How would you build your team? Scholarships/Depth

[MuskogeeHogFan]

We often debate what is perceived to be the proper amount of depth at each position. For instance, we worry about whether we will retain one of two of our starting RB's after this season or whether we might lose both, as well as another Senior RB, leaving us thin from an experience standpoint.

Another topic of discussion is how thin we seem to be in terms of depth at LB.

Here is an example of how scholarships might be distributed across the board. I'm not saying that this is THE successful template to follow because every staff has their opinions of how and where they want to spend scholarships. The first question is, overall how would you structure the scholarship players at every position? Keep in mind these numbers only represent scholarship players, not including Preferred Walk-Ons or regular Walk-Ons.

This scenario would leave a staff with 9 "opportunity" scholarships to be used for unplanned players that you might be able to add or to be awarded to walk-ons. An additional question, how would you invest those other 9 scholarships?

Position            # of Starters          Scholarship Players
  QB                         1                                4
  RB                         2                                6
  WR                        2                                6
  TE                         2                                6
  OL                         5                               15
   K                          1                                2
  Off                                                          39
         
  DE                          2                               7
  DT                          2                               7
  LB                          3                               9
  CB                          2                               6
   S                           2                               6
   P                           1                               2
  Def                                                         37
         
Total                                                        76

[lefty08]

As far as not having experienced depth, it seems RB is one of the easiest positions to plug and play

[MuskogeeHogFan]

As far as not having experienced depth, it seems RB is one of the easiest positions to plug and play

Maybe, maybe not, the question is, how would you allocate scholarships by position across the board to build successfully deep and rotating units, instead of having to rebuild at times?

[cubsfan5150]

Without going into a long post because I'm on a phone and I'm too lazy, offensive and defensive lines are the most important positions in football IMO, and I would put a ton of resources into building them.

[31to6]

I would recruit 15 2* RBs a year and convert them to the other positions.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

+2 OL
+2 DL
+1 LB
+1 DB  Safety or CB
+1 WR/TE
+2 Wildcards based on need or just how fortunate we were that some kid changed his mind to come   
      here.   This category would in fact, be the highest priority.

This of course would be based on the idea that your above numbers were solid at that given time, and there wasn't a need in one or more areas based on mis-evaluation, etc.

[Lake City Hog]

1st, I think that you should include a scholarship Deep Snapper. This is really a critical position and should be treated that way.
I would increase the receivers by 2 because even in a run based offense there will be times when we will see 3 and even 4 wide opportunities.

31-6 is somewhat correct in that we might should recruit a "body type" that translates well into 2 or 3 positions. It appears that BB thinks that way with Tight Ends.

[ChicoHog]

Muskogee-are you including TEs in the OL group or WR group?  6 WRs seem about right, maybe one or two short, but if you include TE's then we need to add about 4 more, maybe 5 in BB scheme.  That takes up half your extra 9 scholarships right there.  Agree with the long snapper assessment.  Also I think one punter on scholly is ok although sometimes you have a good walkon who develops into a scholly.   

[Arkansas WR]

Muskogee I agree with all of your numbers except I would take one each off of DE and DT. To make the numbers 6 DE's and 6 DT's. I'd take those 2 scholarships and put them toward receiver.  To make WR 8 scholarship players. WR has the possibility of using up to 5 players at once on the field. There will almost always be only 2 DE's on the field at one time.

[Arkansas WR]

Muskogee-are you including TEs in the OL group or WR group?  6 WRs seem about right, maybe one or two short, but if you include TE's then we need to add about 4 more, maybe 5 in BB scheme.  That takes up half your extra 9 scholarships right there.  Agree with the long snapper assessment.  Also I think one punter on scholly is ok although sometimes you have a good walkon who develops into a scholly.   

He has TE's included on the offensive side he just accidentally put DE

[bennyl08]

Pos        #starters         total depth
qb             1                     4
rb              1                     6
fb              1                     2
wr              3                     10
te              1                     5
ot              2                      7
og             2                     7
c               1                     3   

de             2                    8
dt             2                     7
lb              3                    9
cb            2                      7
s              2                      6

k              1                      2
p             1                       1
ls             1                       1

total       28                     85

[MuskogeeHogFan]

He has TE's included on the offensive side he just accidentally put DE

Yup, clerical error, should have been TE not DE.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

1st, I think that you should include a scholarship Deep Snapper. This is really a critical position and should be treated that way.
I would increase the receivers by 2 because even in a run based offense there will be times when we will see 3 and even 4 wide opportunities.

