3rdgen 2 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 Trovon or quan running the option out of the wild cat with omac or goodwin/carr coming around for a reverse would be awesome. So much speed you're not sure who to chase. 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... Yea, there are definitely try-outs. I had a former friend try-out this past year. I should have said "open walk-on tryouts"...was your friend invited to try out for the team, or was it open? I honestly don't know, I'm just passing along what I found years ago. For all I know, Chizik could have started the open walkon tryouts. 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. I should have said "open walk-on tryouts"...was your friend invited to try out for the team, or was it open? I honestly don't know, I'm just passing along what I found years ago. For all I know, Chizik could have started the open walkon tryouts. No, I'm almost positive it was open. He played DE in High School, and he was evaluated by Doctors and NCAA and found that despite him being in college for 2 1/2 years already, that he still had 4 years of eligibility. He passed his physical and went to try-outs, it was a week long process, and they called you back for individual evauations if I'm not mistaken. He said he was going to try-out again this year, so I might be able to find something out for definite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaaaau 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 No disrespect to u none of u guys , some of yall could be a coach some day ,by the way u guys know football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walker77 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Don't really know which way to take your comment, but there are actually some folks on here who coach currently, or have coached in the past... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
312234 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 They are open. I remember getting open walk on try out requests from the AU athletic via e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 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. Thank you, J! I've gone back and forth on this subject, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to get eveyone's thoughts on it. Under the 85 limit, the target number is to have at least 12 or 13 of those OL. We have eight scholarship OL, with Coleman, Dismukes and O'Reilly already enrolled and commitments from Robinson and hopefully Westerman. I still feel like we'll need one more, with Shon not being ready this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvilletiger 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Since there is depth at OL and NO depth at RB, I'll have to go with 2 RBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 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. Thank you, J! I've gone back and forth on this subject, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to get eveyone's thoughts on it. Under the 85 limit, the target number is to have at least 12 or 13 of those OL. We have eight scholarship OL, with Coleman, Dismukes and O'Reilly already enrolled and commitments from Robinson and hopefully Westerman. I still feel like we'll need one more, with Shon not being ready this year. 8 + 2 + 2 = 12, which fits your target number, whereas we have only two true running backs. Put that way, it basically boils down to whether Calloway is going to stay at running back or move to linebacker; if he moves, we'll need two more running backs, but if he stays, we only need one. Right now, I feel like unless we do take Frost, Calloway moves over to LB and we sign two more backs, but that's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Since there is depth at OL and NO depth at RB, I'll have to go with 2 RBs. Would Dyer, Calloway and Crowell as every down backs, and OMac with Bray, Reed and possibly Stallworth filling in for him, be depth at RB? That would only be taking one more RB and it would leave room for the top RBs in the 2012 class. One of the other reasons I posed this question, is the early interest from several of the TOP RBs in the 2012 class. We have a very realistic shot of signing the top RB in the entire 2012 class next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerProwl24 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 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. Thank you, J! I've gone back and forth on this subject, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to get eveyone's thoughts on it. Under the 85 limit, the target number is to have at least 12 or 13 of those OL. We have eight scholarship OL, with Coleman, Dismukes and O'Reilly already enrolled and commitments from Robinson and hopefully Westerman. I still feel like we'll need one more, with Shon not being ready this year. 8 + 2 + 2 = 12, which fits your target number, whereas we have only two true running backs. Put that way, it basically boils down to whether Calloway is going to stay at running back or move to linebacker; if he moves, we'll need two more running backs, but if he stays, we only need one. Right now, I feel like unless we do take Frost, Calloway moves over to LB and we sign two more backs, but that's me. Those thoughts have crossed my mind as well. I've just been banking on Calloway playing RB at the least his first year and if that is the case, we could use one more on the OL more than at RB, especially if we're able to snag Crowell. There are a lot of factors to weigh. I guess that is why our staff makes the big bucks! All in all, its not a bad problem to have when deciding which bluechip recruit you would rather have. War Eagle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryTiger 0 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Didn't Anthony Morgan play RB in high school and do a pretty good job at mop up duty in 2009. He also has good speed. I don't know if he can catch. If so, this might make me lean to and extra OL since we already have Calloway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,401 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Those thoughts have crossed my mind as well. I've just been banking on Calloway playing RB at the least his first year and if that is the case, we could use one more on the OL more than at RB, especially if we're able to snag Crowell. There are a lot of factors to weigh. I guess that is why our staff makes the big bucks! All in all, its not a bad problem to have when deciding which bluechip recruit you would rather have. War Eagle! Well, I had the same thoughts about him playing offense to start on the offensive side and move to LB, but the more I think about it, the more I think the only way that happens is if he redshirts, which I don't think will happen. If he plays linebacker, he sees the field immediately. I think that'll make a difference. Regardless, you're absolutely right about our condition now with picking and choosing; nice place to be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.