2009 tOSU Recruiting Discussion

[alpo]

Originally Posted by crazybuckfan40

Guys the point is...We need

rbs(2)...OL(4)...QB(1)...DL(4-5)...WR(2-3)...DB(6)...FB(2)...TE(1-2)...LB(3)...

That adds up to 25-28 players...If you add a LB it takes away from other spots we need to fill up...We have already brought in 2 LB type athletes if you count Boren and Homan that will move else where to the FB spot...

If we bring in Newsome we have one that could play a little LB or DE...If we bring in 6 DB's there is no need for a LB that might play S...

It has nothing to do with not liking depth at LB...3 to go along with the 5 that are already on the roster and we will have just as many as we have this year and you have to think that we have good depth, especially losing 1 the year after in Spitler and we can bring in 2 or 3 next year...

OK, got it, sold here. All of this assuming we get Bell or perhaps Jenkins, etc. Like to see your CBF40thread updated w/all of this a little more often, too.

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by crazybuckfan40

Guys the point is...We need

rbs(2)...OL(4)...QB(1)...DL(4-5)...WR(2-3)...DB(6)...FB(2)...TE(1-2)...LB(3)...

Uh, why do we need six DBs? In 2009 (after the four current senior DB depart), we'll still have at least 15-16 DBs (Moeller keeps bouncing from DB to LB), counting the two 2009 commits we have (Barnett and Wood). You may argue that five will be seniors in 2009, but even if we take only 4 for 2009 we'll have 12-13 DBs for 2010 and that's before we take any DBs from the 2010 recruiting class. Four DBs in this class would be more than sufficient.

[crazybuckfan40]

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

Uh, why do we need six DBs? In 2009 (after the four current senior DB depart), we'll still have at least 15-16 DBs (Moeller keeps bouncing from DB to LB), counting the two 2009 commits we have (Barnett and Wood). You may argue that five will be seniors in 2009, but even if we take only 4 for 2009 we'll have 12-13 DBs for 2010 and that's before we take any DBs from the 2010 recruiting class. Four DBs in this class would be more than sufficient.

Well some of the depth on the roster ain't quite getting the job done and we only took 2 last year in Howard and Domicone...And we play many 5 db sets, and at time 6 and they play alot of special teams as well...With losing 4 this year and 5 next year that is 9 in two year span...We brough in 2 last year, and 6 this year makes 8...Then we bring in maybe 3 in 10...

Moeller is getting the first look at LB right now with Terry playing some fullback...His safety experiment didn't work out...

What about Washington, O'neal, Clifford...What is going on with them...

Also the guys we are in on are top tier guys, and a couple of them could get look at WR...They can double as WR, DB, S...Torrence is getting a look at DB this offseason from lack of depth, when many have said he is having a great spring at WR...

And you find room for guys like McGee, Hall, Hunter, Vlad...We could obviously go with 5 or 4, but it looks like with the wide net cast the staff wants about 6...

[osubucksfan2]

makes sense............CB40

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by crazybuckfan40

Well some of the depth on the roster ain't quite getting the job done and we only took 2 last year in Howard and Domicone...And we play many 5 db sets, and at time 6 and they play alot of special teams as well...With losing 4 this year and 5 next year that is 9 in two year span...We brough in 2 last year, and 6 this year makes 8...Then we bring in maybe 3 in 10...

Moeller is getting the first look at LB right now with Terry playing some fullback...His safety experiment didn't work out...

What about Washington, O'neal, Clifford...What is going on with them...

Also the guys we are in on are top tier guys, and a couple of them could get look at WR...They can double as WR, DB, S...Torrence is getting a look at DB this offseason from lack of depth, when many have said he is having a great spring at WR...

And you find room for guys like McGee, Hall, Hunter, Vlad...We could obviously go with 5 or 4, but it looks like with the wide net cast the staff wants about 6...

Most of the "ones not getting it done" are in their last year (Lane, Patterson, O'Neal). Even with Moeller not at S, we still have a ton of DBs. As for the status of Washington, O'Neal, Clifford, none have been kicked off so until that happens you can't really use that as a reason for taking additional DBs. Torrence getting a look at CB is more a function of his talent rather than a lack of depth...he simply may be better at CB than WR (Chris Gamble ring a bell?). We also have six freshmen (four true, two RS) DBs, one of whom already has already proven his worth (Clifford) and was fortunate enough to get a med redshirt. Sorry, but no matter how you rack and stack, you cannot say we "need" six DBs this class...no way, no how. Now, with the way we recruit (speed, big speed, power) we surely can take a ton of guys who play primarily DB in high school with the thought that we may move them to other positions (much as we can take kids who are primarily WRs and move them once on campus). But, our current roster depth in the secondary does not require six DBs in this class. Instead of saying we need 2-3 WRs and 6 DBs, it would be more accurate to say we should take 8-9 non-RB speed recruits. Actually, we're hurting more depth-wise at WR than at DB (nine WRs who are junior or younger vice 13 DBs who are junior or younger).

[crazybuckfan40]

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

Most of the "ones not getting it done" are in their last year (Lane, Patterson, O'Neal). Even with Moeller not at S, we still have a ton of DBs. As for the status of Washington, O'Neal, Clifford, none have been kicked off so until that happens you can't really use that as a reason for taking additional DBs.

I agree to some extent here, but the staff might not be seeing it with guys like Pentello, Oliver, Evege (surgery how will he come back), and IMO we don't have the superstar back there at the S postion...Clifford possess the potential, but hasn't put it together yet...

Torrence getting a look at CB is more a function of his talent rather than a lack of depth...he simply may be better at CB than WR (Chris Gamble ring a bell?). We also have six freshmen (four true, two RS) DBs, one of whom already has already proven his worth (Clifford) and was fortunate enough to get a med redshirt. Sorry, but no matter how you rack and stack, you cannot say we "need" six DBs this class...no way, no how. Now, with the way we recruit (speed, big speed, power) we surely can take a ton of guys who play primarily DB in high school with the thought that we may move them to other positions (much as we can take kids who are primarily WRs and move them once on campus). But, our current roster depth in the secondary does not require six DBs in this class. Instead of saying we need 2-3 WRs and 6 DBs, it would be more accurate to say we should take 8-9 non-RB speed recruits. Actually, we're hurting more depth-wise at WR than at DB (nine WRs who are junior or younger vice 13 DBs who are junior or younger).

All reports had Torrence impressing at WR...so why move like you say we are better off at DB than WR...Once again I can agree with all of this...I was just giving a reasoning as to why we take 6...We also have Hall who could fit in the RB/DB category...and we all know how Tress recruits with the speed/big speed/power...Just lots of good prospects out there that we don't seem to be slow playing any of them and seem to have 6 guys that we are looking good for...Heck there has even been talk about taking 7 dbs at some point...