2013 Prospect Discussion Thread

[hokiegrad]

The coaches obviously agree with you to an extent, as they don't seem to recruit QBs that aren't somewhat mobile. Obviously LT and Tyrod are mobile in different ways, though, so the scheme does have to change a bit to fit their different strengths. Bottom line, you don't leave LT at TE because the system would have to change a little from what you were running with Tyrod. Or not recruit Parker because he's not LT. There just aren't a whole lot of LTs out there...

 

[hokiegrad]

FWiW .. I think that Parker looked pretty good but I think that Jennings looked better.

Our coaches disagreed with you. Only time will tell, but I'll trust them on this.

 

[NickVT10]

I just think that recruiting a certain type of QB has its merits and it makes it easier, over the course of several years, to fine tune a playbook to play to the strengths of a QB. A smaller, quicker, shifty QB that probably lacks great vision will be more effective with a certain playbook. Where-as, a taller, more powerful, but quick enough QB, with great vision will be more effective in other types of plays. Our offensive staff is less than dynamic as it is imo. Giving them the extra burden of having to revamp the offensive playcalling every 3 or so years is too much. I know this is an overstatement but the way that it affects the entire offense (especially the OL) can be significant. And then you take a year or two for the offense to get REALLY comfortable again. LT and Tyrod are both great QBs but very different.

I agree with your premise but i dont think we have revamped from TT or LT. The plays are very much the same it just looks so different because LT stands back there in the pocket because he can see. TT had to shift around to find throwing lanes and that is hard for the OL to block for. Shifty or big and strong doesnt make a difference as much as long as they are athletic. Glennon would not be a good fit for this offense but TT, LT, Bucky, Parker, Motley, etc could all run the same offense we have in place. The coaches will always have to tweak some things but its the same offense, its not a revamp and it wont be unless we get a guy like Glennon but that doesn't seem to be in the near future.

 

[sparko]

Our coaches disagreed with you. Only time will tell, but I'll trust them on this.

I wouldn't say that. Parker just committed first. If Jennings had committed, we probably would've pulled the offer to Parker. If Parker was higher on the list, I think that it may have been because he can possible play other positions/is more versatile. Jennings looks to be a QB all the way (seems high on Oregon right now). I think that all THREE of them (Jennings, Parker, Hodges) are really good options.

Considering our QB recruiting as of late, it's kinda nice that we're pondering the challenges of having two great QB prospects in this class. It's a good problem to have.

 

[sparko]

I agree with your premise but i dont think we have revamped from TT or LT. The plays are very much the same it just looks so different because LT stands back there in the pocket because he can see. TT had to shift around to find throwing lanes and that is hard for the OL to block for. Shifty or big and strong doesnt make a difference as much as long as they are athletic. Glennon would not be a good fit for this offense but TT, LT, Bucky, Parker, Motley, etc could all run the same offense we have in place. The coaches will always have to tweak some things but its the same offense, its not a revamp and it wont be unless we get a guy like Glennon but that doesn't seem to be in the near future.

Maybe they are the same but they do look a lot different. And that's what I was saying earlier about how much different it is for the OL to protect a guy like Tyrod and a guy like LT. For LT, give him a pocket and hold 'em off. For Tyrod, you're constantly trying to figure out where the hell HE was so you can try to stay in front. Considering our overall average/below-average recruiting .. damn, we just about always get a good one at the right time. Hopefully this recruiting will be no different.

 

[hokiegrad]

I wouldn't say that. Parker just committed first. If Jennings had committed, we probably would've pulled the offer to Parker. If Parker was higher on the list, I think that it may have been because he can possible play other positions/is more versatile. Jennings looks to be a QB all the way (seems high on Oregon right now). I think that all THREE of them (Jennings, Parker, Hodges) are really good options.

Considering our QB recruiting as of late, it's kinda nice that we're pondering the challenges of having two great QB prospects in this class. It's a good problem to have.

This was discussed previously...

Originally Posted by Forty_Sixand2
1. Jennings
2. Parker
3. Cutler

However Parker had more upside as an athlete so he was the second guy that we wanted if we got Bucky. We were going to get one of Hodges/Jennings and one of Parker/Cutler. We got the top of both pairs that we wanted.

So you're exactly right... they wanted Jennings if we missed Bucky, but we got Bucky so they wanted Parker next because of his versatility/athleticism.

 

[TagAndBrag]

Anyone else like Carlis Parker better than Bucky?

