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. 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. I agree. In that case, we would in fact need two more RBs in this class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburn4ever 1,266 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 2 RB's and 1 more OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think we only take 1 more RB. Calloway has been promised a shot, Bray can be used there, then we have Dyer and Mccalleb. I also wouldnt be suprised to see Trovon Reed take some handoffs like Percy Harvin did at FLA. Thats 6 different guys that could be taking snaps at RB in some form or fashion. I dont think depth will be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBigCat 17 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Im going to be shortsighted and say 2 more RBs. I dont care who we sign this year at OL, I dont expect to see any of them (maybe Dismukes as a backup center) play in 2011. On the other hand we have to get some production out of the 2011 RB recruits. I think BC stays at RB since that seems to be where his heart is and that's where Malzahn recruited him all along. But I havent seen any vid of him so I have no clue if he is ready to play now. Crowell seems to be the most ready to play back on the board so him and Mason with his sub 4.4/40 would be nice to backup Dyer and Omac aka FAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gthunder 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 2 RB's and 1 more OL. I agree. Crowell, Buie and Westerman would make me very happy. I don't want us to be scrambling for backs next year. I'd rather reload with one very good back next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gthunder 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 Please look at the roster and commitment list. 2 RBs 1 OL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDEAUB 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing I really have to say is this is a very interesting topic and great conversation. I'm not sure I can truly answer the OP's question, but I'm very much enjoying both sides of the argument. I would say at this point, AMM has a very good case about the OL depth chart. I keep forgetting we had the #1 OL class last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 2 RB's and 1 more OL. I agree. Crowell, Buie and Westerman would make me very happy. I don't want us to be scrambling for backs next year. I'd rather reload with one very good back next year. We'll get Mason before we get Buie. He's higher on the coaches' board and he's ours if we want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
312234 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. 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. that. very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBCSRobbery 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing I really have to say is this is a very interesting topic and great conversation. I'm not sure I can truly answer the OP's question, but I'm very much enjoying both sides of the argument. I would say at this point, AMM has a very good case about the OL depth chart. I keep forgetting we had the #1 OL class last year. We may have had the #1 OL class last year, but we lost Roszell Gayden, Shon Coleman unfortunately was a short-term casualty, and I hope he regains strength and becomes an AUsome player. The one player that stepped-up on the line was recruited as a TE originally in Brandon Moseley. So, yes we may have had the #1 OL class last year, but two of those recruits did not enroll this past Fall and we lost four very experienced starters. That's going to be something that will be very very tough to replace. I say we take two more OL, hopefully one being Westerman. 2012 has some amazing RB prospects and we have been in on them very early, so I like our chances. Especially if we land Crowell, I say no doubt we only take him and the two OL are a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBCSRobbery 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 2 RB's and 1 more OL. I agree. Crowell, Buie and Westerman would make me very happy. I don't want us to be scrambling for backs next year. I'd rather reload with one very good back next year. We'll get Mason before we get Buie. He's higher on the coaches' board and he's ours if we want him. Yea, I say we take Mason over Buie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDEAUB 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing I really have to say is this is a very interesting topic and great conversation. I'm not sure I can truly answer the OP's question, but I'm very much enjoying both sides of the argument. I would say at this point, AMM has a very good case about the OL depth chart. I keep forgetting we had the #1 OL class last year. We may have had the #1 OL class last year, but we lost Roszell Gayden, Shon Coleman unfortunately was a short-term casualty, and I hope he regains strength and becomes an AUsome player. The one player that stepped-up on the line was recruited as a TE originally in Brandon Moseley. So, yes we may have had the #1 OL class last year, but two of those recruits did not enroll this past Fall and we lost four very experienced starters. That's going to be something that will be very very tough to replace. I say we take two more OL, hopefully one being Westerman. 2012 has some amazing RB prospects and we have been in on them very early, so I like our chances. Especially if we land Crowell, I say no doubt we only take him and the two OL are a must. Well, now that's a damn good point too. My head is all over the place on this subject, which was my original point in the 1st post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing I really have to say is this is a very interesting topic and great conversation. I'm not sure I can truly answer the OP's question, but I'm very much enjoying both sides of the argument. I would say at this point, AMM has a very good case about the OL depth chart. I keep forgetting we had the #1 OL class last year. We may have had the #1 OL class last year, but we lost Roszell Gayden, Shon Coleman unfortunately was a short-term casualty, and I hope he regains strength and becomes an AUsome player. The one player that stepped-up on the line was recruited as a TE originally in Brandon Moseley. So, yes we may have had the #1 OL class last year, but two of those recruits did not enroll this past Fall and we lost four very experienced starters. That's going to be something that will be very very tough to replace. I say we take two more OL, hopefully one being Westerman. 2012 has some amazing RB prospects and we have been in on them very early, so I like our chances. Especially if we land Crowell, I say no doubt we only take him and the two OL are a must. But between Westerman (if we do, indeed get him), Robinson, and Dismukes, we have three linemen who are talented enough to play immediately. If we're able to sway, say, Kouandjio, then yeah, take two more linemen, but if they aren't going to provide immediate depth then bringing in two running backs would be wise, I'd think, considering Calloway might move to linebacker. Another thing to consider might be that if we take Kris Frost, then the necessity to have Calloway move to LB would be diminished, and it wouldn't be such a big deal to take just one more running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBCSRobbery 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing I really have to say is this is a very interesting topic and great conversation. I'm not sure I can truly answer the OP's question, but I'm very much enjoying both sides of the argument. I would say at this point, AMM has a very good case about the OL depth chart. I keep forgetting we had the #1 OL class last year. We may have had the #1 OL class last year, but we lost Roszell Gayden, Shon Coleman unfortunately was a short-term casualty, and I hope he regains strength and becomes an AUsome player. The one player that stepped-up on the line was recruited as a TE originally in Brandon Moseley. So, yes we may have had the #1 OL class last year, but two of those recruits did not enroll this past Fall and we lost four very experienced starters. That's going to be something that will be very very tough to replace. I say we take two more OL, hopefully one being Westerman. 