It wouldn't. That's why I ended with the note about Grimm and previous classes. I guess I should put my stance this way. I would feel better if a) we had an additional upperclassman on scholarship, b) we added a JUCO, or c) we took another freshman. in any case, the basis of my position is that 7 scholarship players at WR doesn't offer a lot of depth, and so I don't share your opinion that we're fine at the position. But we'll see how it plays out.
Neb falls short of the 5 WR's they wanted.
- Thread starter BHeinDaHuskers
- Start date
It wouldn't. That's why I ended with the note about Grimm and previous classes. I guess I should put my stance this way. I would feel better if a) we had an additional upperclassman on scholarship, b) we added a JUCO, or c) we took another freshman. in any case, the basis of my position is that 7 scholarship players at WR doesn't offer a lot of depth, and so I don't share your opinion that we're fine at the position. But we'll see how it plays out.
It is still possible that we could add a late qualifying JUCO WR BUT dang we've had some great walk on WRs that deserved scholarships by the time they were juniors and seniors. Personally I hate using as many scholarships on WRs as we do. I know we need the depth for this offense but personally I would rather use one or two more on big uglies for the OLine
not so worried about the total # - a little concerned about the 1-1-3 imbalance
regardless of star ratings - I get extremely nervous when people are counting on significant contributions from true freshman -
true freshman playing heavy minutes should never be a necessity but rather a pleasant surprise
maybe we are in the market for a JUCO WR or grad transfer -
can also utilize some of the more athletic TEs split out in formations
It helps that 2 of the true freshmen are here for spring ball. McQuitty and Lindsey will play right away and KJJ may too.
If our base offense is three wide receivers, which I assume is the case, I suppose we'd need at least 8. If we frequently run four wide receiver sets, then maybe it's 8-10. If it's less than 3, which it may be given the amount of TEs we've recruited and a fullback, you could get away with less, say, 7.
Listen, it's not something I feel especially passionate about. What I don't want to hear or see are the sorts of excuses that have become commonplace on here in the last two seasons to the effect that "we're struggling as a team because position X lacks depth because past loser coach Y failed as a recruiter." As far as I'm concerned, maybe with the exception of our two new position coaches, that reason is no longer valid. However many scholarship WRs we need to prevent someone from making that excuse is my real answer to your question.
If I count correctly we had 4 walk on WRs that made the travel squad last year and played at some point during the year. We have a solid core of scholarship WRs back, some very talented incoming freshmen and some quality walk ons. I think we're fine at WR.
Not at all worried about what Reimers and Rahn can do. I think they can both end up being better than Reilly. I think at least 2 of the freshman receivers were expected to get playing time right away anyway. The depth at wide receiver looks fine to me.
The number I was hearing all season was 4 but would take 5 if Lewis was in the mix. Today Riley said he never likes to take more than 4 in a position group.
In hindsight I think Calvin might end up being addition by subtraction. What a piece of work. We're fine at WR without him.
He would have been nothing but a distraction. There is no team in Calvin.
Only thought I had on him was when I was having my morning bowl of frosted flakes.
The quotes I remember from Callahan when he took over involved Peterson as told by his WR coach.. He asked his WR coach (his name escapes me) who he thought was going to be a player in the WR group and his response was "the walk on kid Peterson". BC said, "Whaaat? Really?" He thought BC had dislocated a cervical vertebrae the way his head snapped around.