Moseley's depth chart
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:48 am
Oregon Ducks Sports Message Board Forum
https://ducksattack.com/forum/
Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.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.
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.VinnyKnuckles wrote:Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.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.
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!!UOducksTK1 wrote: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.VinnyKnuckles wrote:Only 6 of those 8 are on scholarship though, which isn't too bad.....maybe 1 over the ideal number.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.
I was pretty surprised that we moved Dion Jordan to TE considering the greater need at WR..
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 healabamaduck 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...
We haven't really been that thin at all at LB the last few years...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.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
I disagree. When John Bacon is your starter...to me that is thin.Tray Dub wrote:We haven't really been that thin at all at LB the last few years...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