Deep Threat

[kidbourbon]

From my vantage point at the bar stool, a (the?) major problem with offense was the lack of a deep threat. Rogers, Taylor, etc. played well...but they are possession receivers. The whole game I kept thinking to myself "Meachem would have broke that play for 50." Alas, Meachem is no longer on the roster.

Who you do you all think--of our freshmen receivers--is most ready to assume the role as a deep threat guy? We saw a little of O'neal, but not enough. I don't recall seeing Gerald Jones.

We definitely need a deep threat, I just wonder who it will (can) be.

[utfantilidie]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

From my vantage point at the bar stool, a (the?) major problem with offense was the lack of a deep threat. Rogers, Taylor, etc. played well...but they are possession receivers. The whole game I kept thinking to myself "Meachem would have broke that play for 50." Alas, Meachem is no longer on the roster.

Who you do you all think--of our freshmen receivers--is most ready to assume the role as a deep threat guy? We saw a little of O'neal, but not enough. I don't recall seeing Gerald Jones.

We definitely need a deep threat, I just wonder who it will (can) be.

Good question.I'm not sure about that.BTW, I heard Rogers has a brother on Lipscomb's High School team.

[volwarren]

Fulmer said Cal played soft and back, keeping the ball in front of them so we took what they gave us. We might see more of the younger wr's whin we have a lead in the game.

[droski]

Taylor looked pretty good to me. Good speed.

[9296potsguy]

Originally Posted by volwarren

Fulmer said Cal played soft and back, keeping the ball in front of them so we took what they gave us. We might see more of the younger wr's whin we have a lead in the game.

For the most part they did, but there were several plays that we did not take advantage of when they played with the safeties up near the line allowing one-on-one coverage.