Page 1 of 2

Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:48 am
by duckgrad99

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:53 am
by duckgrad99
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.

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:56 am
by alabamaduck
^^^Especially in an offense that doesn't really use the TE!

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:11 pm
by Phenom
I didn't realize we were so thin at many positions. :shock:

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:05 pm
by VinnyKnuckles
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.

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:56 pm
by UOducksTK1
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..

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:55 pm
by briarduck
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!!

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:27 pm
by alabamaduck
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...

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:48 am
by briarduck
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!!

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:20 am
by alabamaduck
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

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:26 am
by Tray Dub
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...

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:14 pm
by VinnyKnuckles
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.

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:23 pm
by ivegottabigduck
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.

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:14 am
by alabamaduck
Exactly...if Lewis was the stud he was rated to be and was left and LB surely he would have beat out Bacon

Re: Moseley's depth chart

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:06 am
by dgjducks
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.