irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
5 OL, 2 TE, 4 LB, 4 WR, 4 CB, 2 DL, 2 FS, 1 QB maybe.
An elite DT being one of them (depending what they use Day as).
The roster being what it is today (and going off the assumption of, say, 24 guys):
5OL, 2TE, 3WR, 1QB, 1RB, 3DL(with one of them being a true nose, one a true DE, and then a "swing" guy ala Tuitt, Jones, or Day), 4LB, 2CB, 1S, and as much as I hate to say it, 1ST.
I think there's flexibility in the OL number (4) and that passing on a QB or RB wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities.
I've brought this up before about BK and recruiting-- my only real hang up with him on recruiting has been a sometimes lack of balance in position numbers per cycle-- i.e. 3 QB's one year, all the safeties this year. While that may bring the overall numbers at a specific position up to where we need to be depth wise, it helps to create a recurring cycle. I never plan on guys being here for 5 years (except some OL for depth purposes) because it's impossible to predict who will be good enough to start in 5 years (but not good enough to get a good grade from the NFL), family pressures, the desire for a graduate degree, and the staff's need/want to bring a guy back. That being said, ND could be in a real pickle again at the S position in a few years; of HAVING to sign multiple guys. A lot of recruits care about the depth chart too. Having __ guys ahead of you at your position, with them being just a year or a red shirt year ahead of you matters. I'm sure part of the appeal of coming to ND for Lynch and Tuitt was the very real possibility of contributing from the get go. This is why I say only 2 CB's (possibly 3). I think it allows the coaches to still go after 2 the next year, and the year after that-- creating better overall balance at the position.