looks like my vision of Stringfellow to TE will happen...

puppylove_sugarsteel

6-4, 235. that leaves 2 WR's in this class, and one DD, BETTER have his ass moved to safety or linebacker.

Oh, and by the way, Basham and Shelton didn't make it in. Way to be SarkTard, You brought in a whopping 2 offensive linemen. So much for running the football in the future. Fargin idiot Sark is!

MikeDamone

The Quad has a point. Great Xs and Os talk. IrishDawg? How say you?

RoadDawg55

I was actually thinking the same thing as Steel. At 232, he will probably be 240+ in a couple of years. He didn't look all that fast on film either. I think he is a Fred Davis type H-Back/TE. This could be a good thing because our TE's after ASJ suck.

bananasnblondes

Yeah. String fellow would give me hope as a follow up to ASJ. Last year Sark didn't want to go up against the big boys for Mattingly and the guy UCLA took so he chickened out and gave Ajamu a scholarship offer. This Blakely kid we have coming in this year sucked big time at the Opening and his second best offer is Idaho. Hartvigson and Barnett are living proof of how well this staff is able to use TEs who are not super athletes.

IrishDawg22

MikeDamone said:

The Quad has a point. Great Xs and Os talk. IrishDawg? How say you?

Let me try him in NCAA 14 and then I will give a detailed breakdown of his game.

HuskyJW

Two actual football threads on the front page?

IrishDawg22

On a serious note I hope he stays at WR. I still have nightmares of Kearse and Aguilar getting jammed by the Nebraska DBs all day.

Ross has the super speed to compliment him on the other side.

But I would love to see Daniels moved to S. That kid can lay the lumber.

puppylove_sugarsteel

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

puppylove_sugarsteel

MikeDamone said:

The Quad has a point. Great Xs and Os talk. IrishDawg? How say you?

The queer responded

puppylove_sugarsteel

I had fun last night Damone. Did you end up going home with that Guy?

jecornel

I would love a Dave janoski on this team

RoadDawg55

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position. Look at Oregon. Who has been their best WR the past five years? Jeffrey Mahl? Joshua Huff? These are good players, but nothing special.

Who has Alabama had? Julio Jones is a stud, but he didn't put up outrageous numbers. The past two years, they have won the championship without a dominant WR. Their offense has been just as good, or better, without him. Their OL has been great along with their RB's.

Stanford is another great example. They haven't had a really good WR since Doug Baldwin left. They utilized the running game and play actioned to the great TE's.

A great WR sometimes even hurts an offense. As great as Marquis Lee is, he hurt USC's offense at times because they tried to force the ball to him so often. If Sark had a dominant WR like him, the same thing would happen. Kiffin and Sark have no discipline and can't resist trying to use their toy all game long even though the other team knows it is coming.

Mad_Son

RoadDawg55 said:

A great WR sometimes even hurts an offense. As great as Marquis Lee is, he hurt USC's offense at times because they tried to force the ball to him so often. If Sark had a dominant WR like him, the same thing would happen. Kiffin and Sark have no discipline and can't resist trying to use their toy all game long even though the other team knows it is coming.

Sounds like they hurt the offense. I believe that it is best to have talent at every position, even WR. It is just that WR is the last position to matter if you care about winning.

RoadDawg55

Mad_Son said:

RoadDawg55 said:

A great WR sometimes even hurts an offense. As great as Marquis Lee is, he hurt USC's offense at times because they tried to force the ball to him so often. If Sark had a dominant WR like him, the same thing would happen. Kiffin and Sark have no discipline and can't resist trying to use their toy all game long even though the other team knows it is coming.

Sounds like they hurt the offense. I believe that it is best to have talent at every position, even WR. It is just that WR is the last position to matter if you care about winning.

Agree. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against having great WR's. With Sark though, is there any doubt he would run the ball even less if we had great WR's? West Virginia had great WR's and went 7-6. Obviously, it is not the WR's fault, but they are the least important when it comes to winning. Everyone here already knows but, a strong OL is much more valuable than strong WR's.

HillsboroDuck

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

MikeDamone said:

The Quad has a point. Great Xs and Os talk. IrishDawg? How say you?

The queer responded

$75,000

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

I had fun last night Damone. Did you end up going home with that Guy?

Make it $150,000

[Deleted User]

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

Why do people always put Lambo in the same category as James? His teams towards the end were pretty soft as well, had shitty OL play, defenses that allowed 50+ points as well, blowing big leads(blew a 24-0 lead to WSU and 21-0 to USC).

Sure they were better than we've seen recently but his teams weren't all that great either.

[Deleted User]

RoadDawg55 said:

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.

I could not disagree more. TE is still a valuable position. You need someone who is athletic enough to catch but big enough to block. For a ball control team you need a good TE for your running game and then for play action passes.

He is also your go to guy on 3rd and shorts as well.

I'd say on offense ideally I'd love to have a smart capable QB/great OL/great TE and I don't really care about RB's and WR's as they can be products of the system.

That's how James teams were. He had some great backs like Kaufman(really only coached Kaufman as a stud one year) and Steele but none of his backs did anything in the NFL showing they were a product of the system. While most of our TE's had long NFL careers.

RoadDawg55

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.

I could not disagree more. TE is still a valuable position. You need someone who is athletic enough to catch but big enough to block. For a ball control team you need a good TE for your running game and then for play action passes.

He is also your go to guy on 3rd and shorts as well.

I'd say on offense ideally I'd love to have a smart capable QB/great OL/great TE and I don't really care about RB's and WR's as they can be products of the system.