31-6 is somewhat correct in that we might should recruit a "body type" that translates well into 2 or 3 positions. It appears that BB thinks that way with Tight Ends.

I understand and that is often the case these days. I guess I overlooked that because I not only played a starting position on the O-Line, but performed the short and long snapping duties as well and frankly, I think a lot of teams and perhaps players at the HS level overlook being proficient at both. There isn't any reason whatsoever that a good O-Lineman can't be very good at snapping either long, short or both. It adds value to you as a prospect and just because you are a bigger guy doesn't mean you can't be flexible enough to be good at both. I would encourage bigger O-Linemen to invest the time to become a better long snapper, especially if you exhibit higher end speed for an O-Lineman.

But on the other hand, the philosophy of a lot of ST's coaches is that you want your two WR's (that are supposed to turn everything back up inside and deny the sideline to the return) and the Center to be the first three down on a punt to force the punt return into other lanes, that you hope you have covered, so there is that philosophy as well.

But yeah, most commit at least one scholarship to a long snapper and I didn't include that in my numbers.

[Lake City Hog]

With the game trending more towards the pass/spread should we look for a few safety types that can play a hybrid LB/Safety spot? how would that affect the numbers?

Muskee, not trying to pick at you, just what I think.

I also think that building a walkon/scholarship program is a MAJOR factor in building depth for the future. Take a guy with the core values and the right body type, bring him in as a WO and take that 2 years to build him into a scholarship player to help with the normal attrition that scholarships just cannot cover.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

With the game trending more towards the pass/spread should we look for a few safety types that can play a hybrid LB/Safety spot? how would that affect the numbers?

Muskee, not trying to pick at you, just what I think.

I also think that building a walkon/scholarship program is a MAJOR factor in building depth for the future. Take a guy with the core values and the right body type, bring him in as a WO and take that 2 years to build him into a scholarship player to help with the normal attrition that scholarships just cannot cover.

Not at all. All opinions are welcomed here, that is why I asked how you would build your team in terms of depth at certain positions and scholarships offered. I'm trying to get everyone to think about how you would build a team with Bielema's philosophy so that you can eventually re-load every year, as opposed to having to re-build. That's the key to long term and ongoing success. I think Bielema has a plan in place, I am just asking for everyone else's opinions.

[PORKULATOR]

No better than the NCAA does at policing/punishing the scoundrels, I think I'd cheat. Win one by cheating , then fix my legacy by winning one honest. Mind you, with players I recruited after being at the top from cheating.
I think you can get to 2 championships in 3-4 years that way. Ask Gus... Oh wait, he forgot to quit cheating.

[31to6]

31-6 is somewhat correct in that we might should recruit a "body type" that translates well into 2 or 3 positions. It appears that BB thinks that way with Tight Ends.

I was being sarcastic and slamming MOTHO's recruiting strategy, but oh well

[MuskogeeHogFan]

+2 OL
+2 DL
+1 LB
+1 DB  Safety or CB
+1 WR/TE
+2 Wildcards based on need or just how fortunate we were that some kid changed his mind to come   
      here.   This category would in fact, be the highest priority.

This of course would be based on the idea that your above numbers were solid at that given time, and there wasn't a need in one or more areas based on mis-evaluation, etc.

I think you have to retain at least a couple of schollies to award to walk-ons. I can't remember how many walk-ons that Bielema has awarded with scholarships since he has been here, but hasn't been at least a couple (on average) each year?

[hawginbigd1]

We often debate what is perceived to be the proper amount of depth at each position. For instance, we worry about whether we will retain one of two of our starting RB's after this season or whether we might lose both, as well as another Senior RB, leaving us thin from an experience standpoint.

Another topic of discussion is how thin we seem to be in terms of depth at LB.

Here is an example of how scholarships might be distributed across the board. I'm not saying that this is THE successful template to follow because every staff has their opinions of how and where they want to spend scholarships. The first question is, overall how would you structure the scholarship players at every position? Keep in mind these numbers only represent scholarship players, not including Preferred Walk-Ons or regular Walk-Ons.

This scenario would leave a staff with 9 "opportunity" scholarships to be used for unplanned players that you might be able to add or to be awarded to walk-ons. An additional question, how would you invest those other 9 scholarships?

