Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > Sports > Fighting Illini Football

Early look at the 2013 Depth Chart

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old Jan 7, 2013, 01:38 PM   #401
Kramer116
Kramer116's Avatar
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by quhawks12 View Post
Wow...2007 and 2008 we had double digit washouts. That is unacceptable.
22/85 = 25.88% of the roster

That is not acceptable.

__________________
@TomCrean: I am doing great. I have been thinking about you alot since last weekend. A whole lot. How are you doing?

"I do want to address something. I understand there was an article written about Illinois basketball being put in it's place. I'm going to tell you what place it's in. It's in a great place. That's what place it's in.... So if anyone wants to know what place Illinois college hoops is in right now, it's in a great place. Not a good place. A great place" - JFG
Kramer116 is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 01:40 PM   #402
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by quhawks12 View Post
Wow...2007 and 2008 we had double digit washouts. That is unacceptable.
2009: 22 signees, 9 washouts
2010: 23 signees, 5 washouts (so far)
2011: 28 signees, 6 washouts (so far)

Zook's last two classes, with a new staff to help with evaluation, had fewer washouts but unfortunately also fewer good players. The 2011 class might well have over 10 washouts by the end of this spring.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:02 PM   #403
quhawks12
Location: Hamilton County, IN
Posts: 4,253
So far in the 2012 class we have 19 signees and 2 washouts.
quhawks12 is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:24 PM   #404
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
Sorry guys, but what do you mean by "washouts"? Just players that were kicked off/never made it to campus due to grades, etc?
Juice is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:26 PM   #405
quhawks12
Location: Hamilton County, IN
Posts: 4,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice View Post
Sorry guys, but what do you mean by "washouts"? Just players that were kicked off/never made it to campus due to grades, etc?
Exactly. Guys who never made it to campus (Jones/Kirby) or transferred before we even knew it (Fuller). Basically players who don't complete their eligibility and not because they left for the NFL.
quhawks12 is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:32 PM   #406
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by quhawks12 View Post
Exactly. Guys who never made it to campus (Jones/Kirby) or transferred before we even knew it (Fuller). Basically players who don't complete their eligibility and not because they left for the NFL.
Okay, right, thanks. Yeah Zook did a terrible job of thoroughly evaluating players that were borderline eligible/maybe not capable of getting past admissions which in the end led to his downfall here. Just horrible
Juice is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:33 PM   #407
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by quhawks12 View Post
Basically players who don't complete their eligibility and not because they left for the NFL.
That was also the criteria I used.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:35 PM   #408
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice View Post
Okay, right, thanks. Yeah Zook did a terrible job of thoroughly evaluating players that were borderline eligible/maybe not capable of getting past admissions which in the end led to his downfall here. Just horrible
Most didn't leave due to academics, though that was a problem in some classes. The bigger issue was that guys didn't fit athletically/personally, and/or weren't mentally ready to play college football.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:52 PM   #409
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhogday View Post
Most didn't leave due to academics, though that was a problem in some classes. The bigger issue was that guys didn't fit athletically/personally, and/or weren't mentally ready to play college football.
Agree.
Juice is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:01 PM   #410
Warriors1994
Posts: 2,068
I did not realize there were that many washouts. That is just ridiculous
Warriors1994 is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:08 PM   #411
I Hate Lemonier
I Hate Lemonier's Avatar
Posts: 3,136
Wash Outs happen at most schools, especially teams that are not traditional powers who are competing with the nation's elite for recruits. Zook had to take chances to significantly upgrade the talent level. Unfortunately Illinois is never going to be in the position to absorb a big number of washouts like Ohio St, Florida, Bama etc.

