OT Mirko Jurkovic Jr [Ohio State Commit]

husker_fan_from_sweden said:
With all the guards and tackles that the staff has been reeling in, does that leave jackson perry as the center target for this class? Jurkovic has the genes and the core strength from the looks of his tape to make some noise at the position that lacks the most depth.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about Perry. Word was we were looking for one more OL and it would be an OT. Jurkovic fills that. Not sure if we're taking another OL or not at this point.

 
Mavric said:
husker_fan_from_sweden said:
With all the guards and tackles that the staff has been reeling in, does that leave jackson perry as the center target for this class? Jurkovic has the genes and the core strength from the looks of his tape to make some noise at the position that lacks the most depth.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about Perry. Word was we were looking for one more OL and it would be an OT. Jurkovic fills that. Not sure if we're taking another OL or not at this point.
Click to expand...
I know that the coaches need to fill other positions but I always wonder if they would take another OL that they really like even though they are "full" over say a WR that they might reach on.

 
Id rather stock up on o linemen than chance on a so so wr if it comes down to it. Looking at our past injury and depth issues, we could surely use an overly stocked cupboard in that area.

 
StPaulHusker said:
Mavric said:
husker_fan_from_sweden said:
With all the guards and tackles that the staff has been reeling in, does that leave jackson perry as the center target for this class? Jurkovic has the genes and the core strength from the looks of his tape to make some noise at the position that lacks the most depth.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about Perry. Word was we were looking for one more OL and it would be an OT. Jurkovic fills that. Not sure if we're taking another OL or not at this point.
Click to expand...
I know that the coaches need to fill other positions but I always wonder if they would take another OL that they really like even though they are "full" over say a WR that they might reach on.
Click to expand...
The other reason I'm not sure we're taking a guard is because both Scott Frantz and Adam Holtorf committed elsewhere at about the same time, making me think we told them we aren't taking another guard. Now it's still possible that we like Perry better and would still take him if he wanted in but that's just the felling I get based on other reports.

 
Mavric said:
StPaulHusker said:
Mavric said:
husker_fan_from_sweden said:
With all the guards and tackles that the staff has been reeling in, does that leave jackson perry as the center target for this class? Jurkovic has the genes and the core strength from the looks of his tape to make some noise at the position that lacks the most depth.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about Perry. Word was we were looking for one more OL and it would be an OT. Jurkovic fills that. Not sure if we're taking another OL or not at this point.
Click to expand...
I know that the coaches need to fill other positions but I always wonder if they would take another OL that they really like even though they are "full" over say a WR that they might reach on.
Click to expand...
The other reason I'm not sure we're taking a guard is because both Scott Frantz and Adam Holtorf committed elsewhere at about the same time, making me think we told them we aren't taking another guard. Now it's still possible that we like Perry better and would still take him if he wanted in but that's just the felling I get based on other reports.
Click to expand...
I guess that would make a better reason

 
1995 Redux said:
Id rather stock up on o linemen than chance on a so so wr if it comes down to it. Looking at our past injury and depth issues, we could surely use an overly stocked cupboard in that area.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's harder to project than most positions and has a higher rate of injuries and busts. Gotta keep the pipeline full.

 
I also think that it all depends on who we are in with for next years class also. We don't want to get so over loaded at Oline that we miss out on some great talent coming up. I guess there's a fine line there that we have to stay on the good side of.

 
HUSKER FREAK said:
I also think that it all depends on who we are in with for next years class also. We don't want to get so over loaded at Oline that we miss out on some great talent coming up. I guess there's a fine line there that we have to stay on the good side of.
Click to expand...
The 2016 class has some pretty solid guys at the OL position...I agree with you 100% here that we need to be selective!!!

 
I agree that we need good depth on the OLine. We have 17 scholarship OLinemen this year so we have more than a three-deep. We lose three and have three commits so we're at least not losing ground. If we have one more that we really like that would be fine but three is not a bad number this year, especially in a smaller class. We'll lose six after the 2015 season so we really need to load up next year which will be easier in a much bigger class.

 
I would attempt to keep 18 on scholarship at all times. Considering 5 of the starting 22 are OL, it should really be 19-20 of our 85 scholarships, but we get so many quality walk-ons on the line, 18 ought to do it.

Also, I'd much rather take 4 in this class and 5 in the next than 3 and 6. Recruiting classes are about balancing the roster for future seasons, not replacing what just walked out the door.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dylan said:
I would attempt to keep 18 on scholarship at all times. Considering 5 of the starting 22 are OL, it should really be 19-20 of our 85 scholarships, but we get so many quality walk-ons on the line, 18 ought to do it.

Also, I'd much rather take 4 in this class and 5 in the next than 3 and 6. Recruiting classes are about balancing the roster for future seasons, not replacing what just walked out the door.
Click to expand...
I completely agree on the roster management. Unfortunately though, just looking ahead... I'd much rather be unbalanced than have to tell one of the 2016 OL we are in on that we are out of spots. 2016 OL should be special..
 
Atbone95 said:
dylan said:
I would attempt to keep 18 on scholarship at all times. Considering 5 of the starting 22 are OL, it should really be 19-20 of our 85 scholarships, but we get so many quality walk-ons on the line, 18 ought to do it.

Also, I'd much rather take 4 in this class and 5 in the next than 3 and 6. Recruiting classes are about balancing the roster for future seasons, not replacing what just walked out the door.
Click to expand...
I completely agree on the roster management. Unfortunately though, just looking ahead... I'd much rather be unbalanced than have to tell one of the 2016 OL we are in on that we are out of spots. 2016 OL should be special..
Click to expand...
default_yeah.gif


Also, IMO you can be a little under the exact percentage of players because your backups can be flexible. One guy can be the backup for both tackle spots, etc.

 
Back
Top