Obviously the need for quality linebackers will always be important, but do you think the priority of recruiting more than one per class has been diminished at all, due to the popularity of the spread offense, in order to pursue atheletes in the mold of eric hagg? Thoughts?
Linebackers...do we need em?
- Thread starter CU Sucks
- Start date
I think that the style of linebacker will change a little bit. With the spread, we are going to need fast and quick linebackers that can play in space and run with recievers and running backs. But they also need to be physical enough to step up into the line and take on a lineman or running back in the back field.
RockyMountainOySker
All-Conference
Only one LB per class is pushing your luck. Considering all of the young LB talent on the roster this year, all we in is one in the 2010 class.
IMO you should normally take 2/3 almost every year.
Also remember that Bo has started going after hybrid LBs and safteys. For instance, Harvey Jackson might very well end up playing LB in a couple years.
IMO you should normally take 2/3 almost every year.
Also remember that Bo has started going after hybrid LBs and safteys. For instance, Harvey Jackson might very well end up playing LB in a couple years.
zoogs
Assistant Coach
So what style was it before? Fast and quick but not physical and strong? Or physical and strong but really slow? Or slow and weak? :dunno It just seems this is like saying a best of both worlds thing. For instance "we're going to go after quicker, more agile linemen now who are also really strong."
Actually I was wondering about this too. Since we use the Nickel more we'll have more speed on the field by virtue of having that extra defensive back. If the linebackers are primarily speed guys, isn't that almost like having more DBs? Would it make more sense to have more stout LBs who can play run support and make up for the lack of that 3rd LB in the Nickel?