Position            # of Starters          Scholarship Players
  QB                         1                                4
  RB                         2                                6
  WR                        2                                6
  TE                         2                                6
  OL                         5                               15
   K                          1                                2
  Off                                                          39
         
  DE                          2                               7
  DT                          2                               7
  LB                          3                               9
  CB                          2                               6
   S                           2                               6
   P                           1                               2
  Def                                                         37
         
Total                                                        76

Pretty close to how i would look at it. i would add at least 2 more WR's. I am not sure if FB is in your RB numbers but you need a minimum of 2, so i would want a total of 7. So that looks like 3 additional schollies burned leaving 6, and those would go to the best players available regardless of position.

[MJ2]

Minimum 15 instaters per year.
5 from TX
3 from LA
2 from other surrounding states.

[wholehog92]

Position            # of Starters          Scholarship Players
  QB                         1                                4
  RB                         2                                5
  WR                        2                                7
  TE                         2                                8
  OL                         5                               15
   K                          1                                1
  Off                                                          40
         
  DE                          2                               8
  DT                          2                               10
  LB                          3                               11
  CB                          2                               6
   S                           2                               6
   P                           1                               1
  Def                                                         42
         
Total                                                        82

Leave me 3 "opportunity schollys".  I would use those to hold spots for high end recruited talent that kept me in the dark until signing day.  If those went unused, I would award the remaining ones to the walk ons that improved the team the most.  It is my opinion, it makes it more difficult to run a successful SEC program with 9 scholarship positions up for grabs.

I would recruit 15 2* RBs a year and convert them to the other positions.

Chuckles.  Nicely done.

[hogsanity]

Minimum 15 instaters per year.
5 from TX
3 from LA
2 from other surrounding states.

WHY? What if there are not 15 SEC caliber players in state? This is hometownheroitis at it's worst. You sign the best players you can find, REGARDLESS of what state they are from.

[Biggus Piggus]

Position            # of Starters          Scholarship Players
  QB                         1                                4
  RB                         2                                6
  WR                        2                                6
  TE                         2                                6
  OL                         5                               15
   K                          1                                2
  Off                                                          39
         
  DE                          2                               7
  DT                          2                               7
  LB                          3                               9
  CB                          2                               6
   S                           2                               6
   P                           1                               2
  Def                                                         37
         
Total                                                        76

Six scholarship wide receivers would ensure that Arkansas is "Running Back U" and nothing more. Six scholarship WRs and six TEs? That maybe should be more like nine wide receivers and four or five tight ends.

Six scholarship running backs is hard to pull off, too, unless you have a couple of guys parked with injuries all the time.

Two scholarship kickers and punters is really heavy on that side these days. It's really hard to carry that much dead weight. I can understand why you might want to do that if you're afraid of the team's ability to coach those positions. Otherwise, you can't afford to give scholarships to people who won't start at punter/kicker. At least that's what you will hear from major college coaches.

Positions that require the most development + have the lowest hit rates deserve the biggest ratio of scholarships to starting positions.

You need five quarterbacks, because you're one injury away from having only four, then one transfer or washout away from having only three. They need to be slotted in different roles, not piled up all about the same age/experience level, in a winner take all battle. The worst outcome is when you have players who expect to start but might never have a chance to do so. That's when you are likely to have wasted a bunch of time and resources on 'em.

Twelve scholarships allocated to the defensive secondary is probably a shade light. Fourteen Dlinemen also is a bit light for a 4-3 defense.

If you give one scholarship to a kicker and one to a punter, you are left with 83 scholarships to cover 22 starting positions. That is a 3.8:1 ratio. Some positions need more than ~4:1, some less.

If you sign a great running back, you want to be able to work him in ASAP and not have him parked behind a long line. Likewise, you don't want a bunch of wasted talent on the bench. A 6:1 ratio is really high.

At QB it will always be a juggle between creating a developmental pipeline and putting the best talent on the field. Not sure the idea number of scholarship QBs will stay the same over time. Adjust depending on the available players.

On the Oline you don't need five centers, because one guy might start for several years. Guards are easier to come by than tackles. Need more tackles in the pipeline than guards, especially when you start signing tackles who might go pro early.

If you can recruit great wide receivers, you can carry fewer on scholarship. Otherwise, gotta develop more of them.

