looks like my vision of Stringfellow to TE will happen...
Comments
-
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.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.
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. -
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 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. -
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.Mad_Son said:
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 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.
-
$75,000puppylove_sugarsteel said:
The queer respondedMikeDamone said:The Quad has a point. Great Xs and Os talk. IrishDawg? How say you?
Make it $150,000puppylove_sugarsteel said:I had fun last night Damone. Did you end up going home with that Guy?
-
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).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.
Sure they were better than we've seen recently but his teams weren't all that great either. -
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.RoadDawg55 said:
WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.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.
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.He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.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.
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 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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.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.
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 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).
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!He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
WR still hardly matters. Along with TE, it is the least important position.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.
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 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).
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.
-
turd burgler... I like that one.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