That's how James teams were. He had some great backs like Kaufman(really only coached Kaufman as a stud one year) and Steele but none of his backs did anything in the NFL showing they were a product of the system. While most of our TE's had long NFL careers.

I didn't get my point across very well. TE is an important position and having good TE's is extremely important in a run dominant scheme for the reasons you mentioned. A great OL and good QB and basically your offense is set. Obviously, in an ideal situation, you want great talent at every position, but I still think WR and TE are the least important. I love great TE's, but I see them as more of a luxury than an essential.

I would rank it like this: OL, QB, RB, TE, WR

I understand your point about RB's being a product of the system, but having great RB's is more valuable than a TE IMO. Obviously, Alabama OL is the main reason for their dominance, but Ingram, Richardson, and the two backs from last year are studs. They have been more valuable than Bama's TE's. LaMichael James, Barner, and Thomas are really good as well, and they were way more valuable than Lyerla (who is a stud).

[Deleted User]

RoadDawg55 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.

I could not disagree more. TE is still a valuable position. You need someone who is athletic enough to catch but big enough to block. For a ball control team you need a good TE for your running game and then for play action passes.

He is also your go to guy on 3rd and shorts as well.

I'd say on offense ideally I'd love to have a smart capable QB/great OL/great TE and I don't really care about RB's and WR's as they can be products of the system.

That's how James teams were. He had some great backs like Kaufman(really only coached Kaufman as a stud one year) and Steele but none of his backs did anything in the NFL showing they were a product of the system. While most of our TE's had long NFL careers.

I didn't get my point across very well. TE is an important position and having good TE's is extremely important in a run dominant scheme for the reasons you mentioned. A great OL and good QB and basically your offense is set. Obviously, in an ideal situation, you want great talent at every position, but I still think WR and TE are the least important. I love great TE's, but I see them as more of a luxury than an essential.

I would rank it like this: OL, QB, RB, TE, WR

I understand your point about RB's being a product of the system, but having great RB's is more valuable than a TE IMO. Obviously, Alabama OL is the main reason for their dominance, but Ingram, Richardson, and the two backs from last year are studs. They have been more valuable than Bama's TE's. LaMichael James, Barner, and Thomas are really good as well, and they were way more valuable than Lyerla (who is a stud).

Even then though look at Ingram in the NFL and I bet Lacy won't do much. Really only Richardson was a game changer for Bama. Oregon not putting down their backs but they were just speed guys in the spread and none of them will do much at the next level.

I think you can create a good RB with a good OL/scheme better than a TE.

I just look at the 2000 Rose Bowl team. Great leader at QB, great college OL, great TE, average backs who looked better than they were and bad WR's who could catch though just all slow.

Offensively that's the model I want if I don't have the luxury of being a stacked offense like USC was during the Carroll era. Another reason why hiring Sark was dumb because literally anyone could have looked smart calling plays for that team.

RoadDawg55

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

RoadDawg55 said:

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

DJ Or Lambo would already have Daniels at safety. They considered defense and the Oline as the two most important on the field. Then they'd just move a little turd burgler like Dave Janoski to WR. Wide receiver didn't matter in those days, They just ran it down your damn throat and played killer defense and that's all it took. Of course Lambo went a little overboard. His WR corps were the worst in the history of college football, yet he still narrowly missed two Rose Bowls. Ya reading Sark? Oh, Lambo recruited linemen.

WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.

I could not disagree more. TE is still a valuable position. You need someone who is athletic enough to catch but big enough to block. For a ball control team you need a good TE for your running game and then for play action passes.

He is also your go to guy on 3rd and shorts as well.

I'd say on offense ideally I'd love to have a smart capable QB/great OL/great TE and I don't really care about RB's and WR's as they can be products of the system.

That's how James teams were. He had some great backs like Kaufman(really only coached Kaufman as a stud one year) and Steele but none of his backs did anything in the NFL showing they were a product of the system. While most of our TE's had long NFL careers.

I didn't get my point across very well. TE is an important position and having good TE's is extremely important in a run dominant scheme for the reasons you mentioned. A great OL and good QB and basically your offense is set. Obviously, in an ideal situation, you want great talent at every position, but I still think WR and TE are the least important. I love great TE's, but I see them as more of a luxury than an essential.

I would rank it like this: OL, QB, RB, TE, WR

I understand your point about RB's being a product of the system, but having great RB's is more valuable than a TE IMO. Obviously, Alabama OL is the main reason for their dominance, but Ingram, Richardson, and the two backs from last year are studs. They have been more valuable than Bama's TE's. LaMichael James, Barner, and Thomas are really good as well, and they were way more valuable than Lyerla (who is a stud).

Even then though look at Ingram in the NFL and I bet Lacy won't do much. Really only Richardson was a game changer for Bama. Oregon not putting down their backs but they were just speed guys in the spread and none of them will do much at the next level.

I think you can create a good RB with a good OL/scheme better than a TE.

I just look at the 2000 Rose Bowl team. Great leader at QB, great college OL, great TE, average backs who looked better than they were and bad WR's who could catch though just all slow.

Offensively that's the model I want if I don't have the luxury of being a stacked offense like USC was during the Carroll era. Another reason why hiring Sark was dumb because literally anyone could have looked smart calling plays for that team.

All right, enough with the football talk. We don't want to give HuskyJW the wrong ideas about this site. This site is for repetitive jokes, dawgman bashing, and criticizing Sark. It's not for football!

Meek

turd burgler... I like that one.