[Biggus Piggus]

Minimum 15 instaters per year.
5 from TX
3 from LA
2 from other surrounding states.

No. Fifteen in state per year? Most years Arkansas does not produce 15 FBS-worthy players.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Six scholarship wide receivers would ensure that Arkansas is "Running Back U" and nothing more. Six scholarship WRs and six TEs? That maybe should be more like nine wide receivers and four or five tight ends.

Six scholarship running backs is hard to pull off, too, unless you have a couple of guys parked with injuries all the time.

Two scholarship kickers and punters is really heavy on that side these days. It's really hard to carry that much dead weight. I can understand why you might want to do that if you're afraid of the team's ability to coach those positions. Otherwise, you can't afford to give scholarships to people who won't start at punter/kicker. At least that's what you will hear from major college coaches.

Positions that require the most development + have the lowest hit rates deserve the biggest ratio of scholarships to starting positions.

You need five quarterbacks, because you're one injury away from having only four, then one transfer or washout away from having only three. They need to be slotted in different roles, not piled up all about the same age/experience level, in a winner take all battle. The worst outcome is when you have players who expect to start but might never have a chance to do so. That's when you are likely to have wasted a bunch of time and resources on 'em.

Twelve scholarships allocated to the defensive secondary is probably a shade light. Fourteen Dlinemen also is a bit light for a 4-3 defense.

If you give one scholarship to a kicker and one to a punter, you are left with 83 scholarships to cover 22 starting positions. That is a 3.8:1 ratio. Some positions need more than ~4:1, some less.

If you sign a great running back, you want to be able to work him in ASAP and not have him parked behind a long line. Likewise, you don't want a bunch of wasted talent on the bench. A 6:1 ratio is really high.

At QB it will always be a juggle between creating a developmental pipeline and putting the best talent on the field. Not sure the idea number of scholarship QBs will stay the same over time. Adjust depending on the available players.

On the Oline you don't need five centers, because one guy might start for several years. Guards are easier to come by than tackles. Need more tackles in the pipeline than guards, especially when you start signing tackles who might go pro early.

If you can recruit great wide receivers, you can carry fewer on scholarship. Otherwise, gotta develop more of them.

Well this is exactly why I asked, "how would you build your team?"

So you are saying it should look more like this?

QB            5
RB            4
WR           9
TE             5
OL         15-18?
K               1
OFF        39-42?

DE              8
DT              8
LB              9
CB              8
S                8
P                0
DEF            41

Total         80-83 with anywhere from 2 to 5 held to be awarded elsewhere, walk-ons and the like?

Adjust the numbers if I misunderstood what you were saying Biggus.

[wholehog92]

Minimum 15 instaters per year.
5 from TX
3 from LA
2 from other surrounding states.

Are you building a roster for Ark tech or Ark St?

[ballz2thewall]

OL.DL.

every year.

[ArkansasI]

I don't think there is an exact equation for filling a roster.  But, realizing the point of the inquiry, here's my best bet:

QB          5
RB          6
WR         8
TE          6
OL         17
Total OFF       42

DE          8
DT          7
LB          9
CB          8
S            7
Total DEF       39

K           2
P           1
DS         1
Total SPECS     4

[MuskogeeHogFan]

And while we are at it, is anyone privy to who, by the roster, is actually on scholarship and who isn't so we can compare how the team is structured compared to our opinions?

And yeah, the starters and some of the 2 deep is the easy part, I'm really talking about those that might be less obvious.

[wholehog92]

And while we are at it, is anyone privy to who, by the roster, is actually on scholarship and who isn't so we can compare how the team is structured compared to our opinions?

And yeah, the starters and some of the 2 deep is the easy part, I'm really talking about those that might be less obvious.

QB          B. Allen Sr,A. Allen RS Soph, Peavey RS FR, Ty Storey True FR, Allison RS Fr (guessing at 4+ 1 WO)
RB          Williams Sr, Collins Jr, Day Soph, D. Evans RS Soph, Jones Rs Soph, McPherson RS FR (guessing at 3+ 2 WO)
WR         Murad Jr, Rossi Soph, Thurman Jr , Hawkins Jr, Hollister Jr, Robinson Soph, Antwine RS Soph, Morgan Jr, Saunders Jr, Cornelius Soph, Hatcher Sr, Mitchell RS Soph, Dominique Reed Juco, La'michael Pettway True FR, Deon Stewart True Fr  (guessing 10+5 WO)
TE          Voelzke Sr, Sprinkle Jr, Henry Jr, Kraus Soph, Duncan RS soph, CJ O'Grady True FR, Austin Cantrell True FR, Will Gragg True FR (guessing 7+1 WO)
OL         guessing 13 + 3 WO (not listing all those)


