and Crowell? If we take two more backs this year, that would be us taking four RBs in the last two classes. That doesn't leave a lot of opportunity for the RBs in the 2012 class. Not only would we have depth but they would be extremely young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 OL - Can't have enough big nasties on either side of the ball for me. wde When you're 2 or 3 deep at every line spot and have one true RB, yes you have enough. At least 1 more true, traditional RB is a must IMO The fact that we desperately need 1 more true RB is not in question. Two more is not a must, IMO, if we land Crowell. That is assuming Calloway will start out at RB as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amyjones17 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 OL - Can't have enough big nasties on either side of the ball for me. wde When you're 2 or 3 deep at every line spot and have one true RB, yes you have enough. At least 1 more true, traditional RB is a must IMO The fact that we desperately need 1 more true RB is not in question. Two more is not a must, IMO, if we land Crowell. That is assuming Calloway will start out at RB as well. I think we need to take one more true RB. If Calloway, Bray and another RB are our RBs for this class, I'm fine with that. But if Calloway were to move to LB immediately, then I don't like our depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holland's Fro 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 OL - Can't have enough big nasties on either side of the ball for me. wde When you're 2 or 3 deep at every line spot and have one true RB, yes you have enough. At least 1 more true, traditional RB is a must IMO The fact that we desperately need 1 more true RB is not in question. Two more is not a must, IMO, if we land Crowell. That is assuming Calloway will start out at RB as well. Ok, to answer the OP: I'd rather take Crowell and Mason, moving Calloway to LB and Bray to slot/RB, than take Westerman and Ward, making Calloway and Bray our RBs in this class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.