This is my last post on this topic, but apparently I have not been clear on my point - it's not just injuries that remove a player from a lineup; it could be any number of things. You don't know what is going to happen week to week, much less year to year. Thus, if two top (talent we can't pass up) running backs want to come here that warrant scholarships and we have as many scholarships available as we apparently do, you take them!
If we had unlimited scholarships I would agree with you. However, we only have 85 total (82 if we don't improve the APR) and about 28 (could be 25) this year. Outside of the RB position I would guess we still try to add 1-2 or 3 DT's, 2 DE's, a MLB, another OLB, 1-2 TE (if Hageman is moved to DE we probably want 2), 2 WR's, 1-2 S, 1-2 CB, and I'm sure we'll still add 1-2 on the OL. There is some flexibility in that but if we load up too much on change of pace RB's it leaves us short at other positions.
It doesn't appear that we need a Quarterback next year (Weber, Grey, and Alipate return), but we've already recruited one (Parrish). Since Weber was a freshman starter at the time, and we had Clint Brewster coming, should we not have recruited M. Grey? If we hadn't, we'd be looking at a true freshman as our number 2 QB right now.
Most teams try to recruit one elite QB prospect every year, not 2, not 3, but 1. Your argument actually illustrates my point that coaches target # of scholarships and types of players at positions. The reason for taking more than 1 QB in a class is usually because someone transfers (Devlin transferred from PSU so they have Jones & Bolden committed in this class; Michigan took Forcier & Robinson in '09 because Mallett transferred). There is never a reason for taking less than 1 or you end up like PSU with a freshman (Newsome) backing up your senior QB if somebody transfers.
It wouldn't appear that we need more O linemen for next year given what we have coming back and the freshmen that are already here, but we've already recruited three more and are trying to get a certain one other (I think he plays for a private school in St. Paul). Or, since we already have these other linemen, should we not recruit this other certain person? Of course you do! Talent is talent and you take it when you can get it.
OL is a position you redshirt players and expect them to ride the bench for a few years. Considering we have a combined 2 OL on campus from our '08 & '09 classes we have a huge need in this class for more OL which is why we have Gjere, Lenkiwicz, Epping, and Eggen already committed and they are still recruiting more OL not named Seantrel which indicates we haven't filled our OL needs.
Besides that Seantrel is different than Grant or Huff. Everybody in the country has a spot for Seantrel if he is willing to go to their school.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the Gophers did not "pass" on Ward because he was a smallish back like Whaley or Bennett, but rather because it didn't appear he would qualify, isn't that right?
I don't know the exact reason we passed on Ward but I know that we did so after we had knowledge that he had a qualifying test score.
And Bennett is not a smallish back; 5-9 210 lbs is a good sized back that can carry the ball 20 times per game.
I hope Whaley turns out great, but c'mon - with as many schollies we have, I think we would make room for another great running back (if in fact the coaches believe both these guys are great) if that guy wanted to come here. And before we anoint Whaley as being someone who provides a whole new dynamic to the offense, can we at least see it in a game (much less a season)?
I'm not annointing Whaley as anything. He is interesting because he is small but runs with a style that is much more physical than your average smallish RB. I don't know what to expect from him.
My whole statement is simply saying that to execute a downhill running game teams generally target running backs that are 5-9 to 6-2 and have the frame to carry 205-225...Barber, Maroney, Russell all fit that description.
Grant and Huff are smaller backs that work well in space and have a style more consistent with a Reggie Bush. A good coordinator will find ways to use that type of player to put pressure on a defense and get the most out of him but generally they aren't every down backs in a downhill offense. If Dunbar was our coordinator my opinion on taking both would be different.
If you disagree with my philosophy that is fine with me but only time will tell who the coaches agree with (if we're lucky). I really do understand where you're coming from and I don't completely disagree but I know there are other backs that we are talking to that better fit what our coaches want to do with the offense.
Sorry that ended up being so long but I thought was a good discussion.