DE          Winston Jr, Lewis Jr, Beanum RS soph, Brown RS fresh, Hall RS FR , TJ Smith True FR, Jeremiah Ledbetter Juco, Daytrieon Dean True FR, Jamario Bell True FR (guessing 9)
DT          Hodge RS SR, Johnson Jr, Wise Jr , Marks RS Soph, Jackson soph, Watts RS Fr, Hjalte Froholdt True FR (guessing 6+1 WO)
LB          Williams Jr, Ellis Jr Jr, Thomas-Smith RS Soph, Hackett Soph, Harris Soph, Eugene soph, Derrick Graham True FR, Kendrick Jackson True FR (guessing 7+1 WO keeping in mind Hackett was planned here would make it 8+1)
CB  & S I'm not sure who is broken up by safety and CB yet. but I would guess the DB group at 11+ 6 WOs.

If I'm right,
QB          4
RB          3
WR        10
TE          7
OL         13
Total OFF       37

DE          9
DT          6
LB          7
CB & S    11
Total DEF       33

Plus ST 3 for a total of 73

[bennyl08]

And while we are at it, is anyone privy to who, by the roster, is actually on scholarship and who isn't so we can compare how the team is structured compared to our opinions?

And yeah, the starters and some of the 2 deep is the easy part, I'm really talking about those that might be less obvious.

QB: 4 (BA, AA, RP, TS)
RB: 4(+1 FR) + 1 WO (Williams, Collins, Evans, Day, RW3)
FB: 2 + 2 WO (Walker, Colquitt)
WR: 7(+2) + 3 WO (Hatcher, Hawkins, Hollister, Cornelius, Robinson, Morgan, Mitchell, Reed, Pettaway, Stewart)
TE: 5(+2 FR) + 1 (Voelzke, Henry, Sprinkle, Gragg, Krauss, O'Grady, Cantrell) (Antwine has switched from WR to TE? )
OL: 12(+1) + 2 (Allen, Beck, Danen, Kirk, Koeh, Merrick, Ragnow, Rogers, Skip, Smoth, Tret, Wallace, Jackson)

DL: 15(+2) + 1 (Bean, Boyd, Dean, Fro, Hall, Hodge, Jack, John, Led, Lewis, Loewen, Marks, Watts, Winst, Wise, Bell, Smith).
LB: 4(+3) + 3 (Ellis, Eugene, Hackett, Williams, Greenlaw, Graham, Jackson).
DB: 9(+3) + 5 (Gaines, Coley, Collins, Dean, Floyd, Liddell, McKinney, Ramirez, Toliver, Dalton, Pulley, Sykes)

K: 1 + 2 WO (Hedlund)
P: 0 + 1 WO
LS: 0(+1) + 2 WO (Johnson)

[MuskogeeHogFan]

QB: 4 (BA, AA, RP, TS)
RB: 4(+1 FR) + 1 WO (Williams, Collins, Evans, Day, RW3)
FB: 2 + 2 WO (Walker, Colquitt)
WR: 7(+2) + 3 WO (Hatcher, Hawkins, Hollister, Cornelius, Robinson, Morgan, Mitchell, Reed, Pettaway, Stewart)
TE: 5(+2 FR) + 1 (Voelzke, Henry, Sprinkle, Gragg, Krauss, O'Grady, Cantrell) (Antwine has switched from WR to TE? )
OL: 12(+1) + 2 (Allen, Beck, Danen, Kirk, Koeh, Merrick, Ragnow, Rogers, Skip, Smoth, Tret, Wallace, Jackson)

DL: 15(+2) + 1 (Bean, Boyd, Dean, Fro, Hall, Hodge, Jack, John, Led, Lewis, Loewen, Marks, Watts, Winst, Wise, Bell, Smith).
LB: 4(+3) + 3 (Ellis, Eugene, Hackett, Williams, Greenlaw, Graham, Jackson).
DB: 9(+3) + 5 (Gaines, Coley, Collins, Dean, Floyd, Liddell, McKinney, Ramirez, Toliver, Dalton, Pulley, Sykes)

K: 1 + 2 WO (Hedlund)
P: 0 + 1 WO
LS: 0(+1) + 2 WO (Johnson)

Is this a guess, or confirmed?

