• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

CBs and depth

Ursus1

Well-known member
DONOR
Been a lot of posts regarding depth problems at CB. Roster shows 6 (1 true freshman assuming redshirting) and I am not counting Crow as one even if listed as CB (I think more a safety prospect). I expressed concerns last spring with lack of CB signed. I know they offered a lot but they went FBS. Currently on Payton list there is only one still offered (I know maybe more we don't know about) and he has what looks like multiple FBS offers. Shooting for the moon last year left a big hole. Sure hope it isn't a similar year/plan or the depth problem will still be an issue in 2018.
 
Current roster has 20, yes, 20 wr.... Pass heavy Eastern WA has 14 listed. Even air raid Mike Leach-Washington State has 17. Checked a few other BSC rosters, average is 10-14. That's where the depth at other positions is.....
 
Topey711 said:
Current roster has 20, yes, 20 wr.... Pass heavy Eastern WA has 14 listed. Even air raid Mike Leach-Washington State has 17. Checked a few other BSC rosters, average is 10-14. That's where the depth at other positions is.....


Feeds his offense that's for sure. Maybe he will sacrifice a couple of those and switch them over like Nash.
 
Topey711 said:
Current roster has 20, yes, 20 wr.... Pass heavy Eastern WA has 14 listed. Even air raid Mike Leach-Washington State has 17. Checked a few other BSC rosters, average is 10-14. That's where the depth at other positions is.....

This is crazy talk. If we were overloaded at receiver our remaining positions would be thinner than normal and would wear down later in the game, especially the defense.

:coffee:
 
Topey711 said:
Current roster has 20, yes, 20 wr.... Pass heavy Eastern WA has 14 listed. Even air raid Mike Leach-Washington State has 17. Checked a few other BSC rosters, average is 10-14. That's where the depth at other positions is.....

Did you account for the fact that our H receiver is our version of a tight end? You either need to back out a minimum of 3 off our total WR or count tight ends with WR for other schools so you are comparing apples to apples.

I say a minimum of 3 because I don't know who else plays H beyond Horner, Simis and Bingham. I assume Deming and possibly Rensvold are also H receivers.
 
Stitt mentioned after spring that they planned to bring in a transfer corner for depth purposes. They must not have been able to find a good fit.
 
go96griz said:
Stitt mentioned after spring that they planned to bring in a transfer corner for depth purposes. They must not have been able to find a good fit.


Didn't meet the 60 question test...
 
bigkid said:
go96griz said:
Stitt mentioned after spring that they planned to bring in a transfer corner for depth purposes. They must not have been able to find a good fit.
Didn't meet the 60 question test...
LOL. Kid probably threw it up in the air and walked out....
 
The question about depth was asked so I gave an answer. If you want to call the H a TE then fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that there's enough of them to be 5 deep at EVERY spot. X,Y,Z, and H. It makes the TEAM weaker in other areas. How about a couple extra D lineman to rotate in and keep guys fresh? Maybe a couple more DB's so that you aren't forced to play injured players because you have no depth? There is a lot of talent basically sitting on the bench not being utilized.
 
Topey711 said:
The question about depth was asked so I gave an answer. If you want to call the H a TE then fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that there's enough of them to be 5 deep at EVERY spot. X,Y,Z, and H. It makes the TEAM weaker in other areas. How about a couple extra D lineman to rotate in and keep guys fresh? Maybe a couple more DB's so that you aren't forced to play injured players because you have no depth? There is a lot of talent basically sitting on the bench not being utilized.

There are 20 on the roster. 7 are true freshmen being redshirted. 2 are injured (Bingham & Nagler). That leaves 11. We may have an extra or two, but we most certainly do NOT go 5-deep at every spot. And FYI: There are 15 D-linemen (2 are FR being redshirted), leaving 13 to rotate.
 
Aren't there any corners available at Junior Colleges now that would be willing to transfer? I would think they could fit right in. I believe we have plenty of persons on this team who can play corner, just not real well because of lack of experience. Maybe someone who is playing corner this year at junior college might work? Then again, I don't know how the NCAA thing works for kids coming in mid season?
 
Topey711 said:
The question about depth was asked so I gave an answer. If you want to call the H a TE then fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that there's enough of them to be 5 deep at EVERY spot. X,Y,Z, and H. It makes the TEAM weaker in other areas. How about a couple extra D lineman to rotate in and keep guys fresh? Maybe a couple more DB's so that you aren't forced to play injured players because you have no depth? There is a lot of talent basically sitting on the bench not being utilized.

Your point is likely valid that the large number of receivers does effect depth at other roster positions, but your analysis didn't fairly back up the numbers.

I looked at EWU's online roster and counted 18 WR/TE so it is at least in the ballpark now considering both teams are pass-heavy offenses. Further, of UM's 20 receivers, at least two, and up to four, are walk-ons (Thurber, Burton, Fouch?, McLaughlin?) so there is not necessarily an effect on other positions. Finally, we have seen a receiver converted to CB (Nash) in the past year. Changing positions will continue to be an option to provide depth at other positions.

I still agree that it would be nice to have another CB or two with experience!
 
Back
Top