[washingtonismoney]

In terms of LB, probably should be more specific and say ILB. You have Skov and Lancaster as redshirt juniors next season; beyond that you've got Tarpley, Hemschoot, Vaughters as sophomores and Martinez as an incoming freshman. If Skov leaves after 2012, then you've got one senior ILB, three ILB as juniors and one ILB as a redshirt freshman/true sophomore in 2013. 5 ILB is a bit on the light side for 2013 and 4 in 2014 is a problem. So ideally we pick up two ILB in the 2013 class. Fortunately we're halfway there with Savaiinaea and just need one more.

OLB is much less pressing--you've got Thomas, who's a senior. Murphy, who's a junior. Backups are fluid in this situation but Lueders is a junior, Debniak is a senior...but Davis and Anderson are freshmen. Again, you'd like to bring in two. Randolph gets you halfway there but he seems to be a flight risk given the number of visits he's taken.

S we've got no seniors and two incoming freshmen. We're good there, numbers-wise. It's probably safe to count Olugbode as part of the future at this point--Mason said after the spring game that if we had a real game tomorrow, Olugbode would be the starter. (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t/18606504) Quality might be a different question entirely; I'll never object to efforts to bring in high-quality defensive backs.

We agree TE is a big issue. I suppose it depends on whether the coaches plan on converting players to the position. If Kaumatule and Cajuste become TEs or there's a walk-on TE that can play the part convincingly, suddenly the problems become much less urgent. I wonder if that's what the coaches are planning on doing because there's an odd lack of urgency in terms of addressing what would seem on the outside to be a problem--the coaches are only looking at premium TEs and trying to outrecruit power programs for them.

[washingtonismoney]

In terms of LB, probably should be more specific and say ILB. You have Skov and Lancaster as redshirt juniors next season; beyond that you've got Tarpley, Hemschoot, Vaughters as sophomores and Martinez as an incoming freshman. If Skov leaves after 2012, then you've got one senior ILB, three ILB as juniors and one ILB as a redshirt freshman/true sophomore in 2013. 5 ILB is a bit on the light side for 2013 and 4 in 2014 is a problem. So ideally we pick up two ILB in the 2013 class. Fortunately we're halfway there with Savaiinaea and just need one more.

OLB is much less pressing--you've got Thomas, who's a senior. Murphy, who's a junior. Backups are fluid in this situation but Lueders is a junior, Debniak is a senior...but Davis and Anderson are freshmen. Again, you'd like to bring in two. Randolph gets you halfway there but he seems to be a flight risk given the number of visits he's taken.

S we've got no seniors and two incoming freshmen. We're good there, numbers-wise. It's probably safe to count Olugbode as part of the future at this point--Mason said after the spring game that if we had a real game tomorrow, Olugbode would be the starter. (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...t/18606504) Quality might be a different question entirely; I'll never object to efforts to bring in high-quality defensive backs.

We agree TE is a big issue. I suppose it depends on whether the coaches plan on converting players to the position. If Kaumatule and Cajuste become TEs or there's a walk-on TE that can play the part convincingly, suddenly the problems become much less urgent. I wonder if that's what the coaches are planning on doing because there's an odd lack of urgency in terms of addressing what would seem on the outside to be a problem--the coaches are only looking at premium TEs and trying to outrecruit power programs for them.