[bennyl08]

Pos     Actual    MHF     benny      whole hog    ArkansasI   Biggus?
qb        4         4           4               4                5               5
rb/fb     4/2     6          6/2             5                6              4
wr        10       6           10             7                 8              9
te        7         6           5               8                6                5
ol        13        15        17             15              17             15-18

dl        17       14        15              18              15               16
lb       7         9           9               11               9                 9
db       12      12         13              12               15              16

k        1        2           2                 1                 2                1
p        1        2            1               1                1                   1
ls        0?       0          1                0                 1                 0
   
total   78?       76       85              82              85               81-84

[bennyl08]

Is this a guess, or confirmed?

Hall, voelzke, and colloquitt are confirmed scholly guys

I didn't reference everybody that was a walk-on though. I basically googled arkansas walk-on scholarships, saw the links from the past few years and specifically googled a few other guys like the LS's and kickers and such.

I didn't check if any of our previously scholar guys had theirs removed. So a guy like Boyd I am assuming is still scholly or that Colquitt wasn't upgraded from walk-on to scholarship for just one year.

So, it is a researched guess?

[bennyl08]

QB: everybody seems to have a similar opinion there.

RB: Some of the debate is clouded by posters distinguishing fullbacks or not. I clearly am on the high end with 8 combined. Though, I also feel we are a bit shallow at RB depth.

WR: Numbers here vary greatly. MHF and wholehog definitely lowball the number relative to what the coaches actually have. I assumed I highballed relative to the actual roster as in my head I pictured a slightly different offense than we have seen.

TE: Everybody was low except wholehog here who was actually high. IMO, I think we are a bit extra-loaded at TE this year, but we are losing 1, possibly 2 TE's this year and each new guy has a very different skill set.

OL: Even the coaches would say we are short on depth here, so the prescribed rosters all being larger than the actual number seems reasonable.

DL: A pretty good spread above and below actual number, though mostly slightly below. Again, I think we would all agree that we have a whole, whole lot of depth at DL right now. Part of that is likely due to the 4 DE's Petrino left us with in one class of Johnson, Wise Jr. Winston, and Lewis.

LB: Again, pretty much anybody would agree we are shallow at this position with everybody highballing the actual number. Also, 4/5 have 9 LB'ers down with 80% agreement.

DB: Ark1 and BP would appear to favor more players here while MHF, benny, and WH are all in app agreement with the actual values.

ST: Not much love for the LS here, only two people thought they were worth a scholly. MHF is the only one to put down 4 kicking specialists, most only had two with a couple 3's. Can't speak for anybody else, but my reasoning on 2 kickers and 1 punter is injury related. Kickers aren't likely to get injured so depth is not a huge concern. However, a kicker can often double as a punter (see Hocker) a bit more than a punter doubling as a kicker. Plus, kicking IMO is a bit more important than punting, hence, 2 K and 1 P.

Note: Not everybody is numbering for a full allotment of scholarships. Hence, that must be kept in mind when comparing roster sizes.

[wholehog92]

Pretty cool thread

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Pos     Actual    MHF     benny      whole hog    ArkansasI   Biggus?
qb        4         4           4               4                5               5
rb/fb     4/2     6          6/2             5                6              4
wr        10       6           10             7                 8              9
te        7         6           5               8                6                5
ol        13        15        17             15              17             15-18

dl        17       14        15              18              15               16
lb       7         9           9               11               9                 9
db       12      12         13              12               15              16

k        1        2           2                 1                 2                1
p        1        2            1               1                1                   1
ls        0?       0          1                0                 1                 0
   
total   78?       76       85              82              85               81-84

Got to add a LS for a scholarship. Pretty important. My bad for excluding. Worth their money in gold if accurate. Can't believe I overlooked that but I do believe that a regular O-Lineman can assume those responsibilities and at the same time, add depth to the O-Line.

[bennyl08]

Got to add a LS for a scholarship. Pretty important. My bad for excluding. Worth their money in gold if accurate. Can't believe I overlooked that but I do believe that a regular O-Lineman can assume those responsibilities and at the same time, add depth to the O-Line.