I won't say "better", but I'll say Parker's tape is impressive and a year older. If Bucky wasn't a stud, we wouldn't have burned Hackenburg and Burns just to make a point to him. They'll battle, and the winner will be our QB. Personally, I'm rooting for Bucky to earn it... I think it's best case scenario for us to have them both on the field at once. Parker projects to WR, and Bucky doesn't.

 

[Rocky]

I won't say "better", but I'll say Parker's tape is impressive and a year older. If Bucky wasn't a stud, we wouldn't have burned Hackenburg and Burns just to make a point to him. They'll battle, and the winner will be our QB. Personally, I'm rooting for Bucky to earn it... I think it's best case scenario for us to have them both on the field at once. Parker projects to WR, and Bucky doesn't.

I kinda agree. Would still like to see a wildcat package for Parker though.

Rationale: Every defense has to be ready to defend WRs, all sizes, and capabilities.

BUT, not all defenses react well when presented with something different, which Parker could/would be as a wildcat. The first time he breaks a run, they make a mental note.

The second time he comes in as a wildcat, panic sets into the D. Advantage, Offense, before the snap!!! WRs can't have that same mental effect, as a wildcat with legs like Parker, along with a deep ball threat. Safeties have to play honest, LBs are frozen until the wildcat decides.

IMO, it opens up the Defense in ways your primary QB, (without the same capablilties) could never do.

If Bucky can run like Parker, nevermind, lol.

 

[VTfoozball]

Jennings is a more polished QB than Hodges or Parker. He makes quicker reads, is more accurate, and is probably the best at throwing on the move of the 3. Parker is the best rusher. Hodges has got the size advantage. This is all based on highlight video whatever that is worth. Some on here say next to nothing. Right now none is much better than the others and I would be happy with any of the 3.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Jennings is a more polished QB than Hodges or Parker. He makes quicker reads, is more accurate, and is probably the best at throwing on the move of the 3. Parker is the best rusher. Hodges has got the size advantage. This is all based on highlight video whatever that is worth. Some on here say next to nothing. Right now none is much better than the others and I would be happy with any of the 3.

We are only taking two, and got the two we wanted most.

 

[VTfoozball]

Yeah I know I'm just saying Jennings is a player too. VT took care of the QB position in this class. My concerns are with other positions

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Yeah, though I think Jennings could be a great safety. I think we need another O Linemen and I really hope that we offer Tetlow this weekend. Any lineman with a BC offer and an offer from the former Wisconsin OC/OL coach is someone we should offer. Those guys know linemen!

 

[VTfoozball]

Yeah I noticed the BC offer too. So VT needs OL in a bad way and he's got some decent offers AND he's from Virginia but no VT offer? It's confusing but my prediction is that they will

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Yeah I noticed the BC offer too. So VT needs OL in a bad way and he's got some decent offers AND he's from Virginia but no VT offer? It's confusing but my prediction is that they will

They seem intent on only taking two this class and Pfaff and Osterloh were definitely 1 and 2. I think they are BSing us because our two projected starting tackles this year are seniors and backed up by nobody with any real expereice. I hope Shuman develops but I am not sure. I liked Goins but they sent him home for the summer. Acree.....no. Conte and Osterloh project to tackle but I see Pfaff and Taraschke more as guards (where we have depth). Tetlow is a pure tackle and what we really need. Maybe one of the guards will develop enough to pop outside (Gibson, Arkema).

 

[hokiegrad]

Tetlow has a better looking offer sheet than Pfaff or Osterloh (of course they've been locked up for over a month...) Anyone seen him in person?

We sure could use another piece or two for the OL, but with 2 tackles already committed for 2013 (plus Conte and Taraschke showing up in August) should they be more focused on guards now? E.g. Chung (who I'm assuming will slide inside to guard).

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Tetlow has a better looking offer sheet than Pfaff or Osterloh (of course they've been locked up for over a month...) Anyone seen him in person?

We sure could use another piece or two for the OL, but with 2 tackles already committed for 2013 (plus Conte and Taraschke showing up in August) should they be more focused on guards now? E.g. Chung (who I'm assuming will slide inside to guard).

I don't think that Pfaff or Taraschke are locks to stay at tackle.

 

[hokiegrad]

yeah, I saw you basically said that while I was typing. Interesting. In that case I would definitely like to see us pull in another tackle.

 

[HokieGhost]

I liked Goins but they sent him home for the summer.

I missed it...why was Goins sent home for the summer?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I have no idea.

 

[HokieGhost]

Hmmm.