2012 has some amazing RB prospects and we have been in on them very early, so I like our chances. Especially if we land Crowell, I say no doubt we only take him and the two OL are a must. But between Westerman (if we do, indeed get him), Robinson, and Dismukes, we have three linemen who are talented enough to play immediately. If we're able to sway, say, Kouandjio, then yeah, take two more linemen, but if they aren't going to provide immediate depth then bringing in two running backs would be wise, I'd think, considering Calloway might move to linebacker. Another thing to consider might be that if we take Kris Frost, then the necessity to have Calloway move to LB would be diminished, and it wouldn't be such a big deal to take just one more running back. I think even if we do take Frost, Calloway makes his way to LB. The move may not be his freshman year, but he will move to LB before he leaves Auburn. Frost and Calloway on opposite sides of one another... WOW!! But, I digress. We can still land an underrated Xzavier Ward or snatch Cameron Clear. I understand your point, and I could see Robinson and Westerman at Guard early on in their career to potentially make an early impact. But we are very young along the line, and we saw Greene get injured, Gayden leave, and thank God Moseley fit right in mid-game. The trenches are where we need the most immediate help. The stud RBs are coming next year. Take Crowell, Mason, or Lane and call it a day. We have plenty of speed to bounce it outside, but we need that Guard that can pull to give him his lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuniorAU 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 2 RB's and 1 more OL. ^^this^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsande07 271 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think it depends on who we have coming in. Remember that we are losing two people that could be considered "Big" RBs in Fannin and Newton. Currently, we are bringing in 1 "Big" back, which means we are not keeping up with losses, let alone building depth at the position. I think if he wants to come, we definitely take Crowell as a 2nd "Big" back, particularly considering that Calloway may take a year to develop as a college back or may even end up at LB. If we miss on Crowell, we probably wait until next year. (I think we would also take Huggins for that spot, but most people seem to be saying he's eliminated us.) We probably also take one "speed" back, probably Mason, even if we get Crowell. We definitely take one if we miss on Crowell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU60 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Offensive Lineman on the roster this year: E. Mack 6-3 361 FR D. Riggins 6-8 275 SO C. Slade 6-5 316 FR B. Burgess 6-2 278 RS FR C. Seals 6-7 300 FR T. Fariyike 6-2 330 FR B. Ingalls 6-7 320 JR E. Christian 6-4 277 FR R. Preston 6-1 278 FR A. Harris 6-3 318 RS FR J. Sullen 6-6 312 SO A. Parmer 5-10 267 SO B. Mosley 6-6 299 JR A.J. Greene 6-5 291 JR R. Gayden 6-6 315 JR Left team but may return J. Cooper 6-4 300 JR If we get Westerman, Dismukes and Robinson, I can’t see where we need more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Growlin 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 By my count 7 of those guys are walk-ons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBCSRobbery 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 By my count 7 of those guys are walk-ons. Exactly.... unless we have a bunch of Clay Matthews' like O-Linemen I say we need some major help!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchris 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Dismukes and O'Reilly are already enrolled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU60 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 They are walk ons but most were invited walk ons and it would certainly not be a first for a walk on to earn a back up role or even start. The other eight are scholarship players, some of whom made up the number one offensive line class in the nation last year. They have had at least a year of practicing with the team and working with Yox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsmd 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Another thing to consider guys is Kiehl being used in a Tebow type package this year. It would get him used to the speed and elimate a few carries. There are a lot of way the coaches can play this. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 They are walk ons but most were invited walk ons and it would certainly not be a first for a walk on to earn a back up role or even start. The other eight are scholarship players, some of whom made up the number one offensive line class in the nation last year. They have had at least a year of practicing with the team and working with Yox. Notre Dame still has walk-on tryouts, but I don't know of anyone else who does. I had a friend, a former Navy Seal who's around 6'4, 300, and in good shape, who was transferring to Auburn and wanted to take a shot at playing football. I asked around to see if I could help him out, because that size, strength, and agility screamed DT to me, but everyone I talked to indicated that walk-ons are generally only taken when coaches invite them to do so. I don't know if that's entirely accurate, but it's all I could find out. It seems like Matt Clark was a non-invited walk-on, but he's the only one that comes to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holland's Fro 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Another thing to consider guys is Kiehl being used in a Tebow type package this year. It would get him used to the speed and elimate a few carries. There are a lot of way the coaches can play this. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Tebow had an immediate impact because he was like a fullback running the football. Kiehl is not, he's a gifted passer who is fast. I'd rather Trovon or Quan Bray play out of the wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBCSRobbery 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 They are walk ons but most were invited walk ons and it would certainly not be a first for a walk on to earn a back up role or even start. The other eight are scholarship players, some of whom made up the number one offensive line class in the nation last year. They have had at least a year of practicing with the team and working with Yox. Notre Dame still has walk-on tryouts, but I don't know of anyone else who does. I had a friend, a former Navy Seal who's around 6'4, 300, and in good shape, who was transferring to Auburn and wanted to take a shot at playing football. I asked around to see if I could help him out, because that size, strength, and agility screamed DT to me, but everyone I talked to indicated that walk-ons are generally only taken when coaches invite them to do so. I don't know if that's entirely accurate, but it's all I could find out. It seems like Matt Clark was a non-invited walk-on, but he's the only one that comes to mind... Yea, there are definitely try-outs. I had a former friend try-out this past year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.