It is certainly possible and if I were an OL player, particularly a center, I'd want that skill to at least be on my resume. However, looking at

https://longsnap.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/2014-nfl-final.pdf

The heaviest LS in the NFL is 270 pounds with the majority being under 250. It would appear as though coaches just aren't looking for that and instead as you described earlier want somebody who is a bit more mobile (perhaps mobile enough to catch td passes from an offensive guard...).

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It is certainly possible and if I were an OL player, particularly a center, I'd want that skill to at least be on my resume. However, looking at

https://longsnap.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/2014-nfl-final.pdf

The heaviest LS in the NFL is 270 pounds with the majority being under 250. It would appear as though coaches just aren't looking for that and instead as you described earlier want somebody who is a bit more mobile (perhaps mobile enough to catch td passes from an offensive guard...).

Having been a long/short snapper, along with playing O-Line, I know what a guy is capable of doing. You don't have to be small, you just have to be flexible enough to have enough "bend" at the hips and enough dedicated focus to make an accurate snap. Problem is, most bigger kids tend to be directed away from this these days thinking that they only need to be able to move, block pass pro and get to the second level in run blocking. If you can do all of the above you become infinitely more valuable, but you see few working towards proficiency in all three aspects these days.

[Dominicanhog]

 Same way I'd build a college or Pro Team..... recruit/draft 1/2 the team of OL, DL, TE & LB, the rest is the best available athlete at any of those other positions ... in college you take 1 QB  a year.

[Torqued pork]

It might be boring, but I would make depth on both lines priority #1 every year. Teams who are well above average in the trenches are always tough to beat and almost never get embarrassed.

[Biggus Piggus]

If you have watched Alabama over the years, they have recruited some players who were considered to be viable at two different positions. Say, running back / defensive back, or RB/LB. For them it's usually an offense vs. defense option. That's a lot better in my view than recruiting a TE who might become an Olineman. Look at Jason Peters at Arkansas. He had the athletic ability to play DE, moved to TE, and then became an all-pro OT. Alabama isn't recruiting tweeners so much as great athletes who have options. This seems smart.

[wholehog92]

Got to add a LS for a scholarship. Pretty important. My bad for excluding. Worth their money in gold if accurate. Can't believe I overlooked that but I do believe that a regular O-Lineman can assume those responsibilities and at the same time, add depth to the O-Line.

If I were a Tight End or linebacker trying to make an NFL squad, it would be a great way to distinguish myself.  Mobile enough to be an actual coverage guy on punts with actual tackling ability as a linebacker, would be a great target on a trick play as TE and should be able to block for PATs.

[nwahogfan1]

Pos        #starters         total depth
qb             1                     4
rb              1                     6
fb              1                     2
wr              3                     10
te              1                     5
ot              2                      7
og             2                     7
c               1                     3   

de             2                    8
dt             2                     7
lb              3                    9
cb            2                      7
s              2                      6

k              1                      2
p             1                       1
ls             1                       1

total       28                     85
[/quote

Pos        #starters         total depth
qb             1                     4
rb              1                     6
fb              1                     2
wr              3                     10
te              1                     5
ot              2                      7
og             2                     7
c               1                     3   

de             2                    8
dt             2                     7
lb              3                    9
cb            2                      7
s              2                      6

k              1                      2
p             1                       1
ls             1                       1

total       28                     85

Your numbers look about right. 

[GoHogs1091]

Here is how I would have a roster.

QBs   5
RBs   5
WRs  7
TEs   4 (really no reason to have more than 4 TEs, no matter what type of Offense is being utilized)
OTs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
OGs  9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
Cs     2

Total Offense   41

DEs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
DTs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
LBs   9
CBs   7
Safeties  7

Total Defense   41

Kickers 
2 Place Kickers
1 Punter

Total   85

Should be able to find a high quality Deep Snapper out of the above 82.

[ArkansasI]

Kind of interesting that a typical 53 man NFL roster might break down as follows:

QB          2
RB          4
WR         6
TE          3
OL          9
Total OFF       24

DL          9
LB          7
DB         10
Total DEF       26

K           1
P           1
DS         1
Total SPECS     3

Again, not a specific science to this - it could go a number of ways...  I think my offensive line assumption may be heavy and WRs (assuming they can tackle) are light.  Whatever the case, it is interesting to me that the defensive side of the ball, particularly the DBs, get numbers.  Makes sense because they are the chasers...

