01-23-2013, 03:25 PM
to pcg:
on RBs, I think the pecking order probably goes Wilkerson, Wright, Seale, then Cummings or Sanders.
on oline, we return 4 starters (Yankey, Wilkes, Danser, Fleming), but I would not be surprised if 2 play new positions (Yankey back to LG; Danser or Wilkes to C) and 2 become part-time starters. a starting line of Peat, Yankey, Danser/Wilkes, Garnett and Murphy could evolve.Â
overall on offense, it will be interesting to see if we develop more variety. many games we became very predictable (not as bad as Bible's "Mitchell off-tackle, Bookman up the middle", but close). it would be nice to run some more counters off of power (bootlegs, naked bootlegs, counter-treys etc) or add more calls (screens, draws, jet-sweeps, etc) to take advantage of unique skillsets like Young or Sanders represent. we saw a bit of this evolution early in the Rose Bowl, but then it quickly disappeared.
all in all though, good problems to have. we lost 8 in our two-deep including specialists.
on RBs, I think the pecking order probably goes Wilkerson, Wright, Seale, then Cummings or Sanders.
on oline, we return 4 starters (Yankey, Wilkes, Danser, Fleming), but I would not be surprised if 2 play new positions (Yankey back to LG; Danser or Wilkes to C) and 2 become part-time starters. a starting line of Peat, Yankey, Danser/Wilkes, Garnett and Murphy could evolve.Â
overall on offense, it will be interesting to see if we develop more variety. many games we became very predictable (not as bad as Bible's "Mitchell off-tackle, Bookman up the middle", but close). it would be nice to run some more counters off of power (bootlegs, naked bootlegs, counter-treys etc) or add more calls (screens, draws, jet-sweeps, etc) to take advantage of unique skillsets like Young or Sanders represent. we saw a bit of this evolution early in the Rose Bowl, but then it quickly disappeared.
all in all though, good problems to have. we lost 8 in our two-deep including specialists.