Moseley's depth chart

duckgrad99 · Post by **duckgrad99** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:48 am

http://blogs.registerguard.com/cms/inde ... pth-chart/

duckgrad99 · Post by **duckgrad99** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:53 am

By the way, my immediate thought was to please move a couple of the tight ends to other positions. 8 tight ends is way too many.

alabamaduck · Post by **alabamaduck** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:56 am

^^^Especially in an offense that doesn't really use the TE!

Phenom · Post by **Phenom** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:11 pm

I didn't realize we were so thin at many positions.

VinnyKnuckles · Post by **VinnyKnuckles** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:05 pm

duckgrad99 wrote:By the way, my immediate thought was to please move a couple of the tight ends to other positions. 8 tight ends is way too many.

Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.

Post by **UOducksTK1** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:56 pm

VinnyKnuckles wrote:
duckgrad99 wrote:By the way, my immediate thought was to please move a couple of the tight ends to other positions. 8 tight ends is way too many.
Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.

And Malachi can pretty much play anywhere. In fact I'd love to see him get more involved with our offense whether it's a few plays at RB, TE, or WR, I don't care, as long as he's seeing the field.

I was pretty surprised that we moved Dion Jordan to TE considering the greater need at WR..

briarduck · Post by **briarduck** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:55 pm

UOducksTK1 wrote:
VinnyKnuckles wrote:
duckgrad99 wrote:By the way, my immediate thought was to please move a couple of the tight ends to other positions. 8 tight ends is way too many.
Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.
And Malachi can pretty much play anywhere. In fact I'd love to see him get more involved with our offense whether it's a few plays at RB, TE, or WR, I don't care, as long as he's seeing the field.

I was pretty surprised that we moved Dion Jordan to TE considering the greater need at WR..

I agree completely...we should look at ML like we do for Harper just not to the same degree! ML needs to make an impact and to to do that the ball needs to touch his hands!!

alabamaduck · Post by **alabamaduck** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:27 pm

Everyone talks about getting Malachi more involved in the offense because he was such a big time recruit and looks to be supremely talented, but he's been in the system a few years and really hasn't seen much of the field. Is it possible that he's just not as good as the hype?

I'm not basing this on anything and could be completely wrong, but for a guy that's got all the physical tools in the world to see so little action makes me wonder...

briarduck · Post by **briarduck** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:48 am

alabamaduck wrote:Everyone talks about getting Malachi more involved in the offense because he was such a big time recruit and looks to be supremely talented, but he's been in the system a few years and really hasn't seen much of the field. Is it possible that he's just not as good as the hype?

I'm not basing this on anything and could be completely wrong, but for a guy that's got all the physical tools in the world to see so little action makes me wonder...

I think it has more to do with being behind Ed Dickson...ML needs to redshirt to allow the guy to breakout and show what he
s got for a couple of years not one year or he's going to be another Scott! A one year wonder!

GO DUCKS!!

alabamaduck · Post by **alabamaduck** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:20 am

It doesn't make sense that we have been thin at LB, the position we recruited him at, yet we moved him to offense only to let him not see the field. You have to wonder if the coaches would have done the same thing if they had it to do over again

Tray Dub · Post by **Tray Dub** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:26 am

alabamaduck wrote:It doesn't make sense that we have been thin at LB, the position we recruited him at, yet we moved him to offense only to let him not see the field. You have to wonder if the coaches would have done the same thing if they had it to do over again

We haven't really been that thin at all at LB the last few years...

VinnyKnuckles · Post by **VinnyKnuckles** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:14 pm

alabamaduck wrote:It doesn't make sense that we have been thin at LB, the position we recruited him at, yet we moved him to offense only to let him not see the field. You have to wonder if the coaches would have done the same thing if they had it to do over again

During his recruitment, he said the Ducks were recruiting him as a RB/WR/athlete.

ivegottabigduck · Post by **ivegottabigduck** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:23 pm

Tray Dub wrote:
alabamaduck wrote:It doesn't make sense that we have been thin at LB, the position we recruited him at, yet we moved him to offense only to let him not see the field. You have to wonder if the coaches would have done the same thing if they had it to do over again
We haven't really been that thin at all at LB the last few years...

I disagree. When John Bacon is your starter...to me that is thin.

alabamaduck · Post by **alabamaduck** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:14 am

Exactly...if Lewis was the stud he was rated to be and was left and LB surely he would have beat out Bacon

dgjducks · Post by **dgjducks** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:06 am

Maybe Oregon is morphing into a 2 tight end running spread offence? It's the teams deepest position and getting deeper.
You know new recruit White will stay on offence, yet we have offered schollies to several other TE prospects in the up coming class, and the Ducks seem to prefer WR's the size of TE's (J. Wiilliams seemed bigger than E. Dickson) with the 2 positions being interchangable.
As all Duck fans know, good TE's give defences fits.

Moseley's depth chart

Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Re: Moseley's depth chart