Just trying to add to the commentary.

[wholehog92]

Kind of interesting that a typical 53 man NFL roster might break down as follows:

QB          2
RB          4
WR         6
TE          3
OL          9
Total OFF       24

DL          9
LB          7
DB         10
Total DEF       26

K           1
P           1
DS         1
Total SPECS     3

Again, not a specific science to this - it could go a number of ways...  I think my offensive line assumption may be heavy and WRs (assuming they can tackle) are light.  Whatever the case, it is interesting to me that the defensive side of the ball, particularly the DBs, get numbers.  Makes sense because they are the chasers...

Just trying to add to the commentary.

NFL has a significant difference because the run 3-4.  You need to be able to two sets of #1s along the Dline, plus an injury reserve or two.  Nine works on their DL.  For the typical college team that can't find the DL talent to run a 3-4, a 4-3 is more common, so 8 front line and 3 reserves makes more sense.

Aside from that, people underestimate how tight those rosters are.  53 doesn't give any room at all to carry a development project on the roster.  You have to be productive.  They do have practice squads, but you are limited to two years.

[bennyl08]

NFL has a significant difference because the run 3-4.  You need to be able to two sets of #1s along the Dline, plus an injury reserve or two.  Nine works on their DL.  For the typical college team that can't find the DL talent to run a 3-4, a 4-3 is more common, so 8 front line and 3 reserves makes more sense.

Aside from that, people underestimate how tight those rosters are.  53 doesn't give any room at all to carry a development project on the roster.  You have to be productive.  They do have practice squads, but you are limited to two years.

Yeah, I remember trying to do a 53 roster for Arkansas thread a few seasons back and it was eye opening just how little room for error there is.

Here is how I would have a roster.

QBs   5
RBs   5
WRs  7 Only 7? You get 2 guys who just aren't that good and another gets banged up on the season, and not you generally only have one reserve WR for the year and have lost the ability to go to a 5 WR set)
TEs   4 (really no reason to have more than 4 TEs, no matter what type of Offense is being utilized) So, no room for redshirts then? One TE gets injured and suddenly you have every TE on your roster out on the field for a 3 TE formation. If you run our offense, 1 injury to a TE means that you always have a starter on the field.
OTs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
OGs  9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
Cs     2 20 on the OL seems like a bit much. Especially since there is very little depth on this roster at the "skill" positions.

Total Offense   41

DEs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
DTs   9 (with several of them being redshirted their Freshman season)
LBs   9
CBs   7
Safeties  7

Total Defense   41

Kickers 
2 Place Kickers
1 Punter

Total   85

Should be able to find a high quality Deep Snapper out of the above 82.

[bennyl08]

Yeah, I remember trying to do a 53 roster for Arkansas thread a few seasons back and it was eye opening just how little room for error there is.

Let's try that here.

QB: Brandon Allen, Ty Storey. This one is really tricky because you have to factor in time remaining. It is tempting for me to go with Austin over Brandon for that reason. There would unquestionably be a drop off this year in qb play, but with Brandon, that leaves next year having one RS freshmen in Ty and a true freshmen in Kelly. I think the Austin would still do a good job at qb this year and it makes next year look even better too; however, I'm banking on Ty living up to the hype so I will stick with the best qb available this year with BA.

RB: Collins, Williams, RW3
FB: Colquitt, Cantrell (H-back)
TE: Henry, Sprinkle, O'Grady
WR: Hatcher, Reed, Robinson, Cornelius, Stewart, Mitchell,
OT: Kirkland, Merrick, Skipper, Wallace
OG: Ragnow (can double as a C), Allen, Tretola, Jackson
C: Smothers, Rogers
(26)

DE: Wise Jr, Beanum, Smith, Winston, Ledbetter
DT: Jackson, Froholdt, Johnson, Marks, Dean OR Watts
LB: Ellis, Hacket, Eugene, Williams, Graham
CB: Toliver, Dean, Collins, Dalton, Pulley OR Floyd
S: Coley, Gaines, Liddel, Sykes
(24)

K: Hedlund
P: Johnson
LS: Emrich?

Total: 53.

Wow, that is tough. But, you do get to have up to 10 players on the practice squad.

PS: Austin Allen, Juan Day, Drew Morgan, Will Gragg, Watts or Dean, K. Jackson, Floyd OR Pulley, Bell, Sykes, Walker