Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

#1 Interior OL:
Every G/C with a heartbeat should be on the board. C + LG have been a weekly horror show. Do what we did at DL last year: 2 real starters, 1–2 developmental guys, move on.

#2 RB:
If Baugh hits the portal, that’s the whole meeting. Lacy too. We don’t need another “nice rotational back” after what we just watched—go get a bellcow or stand pat.

#3 WR (only if it’s real):
Not spending big NIL on “slightly better Mosley” types when OL is on fire. If we pay at WR, make it speed or a true WR1, not another Wingo cousin.

Everything else:
1 ILB, 1 vet CB, maybe a blocking TE—cool, after the above is handled. Those are sides. The meal is OL + RB.

Portal tampering already started, the rules are decorative, and chaos is the only constant. Buckle up.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Moderators
Posted
21 minutes ago, Rocky P said:

@CJ Vogel do you see Texas going after LSU WR or RB that enterend the portal?  Think it was Bullett and Dunham

Durham has not entered the portal, and I don't really expect him to at the moment.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Bunk Moreland said:

He’s really good, but if the top 5-7 WRs all return and Royal reclassifies to 26 and enters with Bishop, would Texas still take a big-time receiver out of the portal? Seems like that would create the potential for major attrition. Not saying it’s a bad thing—I think Sark NEEDS to upgrade at receiver—just wondering what it all means for the receiver room dominoes.

It's been stated multiple times by the mods that there is no indication of royal reclassifying as of now

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Moderators
Posted
35 minutes ago, Steamboat Willie said:

CJ, positionally speaking, where do you think Texas will emphasize most in the portal this cycle — and which spots are now clear must-add versus luxury adds?

Offensive line.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, CJ Vogel said:

Durham has not entered the portal, and I don't really expect him to at the moment.

Wouldn’t really want Durham tbh.  He looks to have not maintained his speed while adding weight.  Speed was his elite trait. Idk maybe that’s something that can be fixed but not a sure thing.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, CJ Vogel said:

Offensive line.

Is Cruz going to be a player?  

He seems like a mystery man,  not much written about him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, CJ Vogel said:

Good ballplayer. Not a great tackler,however. 

This is an interesting one. Dude is top 10 in FBS solo tackles this season (61). Eck and Lampron are good options for a one-year SR LB but they have to enter. I'm curious to see if Chambliss enters from SDSU. RS Jr. from Cali that started at Utah (played 4 games) then went to SDSU. 6'3 230lb 106 tackles (61 solo) 9.5 TFL 4 sacks.

56 minutes ago, 901longhorn said:

Here ya go CJ 

IMG_3451.jpeg

That's a big WR right there. Didn't take long for a good one to hop in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Unless we’re expecting another year of zero contribution from this year’s Freshman I don’t see spending on WR unless it was someone special that gave us something we didn’t have. Taking a high dollar WR would beg the question what the hell happened with the last WR class? Poor evaluation, poor development or both?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Tres Comas said:

Unless we’re expecting another year of zero contribution from this year’s Freshman I don’t see spending on WR unless it was someone special that gave us something we didn’t have. Taking a high dollar WR would beg the question what the hell happened with the last WR class? Poor evaluation, poor development or both?

Staff here said they expect big adds and some attrition at WR. CJ said to watch for Ffrench

Our WRs are good but we likely need a true number 1

Posted
1 minute ago, bgreen04 said:

Mosely and really Wingo/Livingstone too all 6"3 big targets with decent hands.

Cam Coleman is that . He would technically be redundant.

Marsh is a good player and I think on Par with Wingo. Wingo doesn’t play big. 
 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.