I stand by the original premise that the 2009 season had very little to do with recruiting misses

http://cfn.scout.com/2/874920.html

While not perfect, this is a depth chart that i think most coaches would feel pretty good about

Last edited by I Hate Lemonier; Jan 7, 2013 at 06:14 PM.
I Hate Lemonier is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:14 PM   #412
TexasIllini
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by quhawks12 View Post
Exactly. Guys who never made it to campus (Jones/Kirby) or transferred before we even knew it (Fuller). Basically players who don't complete their eligibility and not because they left for the NFL.
Does anyone know where Tarjarvis ended up transferring to?
TexasIllini is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 07:03 PM   #413
DrewD007
DrewD007's Avatar
Location: Swansea, IL
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Hate Lemonier View Post
Wash Outs happen at most schools, especially teams that are not traditional powers who are competing with the nation's elite for recruits. Zook had to take chances to significantly upgrade the talent level. Unfortunately Illinois is never going to be in the position to absorb a big number of washouts like Ohio St, Florida, Bama etc.

I stand by the original premise that the 2009 season had very little to do with recruiting misses

http://cfn.scout.com/2/874920.html

While not perfect, this is a depth chart that i think most coaches would feel pretty good about
That secondary was awful, LBs weak (especially once Martez got hurt), Liuget lone bright spot on D-line.

What surprised me most about that year was the offense. I thought even though the defense would be bad, the offense would be able to out score most teams, but it was pretty awful too. Maybe due to the pack of mediocre RBs (until Mikel emerged in the 2nd half).
DrewD007 is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 07:12 PM   #414
I Hate Lemonier
I Hate Lemonier's Avatar
Posts: 3,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewD007 View Post
That secondary was awful, LBs weak (especially once Martez got hurt), Liuget lone bright spot on D-line.

What surprised me most about that year was the offense. I thought even though the defense would be bad, the offense would be able to out score most teams, but it was pretty awful too. Maybe due to the pack of mediocre RBs (until Mikel emerged in the 2nd half).
Corners were good but i agree the safeties were bad. Bellamy didnt bounce back until VK.

Offense was awful because of Schultz. It should have been lethal

We were 3rd in the Big 10 in rushing yards and led conference in ypc. Both Leshoure and Ford averaged over 6 yards per carry. Should have been more than enough to open up passing for Benn etal

Last edited by I Hate Lemonier; Jan 7, 2013 at 07:22 PM.
I Hate Lemonier is offline
Old Jan 7, 2013, 08:04 PM   #415
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Hate Lemonier View Post
Wash Outs happen at most schools, especially teams that are not traditional powers who are competing with the nation's elite for recruits. Zook had to take chances to significantly upgrade the talent level. Unfortunately Illinois is never going to be in the position to absorb a big number of washouts like Ohio St, Florida, Bama etc.

I stand by the original premise that the 2009 season had very little to do with recruiting misses

http://cfn.scout.com/2/874920.html

While not perfect, this is a depth chart that i think most coaches would feel pretty good about
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewD007 View Post
That secondary was awful, LBs weak (especially once Martez got hurt), Liuget lone bright spot on D-line.

What surprised me most about that year was the offense. I thought even though the defense would be bad, the offense would be able to out score most teams, but it was pretty awful too. Maybe due to the pack of mediocre RBs (until Mikel emerged in the 2nd half).
The problem in 2009 was the problem throughout: some terrific talent but not enough depth, too much inexperience, and holes in the roster. NFL talent at one position doesn't make up for complete ineptitude at another.

As for all teams losing guys, I did an analysis last month showing that we have have the most turnover of any B1G team.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Jan 8, 2013, 08:50 PM   #416
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
GHD or qu, could you guys do an updated O Line depth chart?
Juice is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 01:30 PM   #417
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
DL Depth chart:
Leo:_Caldwell (rs-SO), Bates (JR), Smoot (FR)
DT:__Powell (SO), Teitsma (rs-JR), Clements (FR)
NG:__Bain (RS-FR), Williams (rs-FR), Howe (rs-JR), Jackson (FR), Douglas (FR)
DE:__Kynard (rs-SR), Cajuste (JR), Nelson (rs-SO), James(FR), Woods (rs-JR)

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!

