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!
I love how on here and dawgboard those who always complain about lack of football posts never contribute to football posts. In fact all their posts are about lack of football posts.
Comments