Last edited by Dan; Feb 6, 2013 at 03:20 PM.
Groundhogday is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 01:38 PM   #418
CUWPC
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhogday View Post
DL Depth chart:
Leo:_Caldwell (rs-SO), Bates (JR), Smoot (FR)
DT:__Powell (SO), Teitsma (rs-JR), Clements (FR)
NG:__Bain (RS-FR), Williams (rs-FR), Howe (rs-JR), Jackson (FR), Douglas (FR)
DE:__Kynard (rs-SR), Cajuste (JR), Nelson (rs-SO), James(FR), Woods (rs-JR)
So Bain to NG has been confirmed?

Last edited by Dan; Feb 6, 2013 at 03:20 PM.
CUWPC is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 02:42 PM   #419
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
GHD, I'm still hung on why the move of Bain to DL. It's just not making a whole lot of sense to me. We finally get a guard with quick feet/power and then we move him. What is your logic on that? No depth at DT? Is it because of the move of Cajuste to DE, that they don't want to rely on a fresh such as Clements? Which would be basically the same thing with Bain, as he has never played on the d line before.

Last edited by Dan; Feb 6, 2013 at 03:20 PM. Reason: moved post
Juice is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 03:46 PM   #420
CUWPC
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice View Post
GHD, I'm still hung on why the move of Bain to DL. It's just not making a whole lot of sense to me. We finally get a guard with quick feet/power and then we move him. What is your logic on that? No depth at DT? Is it because of the move of Cajuste to DE, that they don't want to rely on a fresh such as Clements? Which would be basically the same thing with Bain, as he has never played on the d line before.
Agreed. But I will say that is a stout D-Line.
CUWPC is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 04:07 PM   #421
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice View Post
GHD, I'm still hung on why the move of Bain to DL. It's just not making a whole lot of sense to me. We finally get a guard with quick feet/power and then we move him. What is your logic on that? No depth at DT? Is it because of the move of Cajuste to DE, that they don't want to rely on a fresh such as Clements? Which would be basically the same thing with Bain, as he has never played on the d line before.
First of all, it seems clear now that Cajuste was never 305 lbs and was never going to play NG. He is a guy who can swing between DE and 3-technique DT. Clements is also a a guy who will swing between 3-tech DT and DE, and will never play NG.

So who is going to play NG? Howe has a hard time holding the point of attack. Powell might be better off at DT. Not sure Vontrell Williams will be ready to play (and might be more of a DT than NG), and the two big guys we signed this year will need some time on weights and conditioning.

So we need someone strong enough to take on double teams at NG, and Bain is probably stronger than the other available prospects. So in a nutshell, I think the key point is that Bain can potentially play NG and most of the other guys are DT or DE.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 05:06 PM   #422
Ander1345
Posts: 379
Is this move purely out of necessity or is it strategic? Both?
Ander1345 is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 05:10 PM   #423
Juice
Juice's Avatar
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander1345 View Post
Is this move purely out of necessity or is it strategic? Both?
More so necessity it sounds like.
Juice is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 05:20 PM   #424
Ander1345
Posts: 379
That's what I was thinking, but if he's the only true NT we'll have on the roster for the time being I imagine he'll see the field in short yardage situations mostly, if for no reason other than to keep him healthy.
Ander1345 is offline
Old Feb 6, 2013, 05:33 PM   #425
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 22,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander1345 View Post
That's what I was thinking, but if he's the only true NT we'll have on the roster for the time being I imagine he'll see the field in short yardage situations mostly, if for no reason other than to keep him healthy.
I'm not sure he is the only true NG. Powell and Williams are both pretty big and are only going to get stronger.

But yes, ideally Jackson and/or Douglas will be 325+ lb monsters in a couple of years.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Closed Thread


« Previous Thread | Fighting Illini Football | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

Forum Jump